It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Online pornography to be blocked by default, PM to announce

page: 17
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 03:18 PM
If you want to censor pornography, don't go to the Red Light District in Amsterdam.

I saw things there that can never be unseen, and some I wish I could see again.

Someone else mentioned it, but does anyone offhand know if having prostitution and sex so open leads to lower sex crimes in the Netherlands? It seems the more repressed (think pedo-priests), the more perverted people get.

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 03:20 PM
reply to post by Briles1207

"Rather than looking at the principle of it, think of the social implications/benefits I assume, probably incorrectly, it would have."

Fixed that for you.

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 03:22 PM
reply to post by alysha.angel

As a parent and a former teenager; I think you are not taking the responsibility of parenting seriously, nor realistically.

Fact, your daughters will look at porn, if not at home, there will be ways to find it behind your back, to get around any blockages. Teenagers are much more adept at new technologies than older people.

Fact, if you are a good parent and teach your children morals and values, porn does not corrupt. Teach your children about love and sex. Don't make it taboo. Don't make it a topic that needs to be hidden.

Fact, sex is a natural thing. Nearly all of us do it. You absolutely have done it in your life. Because people make a living at it, doesn't directly mean they are morally corrupted, it also doesn't mean you have to agree or support their lifestyle or life choices; but you also have no right to degrade or disrespect them.

While I wouldn't personally partake in that lifestyle, or would've ever been involved intentionally with anyone that does or has partaken in it because I believe in monogamy; I also would still befriend someone in the industry, because they are our human brothers and sisters too; and if you are religious, you have the obligation to be their friend and try to live an example of a better life, without forcing it down their throats, and without judgement.

As a teenager, my mom was more uptight about the stuff, my dad was a bit more lax. I hid my search for such things from both of them. I wasn't corrupted by finding my dad's videos (even though my mom thought they were disgusting). I was curious. I studied them and tried to understand what was going on and why. I also had the internet spring up in my late teens, and I watched tons of the stuff.

You know what though? I still show every woman a lot of respect. I don't treat them like meat/objects. In fact, I still had a problem through out my early 20s of idealization of women, the pedestal effect, that made it hard for any 'real' woman to live up to. I didn't see sex as a disrespect of the woman, but an act the two people engaged in together with consent. I didn't lower my standard or ideal of what a woman was at all. I still prefer a woman who presents herself with respect and modesty. In fact, modesty in attire is one of the most attractive things to me in the real world.

See, because I was intelligent. Because I had a strong foundation in early childhood. I had strong morals, and a ton of respect for others. Porn could not corrupt me, because I had proper guidance. I didn't have any help seeing porn in my teens, nor did my parents really get into all that stuff at all.

BUT, I think it would've been healthier for my early relationships if they had. My first sexual experiences would've been better for both me and my woman if I had known more of what and how to do, at least a proper idea of what a woman wants and needs, their physiology; and to have seen women off the pedestal, and my equals, with flaws and stuff to where they didn't feel like they couldn't live up to this perfection I saw in them.

What you need to realize: It is NOT the government's job to rear your children. It is not their responsibility to give them morals or protect them from reality. It is YOUR job to rear your children. It is your responsibility to give them the guidance, understanding, respect, and moral compass in life that they respect every individual they meet.

I'm sorry for your outlook on life. That you think viewing sex will corrupt and twist the mind. That you can't watch it with your significant other and learn new techniques or try new things or possibly discover something one of you likes that either you couldn't communicate properly or had no idea of in the first place. Not all porn is the stuff of extremes, some of it is extremely tastefully done. My wife and I have watched it together. I've learned things from it in the past before we met, that my wife is very glad I did; for she had no idea it could be that good. It directly helped both of us enjoy our time together; and to disregard that is ignorant.

Do I want my daughter watching porn before she is mentally mature ... no. Do I want her to watch the dark side of porn, NO. But, I also respect the freedoms of human beings, and take responsibility of teaching her right and wrong. It is not the state's job. It is my cross to bear. I will show her educational stuff. I will teach her why to wait, and when it should be appropriate to start. I will instill the morals ... restricting access is not teaching morals.

One last point. Why don't you ask the porn stars if they feel exploited or degraded? What if they love sex, and enjoy getting paid for it in a controlled, safe environment?

What if they only do it with their husband/wife? There are quite a few like that. What if it is instructional?

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Maxatoria
The only way they'll get my porn is from my cold dead hands

Shouldnt that be warm sticky hands?

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 03:26 PM
But in all seriousness wouldnt this just encourage people to use the TOR Browser more? Just think where that could leed..we all know whats supposed to be going on in the Darknet.

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

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 03:28 PM

Originally posted by PhoenixOD

Originally posted by Maxatoria
The only way they'll get my porn is from my cold dead hands

Shouldnt that be warm sticky hands?

just...... euuu

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 03:30 PM
reply to post by FreeThinkerIdealist

Exactly right.

If it is too much of a challenge to control children and extra help is needed, then it is up to the parents to do so.

Opt in not opt out!

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 03:37 PM
First step is porn next step will be anonymity on the net (or what's left of it....> prism & co... what a joke) you can bet on that.
Protest now en masse while you can Brit heads !

Any way you look at it that's not the state business to oversee such things and i also note the false pretense "it's to protect children" .The parents can manage that, Now, if the state want help finance a campaign toward the parents so they're aware of how to restrict xplicit visuals, i'm all for it otherwise the state representative known as D. Cameron may shut his mouth up

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 03:37 PM
reply to post by alysha.angel

So Cameron wants the ISPs to blacklist certain sites. What was that called again? Ah yes, it's censorship,plain and simple.
And we all know, if they start with that, other sites will get blacklisted as well sooner or later. Sites that are critical of the government for example, or conspiracy sites...

Linking it to porn is a nice move, I give them that: As we can see, everyone who is against it will be painted as a pervert.
In Germany they tried something similar, pretending to want to fight against child porn, so you can guess what people said if you argued against it. And of course it wouldn't have done anything either, since it took a few minutes of googling to find out how to circumvent it. Knowledge that someone who actually runs such a site would certainly pass on to the customers.

Nope, things like these aren't about porn, child porn, other sort of violence or whatever, it is about censorship and the government controlling what you are allowed to see or know.

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 03:38 PM
Google SAFE search is on by default I believe. You can also buy software that restricts access to sites on your PCs. I agree with those who say parents should take more responsibility for raising and educating their kids. I get the impression that some people want to turn the whole world into Disney Land so there's less work for them to do. Well, guess what, adults live in this world too.

Then there's scope creep. Do we ban images of animals having sex? Will images of two birds mating be banned because it offended someone? What about sex education in school, will that be banned? Because, sex eduction means that uh, you know, you might have to illustrate the uh, naughty bits.

What about those sleazy tabloids and TV shows, why are they okay?

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 03:41 PM
I don't see what the big deal is. If you are ashamed that you look at porn, quit looking at it. Otherwise man up and op in.

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 03:42 PM
It's bad for guys allright.
If you see how many guys are addicted to porn. As a result they need more, the most extreme that will turn him on.
As a result it's like any addiction, you get less of an effect over time and find (real) girls less attractive even compared with most girls from the porn. So being alone in that stage seems better. Let alone the erection gets less with too much porn every day.

But I can explain but this guy can way better:

So many guys get erection problems with too much porn! and as he said if you have this problem, just try to quit watching porn and watch the results and then guys will start looking for girls when they are off this addiction.

Now to forbid is a far stretch but it has got far stretched consequences but it's good you get aware of the effects.
Many young men suffer as result where they are not able to get a relation/girl.
edit on 22-7-2013 by Plugin because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 03:45 PM

Originally posted by kingofmd
I don't see what the big deal is. If you are ashamed that you look at porn, quit looking at it. Otherwise man up and op in.

You are missing the point, people who watch porn will be on some list for opting in.
You may like being a list but I do not.
Like I said why should I have to opt in when I don't have kids in my home? It should be the parents opting out, not the other way around.
Also who decides what is porn and what is art?
This is about internet freedom at the core of it, If we allow this what will they want us to opt into next?
edit on 22-7-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 03:49 PM
I'll apologise now if anyone has made these points already - the thread is 17 pages long and unfortunately I haven't the time to read them all at present.

Maybe I've become too cynical in my judgement of Cameron, I think he's doing his very best to drive this country back to some Victorianesque society.
I suspect that whilst he may have some genuine concerns over the seemingly easy availability of child porn on the internet but his primary motives are one of trying to gain the popular vote in an effort to ensure re-election and the furthering of his other economic and social policies.

I agree that the onus should be on firstly parents and secondly our education system.
Parents need to accept their responsibility to take an honest yet responsible role in teaching their children about sex and porn and all related issues.
This needs to be supported by our educator's.
Unfortunately far too many parents are either incapable or unwilling to accept this role and prefer to pass responsibility on to an already overstretched and restrictive education system.
And I suspect that the majority will be all too happy to pass this responsibility on to the government.

But none of that will address the core issue - the people who film and distribute child porn in the first place and those who are attracted to it to such an extent that they risk losing everything, family, jobs, friends, social standing etc in their efforts to view it.
How do we attack the root cause?
To be honest I have no real idea - but I guess the solution would involve a level of honesty and openness that far too few are prepared to show either due to moral and social conditioning, a reluctance to accept responsibility, pre-conceived ideas and opinions or just sheer bloody mindedness.

One thing seems certain; there seems to be an increase in child pornography, (I have no figures to back this up, just an impression gained during my 47 years of living), and something needs to be done urgently to protect those who are abused.

As much as I am loathe to accept any censorship at all and as suspicious as I am of Cameron's motives but he might actually be right about this.

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 03:55 PM

Originally posted by Unity_99
I personally believe that porn is not only demeaning and dehumanizing to women and humanity, but that it is a huge crime against humanity, and makes victims world wide. I want it illegal in video and in magazine form. All those smutty magazines burnt in a huge heap. I want every strip joint in the world shut down. As well.

And it would be about time.
edit on 22-7-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

What you want is irrelevant. In a free society, consenting adults can choose to spend their time as they wish.

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 03:57 PM
I wonder what is worst.......

the witch-hunt against smokers......or the witch-hunt againt pornography.

at first they said smoking is bad for you so business has to install smoke ventilation systems.......then smoking is ssooooo bad that NO SMOKING PERIOD! Go outside in the freezing cold while its snowing or raining, get wet and come back. Then they put sin taxes.

Pornography is bad enough that government has to force ISPs to install filters and an opt-in or opt-out questionaire. It would easier for the parents to just use windows *parent controls* which is free. No need to buy anything, no need to complain to the government.

You know what I want to complain about? Too many people spreading malware on the internet without anyone getting punished.

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 04:03 PM
The day they start censoring the internet, will be the day when people begin to rise up against the system.

Censoring will start with this, then sites with cause for concern and opposing views to that of the regime (sites like ATS) will follow.

People haven't voted or had a say on this matter. We will not be dictated to. Unless we asked for this then we need to stand up and take back the power of what is supposed to be a democracy.

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 04:03 PM
Here's a true story about the sort of #ed up country my home nation can be. Back in the 80s, there was this whole moral outrage around so called "video nasties". The barking mad Xtian crowd decided this was their cause celebre and pushed and pushed to have the law changed to your typical catch all, yet mean absolutely nothing, wording, to stop the "moral rot" that watching stuff like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" .

The truth was, of course, if a bunch of nutters, not having even seen a film decided they didn't like it or the idea of it they could then find some "on message" copper and have people arrested for selling or even stocking it. The whole of this ridiculous piece of legislation came from a shock horror expose where the MSM ran stories saying how. Research shows that, 46% of children have watched a "video nasty".

Only the truth actually was, the god botherers broke into a research fellows office and stole his work, as yet not completed and then flat out lied about the results he had found so far. When they committed their criminal offence, he had had 46 replies and 3 of those had said, "Yes I have seen a so called video nasty" So, the then government passed legislation based on lies that had been obtained illegally. Today. there are god botherers who proudly tout the fact that they don;t care that they broke the law and then flat out lied as they "got their way"

We in England currently, have an education minister who bases policy on surveys done by Premier Inns and then touts the results of those surveys as facts. They have not the slightest interest in protecting children, in fact the self same utter hypocrites currently wringing their hands about "the poor children" are trying to privatise the care for those minors most in need of help. This, after it has just been revealed those responsible for administering the "Tagging System" of prisoners is riddled with institutionalised multi million pound frauds committed and sanctioned at a board room level.

I find shows such as "Toddlers and Tiaras" absolutely disgusting and disturbing on just about every level you can name. The paedophilia undercurrents in such shows are not only blatant rather actually celebrated by the mindless chumps who take part in such travesties of "entertainment". Would I ban them? No, it's not my place or some self appointed arbiter of taste's job to.

Cameron is quite cynically trying to curry favour with a small yet vocal section of the population who simply don;t like the fact that. Young lasses today, shag who they want to and when they wan to and generally, view sex in the same way many guys have traditionally done so.Anyone who thinks porn is "just for men" is as behind the times as those who think women should be seen and not heard.

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 04:03 PM
reply to post by Freeborn

Child pornography, which is abhorrent, is already illegal.

A spokesman for Google said: "We have a zero tolerance attitude to child sexual abuse imagery. Whenever we discover it, we respond quickly to remove and report it.

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 04:04 PM
Yeah thanks Obama for deciding for me.....

*cartoon style double take*

...wait a sec thats Cameron and the UK

<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in