Banning illegal porn, your thoughts? (yes, a porn thread)

[callingyouuu]

In terms of banning the illegal distribution of copyrighted content already covered under the DMCA? It's just like people uploading copyrighted content onto YouTube; YT isn't technically responsible as long as when content creators knock on their door complaining about all the copyrighted material, they take them down at their request. Just today, the Viacom vs. YouTube/Google case was settled by a federal court, and YouTube won based on the DMCA, with the court ruling that it was ridiculous for Viacom to sue Google for having copyrighted content on their site when Google takes them down whenever Viacom asks.

 

I think the same concept can be applied to the distribution of illegal pornography. Unless if I'm mistaken about the reach of the DMCA, all the porn content creators have to do is complain to all the free sites, and the latter are required by law to take the infringing content down, or the content creators have legal bounds to sues. For some reason or another, Viacom just seems to care a lot more about their content than the porn industry. If the porn industry doesn't care if their stuff is being distributed, I definitely don't think we have any more right to complain about distribution of THEIR CONTENT from a legal point of view.

 

In terms of the moral part of your argument, I agree that kids should not watch porn below a certain age, and I'm going to put whatever restriction software necessary on my computer to make sure they can't access it. However, that's my choice for my children. Lots of stuff is in this world that I don't want my kids seeing, and I, not the government or some independent filmmaker, am ultimately responsible for what environment I want my child to grow up in. The government provides channels (like the DMCA) for content creators to control distribution, filmmakers just sort of do whatever they want, but I'm in charge of the security settings on my computer and my Netnanny software. It's not going to be perfect, and I can't expect to be there all of the time, but as long as porn actors aren't performing in the middle of the street for my kids to see on their way to school, I'll do the best I can.

[Jersey Shortie]

Child porn in an entirely different thing and people involved in that should be punished harshly. They should be put in general population and get the same treatment pedophiles usually get in prison.

 

Look, we all know child porn is different from legal porn. that's not the point. The point is that it's a multi billion dollar business! That's not a small segment of the population. And it's an industry that has grown with the advent of the interent. If you think that regular porn as avoided that trap, it hasn't. That's my point. Not that porn should be banned or that legal porn is the same as child porn .But the fact that the interent had a clear affect on child porn, a multi billion dollar affect saddly enough. If you regular porn isn't affected by the technology we have now and how much men spend on looking at real porn, you are kiddind yourself.

[A O]

That doesn't directly respond to what you quoted, so I don't see what the point is in saying that. Note - Though I do agree, don't get me wrong. That's not the end all of our development.

The point is to highlight how much our upbringing determines how we relate to people, how we treat people and where this factor rates compared to other outside influences, in this case porn.

 

What are you trying to "aha!", anyway? There is a problem there, the law enforcing itself will take care of it. Aha?

The "aha" is in you revealing your true intentions.

 

You've never been there, never done that. That's the problem. You refuse to elaborate because you can't. Keeping it vague is the name of your game.

Already explained everything, namely, what illegal porn means to you and how so far-reaching your definition of this term is to the point where there is no difference between illegal porn and free porn and how all this ties in with your real mindset. Been there, done that yet again.

 

Is it? Or are you just trying to jumble the discussion and paint Jersey and myself into the corner you want us in, so as to make my post seem absurd and radical, the way you like to make most of the other porn threads seem?

Asking her to quantifying well held, often expressed porn beliefs is neither painting anyone into a corner nor going off topic.

 

The name of my game is one of establishing degree. How much porn do people watch, how much porn do men watch and how many of these people allow porn to adversely effect them and people in their lives. That's basically the total sum of my being here. The fact that neither of you two seem remotely interested in this perspective simply suggests to me that you're both are well aware of the validity, or lack thereof, of your claims and to use your own words - how radical and absurd they really are, and how having to quantify them limits the scaremongering ability of these tactics, which niether of you wishes to see, hence the need to dodge these questions whenever they arise.

 

 

.

.

[Des]

In terms of banning the illegal distribution of copyrighted content already covered under the DMCA? It's just like people uploading copyrighted content onto YouTube; YT isn't technically responsible as long as when content creators knock on their door complaining about all the copyrighted material, they take them down at their request. Just today, the Viacom vs. YouTube/Google case was settled by a federal court, and YouTube won based on the DMCA, with the court ruling that it was ridiculous for Viacom to sue Google for having copyrighted content on their site when Google takes them down whenever Viacom asks.

 

But do you know what? I happen to know that these sites are built to gain traffic and revenue for other porn companies. Certain porn company's own these sites, which host tons and tons of crap that isn't theirs. Pornographers have asked to have them taken down, because they do care. Most of the time, they don't do it, or else it reappears within a week. The content creators can't stop it. These sites know the content is pirated, and they don't care. This isn't like YouTube, where they're actually complying. These sites have got to go, if they're not going to adhere to the DMCA. Anyone can see they're basically housing nothing but libraries of stolen content. Imagine if YouTube was nothing but stolen content.

 

 

 

In terms of the moral part of your argument, I agree that kids should not watch porn below a certain age, and I'm going to put whatever restriction software necessary on my computer to make sure they can't access it. However, that's my choice for my children. Lots of stuff is in this world that I don't want my kids seeing, and I, not the government or some independent filmmaker, am ultimately responsible for what environment I want my child to grow up in. The government provides channels (like the DMCA) for content creators to control distribution, filmmakers just sort of do whatever they want, but I'm in charge of the security settings on my computer and my Netnanny software. It's not going to be perfect, and I can't expect to be there all of the time, but as long as porn actors aren't performing in the middle of the street for my kids to see on their way to school, I'll do the best I can.

 

What does the aid of government involvement actually hurt, in a situation specifically like this?

Edited June 24, 2010 by Des

[SpanksTheMonkey]

The point is to highlight how much our upbringing determines how we relate to people, how we treat people and where this factor rates compared to other outside influences, in this case porn.

 

The "aha" is in you revealing your true intentions.

 

Already explained everything, namely, what illegal porn means to you and how so far-reaching your definition of this term is to the point where there is no difference between illegal porn and free porn and how all this ties in with your real mindset. Been there, done that yet again.

 

Asking her to quantifying well held, often expressed porn beliefs is neither painting anyone into a corner nor going off topic.

 

The name of my game is one of establishing degree. How much porn do people watch, how much porn do men watch and how many of these people allow porn to adversely effect them and people in their lives. That's basically the total sum of my being here. The fact that neither of you two seem remotely interested in this perspective simply suggests to me that you're both are well aware of the validity, or lack thereof, of your claims and to use your own words - how radical and absurd they really are, and how having to quantify them limits the scaremongering ability of these tactics, which niether of you wishes to see, hence the need to dodge these questions whenever they arise.

 

 

.

.

 

A O theres no point in continuing it hun this thread wasn't made for open debate it wasn't made so people could openly share ideas on a subject heck it wasn't even made for what the actual title says it was!

 

Its the jersey and des tag team feminism hour there I said it and who ever may disagree with them will be ran out of town and have there point of view blown off and disrespected after all only theirs is valid.

 

Of course they will attack me now with personal insults and point the finger at me for starting things. Mind you I have never started with any one on LS! I just am sick when good people take the time out of there lives to try and respond and share their views only to be totally disrespected again and again.

[callingyouuu]

But do you know what? I happen to know that these sites are built to gain traffic and revenue for other porn companies. Certain porn company's own these sites, which host tons and tons of crap that isn't theirs. Pornographers have asked to have them taken down, because they do care. Most of the time, they don't do it, or else it reappears within a week. The content creators can't stop it. These sites know the content is pirated, and they don't care. This isn't like YouTube, where they're actually complying. These sites have got to go, if they're not going to adhere to the DMCA. Anyone can see they're basically housing nothing but libraries of stolen content. Imagine if YouTube was nothing but stolen content.

 

I definitely agree; a lot of these sites are housed by companies that try to gain traffic. To go back to my previous example, the Viacom/Google lawsuit was controversial because Viacom technically makes money off of stolen YT content via their subsidiary spike.com. Heck, I joined YouTube long before it become a phenomenon, and there was a time when it WAS basically nothing but stolen content. It took a few years, but with the massive amounts of content added to YouTube every day, I think it's a major success that they've been able to control what ends up showing on the site.

 

While they don't have the same amount of resources that Google has, I think most free porn sites are capable of doing the same when asked. Most celebrity sex tapes (unless if you're someone like Paris Hilton who's purposely doing it to launch your "career") are taken down and become increasingly difficult to find once lawyers get involved. I think if pornographers were willing to use legal channels, they could do the same. This is just conjecture, but I think pornographers don't care as much because these poor, struggling guys want snippets of their content out on the internet so people might look at the little watermark on the bottom right and get sucked in to their paid site. In terms of content, the creator's opinion is the one that matters most, and as long as those people don't care, we don't have any right to make the government get involved to take the content down without the creator's consent.

 

What does the aid of government involvement actually hurt, in a situation specifically like this?

 

In terms of banning it on moral terms, I guess the most objectionable part of it is that not everyone cares enough to provide a lot of support in relation to other national goals. The government only has so many taxpayer dollars to use, and more people will probably be in favor of using it to improve our education system, boost our economy, and find a way to get the hell out of the Middle East, none of which are currently working too well. Hence, the massive legal costs of the government shutting down pornography websites, while positive for some people, just wouldn't be cost-effective relative to all of the other stuff we want. I think it's more effective for this issue to be handled privately within the domestic home.

 

Issues like pornography (along with violence, political radicalism, etc) also tend to be really sticky and difficult to have a clear cut solution. As this thread implies, people tend to be really divided as to what should or shouldn't be controlled; so if some agency decides to set some standard as to what's acceptable, some interest group is going to cause lots of lobbying, wasted time, and further headaches for the guy who decided to sign the anti-pornography bill. It would have to be very carefully worded to even have a chance of getting out of the House, let alone the Senate. Even though a lot of people seem to be for that kind of bill, I totally get why the government is keeping its hands out of this one for now.

[alyssatranswarrior]

You can push into this thread all the videos of accounts of abuse you wish, thats both a SMALL fraction of the cases in the high end porn industry (if you engage in any pornography on 'amatuer' level [which is low budget productions I've never heard of and dont watch btw] without an agent you are of course at higher risk for exploit which is her choice/risk above all else) of wrong doing and just de-railing and throwing doctor' accounts masked as irrefutable facts you are right.

 

Doctors and psychologists are meant to tell us things they have found and usually its whats 'bad' for us, or could on some realm be harmful in some minor percentage of people. That does not mean we lump every single finding in together and say "oh look its a cohesive argument!!! now we can attack them and say its ALLLL bad".

 

Which is what you do here I'm afraid. Its like saying "some cars crashes could cause deaths. Should we really still believe in cars because they have proved to be bad for society!"

 

I curiously note you can't argue my metaphors ever, because I would have to believe they are truth's you see. I note your truths, I just call you extreme because you found (through someone else not yourself) 1000 cases of regretful actresses out of hundreds of millions that partaken in it, and called it ALL bad.

 

You also call me disreputable because I stand by my argument and point out logical defenses of the porn I watch - Like, oh hey I'm an adult and am breaking no laws or causing any harm watching mr. X slap mrs. Getting paid handsomely while he pounds her.

 

Do I then approach a girl in real life and wonder would she like that. Of course not, that is NEVER my first second or third thought with a female I dont know well, and you shouldn't degrade me by assuming otherwise or lumping me in with bad people.

 

A person, people and yourself needs to understand the correct way to view pornography. It is no more than a masturbatory tool for men AND women (plenty love hardcore porn. Ive dated a lot of them - dont be naiive) who want to see things they wouldnt see in regular life for sexual stimulation of the mind. The two (real life, and porn) are seperate entities to almost every set of people except swingers and those into bdsm which is people who completely consent btw. And if they aren't two seperate things to some people? Those people are the kinds of people you couldn't rely on to solve your 5th grade math equations. No amount of absense of porn could stop them from treating women badly. They would be prone to being other probably more violent harmful ways to treat women badly regardless of visual materials that suggest methods.

 

Just because I'm not forking over an undying love for treating women correctly doesn't mean I don't share that value and practise it with real life women. To say that I must also view as hardlined my real life morals as my porn watching ones - is to say I am too stupid to distinguish the difference between fantasy and reality. Since I put up my own opinions and stances you see I have to defend them when attacked. Your opinions seem to be based only on some journals youve read or current affair programs.

 

To get back to some somewhat shared views and my previous statements on them. If you re-read my posts you should see clearly reading between the lines how I AGREE children shouldn't see porn. I was just shocked that parenting now allows children that young to see such things. I never suggested they should. In fact I strongly wish they didn't see it.

 

But that it's an issue for parenting wether they like it or not. Their choice was to provide their child with a computer with internet access, or allow them to befriend and be out of the big wide world without their own supervisional care, to be with other parents who don't really have educated minds and thought processes about the possibilities out there on the WWW. That's not pornographies fault. Don't be rediculous.

 

Relationships can be bad. Does that mean we should abolish all marriage and partnership ideas because a few thousand cases come up each year where stuff went wrong? No, and you agree with me on that. So why not on the issue of porn? Why is that different?

 

Parental education is my argument, parental control is the key, you have not proved my argument wrong in fact you skirt around my key points and resort to my weakly worded and barely described personal opinions and try bash them as part of the problem and not the solution.

 

I can use google too. Kindly go to "search options" and where it says "filter textual and explicit images" use your brain. Focus all your multitasking adult capabilities to both tick the box and then press "save preferences" while your secondary multitask property ponders "OHH it is THIS easy, wow. Amazing, there actually are safeguards on a computer. I thought this porn box was just installed with choke films as a bonus of windows 7"

 

See, I can link you to about 50-100 programs which have passworded interfaces and which would make your computer access with regards to the internet - extremely tame. But instead of pretend I'm worthy of spoon feeding you hard facts and solutions ; Perhaps do your own research, learn for yourself and then educate yourself and other like-minded's if you truly believe you care about the kids.

Edited June 24, 2010 by alyssatranswarrior

[Des]

I definitely agree; a lot of these sites are housed by companies that try to gain traffic. To go back to my previous example, the Viacom/Google lawsuit was controversial because Viacom technically makes money off of stolen YT content via their subsidiary spike.com. Heck, I joined YouTube long before it become a phenomenon, and there was a time when it WAS basically nothing but stolen content. It took a few years, but with the massive amounts of content added to YouTube every day, I think it's a major success that they've been able to control what ends up showing on the site.

 

While they don't have the same amount of resources that Google has, I think most free porn sites are capable of doing the same when asked. Most celebrity sex tapes (unless if you're someone like Paris Hilton who's purposely doing it to launch your "career") are taken down and become increasingly difficult to find once lawyers get involved. I think if pornographers were willing to use legal channels, they could do the same. This is just conjecture, but I think pornographers don't care as much because these poor, struggling guys want snippets of their content out on the internet so people might look at the little watermark on the bottom right and get sucked in to their paid site. In terms of content, the creator's opinion is the one that matters most, and as long as those people don't care, we don't have any right to make the government get involved to take the content down without the creator's consent.

 

As far as I what I've read, they are and have been using those channels. That's the thing, they aren't happy with it either. I can tell you, not many of them are satisfied with the idea that at least their content is benefiting someone else.

 

As far as our right to do this or that, like I have said, the US Supreme Court has laws against obscenity and it's distribution. No one's making them get involved, it's just that they aren't actually enforcing their own laws. They aren't prosecuting violators of these laws (or haven't been).

 

In terms of banning it on moral terms, I guess the most objectionable part of it is that not everyone cares enough to provide a lot of support in relation to other national goals. The government only has so many taxpayer dollars to use, and more people will probably be in favor of using it to improve our education system, boost our economy, and find a way to get the hell out of the Middle East, none of which are currently working too well. Hence, the massive legal costs of the government shutting down pornography websites, while positive for some people, just wouldn't be cost-effective relative to all of the other stuff we want. I think it's more effective for this issue to be handled privately within the domestic home.

 

I guess my question is, how much money does something like this actually take? To me it doesn't make sense to be a lot. How much money do they spend combating child pornography?

 

Issues like pornography (along with violence, political radicalism, etc) also tend to be really sticky and difficult to have a clear cut solution. As this thread implies, people tend to be really divided as to what should or shouldn't be controlled; so if some agency decides to set some standard as to what's acceptable, some interest group is going to cause lots of lobbying, wasted time, and further headaches for the guy who decided to sign the anti-pornography bill. It would have to be very carefully worded to even have a chance of getting out of the House, let alone the Senate. Even though a lot of people seem to be for that kind of bill, I totally get why the government is keeping its hands out of this one for now.

 

According to Patrick Trueman, no new laws need to be made in the fight against illegal free pornography, they just need to be enforced. It's already illegal. Every prosecution they've even made has been successful.

 

So who says the government is going to keep their hands out of it?

[Jersey Shortie]

You can push into this thread all the videos of accounts of abuse you wish, thats both a SMALL fraction of the cases in the high end porn industry (if you engage in any pornography on 'amatuer' level [which is low budget productions I've never heard of and dont watch btw] without an agent you are of course at higher risk for exploit which is her choice/risk above all else) of wrong doing and just de-railing and throwing doctor' accounts masked as irrefutable facts you are right.

 

Apparently it isn't a small fraction. There wasn't one positive example of a woman on that website. Not one. But men love it! Men love that women are treated like crap so a guy can bust a nut. I don't have to "push" anything when it's the reality. I did a simple search. I wasn't going out looking for nitch fetish porn. All I did was "type" porn, clicked on the very first link, and was presented with those reperesentations of porn. You wanted to make the case that these things, these examples of name calling and abuse were deep in the internet trenches where few go, and I proved you wrong. And anyone with a search engine can see it for themselves. ANd you know what? You know it.

 

You can attempt to derail the topic by talking about the choices of the porn actress in the movie whlie you completely ignore the millions o fmen with wives and daughters that fund an industry htat gets off on seeing a a man call a woman a "forgetful c*nt" or place his foot over her head. This actress utlimately does decide to be in this movie. But is suspect many get caught in doing thigns they dont' want to even with agents. Don't be so navie to act like people care about women in porn. The turn-over rate is high and they aren't there to look after the health and longivity of any number of girls. They are there to make money off her as much as possible by getting her to do more hardcore acts and then moving on to the next fresh meat. Because that's what women are right? Meat. And this is what digusts me about this topic. Not that men like naked women. But men don't mind, are apathetic to seeing the abuse of women in their eyes and justify it because they want materail to masturabe to. I

 

Doctors and psychologists are meant to tell us things they have found and usually its whats 'bad' for us, or could on some realm be harmful in some minor percentage of people.

 

LOL, now you don't even believe trained professionals with education materal. Funny stuff.

 

Which is what you do here I'm afraid. Its like saying "some cars crashes could cause deaths. Should we really still believe in cars because they have proved to be bad for society!"

 

Actually, what I am saying, or asking, is why men spend so much of their strength and intelligence defending a medium that makes money on projecting women as worthless. As women are nothing but a couple of holes whose only importance matters how happy she is that a man is paying atttention to her even if he is spitting on her while he does it. I really don't get it! I don't even get why so many men would want to even connect themselves with such an industry. Time and time again porn threads come up and time and time again so many men defend it porn. They don't defend real woman, they don't even say "yeah I get why a woman wouldn't like the way women in general are projected in porn". Porn doesn't show women positively. Why do men like that? Don't worry though, you win. Porn wins. It is never going away and in a society that increasingly gives women more equality, pornogprahy reflects a hate and dislike of the feminine. What is so sad is men defend this. Anyone who doesn't think porn is misognoistic is lying to themselves.

 

I curiously note you can't argue my metaphors ever, because I would have to believe they are truth's you see. I note your truths, I just call you extreme because you found (through someone else not yourself) 1000 cases of regretful actresses out of hundreds of millions that partaken in it, and called it ALL bad.

 

No. I am honest. Where as I think men tend to try to downplay porn even to themselves because honestly, men aren't "bad" people but they sure do like to condone and support an industry that treats women like they are crap on the side of the street. No man would want his daughter in porn. Yet millions of men close the door late at night while his family sleeps nearby and gets off to a million images that project women as they don't count as human beings.

 

I can't qualify you but when yuo say things like " i looked at porn and I turned out fine!" that's not something any of us can really evulate so it's pointless.

 

You also call me disreputable because I stand by my argument and point out logical defenses of the porn I watch - Like, oh hey I'm an adult and am breaking no laws or causing any harm watching mr. X slap mrs. Getting paid handsomely while he pounds her.

 

No one disputed that you were not an adult or that you were breaking laws. Watch all the men you want smack around all the women you want. But don't act like this is positive or that the women in porn are all happy and healthy and making tons of money jsut because that;s the imagine they sell you so you keep looking at more porn. The message is clear. Women don't matter as people to men. If women watched and masturbated to an industry that treated men like porn treates women, no matter how *handsomely* they are paid, I don't think men would be too happy. But lucky for you, you don't have to deal with that. You don't have to deal with the very raw fact that as a woman in this world, apparently there is a deep seeded aspect of masculinity that gets off on making women worthless.

 

As for payment, lets not pretend most women make it big. And lots not pretend that *handsome* payment means that women aren't being treated or represented crappy. These women make money? Great. And millions of men who are fathers, husbands and boyfriends LOVE seeing the abuse apparently. What does that say about how men really feel about women? You hold doors open for women in public? Great. But when the door closes at night, how many men's true feelings about the way they feel about women come out. It's okay to abuse women and degrade them right? These women agree, and as long as a man only *dreams* of doing it, it's great right? So frustrating that all that male intelligence and enegery gets wasted on defending pornography.

 

Do I then approach a girl in real life and wonder would she like that. Of course not, that is NEVER my first second or third thought with a female I dont know well, and you shouldn't degrade me by assuming otherwise or lumping me in with bad people.

 

I shouldn't degrade you? How have I degraded you? I never said you were a bad person. How dare you say I am degrading you when you clearly get off on seeing women degraded. Funny how it's okay to degrade a woman. So what if it's not your first, second or third thought of a woman? You indicated you are fine with seeing mr x slap around ms. x. Okay, have at it. But don't bemoan about your feelings of personal degradation when you refuse to understand how a woman can view and industry that objectifices and humilates women and sets up unrealistic standards about what a woman should look liek and act like jsut to have a man like her,

 

A person, people and yourself needs to understand the correct way to view pornography.

 

I'm sorry but this is completely ignorant because you assume your way is *correct*, and clearly that's all your personal opinion. Not anything based on fact.

 

It is no more than a masturbatory tool for men AND women (plenty love hardcore porn. Ive dated a lot of them - dont be naiive) who want to see things they wouldnt see in regular life for sexual stimulation of the mind.

 

You're the one being naive. The issue is that when people have regular access to all kinds of "fantasies" that are positively reinfoced through something as strong as masturbation, it changes brain paths. It changes chemical reactions. So yes, people do what to see things they wouldn't see in regular life, but when you have access to it 24/7 for free and the desire to keep seeing more and more hardcore acts grows, you have a breeding ground for unhealthy attitudes. Not to mention how many men ask their partners to *try* something they saw in porn. So no, it's not just something people only want to see and not do.

 

You can say as much as you want that it's *just* a masturbatory tool. But it's really not. It's a reflection of how men enjoy seeing women treated and used. It's a relfection of what men really like. Why is it okay to treat women like they are worthless toys through porn? You want to talk about how much you respect women but yuo get off on a meidum that dosen't set up one positive of femininity. How is okay to say "men just want to see women abused by other men, that doesn't mean they want to abuse women themselves'. Why is it even okay to watch women treated this way even if you aren't doing it yourself? You get off on seeing it!

 

Just because I'm not forking over an undying love for treating women correctly doesn't mean I don't share that value and practise it with real life women. To say that I must also view as hardlined my real life morals as my porn watching ones - is to say I am too stupid to distinguish the difference between fantasy and reality. Since I put up my own opinions and stances you see I have to defend them when attacked. Your opinions seem to be based only on some journals youve read or current affair programs.

 

Your opinions seem to be based on a deep seeded desire to keep the porn bankroll rolling. And believe me, I know you aren't forking over and undying love for treating women right. Alot of men arne't doing the same. And that's the issue. Women don't have men taking a stand to treat women right , what women have is men defending their right to get off on the degradement of their gender. How is any woman suppose to have faith in that kind of man? How is any woman suppose to take that kind of man seriously or think of his as a strong man? They don't. they can't. Because he isn't illustrating any truly good male qualities of what it means to really be a man.

 

And I have no doubt in my mind you totally understand the different tobetween fantasy and reality. Don't be so sbain to make that weak arguement. You are still titilated and tricked enough into the fantasy that it stimulates you. Why is okay to treat women like garbage even in fantasy? Where it isn't in reality? It's ten times worse to me that men jsutify the enjoyment of female degradtion through a medium where they clearly KNOW it's degrading to women by them admitting that they don't treat women like that in reality. But it sure is okay to treat women like that on some level.

 

I AGREE children shouldn't see porn. I was just shocked that parenting now allows children that young to see such things. I never suggested they should. In fact I strongly wish they didn't see it.

 

Lame. No one said parenting allows children to see porn. What was said is that with the advent of technology, all kinds of people are able to get information that they previously once couldn't. And for this reason, alot of bad things have spread. And because these bad things spread, society is degraded as well because expectatoins are lowered. We all wish children see porn but the reality is they do. And from my experiement, it's not that hard to see clips or words that showcase women with a man's foot on her head. If you dont think these images aren't going to sway some young boys or girls, you're fooling yourself and discredeting medical science.

 

 

But that it's an issue for parenting wether they like it or not. Their choice was to provide their child with a computer with internet access, or allow them to befriend and be out of the big wide world without their own supervisional care, to be with other parents who don't really have educated minds and thought processes about the possibilities out there on the WWW. That's not pornographies fault. Don't be rediculous.

 

LOL, not always. I asked you before, did you parente know everything you did or looked at? Children are good on keeping information secret from their parents even while their parents try their bestto keep things out of their life.

 

 

Relationships can be bad. Does that mean we should abolish all marriage and partnership ideas because a few thousand cases come up each year where stuff went wrong? No, and you agree with me on that. So why not on the issue of porn? Why is that different?

 

I don't even see your correlation! I am not even saying anything should be banned. I jsut don't get why men go to heart for porn and not for real women.

 

Parental education is my argument, parental control is the key, you have not proved my argument wrong in fact you skirt around my key points and resort to my weakly worded and barely described personal opinions and try bash them as part of the problem and not the solution.

 

No, you skirted the issue. I asked you twice now, did your parents know everything you were up to when you were a kid? Do they know what material you view now? would they be proud?

 

 

I can use google too. Kindly go to "search options" and where it says "filter textual and explicit images" use your brain. Focus all your multitasking adult capabilities to both tick the box and then press "save preferences" while your secondary multitask property ponders "OHH it is THIS easy, wow. Amazing, there actually are safeguards on a computer. I thought this porn box was just installed with choke films as a bonus of windows 7"

 

Ummm, you need to use your brain. You're diverting to ignore the facts. The point of my experinment was to prove that your claim that these hardcore images are uncommon was false. And I proved it. There wasn't one positive image of a woman on that website.

 

But that's okay because men prove time and time again that women are basically nothing of any importance. We apparently deverse to be abused and apparently we love it! At leat, that's the fantasy men want to beleive in.

[Tony]

Thanks to everybody for participating.