FYI porn is not normal as well as a lot of other things that have and will exist.i didn't want it to appear normal for my sons,as they would have difficulty if they expected that from a partner.
That's as bad as trying to convince your children that alcohol is bad, doesn't exist, etc. That's why everyone in this country binge drinks every weekend once they turn 18.
Personally my parents took a very liberal approach to these matters. I had my own PC in my own room, with unsupervised access to the internet (admittedly this was the 90s/early 00s so things were rather different), no filtering. I was also allowed to have a glass of wine or beer if I really wanted it.
I don't care about porn and I am tee-total. So that approach seemed to work fine.
"Normal" pornography is depiction of an entirely natural act - what's the point in preventing your children from looking at stuff that they'll eventually be doing themselves?
How do they rate content for filters anyway? Does someone just sit there all date rating websites? How does this person decide? What qualifications do they have to do this?
If I create a new site, set robots=no i.e. get lost Google, how will they rate it? Will they just block it by default if it has no rating?
They're bought from US companies, who do it based on automated criteria on the cheap.
That's why the filters don't work - for example, O2's filter (which is Sky's proposed filter for this announcement) blocks the Guardian's story about this matter - Cameron's speech is apparently pornography.
FYI porn is not normal as well as a lot of other things that have and will exist.i didn't want it to appear normal for my sons,as they would have difficulty if they expected that from a partner.
no no.
porn is normal. what happens in porn is fantasy. (though since you mentioned anal, frankly i think you might be surprised by the number of people that enjoy anal as part of a healthy sexual relationship.)
your argument, if i were to believe it, could be applied equally to harry potter. separating fantasy from reality is something we all know how to do.
I disagree. the very essence of bondage is that it is between two consenting parties.
I think we all know that. That doesn't stop it being a form of sex where one person has complete control over another. In a way you might say it's a healthy way of satisfying the kind of impulses that might otherwise lead to other more destructive expressions of desire.
It seems that these filters worked originally by key word checking, then by what the software companies call artificial intelligence, which is just more sophisticated phrase checking. There is also some human checks, but only on a fraction of new sites created.
With the filter software is on your PC you can adjust it, will the new ISP server version provide people with category's to block or allow or is it just on or off for everything?
How do they rate content for filters anyway? Does someone just sit there all date rating websites? How does this person decide? What qualifications do they have to do this?
If I create a new site, set robots=no i.e. get lost Google, how will they rate it? Will they just block it by default if it has no rating?
god knows.
i find it hard to believe we are going to be paying people to view every site. if a site were to forbid robots... **** knows.
in reality who watches their kids all the time.especially teens.no one,not one I suspect.all it takes is 5mins away to the toilet,a phone call etc.
Which is precisely why most ISP's now offer a free filter that you can turn on anytime you wish.
In the days when my kids were young enough, the only access to the net was via a PC that could be supervised easily, now it isnt, which is why the solution has moved on.
However, none of these filters actually work properly, the danger of simply turning the filter on and thinking thats it and then paying no attention to what the kids are up to is probably worse than having no filter and checking up.
Something the government is going to multiply exponentially.
They're bought from US companies, who do it based on automated criteria on the cheap.
That's why the filters don't work - for example, O2's filter (which is Sky's proposed filter for this announcement) blocks the Guardian's story about this matter - Cameron's speech is apparently pornography.
Can you clarify something for me? Does this filter they're proposing block everything that would be rated 18 or just things of a more graphic sexual nature?
They're bought from US companies, who do it based on automated criteria on the cheap.
That's why the filters don't work - for example, O2's filter (which is Sky's proposed filter for this announcement) blocks the Guardian's story about this matter - Cameron's speech is apparently pornography.
The nature of a one size fits all filter is that it fails for false positive or false negative.
which means people end up disabling it or it lets stuff through.
That's as bad as trying to convince your children that alcohol is bad, doesn't exist, etc. That's why everyone in this country binge drinks every weekend once they turn 18.
Personally my parents took a very liberal approach to these matters. I had my own PC in my own room, with unsupervised access to the internet (admittedly this was the 90s/early 00s so things were rather different), no filtering. I was also allowed to have a glass of wine or beer if I really wanted it.
I don't care about porn and I am tee-total. So that approach seemed to work fine.
"Normal" pornography is depiction of an entirely natural act - what's the point in preventing your children from looking at stuff that they'll eventually be doing themselves?
but that's my point anal sex is not to any woman I have spoken to in my life something they would want to do so why allow my sons to grow up seeing porn where it is the norm.it isn't.
So people looking for legitimate sites will find them blocked and parents will think great, I can forget all about worrying about the internet now, as the government are handling it.
porn is normal. what happens in porn is fantasy. (though since you mentioned anal, frankly i think you might be surprised by the number of people that enjoy anal as part of a healthy sexual relationship.)
your argument, if i were to believe it, could be applied equally to harry potter. separating fantasy from reality is something we all know how to do.
but that's my point anal sex is not to any woman I have spoken to in my life something they would want to do so why allow my sons to grow up seeing porn where it is the norm.it isn't.
Good lord you are a prude.
surveys suggest 30-50% of women have tried it. i've certainly met plenty.
but that's my point anal sex is not to any woman I have spoken to in my life something they would want to do so why allow my sons to grow up seeing porn where it is the norm.it isn't.
How exactly did you raise the subject? And how do you know they told you the truth?
Suddenly after reading this story I'm reminded of a quote from Dr Cox in Scrubs: "I'm fairly sure if they took porn off the Internet, there'd only be one website left, and it'd be called 'Bring Back the Porn!'"
but that's my point anal sex is not to any woman I have spoken to in my life something they would want to do so why allow my sons to grow up seeing porn where it is the norm.it isn't.
It's not a universal rule. Some do some don't. Same applies for other sexual acts. All you can do is sit your kids down and give them some perspective about reality.
I explained it to my son by comparing it to the WWE. It can be fun to watch but not to be mistaken for what really happens when you **** someone over the head with a metal chair or a baseball bat.
Comments
That's as bad as trying to convince your children that alcohol is bad, doesn't exist, etc. That's why everyone in this country binge drinks every weekend once they turn 18.
Personally my parents took a very liberal approach to these matters. I had my own PC in my own room, with unsupervised access to the internet (admittedly this was the 90s/early 00s so things were rather different), no filtering. I was also allowed to have a glass of wine or beer if I really wanted it.
I don't care about porn and I am tee-total. So that approach seemed to work fine.
"Normal" pornography is depiction of an entirely natural act - what's the point in preventing your children from looking at stuff that they'll eventually be doing themselves?
They're bought from US companies, who do it based on automated criteria on the cheap.
That's why the filters don't work - for example, O2's filter (which is Sky's proposed filter for this announcement) blocks the Guardian's story about this matter - Cameron's speech is apparently pornography.
in reality who watches their kids all the time.especially teens.no one,not one I suspect.all it takes is 5mins away to the toilet,a phone call etc.
no no.
porn is normal. what happens in porn is fantasy. (though since you mentioned anal, frankly i think you might be surprised by the number of people that enjoy anal as part of a healthy sexual relationship.)
your argument, if i were to believe it, could be applied equally to harry potter. separating fantasy from reality is something we all know how to do.
I think we all know that. That doesn't stop it being a form of sex where one person has complete control over another. In a way you might say it's a healthy way of satisfying the kind of impulses that might otherwise lead to other more destructive expressions of desire.
With the filter software is on your PC you can adjust it, will the new ISP server version provide people with category's to block or allow or is it just on or off for everything?
god knows.
i find it hard to believe we are going to be paying people to view every site. if a site were to forbid robots... **** knows.
Which is precisely why most ISP's now offer a free filter that you can turn on anytime you wish.
In the days when my kids were young enough, the only access to the net was via a PC that could be supervised easily, now it isnt, which is why the solution has moved on.
However, none of these filters actually work properly, the danger of simply turning the filter on and thinking thats it and then paying no attention to what the kids are up to is probably worse than having no filter and checking up.
Something the government is going to multiply exponentially.
Can you clarify something for me? Does this filter they're proposing block everything that would be rated 18 or just things of a more graphic sexual nature?
Talk about authoritarian.
The nature of a one size fits all filter is that it fails for false positive or false negative.
which means people end up disabling it or it lets stuff through.
but that's my point anal sex is not to any woman I have spoken to in my life something they would want to do so why allow my sons to grow up seeing porn where it is the norm.it isn't.
we will agree to differ then.
Good lord you are a prude.
surveys suggest 30-50% of women have tried it. i've certainly met plenty.
we do not agree to differ at all.
i do not believe your arguments about pornography at all.
I think if you didn't want your kids to see it you would be happy with an opt in filter. but you are not.
i think your reasons for not wanting your kids to see it are spurious and do not stand up to scrutiny.
and i think your ideas about 'normal' sex are victorian.
Not a prude just someone with morals
Its about time the police clamped down hard on dogging sites too, its disgusting vile
This is one time i agree with Cameron (now there's a surprise)
jack
How exactly did you raise the subject? And how do you know they told you the truth?
It's not a universal rule. Some do some don't. Same applies for other sexual acts. All you can do is sit your kids down and give them some perspective about reality.
I explained it to my son by comparing it to the WWE. It can be fun to watch but not to be mistaken for what really happens when you **** someone over the head with a metal chair or a baseball bat.
So because two consenting adults enjoy anal sex, it means they have no morals?