to pleased that something is being done about online porn.

(211 Posts)
mootime Mon 22-Jul-13 12:14:36

Don't get me wrong, I am not totally anti porn. Each to their own. I have been reading more and more articles about the impact of online porn on our children due to it being so easily accessible and frankly it scares me.

I have nieces who are 18 and 16 and they constantly post pictures of themselves on FB pulling "porn pouts" and basically posing provocatively. I also know that they have been active for a good few years. I know that when I was that age I was no angel (far from it) but I'd seen one porno (by accident at a friends boyfriends house) and was horrified by it. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be viewed in that way. It seems like its now considered the norm.

I genuinely hope that restricting access makes it less "normal". Its a bit like an online version of having to go to the newsagents to buy it. It doesn't ban it, it just makes it something you deliberately have to access.

lljkk Wed 24-Jul-13 14:19:50

I'm all for the proposals. yanbu

libertarianj Wed 24-Jul-13 14:14:59

libertarianj So emergent adolescent sexuality and pornography are a good healthy combination are they? Really? Honestly?

Given that this is usually the case for the vast majority of people, even before the popularity of the internet then i would have to conclude on the whole it isn't a problem, unless you believe society is in moral decline?

Surely it's obvious that if young people, during those stage of development are getting the message that sex and pornography are one in the same it is going to skew their perceptions of relationships and the opposite (or same) sex?

but why assume they would consider them to be one and the same? You see this where education comes in and i have not argued against education ?

Why are you pushing this agenda so much libertarianj

All i am trying to do is dispel the myths surrounding the moral outrage and panic of people who support these proposals, by using a bit of scientific analysis. I am not saying we should promote porn to kids nor am i saying we shouldn't educate them about it. Just that we need to put things into perspective and that the risks are low if they do seek out/ stumble across porn. Certainly not enough to warrant state censorship.

Dahlen Wed 24-Jul-13 12:00:46

Why are you pushing this agenda so much libertarianj

I don't like porn from a personal perspective. What other people do is up to them. I have no desire to police other people's thoughts and desires and don't think banning porn or censoring it is in any way a solution to the moral objections against adult porn for adult consumption.

However, even among those who enjoy porn, you're the only one I've come across who seems to think it's a good thing that children have unrestricted access to it. I find that rather disturbing.

Dahlen Wed 24-Jul-13 11:58:28

You can be pro porn without thinking it's a good idea to allow 11 year olds access to it. hmm

Here's a useful history lesson about the last time they tried to Do Something.

To quote Backlash once again: if censorship's the answer, it was a fucking stupid question.

PeriodFeatures Wed 24-Jul-13 09:56:54

libertarianj So emergent adolescent sexuality and pornography are a good healthy combination are they? Really? Honestly?

I'm sad for you if you can't see that sexuality is so much more than the physical act. Surely it's obvious that if young people, during those stage of development are getting the message that sex and pornography are one in the same it is going to skew their perceptions of relationships and the opposite (or same) sex?

Don't be naive in thinking that it doesn't impact on their behaviour, promote a culture of sexual violence and poor body image,

It is important to be good humoured and realistic with young people and very very direct. We live in a culture saturated by a sexualised gender discourse and whether you want to face it or not, it effects peoples behaviour.

I'm not saying that censorship is the way forward as education can be far more effective.

If you had spent any time with teenage girls who had been victims of sexual exploitation and had sex act forced on them by their peers, you might have a re think about your attitude. I have spent time with teenage boys who are deeply confused.

Being permissive and liberal are two different issues.

differentnameforthis Wed 24-Jul-13 02:55:15

but that doesn't mean they aren't shown all sorts of porn on the school bus, at their mates house etc etc, how do you parent that?

Those houses you talk about, they are the ones where the parents will opt out & leave the whole bloody house unprotected. So how does that help anyone?

differentnameforthis Wed 24-Jul-13 02:09:36

I would just like to say that a couple of weeks ago I reported 4 videos on facebook that were pornographic. (all were removed)

So if the likes of facebook/twitter/myspace (does anyone still use that)/bebo/instagram are accessible via mobile phone, your kids can still access porn. Are they going to ask all mobile phone providers to do the same? Also, if you let any of the above through the filter, your kids can still access porn, because they will become places where people will post porn for easier access.

EBearhug Wed 24-Jul-13 01:05:26

Even if female porn stars have higher self esteem, it doesn't mean that porn can't be damaging to teens who view it. Both could be true.

libertarianj Wed 24-Jul-13 00:32:02

They way i see it is that we need to ruin it for them early. Load it up with the reality that it is going to ultimately make them pretty crap boyfriends who won't have a clue about real sex and will find it difficult to get into real sexual relationships when they get older.

while you are at it why don't you tell them it will make them go blind too?
sad

libertarianj Wed 24-Jul-13 00:21:45

Dahlen I wouldn't quote anything I read in the Daily Mail thank you very much. wink

How about the following:
Journal of Sex Research
Behavioural Psycotherapy Centre
Symposium on Media Violence and Pornography Proceedings
Family Therapy Journal
Universities of Canterbury, Kent and Bedfordshire (acting on appointment by government - there are other universities with their own studies.

You do realise that the first one you quoted is actually Pro porn? i quoted from it the other day on another porn related thread and here was the article:
www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/11/26/shock-study-female-porn-stars-have-higher-self-esteem-better-body-image-are-more-spiritual-than-other-women/

Also with regards to the Canterbury one would you really trust a government appointed study? which was based purely on collating a number of other studies and is inconclusive. To quote a line from it:

"we do not know whether exposure to or accessing pornography causes attitude or behavioural change, nor whether the attitudes children and young people hold before access or exposure to pornography may make them more likely to seek out pornography."hmm

www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/content/publications/content_667

With regards to the others you have quoted I am struggling to find much at all. The family Therapy journal is based on sexting which is totally out of the remit of filtering anyway. The Symposium on Media Violence and Pornography Proceedings is from 1984, can't find much from that either and the Behavioural psychotherapy centre, well that could be a whole range of things which came up on google? Extremely vague. If you have any more specific links i'd be interested to analyse them?

If you want to investigate some more debunking of porn myths then may i suggest you check out this:

www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/apr/15/sex-myth-wrong-brooke-magnanti-review

runningforthebusinheels Tue 23-Jul-13 22:31:40

ruin it for them early. Load it up with the reality that it is going to ultimately make them pretty crap boyfriends who won't have a clue about real sex and will find it difficult to get into real sexual relationships when they get older.

Periodfeatures, I like your thinking wink

There have been quite a few threads on MN recently where women complain that men who watch a lot of porn are rubbish rather detached emotionally in bed.

There are also male sexual problems caused by too much wanking to porn - affecting their sensitivity and causing problems maintaining erection/getting to orgasm during normal sex - such can be the effects of constantly using an overtly explicit visual titillation and the hand... rather than an emotional/sexual attachment/attraction to a real person.

PeriodFeatures Tue 23-Jul-13 21:31:11

I'm very up front about it with the teenage lads I work with. (12 - 16) When it comes up in discussion, which invariably it does, I say it as it is. A few red faces initially but I think they do take it on board if they are not already too entrenched in it.

They way i see it is that we need to ruin it for them early. grin Load it up with the reality that it is going to ultimately make them pretty crap boyfriends who won't have a clue about real sex and will find it difficult to get into real sexual relationships when they get older.

What I hope I achieve is that when they go to look at porn, they remember my warning and I have ruined it for them a bit. grin Hopefully enough for them to be a bit scared and ambivalent about looking at it and recognise it as not at all reality.

I myself am a bit worried that i won't be able to look at a bit of porn now and again. It seems like a serious committment to ring up my isp and request it. I'm nt sure I'm that committed.

EBearhug Tue 23-Jul-13 19:55:18

I don't see how a filter can solve any of those issues, hence why I don't support it, but I think a debate needs to be had on how we deal with children's access to porn.

I agree with that. Only this government doesn't seem to do debate at all. They have a passing idea, and then there's a new policy, without having asked anyone who knows about the technicalities, or thinking of all the pros and cons, or whether it's consistent with any other recent pronouncement.

Dahlen Agreed. It's a really difficult one though isn't it. There's definitely no easy answer.

Dahlen Tue 23-Jul-13 17:02:41

I wouldn't trust my child's internet safety to a filter either, and I think the filter is positively dangerous because of false sense of security it will deliver.

However, we're all talking from the vantage point of parents who care. I'd like to think about a solution for the literally millions of children whose parents are either ignorant or neglectful, or those whose parents watch porn themselves so leave any such filter turned off anyway.

I don't see how a filter can solve any of those issues, hence why I don't support it, but I think a debate needs to be had on how we deal with children's access to porn.

"parents take responsibility, because the govt will do a useless job of it in your place."

This this this!

I wouldn't trust them to organise a piss up in a brewery, I certainly wouldn't trust them to keep my DS safe online!

tinpotted Tue 23-Jul-13 16:17:21

I am completely against this censorship.

I'm currently living in the US so this won't affect me for a few years. However, I shouldn't be able to access BBC iplayer or other UK channels. With the help of a proxy server, I can view all of them and it took me about 20 minutes from looking for a solution to having one installed. I am reasonably tech savvy but the point stands that it is so easy for anyone motivated to do so to work around the porn filter.

At my last job, they had filters to block adult content, and there were plenty of innocuous sites that were blocked that would never be classed as adult. Most people will turn opt in because it will become too annoying to find anything worthwhile reading on the net.

I hate to say it, but I am a big fan of bdsm where a woman is undergoing some kind of punishment (not so much a man) and also have rape fantasies. Am I now suddenly a criminal or guilty of dehumanising women? I consider myself pretty normal, passionately believe in women's rights and equality, am staunchly against rape, and no one who knows me in real life would guess at this part of me, except my husband.

My children have laptops/kindle fires, and I am the administrator. They have the free but very good Windows Live family safety software installed on the laptops, and I get weekly reports on what they've been viewing. The kindle fire comes with brilliant controls anyway (and only I have the password).

I've also talked to them (youngest is 10) about the weird stuff on porn films and how people are always trying to do the strangest most outlandish stuff so that people will watch, and that very little of it is normal. That it's designed to make you want to see more and more (like smoking cigarettes). I also explained how once you see something, you can't unsee it, and that it can mess up your mind for a while. Even my youngest understood this, as the first time she saw a murder on tv, she was traumatised.

I feel that even if they do see something at a friends house, I will be able to deal with this because I regularly talk about internet safety and reinforce the message that most of what's available online is out of the ordinary.

Sorry that's so long. In conclusion; parents take responsibility, because the govt will do a useless job of it in your place.

Dahlen Tue 23-Jul-13 15:57:34

I wouldn't quote anything I read in the Daily Mail thank you very much. wink

How about the following:
Journal of Sex Research
Behavioural Psycotherapy Centre
Symposium on Media Violence and Pornography Proceedings
Family Therapy Journal
Universities of Canterbury, Kent and Bedfordshire (acting on appointment by government - there are other universities with their own studies.

The damage exposure can do depends on a lot of variables - age of first exposure, length and frequency of exposure, type of material viewed, etc. Not all children exposed will end up traumatised for life, some won't even register it. Not one single report has ever concluded that exposure to internet pornography is a good thing though, or even 'harmless'. Indeed most of them are urging the government to do more.

libertarianj Tue 23-Jul-13 14:21:19

Harmful effects on children is pretty much agreed on across the board

err no it's not unless you believe everything you read in the Daily Mail

Alohomora Tue 23-Jul-13 14:06:09

It's censoring and might parents think it will make it less needful for them to teach their children internet safety. To think your children will be safe just because your computer is blocked from adult content is very blue-eyed.

I also resent the thought that you'd be looked on with suspicion or as a dirty bugger if you decide to opt in, and you just know that's going to happen.

Oh I agree, I hate it, and definitely don't want my DS seeing it ever! So far the only useful options are a combination of computer filters, supervision and educating them. Maybe one day we'll have the tech to do more, but right now and in the near future I just cannot see it.

Slightly OT but kind of relevant, a few people in the web design community think that we should scrap web programming as we know now and start from scratch. It wont happen, but it does show the level to which current coding is flawed. And because it's flawed any attempt to police it is also doomed from the get go.

FourGates Tue 23-Jul-13 13:56:51

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Dahlen Tue 23-Jul-13 13:52:15

FWIW though, I don't think this filter will work.

Dahlen Tue 23-Jul-13 13:51:56

Harmful effects of pornography on adults is open to debate. Harmful effects on children is pretty much agreed on across the board, that's why it's relevant to this thread - online access is how they're coming across it.

Even 10 years ago those 25 year olds were 15. It's not like today's 7 year old coming across it.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now