Porn Site Filters for the UK

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Hmm. I seem to have set myself for coming across as prudish, and prescriptive, for some reason. That wasn't my intention at all.

Let me reiterate: I have no interest in telling people what to do. Watch pornography, of whatever description, for whatever purposes you choose, all you like. It's really none of my business what anyone does with their lives. And, even if it were, no one would take any notice of anything I say.

So, I'm a little baffled why I seem to be castigated for expressing my opinion about pornography, and its effects, in general. Aren't I as entitled as anyone else to hold an opinion on the stuff?

Apparently not, it would seem.

I think I've said enough on the subject anyway.

Not to me. I agree with a lot of what you have said. I'm human and porn turns me on, but I'm uncomfortable with a lot of what passes for porn today. I like women.

 

[The_J]

Not sure if it has been mentioned, but: http://torrentfreak.com/uk-porn-fil...130726/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

According to ISPs speaking with the Open Rights Group, the filter will target a range of other content too.
[...]
The Open Rights Group are reporting that they’ve had a nice little chat with some of the ISPs that will be expected to introduce Cameron’s porn filter. Unsurprisingly the list of websites and content to be blocked by default won’t stop at porn.

ORG speculate on categories of content that might be filtered in future, but for a clearer idea of where we stand today we can take a look at the system currently being operated by ISP TalkTalk. The HomeSafe system, which was singled out for praise by David Cameron earlier this week as leading the way in this field, currently covers several categories as detailed in the image below.

As previously noted, leave the third box ticked and not only will all file-sharing sites be wiped out, but TorrentFreak with them too. Leave the rest of them ticked (note: the government is promising “default on” for all filters) and it’s anyone’s guess what else will disappear.
[...]

 

[Commodore]

Ah, a militant user of pornography, I take it.

I wouldn't call myself a militant user, and the idea of a militant porn user actually kinda scares me.

I'd say you're not the typical user, who is single, male and usually solitary. Don't you think they're a bit sad? I've certainly felt sad for myself from time to time.

Nah, I don't think they are sad at all. Maybe they are just trying to satisfy their urges until their next girlfriend. Or maybe they are just the kind of person who just likes to watch. Whatever their reason, I don't view someone as being sad or pathetic just because they watch porn.

I can see absolutely nothing wrong with exploring sexuality. Not one little bit. Provided it's within the context of a committed relationship.

I agree with you to a certain extent. I believe exploring sexuality is definitely safer when done with someone you know and trust. However, I also really don't have a problem with one-night stands or group sex either.

There's nothing particularly wrong with swinging either. But it seems likely a highly risky undertaking, imo. The people who I've encountered who were into that sort of thing didn't stay together very long.

Well I guess I will find out. Me and my wife recently discussed the idea of having an open marriage. We have come up with certain rules to mitigate any negative aspects of that, but since neither of us have actually gone through with it yet I have no idea how it will work out.

As for women not being forced into pornography, I rather think they all too frequently are.

Define what you mean by forced. I cannot respond to that comment until I know what you mean by being forced into pornography.

 

[Borachio]

By forced, I mean the whole range of things: from being threatened with severe beatings (at the least), through manipulation via drug addiction, or trying to pay off debts, to plain doing it to please a boy friend.

In fact, everything other than a woman doing it completely through her own volition for her own gratification. Which I don't say never happens, by any means. Just that it only accounts for a small minority of women in pornography. (Demand no citations, please, to avoid disappointment.)

(You might say, as I have done in other contexts, that nobody can actually force anyone to do anything. But that's an extreme position to adopt in general, I think.)

 

[AlpsStranger]

Not sure if it has been mentioned, but: http://torrentfreak.com/uk-porn-fil...130726/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Perfectly predictable, honestly. "Decency" goes far beyond pornography, and anyone who doesn't think this is going to be trivially extended to suppressing political dissent is a fool who deserves to live under the boot of the next dictator history manages to strain out of his mighty anus.

We have this delusion that we're at some kind of enlightened "end of history" and we can suddenly trust our rulers more than the mere human beings of earlier generations could. Well, I shouldn't say we, because not all of us do. But it does seem like huge swaths of the population would give up just about any amount of individuality to secure some vague, glowy sense of a better world.

We're not enlightened at all. We're apes with smart phones, and alpha apes are just as corrupt and worthy of our distrust as they've ever been.

In fact, everything other than a woman doing it completely through her own volition for her own gratification. Which I don't say never happens, by any means. Just that it only accounts for a small minority of women in pornography. (Demand no citations, please, to avoid disappointment.)

By this logic then everyone currently working a job is a slave. I guess that's fine reasoning for some, comrade, but for me there's a big difference.

Unless we're willing to believe that female sexuality is just such a damn sacred thing that a woman trading it for money is inconceivable. That's a little Victorian for such a self-elected enlightened crowd, isn't it? Is it so crazy that a woman might find having relatively safe sex for money acceptable?

And again, for the thousandth time, please don't attempt to derail the argument by asserting that I'm some kind of porn addict or something. I honestly can ( and generally do ) live without porn. I can quit comfortably live without porn for the rest of my life, frankly, and don't personally give two sh*ts if the whole industry shuts down voluntarily tomorrow.

 

[Kyriakos]

Not sure if it has been mentioned, but: http://torrentfreak.com/uk-porn-fil...130726/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Yeah, exactly what the point was all along. Only that stupid governments do not own the internet. I hope they never will either.

 

[Borachio]

We're not enlightened at all. We're apes with smart phones, and alpha apes are just as corrupt and worthy of our distrust as they've ever been.

That's a very gloomy picture you have there.

I think a lot more is made of accountability than it used to be. And even more should/could be made of it.

The two chief mechanisms against corruption are, it seems to me, the light of publicity and voting people out of public office.

 

[AlpsStranger]

So accountability is the new name for mob rule, huh? Cute.

You're going to get the sh*thole world you crave eventually. It's politically inevitable.

Just don't expect me to ever say a kind word about it, get used to it, or give it the slightest approval or non-forced consent.

 

[Borachio]

Um.

That's a very strange kind of logic you've got there.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I don't even think it's logic, it doesn't even rise to that level. I'm simply saying that you're going to get the tyranny of the majority in spades. It's going to happen. Every detail of everyone's life is going to be under the microscope of the mob. Enjoy.

 

[Borachio]

Isn't that what facebook is for?

 

[AlpsStranger]

I don't use Facebook for that exact reason. I'm not editing my life for Great Aunt Mildred's sake.

 

[Borachio]

Me neither.

But then I do make casual appearances here. And so do you. I think.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I probably do, but I'm not there for people to "call me out" or yell at me for stuff on it. I don't care much what (if anything) people say about me behind my back, frankly, until they bother me with it.

EDIT: Sorry, borachio, I thought you said "casual appearances there" as in pictures of me on Facebook taken by others.

EDIT2: And, just to be clear, I think a porn filtering issue like this is going to be peanuts compared to the actual authoritarian stuff coming in the next 50 years or so. Hopefully I'm just a nut on the internet and the future will be fine, but I'm not that optimistic.

 

[Goodfella]

Not sure if it has been mentioned, but: http://torrentfreak.com/uk-porn-fil...130726/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Awesome! And on top of that they're using the same architects of the great firewall of China. Genius! Absolutely effing genius!!!

 

[Grisu]

Why do you hate freedom for women so much?

edit: Or why are you so reluctant to treat women with respect? Or why...whatever?

I think that argument's a bit faulty. Earlier you mentionend guys getting aroused by national geographic or muslims getting aroused by a little bit of female shape or skin. You might notice, that both these societies were/are a lot less respectful towards women in general than today's porn-ridden west. So there seems to be no correlation between more porn -> less respect/freedom for women.

The thing is, in parts I agree with you. A lot of porn is really disturbing, and many women in that business are being treated bad (to put it mildly). But your solution strikes me as throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak. Instead of saying porn bad, mkay? and try to restrict it as much as possible (to the point of trying to ban it in some places - hello, Iceland) we should try to find ways to help those women, and stop/lessen their exploitation.

After all, we all know that some sneakers are manufactured under horrible circumstances, including child labour, etc. Do we, in turn, demand that sneakers be banned? No! What we do is try to stop those bad work practices, etc. I don't know, I'm sure there's some things we could do (especially since most porn is produced in western countries, thus easily reachable through our laws, unlike many sneaker manufacturies...). Maybe some quality label, Max Havelaar Porn, or something

I'm sure that if we were to direct our efforts towards actually helping exploited porn actresses instead of running around with our hands raise explaiming 'OMG, won't somebody please think of the children, etc, etc. we must ban this all...' we'd get ahead much better

but more to the topic, my main grievance with this isn't even that they try to filter out porn, but that they try to filter, period. I fear porn is just the excuse to introduce filter technologie to all ISP's under the guise of 'protecting the children' because nobody can possibly object that, right? why do you hate children? etc...once that tech is in place it can be, conveniently, used to filter other 'undesirable' stuff too (why not filter news? a lot of news are deeply distrubing, especially for children...). Btw, who controls what gets on the 'bad list' and what not?

 

[NovaKart]

Is there evidence that women in the porn industry are mostly being exploited, well exploited is a relative term but I mean, being coerced in one way or another into doing it. I mean besides Linda Lovelace who was inconsistent with her story. I think Traci Lords said some negative things about it but I don't know if she's totally trashed the industry or what.

 

[caketastydelish]

Here's my take on that.

1) Women are (sadly) degraded in porn more than men, and that's only using heterosexual porn (both male and female actors in the same scene) as our basis. edit: I'm not saying that heterosexual porn is inherently degrading to the woman, I'm saying when the man calls her a 'slut' or bi*ch or crap that's degrading. Way too much stuff where *literally* the man has her neck around a collar. They are comparing women to animals just because some sadistic, pathetic men apparently like watching that crap. This is a problem that needs to be fixed. The whole 'men enjoy sex women don't' thing is a myth, but what I do believe is that (most) women would only truly enjoy the sex if they're being treated as an actual human being during the act itself.

2) Women actors are also paid more on an average than men in porn (using the same basis as before). This is a problem that needs to be fixed. (before you ask, yes, female athletes should also be paid the same as their male counterparts, and I'm being 100% serious)

 

[Borachio]

I think that argument's a bit faulty.

My arguments are usually a bit faulty. If they were ready made and perfectly pristine I wouldn't see much point in posting here at all.

Earlier you mentionend guys getting aroused by national geographic or muslims getting aroused by a little bit of female shape or skin. You might notice, that both these societies were/are a lot less respectful towards women in general than today's porn-ridden west. So there seems to be no correlation between more porn -> less respect/freedom for women.

This is true. To some extent. That is, if you're comparing Muslim cultures (and others) to secular Western ones. Except that 1) a lot of muslims would disagree with you - and quite vehemently too, including many muslim women 2) you ignore most of the sex industry in the West.

The thing is, in parts I agree with you. A lot of porn is really disturbing, and many women in that business are being treated bad (to put it mildly). But your solution strikes me as throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak. Instead of saying porn bad, mkay? and try to restrict it as much as possible (to the point of trying to ban it in some places - hello, Iceland) we should try to find ways to help those women, and stop/lessen their exploitation.

After all, we all know that some sneakers are manufactured under horrible circumstances, including child labour, etc. Do we, in turn, demand that sneakers be banned? No! What we do is try to stop those bad work practices, etc. I don't know, I'm sure there's some things we could do (especially since most porn is produced in western countries, thus easily reachable through our laws, unlike many sneaker manufacturies...). Maybe some quality label, Max Havelaar Porn, or something

I'm sure that if we were to direct our efforts towards actually helping exploited porn actresses instead of running around with our hands raise explaiming 'OMG, won't somebody please think of the children, etc, etc. we must ban this all...' we'd get ahead much better

but more to the topic, my main grievance with this isn't even that they try to filter out porn, but that they try to filter, period. I fear porn is just the excuse to introduce filter technologie to all ISP's under the guise of 'protecting the children' because nobody can possibly object that, right? why do you hate children? etc...once that tech is in place it can be, conveniently, used to filter other 'undesirable' stuff too (why not filter news? a lot of news are deeply distrubing, especially for children...). Btw, who controls what gets on the 'bad list' and what not?

I agree.

I have been talking about pornography in general not being a desirable product. Not that it should be banned.

Similarly, for example, I consider tobacco to be an even more harmful product, and yet I wouldn't consider a ban of that to be helpful either.

As for restrictions on tobacco, they seem to be only sensible. I wouldn't be at all in favour of babies in prams lighting up. (Incidentally, I remember seeing a baby's grandfather deliberately blowing tobacco smoke into its face - presumably in an effort to amuse the infant in some way - with the parents smiling benignly on; that was a strange family altogether! I was somewhat appalled, but didn't do or say anything.)

Turning back to restrictions on pornography, and sexual behaviour in general, they too seem to exist already. I don't know anyone who would sensibly suggest an absolute free-for-all. Outside of one or two mental libertarians, maybe? (He wrote, provocatively.)

In the end, let's face it, the sex industry is at best extremely tacky, and seems very resistant to any form of regulation. Which is why, I suggest, it tends to be highly exploitative of people who are employed at the "sharp" end. As it were.

All industries are exploitative, but pornography is especially so, and prostitution even more.

Reducing people's need, or taste, for the stuff might not be such a bad idea?

While treating it as just something completely acceptable - normalizing it - might be a step in the wrong direction? Possibly?

Incidentally, I agree a lot of news is seriously disturbing. A lot of the most graphic images are filtered by the news media, to some extent, I think. So that, if you feel you really must see them, you do have to go to some effort to do so.


Once again, I've not seen any proposal to remove anyone's ability to access "mainstream" pornography totally. Would anyone argue that child pornography should be freely available on the internet? But, you might say, that stuff is illegal, and quite rightly.

Again, the proposal was to change the default from porn to no-porn.

I've, honestly, yet to see any coherent argument against this.

 

[Grisu]

This is true. To some extent. That is, if you're comparing Muslim cultures (and others) to secular Western ones. Except that 1) a lot of muslims would disagree with you - and quite vehemently too, including many muslim women 2) you ignore most of the sex industry in the West.

do you really say that a objective point can be made to claim that women are better respected and more free in strict islamic countries? when was the last women convicted in the west for being raped? Furthermore, how am I ignoring most of the sex industry in the west?

I have been talking about pornography in general not being a desirable product. Not that it should be banned.

Similarly, for example, I consider tobacco to be an even more harmful product, and yet I wouldn't consider a ban of that to be helpful either.

but way is it not desirable in general? what is a desirable product to begin with?

Turning back to restrictions on pornography, and sexual behaviour in general, they too seem to exist already. I don't know anyone who would sensibly suggest an absolute free-for-all. Outside of one or two mental libertarians, maybe? (He wrote, provocatively.)

of course, there should (and already are) restrictions. those ar perfectly sufficient.

In the end, let's face it, the sex industry is at best extremely tacky, and seems very resistant to any form of regulation. Which is why, I suggest, it tends to be highly exploitative of people who are employed at the "sharp" end. As it were.

All industries are exploitative, but pornography is especially so, and prostitution even more.
Reducing people's need, or taste, for the stuff might not be such a bad idea?

While treating it as just something completely acceptable - normalizing it - might be a step in the wrong direction? Possibly?

see, and I say it's exactly the other way around. A big reason that those industries are so exploitative is that they're pushed near criminality. Sure, officially it's legal but it's still being pushes towards industries that are near-criminal. That favours shady people getting into it. Normalizing it actually would lessen that, IMHO

Incidentally, I agree a lot of news is seriously disturbing. A lot of the most graphic images are filtered by the news media, to some extent, I think. So that, if you feel you really must see them, you do have to go to some effort to do so.

but those are done voluntarily by major media outlets. Not all do this.

Once again, I've not seen any proposal to remove anyone's ability to access "mainstream" pornography totally. Would anyone argue that child pornography should be freely available on the internet? But, you might say, that stuff is illegal, and quite rightly.

the main problem with child porn is not the porn part but the abusing a child part. it's the same with snuff films, for example.

Again, the proposal was to change the default from porn to no-porn.

I've, honestly, yet to see any coherent argument against this.

in order to change something, you should make a coherent argument for it, not wait for arguments "why not" I can see absolutely no benefit to changing that. woment in porn will still be every bit as exploited as before. child porn won't be affected anyway, etc. And as I said, it's introducing a dangerous tool that can very easily be abused.