Online pornography to be blocked by default, PM to announce

reply to post by alysha.angel


No it does not aid rape on any scale, as the Dutch liberal attitude and incredibly low sexual offences records prove. You're a fine one to talk to anyone about education when you appear to be unable to spell a THREE LETTER WORD correctly.

reply to post by mikegrouchy

just because the room is full of confirmed wankers and I have returned to argue in favor of preserving virginity,

Wanking I presume by all definitions is masturbation, correct? or wankers as in Idiots?


Virgins are classed as not having a sexual encounter with another person and usually some type of penetration is required to rid one self of the label, yes, no?


So with that cleared up, why do you think wankers cant be virgins?

Originally posted by alysha.angel


As a parent of teenage girls , i strongly approve of this and believe its needed ..

Iv heard of young men and women being currupted and sexually twisted due to porn and its not really a need ,

i hope someday the rest of the world does the same thing . its degrading to the actors and its not much better then prostiution

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

WHAT RUBBISH.

this is not about porn.it is about taking away civil liberties STARTING with porn.

soon it will expanded to other things THEY consider harmful

It seems you have been duped already and must be one of the easy to hoodwink sheeple.

reply to post by MystikMushroom

The same can be said about people that call those 1-900 numbers. I happen to know someone who does that on the side for extra money

Yep, I have a friend who used to do that too...and no, she's not what one would call "a looker".... She is though, very sweet, and you'd never guess she did that sort of thing. She does have some great stories, but none with the T&C, hehe....

Originally posted by stormcell

Originally posted by beezzer
Shouldn't this be a decision best made in the home instead of a de facto decision made by government?

Unfortunately, smart-phones and mobile phones have the same web surfing capabilities as a regular home PC.
Web filters can be installed on both, but the first thing that teenagers learn to do is how to use proxy web-servers to bypass the local filters. Users can also transfer files directly from one phone to another.

So....if you don't want your kid to have access to stuff like that, don't let them have a smart phone. I think it's stupid for a 12 year old to have an iPhone, mine certainly wouldn't.

Even when I was a kid, other kids got their hands on magazines or 3.5" floppy disks full of naked pictures (usually older brother/stolen from Mom/Dad).

It's going to happen either way, and parents need to be vigilant instead of ignorant. If someone can't keep up on the technology they're letting the kids use, shame on them for being ignorant instead of vigilant. The world is inherently dangerous, and its a parents job to protect their children.

reply to post by Gazrok


I worked behind a bar once and a big lady used to come in on Sundays and try and chat me up, she told me that she worked on sex lines and she tried to always talk dirty to me
I hated working Sundays because of her...It was sexual harassment lol.

Originally posted by tadaman
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

I don't think so. If this were the US I may agree with you but IMO this is about not degrading women as progressive culture sees pornography as a male invention to empower themselves and dissempower women.

I understand what you are saying but the fact that this is being imposed "for everyones good" shows this is being focused into a traditional hardline progressive argument.

religious beliefs are not really imposed on members outside the group who has what ever particular faith.

progressive agendas are imposed on as broad an audience as possible....usually with the enforcement of actual law instead of a moral code being argued....

edit on 22-7-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

Well then that's a new type of progressive...progressing back to puritans.

The whole womens lib thing is for women be given the choice and right to degrade themselves if they choose, or be conservative, etc..basically allow them to be themselves, whatever that may be.
Saying porn star women shouldn't do that because its degrading is the same as saying any other choice a woman makes is unacceptable due to societys demand on women. Anyone suggesting such stuff is no different than the old school women need to be barefoot and pregnant and shut up mindset...different side of the coin, but its the same coin.

Does porn degrade women? no more or less than it does men. When I meet a woman, I judge her based on who she is, not on what someone on a film once did whom is the same gender.

Not progressive..it is anti-progressive. judging any adult on their own morality is exactly what the proper progressives fight against.
this pseudo progressive devolution is false.

soooo, will they start block stuff on TV, like Spartacus and True blood? hope not!
I think if children have access to the internet, then its the parents responsibility to monitor that.
If parents don't know how to use computers, smartphones or parental controls and filters then they should learn.
get smart, learn this stuff or not have the internet in.

just my opinion anyway

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by MystikMushroom

 

The same can be said about people that call those 1-900 numbers. I happen to know someone who does that on the side for extra money

Yep, I have a friend who used to do that too...and no, she's not what one would call "a looker"....

She is though, very sweet, and you'd never guess she did that sort of thing. She does have some great stories, but none with the T&C, hehe....

The funny thing is, the woman I know is actually pretty good looking. Not my type, and I've already got a great gal. But your right about the T&C, so I'll just do the ole "wink-n-nod" ... We both know...

reply to post by boymonkey74


The really odd thing is the sheer volume of calls these women get. I was surprised at how many of these guys just want to actually talk about "normal" stuff. They bitch about their job, the mother-in-law, ect. I guess for some guys, it's more acceptable to call a 1-900 number vs. going to a therapist. It's weird.

Originally posted by christafinias
soooo, will they start block stuff on TV, like Spartacus and True blood? hope not!
I think if children have access to the internet, then its the parents responsibility to monitor that.
If parents don't know how to use computers, smartphones or parental controls and filters then they should learn.
get smart, learn this stuff or not have the internet in.

just my opinion anyway

They even THINK about touching my game of thrones, im gunna have to get all serious.

Porn is one thing, but leave my sexy awesome dramas alone!

I would rather decide for myself rather than state fiat.

Just me. Today it's pornography, and tomorrow, who knows? While I don't like that people are being over-exposed to pornography, and I do think it demeans women and weakens relationships, I don't think the issue is dangerous enough to take such an Orwellian step.

It's sort of like, pick your poison; neither are good, but one is likely less poisonous than the other.

The worst thing isn't that it's just a defacto blanket porn filter.

It's what the govt decides NEXT.

Right now it's porn - which I don't agree with a default "opt-in" - who are they to decide what I get to see? Next they will think, wait - that report about corrupt MPs on ats.com - we can't have the UK public accessing that - ATS banned.

That critical report about UK off shore drilling on CNN.com - that's not what we want. Ban.

Where does it stop? I hate to say it, but this sh*t seems A LOT like how that "V for Vendetta" started. Ok, not exactly, but similar sense of control.

And fyi - I have two teenage girls and I handle the internet here at home and we have frank discussions about sex and the internet. My kids aren't dumb. And while I know "kids will be kids" - the govt is NOT their parent - *I AM*.

reply to post by Astrocyte


If i was a betting man, and i am, id say cage fighting and .... gambling

reply to post by Biigs


That was exactly my sentiments as well - where does it stop?

Which corrupt, religious MP decides the next things to ban, based on their opinions and not the public's?

Both my hands are relieved by this news... I believe one just yelled out "Vacation" while the other yelled "freedom"..........

reply to post by MystikMushroom


I will admit at one point in my life after the death of my first ex wife, I was drunk at home alone and rang one up, we chatted for an hour, nothing sexual but it was like therapy..untill I got my phone bill.

reply to post by alysha.angel


the default blocking of 'PORN"... should really include lots of sexy, racey, suggestive Advertisements that have scantly dressed, thin athletic. androgenous boys & girls hawking deoderents, skivvies, condoms,


also the provactive (& generally sexually liberated gals) in the Vodka & Liquor Ads...all that suggestive content is 'porn' to my sensibilities... i guess this 'rabbit hole' goes all the way down to Islamic Clerics determining, under Sharia Law just what is 'porn'


aaaaaaaaadd:


the default blocking of recognized "Porn' sites seems the proper thing---
IOW, a media viewer must make a conscious, pro-active determination to override the default blocking


having obscenities transmitted over IT bandwidths into an unsuspecting home terminal/MAC/PC would equate to finding a weapon on the kitchen table when you awoke in the morning... Y^ou have a right to expect that the gov't or an arms merchant cannot access your private home and place a machete' or a revolver in your home without permission or cause...so too One should expect the 'Porn' channels to not deliver unwanted content over public bandwidths, cables.IT connections unless expressly desired

what it says to the rest of the world is:

Britain cant control its own children or hide its porn very well.

I dont like to be babysat, im a man and apparently free to make all of my own lawful decision since the age of 16.

Reminds me a little of the smoking ban

Originally posted by Swizzy
reply to post by alysha.angel

 

What has kids lying about their age to do with this?

If their expectations are drawn from pornography then they have not been educated about the subject have they.

No one blames the media when little Johnny realizes it's not as easy to be a super hero or astronaut as portrayed in films do they?

Sorry your line of arguing holds no water.

Though I know that porn is unacceptable for young minds, I just don't understand why there's a huge controversy over the viewing of sex as opposed to violence of any kind. The first thing I thought of while reading this is, I bet the parents that are fanatically against their kids watching sex probably took their kids to see the new superman movie. Jor-El was murdered, and Superman broke Zod's neck with his bare hands. Soldiers were killed, buildings destroyed - violence, violence, violence. So it's: Sex bad bad BAD. Violence, murder, and mayhem is okay because it's only make-believe?