Parents are responsible for censoring the web.
Why haven't they turned on protections such as a blocker at the carrier level?
There are numerous solutions available, but parents haven't got a clue!
They are solely to blame.
Mobes, web filth 'pornifying' our kids, warns top Labour MP
Labour's health spokeswoman Diane Abbott will today warn that Britain's culture is "increasingly pornified" and hyper-sexualises adolescents. The shadow minister reckons today's technology - specifically, the proliferation of internet connectivity and cameras in every phone - damages British teens and society. That bullies …
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 23rd January 2013 12:17 GMT Wize
Re: @Obviously! ?
"Why does a "child" need a smartphone?"
I've wondered why they need phones in the first place, smart or otherwise.
Some parents argue that their kid needs to be contactable, but that should be done like it always has been, via the school.
And if your child really really needs one (you live in the middle of nowhere, little Timmy walks home, etc) then give them a dumb one, just for those occasions where they can't be reached.
-
Wednesday 23rd January 2013 15:01 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: @Obviously! ?
Agree they don't. Mostly for status, "my daddy is richer than yours".
Even if they don't know how to use much of it (yet).
However, really hard to get one without a camera now, and SMS is near-universal.
Might be useful if you want to track them, but that's a whole other kettle.
-
-
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 17:10 GMT LarsG
She's probably right but
She's probably right but who the hell is going to take any notice?
Would you listen to a bunch of MP's that spent years with their snouts in the trough and tried desperately to prevent the publication of their expenses, not to mention the MP's who tried to find 'work arounds' directly after the scandal to continue to fleece the tax payer by renting houses from each other and claiming expenses from them?
It is up to parents to resolve this issue ( I'm one ) and not for the Government to nanny me over it. Yes there are parents who have no idea or don't care, the majority do though and I for one won't be dictated to by a bunch of thieves.
-
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 16:43 GMT Dr Stephen Jones
I am not a fan of Diane Abbott at all, and would be happy never to see the name again. But this entire article is one mad non sequitur after another.
"Active web-filtering has already been sort of introduced in the UK"
No it hasn't. At least if the story at The Reg linked to is to be believed.
"...but largely resisted."
Eh?
"Abbott thinks there's something wrong with teenage boys learning about sex from hardcore porn"
Maybe there is?
"but she doesn't offer ways for them to change any subsequent damaging behaviour."
Perhaps ceasing to use Anal Midget Adventures Vol.3 as educational material is all that's needed. It's hard to tell what Abbott is really saying, because the writer here is so keen to tell us not to listen to her.
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 17:23 GMT diodesign
Re: Dr Stephen Jones
"No it hasn't. At least if the story at The Reg linked to is to be believed."
TalkTalk does active filtering; other ISPs have been pressured to bundle filtering with new connections.
"Eh?"
Largely resisted by ISPs and parents. I've had another stab at that par to spell everything out for you.
C.
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 17:59 GMT Anonymous Coward
Source of educational material?
> Perhaps ceasing to use Anal Midget Adventures Vol.3 as educational material is all that's needed. It's hard to tell what Abbott is really saying, because the writer here is so keen to tell us not to listen to her ..
They won't need to purchase Vol.3, a sizeable number of them out there are into making their own porn and distributing it online - for free. As for what's offered for sale, it isn't the porn your Daddy used to watch, some seriously disturbed stuff out there on the Intertubes.
-
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 22:45 GMT Dave Bell
Re: Source of educational material?
You can do your own looking, sunshine.
I've seen enough examples of relatively ordinary, one man, one woman, sexual activity, that is presented in an intensely misogynistic manner, that I really do worry. And if you cannot spot that, you;re the one with a problem.
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 16:45 GMT Dana W
Just America?
Because we are the only people country that makes nasty porn? You have got to be kidding.
I have to agree that kids are being over-sexualized. If you are buying high heels for your six year old, or a motorcycle jacket for your toddler boy you have issues and you are giving them to your children you have issues. But blaming this solely on the US is just buck passing. This is a world problem.
-
-
-
Wednesday 23rd January 2013 14:50 GMT Nick Pettefar
Re: As the father of a teenage daughter...
It's not nudity that's the problem, it's how porn depicts sex. It's just weird and wrong, in a technical way more than anything else. No-one has sex like that unless they employ prostitutes or are making their own films. It's like attempting to drive to work when your only experience/training has been on the race track. If young people think sex is like a porn film they will have problems when it comes to reality and relationships. Porn isn't too bad so long as it isn't used in an educational way, in other words children need to know what reality is before seeing fantasy. (Like trying to live your life based on video games.)
-
-
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 16:48 GMT FartingHippo
Not impressed.
"In her speech, she will say that there's something wrong with "padded bras, thongs and high-heeled shoes" being marketed to younger children and although she has a point, it is uncomfortably close to the argument that the way women dress invites aggressive sexual attention."
No, I'm not having that. Dressing a per-pubescent girl with no sex drive whatsoever in clothes mimicking those of post-pubescent girls and women with a definite sex drive is a twisted concept from the get-go. Actively marketing these clothes to the former group is as ethical as marketing cigarettes to the same age group.
Conflating sexual attention (which few would argue is the purpose of padded bras and low-cut tops) with *aggressive* sexual attention is also a pretty cheap trick to pull.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 16:56 GMT Pete 2
Get it all out in the open
The basic problem with sex, skin, sexual content, sexting etc. is that it IS considered "nasty" or "dirty" or "shameful" and it's impossible to have a mature discussion about it. Just look at the way the media deals with smut: on TV it must be post-watershed so the little darlings can't be "perverted" by the sight of something half the population has or worse: the sight of two people using their bodies in ways that might lead to embarrassing questions of their parents.
The tabloid press is even worse in their hypocrisy. On the one hand going to great lengths to seek out unintended photos and on the other lambasting those who don't fall into a narrow category of what's considered "normal" behaviour by the prudish readers and the professionally angry journalists.
We are brought up (for better or worse) in an environment where violent death is on the screen nightly (and even during the day) and few ever complain: probably because they've given up complaining. Yet the wrong piece of skin on the wrong channel at the wrong time causes ructions amongst the regulators and those who's hobby seems to be getting
arousedapoplectic about nudity.What's the answer? short of banning clothes during the summer when it's warm enough, I can't think of a way to get past the entrenched opinions.
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 17:41 GMT Shaha Alam
The MP ain't talking about what's on tv. She's talking about the kind of material available on the internet which noone in their right mind would suggest is suitable for young teens.
It's on thing to develop an understanding of adult sexual relationships without Victorian prudish hangups, it's quite another to learn and mimic it based on hardcore internet porn.
This is besides the very real problem the MP mentions about bullying and sexual exploitation of young girls through sexting and picture phones etc.
Either we all come to an agreement as a society about some way of restricting access (without restricting freedoms or inviting unnecessary government controls) or we accept a new reality of youngsters being oversexualised and sexually objectified. We can no longer pass the buck by saying it's parents responsibility alone (many of whom don't even understand the issue or don't know the problem exists) any more than we can claim underage smoking or underage drinking isn't a societal problem that requires a societal solution.
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 18:55 GMT Pete 2
It's bad ... because it's bad.
> The MP ain't talking about what's on tv. She's talking about the kind of material available on the internet which noone in their right mind would suggest is suitable for young teens.
Completely agree. However the basic problem is that the whole topic is marginalised or taboo. Until it's possible to debate the subject unemotionally and with no sniggering at the back, it will not be possible to address the root cause, which is the taboo nature of the topic.
In that respect, it shares the same properties as discussions about drugs. Because hard drugs are illegal, society cannot (or will not) address the problems that drugs cause. All that happens is the discussion always comes back to " ... because they're illegal". At which point no progress can be made in helping the victims or destigmatising those at the unfortunate end of the problem.
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 17:49 GMT Paul Crawford
Re: Hardly the scientific approach is it?
Well you could look at the teenage pregnancy statistics for the last 20 years to see how much impact t'Internet has had and you will see it is terrible!
Actually, no, it has dropped slightly in the last few years. Kind of puts a dampener on all of this Pornogeddon "think of the children" rhetoric we hear from DM reading politicians. But since when has fact-based policy been used by either party?
<= Our esteemed leaders.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 22:39 GMT nsld
Re: Hardly the scientific approach is it?
I have a very vague memory of reading somewhere that the teenage pregnancy stats falling was being linked to the teenagers watching porn and following the industry standard approach of hosing down the recipient externally rather than depositing the little swimmers in the dark.
-
Wednesday 23rd January 2013 09:27 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Hardly the scientific approach is it?
From my distant memories of being a teenager, I doubt I could have held out long enough to "hose down the recipient"!
Really, if anything should be done about pr0n it would be to have more safe-sex practice on show and to do more about the women getting their way. Alas, AC don't get the choice of the gimp-mask icon!
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 17:21 GMT Richard Taylor 2
Re: That Diane Abbott...
As bad as Vaz - methinks you are exaggerating somewhat. Vaz's ability to grandstand while stealing from his constituents and his country, at the same time as indulging in dodgy deals with foreign nationals is surely far more developed than anything Abbot has done.... He makes Teflon Tony look positively filthy (and Tony had the good grace to destroy his expenses amongst other things before they could be viewed).
So Keith, where did all those accounts and mortgages get serviced from?
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 17:52 GMT Spoonsinger
Re: That Diane Abbott...
Hey, I know where you're coming from, but coming from an unenlightened Leicester based educational establishment during the eighties, (not the university - but the other one with really quite good computer equipment for the time - which is why I went there), I can only say that the Vaz was as a sour disappointment then as he is now. However I do despair at people, (or this case persons), trying to emulate his conduct.
-
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 17:12 GMT John Latham
Normalised homophobia is not a contemporary development
This is not a recent development.
Q: Are you a benny tied to a tree?
Y -> Hah! You're a benny!
N -> Hah! Benny on the loose!
British secondary school, circa 1980.
I must have missed the golden era of schoolboy tolerance and respect for diversity that Diane harks back to.
-
Wednesday 23rd January 2013 09:56 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Normalised homophobia is not a contemporary development
What you need to know about Diane Abbot's thoughts about sexuality is that when she was on Desert Island Disks, she chose a track by Biju Banton, not the track by Biju Banton where he calls for the execution of gays, buy another track by him. She dismissed his well known homophobic stance in his music as (IIRC) "Some silly stuff about gays".
To be clear: That's calling for the execution of a minority equating with "silly".
If she can't see that this view of homophobic remarks from someone who is an MP is as much a problem as use of porn with, in particular young men, but also young women, she has very serious credibility issues.
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 17:16 GMT Anonymous Coward
She needs to get out more
Diane Abbott needs to be more informed by getting away on a "young" holiday package to sunnier climes where the only theme is "sun, sea and sex". Kids learning about sex and porn on the internet? I don't think so. Fueled by industrial quantities of cheap alcohol (and other substances) they ARE the performers of sex and porn. If she hasn't time for holidays in the sun then I suggest any binge drinking, Friday/Saturday evening clubbing in any UK city centre.
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 17:25 GMT Senior Ugli
old people trying to blame the internet again.
Surely they have seen the daily mails sidebar of shame? all the papers pushing half naked pics of 'celebs' and who they have been shagging are on the front pages.
Terrible pop stars going on about sex in songs marketed towards kids, fucktard nobodies famous and idolised for doing nothing other than having a sex tape.
They dont need to go on porn sites, all this shit if already forced upon them before they are old enough.
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 17:42 GMT Anonymous Coward
Open challenge to Diane Abbott
And to all other demented knee-jerk reactionist who see porn everywhere they look.
Give me a list of ten porn sites that you personally have accidentally seen in the last week.
Should be easy enough, hell the way they go on the challenge should be "in the last ten minutes"
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 19:35 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Open challenge to Diane Abbott
Abbott's speech might have ben prompted by a Channel 4 News investigation late last year which showed that one of the biggest problems is children using SMS and MMS to send inappropriate content or to bully one another. Some of the interviewees had pretty disturbing stories of being bombarded by unpleasant messages or photos of other kids genitals but were too scared or embarrassed to take the matter up with their phone company, parents or teachers.
The other point in the article about sexualised clothing is nothing to do with blaming women for dressing inappropriately when they're attacked; its to do with selling one body image and one way of behaving - one that is nothing to do with childhood. You have to wonder what goes through the minds of clothing designers and retailers who produce lines that might as well be called Little Miss Streetwalker. I'm pretty sure I'd want them nowhere near my children.
-
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 17:46 GMT Anonymous Coward
She's ignoring the real issue...
"That bullies can easily share compromising photos of their victims, and secretly explore X-rated corners of the web, is of particular concern: it puts parents and teachers in the dark on what their children are really up to and leaves the adults unable to teach effective sex education.".
And how does it happen that the bullies came into possession of such compromising pictures? I'd say because the, then, victim made those him- or herself and actually spread those amongst who (s)he thought to be friends.
So where were the parents in all this? In my opinion that is the real issue at hand; a lot of parents don't raise their children anymore but more than often make them fend for themselves. You shouldn't try to block everything which may harm a kid, that's frickin' impossible.
Instead you should actually try and talk to them and warn them about the dangers that lurk around. You should also be very careful how you bring it. Because well; if you start forbidding stuff then you can bet that your kids will try to try it anyway without your knowledge. The term "the forbidding fruit" didn't come out of thin air you know.
But if you instead explain what it is all about and most of all why you're warning them then chances are very high that your kids won't stumble into a mess they can hardly get themselves out of.
Sure; this is a lot more work than simply trying to make sure your kids won't come into contact with $adult_subject. But that's the cost you took upon yourself for becoming a parent. If you got kids you should live up to the responsibilities you chose for yourself.
And yes; there's also nothing wrong with letting a kid make a mistake from time to time. In general we learn from our mistakes and those lessons tend to stick a lot better. But as always; you can hardly apply this in general. Would you allow your kids to push their fingers into an outlet so they'll learn never to do that again?
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 17:46 GMT Anonymous Coward
Pornified blameless predators ..
> in this Reg hack's humble opinion, her ideas seem to be more aimed at changing girls' behaviour than that of boys.
Personally I find the sight of a pubescent teenage girl dressing and talking like some red-light-crack-whore disturbing.
btw: has this "Web is turning us into kid-ults with no 'private identities'" anything to do with "web filth 'PORNIFYING' our kids".
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 19:06 GMT Destroy All Monsters
Re: Pornified blameless predators ..
> Personally I find the sight of a pubescent teenage girl dressing and talking like some red-light-crack-whore disturbing.
Quite so, my dear fellow.
Additionally, I fear that Little Miss Fabian (the Society that Orwell warned us about in 1948) may have gotten cultural influences from the Amurricas and the Japanese Isles mixed up somewhat. But what do I know ... er, nothing, nothing at all really.
-
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 17:49 GMT Anonymous Coward
"slut shaming"
Twas ever thus ... technology just offers new ways to bully, I doubt they are any worse.
I worry that even with parents blocking in their own homes that it will become an obligation.
Like now if you let your kids go out to play in the street you are looked at like some crazy fool 'cos they're gonna get attacked by the paedos - and then when something does happen, whose side are the courts on then?
I would prefer to better educate children and leave the blocks off.
It's both a matter of trust but also I don't want things they should see being blocked by overzealous filters.
Of course "they" want kids to grow up used to censorship and monitoring.
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 17:58 GMT Blitheringeejit
Thesis-creep
>it is uncomfortably close to the argument that the way women dress invites aggressive sexual attention.
Goodness Mr/Ms Parnell, what a fine exponent of the logical long-jump you are. How many do you get when you add 2+2?
I would defend very little of Ms Abbott's thesis, and definitely not the bits of it which require some kind of magical mechanism for filtering "adult content" (whatever that may be) - but there's no need to be putting words in her mouth that are even more rabid than the ones she puts there herself.
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 18:05 GMT Graham Marsden
"She will say that internet users should have to make an active choice...
"...over whether adult content is allowed into the home or portable device or not."
Oh dear, here we go again. To protect the cheeeeldreen we have to *ALL* be treated as children!
We cannot be trusted to behave like adults, parents cannot be trusted to teach their children to think twice about what they post about themselves on the web or let others see, no, we're back to the Labour Party Nanny State nonsense of *they* are the only ones who know what is right for us...
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 18:05 GMT Anonymous Coward
Pornified Culture
Well I have to agree with her there, but focussing on the internet ignores the massive effect media (newspapers, magazines, TV) have had in this area.
There is a great deal of hypocrisy spoken when the media talk about this topic - condemning sexualisation on one hand and profiting by it on the other.
Eg this morning Ms Abbott was putting her views on the Lorraine program and Lorraine was suitably in agreement with her. Then later on the same program Lorraine presented a piece on a competition to see who could write the best slutty soft-porn for women.
Blind, hypocritical or what?
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 18:20 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Pornified Culture
It appears that the difference you don't seem quite able grasp, possbly due to being blinded by a red cloud in front of your eyes, is that Diane Abbott is talking about the pornification of adolescents whereas the Lorraine show is aimed at women.
Now if you really want hypocrisy you'll have to look to the DM who take great pride in reporting on child talent contests and to push their point provide pictures which if you or I held whould be grounds for prosecution.
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 18:39 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Pornified Culture
No red mist, just an eye/ear for inconsistency. It doesn't matter that the Lorraine show is aimed at adult women. You can't neatly partition culture into adult vs adolescent boxes when the media indiscriminately broadcast to all - that's part of the problem.
Whether the Lorraine show is aimed at adults or not, it advocated soft-porn at the same time as decrying the sexualisation of adolescents : I didn't notice any 'adults-only' warning before the porn part.
-
-
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 18:23 GMT Vladimir Plouzhnikov
Pornification?
Sever lack of taste and common sense + brains dissolved in C2H5OH + "the sooner she gets knocked up, the sooner we will apply for a bigger council flat" is what "pornifies" her children.
Such is a small minority of parents. However, they also tend to be the ones who complain - "It is an outrage! - I saw a padded bikini for 5 year old girls the other day in the shop. Of course, I had to buy it for the little Nancy right that very minute! Such pressure, such pressure!"
Absolutely, nothing to do with the internet and the rest of the country's values.
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 18:39 GMT PerspexAvenger
Why is she focusing on the tech side?
See "Why the Daily Mail is Evil", here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9dqNTTdYKY
(Stick with it, there is a -reason- for the intro)
Great scott, they can just walk through shops and see this stuff!
Won't someone think of the children?!?
*flail* *kneejerk* etc, etc...
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 19:04 GMT David 45
State interference again
Here we go again. The government really loves grandstanding and trying to nanny people under the pretext of "think of the children". Do I detect just the merest hint of cynicism in this post?
I wholeheartedly agree with other posters that it is parents' responsibility to regulate what their children get up to - and that includes what they see on the net and what they do with their mobile phones. It is NOT necessary for the government to think they can intervene in their citizens' everyday life at the drop of a hat. Far too many do-gooders floating around, it would seem.
-
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 20:21 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Cameras
and in the latter case - cameras operated "for the benefit of the public", but without the public being told exactly who controls them, a complete list (personally identifiable info included) of who has access to "footage", which elected person is personally responsible and will be prosecuted/smacked if they are used for anything illegal or any footage shared inappropriately / ends up on YouTube / left on a train etc.
on the other hand, take a pic of an armed PC Plod with your camera phone, and wait for the hassle to start ...
Until there are proper rules for controlling the powers / capabilities the govt /council / officials already have, any politician who suggests new such powers/capabilities/restrictions needs to be taken outside and given a good kicking, then thrown out of office and banned from public life forever (after they've paid back every single penny they've ever received from public purse)
-
-
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 20:56 GMT Anonymous Coward
"Why doesn't anyone do this "sexting" with me?"
You are possibly in the wrong generation? Since the advent of popular photography - teens and twenty-somethings have created photographs of themselves scantily clad or naked. Such pictures usually required home processing - or a tolerant shop. They were usually intended only for their current partners or close friends. In the 1960/70s many girls became more aware of their own natural qualities and aspired to a more public acclaim - even in newspapers and magazines. Gradually the exuberant "innocence" became overshadowed by commercialisation and repressive campaigners - and most people retreated from the more public fora.
Without digital reproduction such pictures were eventually destroyed or forgotten - at best they were momentoes of a happy time. However any contemporary circulation by an errant partner still reached a significant number of the subject's peers.
Nowadays the means of production are commonplace in digital cameras, webcams, and mobile phones. Production and distribution needs no technical knowledge - and can be instant and global.
People haven't changed in over a hundred years - they still want other people to admire their bodies - or even be shocked - but preferably at a safe distance.
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 20:25 GMT Anonymous Coward
Adolescents
Modern societies need at least some of their children educated to a high standard to keep the country ticking over. That means they need to spend a long time in education. On the other hand the post-industrial economy now provides little work for those not so academically inclined - so they are also kept in the education system as a panacea.
However once they pass puberty then their hunter-gatherer genes are telling them it's time to reproduce. That doesn't need any sex education - it is NOT reproducing that requires education and cultural pressures. Our natural lifespan is short and we are genetically programmed to recognise the body signals when puberty is advanced. To complicate matters - for nutritional reasons puberty is getting earlier for both sexes.
As a species we are unusual in that a mutual sex drive reinforces pair bonding even without reproduction. In my day it was usual for secondary schools to be single sex - and sex education was absent. Boys quite openly talked to their peers about their mutual sexual experiences with other boys. The closeness of any particular relationship was tacitly tolerated with or without references to "soppy" emotions. Girls' schools were probably similar. Whilst that generally kept that generation in check - it did seem to produce marriages primarily for the sake of sex by about 21 followed by two quick children. The strains in a marriage then became apparent - and sex education became a belated hit-or-miss add-on to their lives.
Many years ago it seemed that several continental countries had managed to square the circle with sexually aware teenagers more keen on their educational prospects than starting families. They had comprehensive attitudes to sex and relationships that helped adolescents to understand themselves and others. That may still be true today. Unfortunately on several occasions the UK government has chosen instead to follow the USA as "best practice" - in spite of their even higher teenage pregnancy rates.
The human animal is by its nature curious, or fearful, about things that are not familiar - and sex is probably still the overblown issue for many in UK society.
-
-
Wednesday 23rd January 2013 10:23 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: I thought this was missing something
I will say that once my girlfriend moved out of her parents home it was her that wanted to go and buy porn films (which she enjoys) because the trashy novels were ok but its not the same as seeing it. Strict to the stereotype she comes from a catholic background and is adventurous by her own suggestions. Its always the quiet ones!
-
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 21:14 GMT Anonymous Coward
Hate to break it to her
"value their bodies in terms of physical activity: more Jessica Ennis"
There were a lot of female British Olympic athletes, and I'm pretty sure Jessica Ennis' massive mainstream popularity over the others is purely down to her athletic abilities, nothing at all to do with her appearance!
Im not saying this in a negative way, but Given the amount she's been sexualised, she's, not exactly the best example to use to argue against the sexualisation of Britain.
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 21:14 GMT xyz
I couldn't give a rat's ass..no I've never tried it but....
....if the government can block this stuff, then they know where it is, so being a government strapped for cash, why don't they tax it punitively? Seems like it matches the Conservative agenda of making money through tech. Oh and we could turn silicon roundabout into an internet pr0n hub. And then best bit is the denizens of said roundabout wouldn't have to get off their asses, so no change there then!!
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 22:06 GMT Don Jefe
My First Porn
Was seen on a reel to reel projector and featured a very British lady with a very hairy bush having a German Shepherd (dog) lick the peanut butter from her meat wallet before pleasuring two men at the same time.
Weird porn has been around for a very long time and hidden in very creative ways. When we discovered my friends dad's stash it was hidden in under the hood if an unused riding mower in a locked case. We managed to not only find it, but open the case, set up the projector and screen and watch them all over the course of a summer.
You'll never keep kids from discovering porn and as far as messing up British girls, see my point above about the star of my first porn movie.
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 22:09 GMT Anonymous Coward
Isn't this all rather obvious? Haven't we been here multiple time?
Talk about a penchant for overstating the obvious but she's well over a decade late. However, there is nothing accidental about porn except perhaps searching for images or getting a porn pop up virus. Most paid sites are fairly responsible, the free ones really don't care but many of those are somewhat mundane.
The really disgusting ones usually require a credit card and who's going there if they can get decent mundane porn for free.
Almost all male kids between 13 and 17 are looking at porn through your computer and 95% are smart enough to hide it, 3% dont care and 1% don't know how to hide/clean their browsing history. I can't speak for female kids but suspect that if the language of voicemails my boys got is any indication, they do exactly the same and boys do.
If you see regular hetero porn in your kids search history, you could just thank whomever that he/she is straight and have a talk. If you see porn again then some blackholing is in order. If they are 18 and over the need for blackholing is pretty much done and over. (No puns were intended or expected to be used in that description)
On the other hand, if the world had ditched the God Botherers a hundred or so years ago post Darwin, don't you think that the mere act of seeing a naked body would not induce these purient responses or a least have reduced them and thus the lure of Porn?
It is a fact that the majority of sex crimes take place in countries where Religion (You know who you are) and resulting Misogeny, is the most powerful and prevalent. The ones where sex is not considered taboo have less sex crime, plain and simple.
No religion is without blame, from Hindu, Catholic, Protestant, Judaism, Islamist etc etc.
Try being a parent first and a zealot last and see where that gets you.
-
Tuesday 22nd January 2013 22:42 GMT ritch_b
Look! A scapegoat!
It's all the t'interweb's fault again. All of it. If there wasn't a t'interweb then everything would be perfect. This t'interweb thing just turns our children into malicious, deviant, rebellious, sexual predators. Something must be done about it.
Parental responsibility? I'm sorry? What's that?
-
Wednesday 23rd January 2013 00:00 GMT Anonymous Coward
So many options for icon usage on this one!!!
Should I go with the Paris Hilton icon, "think of the children", I'll get my (sensible) coat?....decisions, decisions.... Anyway, here are a couple observations
1. "cameras in every phone - damages British teens and society"
But CCTV on every street corner is your friend and ever-vigilant benefactor....who knew? Oh wait, cameras are only a good thing when the are a means of population CONTROL, not adolescent liberation!! Thank you shadow political hack for enlightening me!
2. Buy your kids a phone with no camera and no email, or disable the camera--problem solved, at least as far as photo cameras are concerned.
3. General parental judgment, supervision and guidance is a good thing, and it may just keep your daughter out of trouble.
4. As usual feminists can't figure out of they want girls to be schoolmarms or modern day Aphrodites. It's either sex as a source of danger or sex as a source of power with them. How about just thinking of sex as a natural thing that involves responsibilty, affection and a good moral compass concerning when to do it?
I opt for Paris, since she's actuall been rather quiet now that she is in her 30s, and her icon is probably on the way out here at el Reg. We hardly know ye anymore, Ms. Hilton!!
-
-
-
Wednesday 23rd January 2013 13:47 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Labour politicians do ... take it seriously after all.
Some of the most puritanical of the lot.
A couple of decades ago, I had a friend who was quite high up in a trade union. It was always interesting to hear about her days work (which often consisted of doing stuff she'd have been highly paid for if her label had been "consultant," instead of trade unionist) but one day the gossip was that a fellow committee member had been forced to resign because he'd been ...having an affair. Sheesh, 20th century or what?
The tories don't give a damn. They just screw everybody, and, if they have to do without for half an hour, they do weird things with string and oranges. Which they probably find out about on ...the internet
-
-
Wednesday 23rd January 2013 10:21 GMT Anonymous Coward
Blaming porn?
I find this funny and well off the mark. The first question is what woman feels good about themselves? Which wouldnt change anything? Which think they have a good figure? How many have disorders to keep/aim for the desired figure?
How long ago did politicians realise that women were drinking as much or more than men? What woman doesnt want to be adored, and so does what it takes to be desirable. How many woman are wanting to feel good and making so much effort to do so? And with increasing sexualisation the woman do what is desired so to be desired. And how do they know this is what they should do?
We have how many pole dancers... erm... female singers entertaining men everywhere? Who is the gorgeous girl in the films? What are they wearing and how do they look? What used to be the tramp is the desired but also accepted.
This is where dressing like your up for it (like the career woman... the prostitute) is the norm and accepted and even expected. The sexualised goings on of the young and free holiday is seeping into the acceptable at home. But we dont just expect women to dress and act this way, we teach them from a lovely young age to shake their ass, wanna have some fun, change their body shape and to dress like they are up for it. This is best seen when a tiny innocent mind in the middle of a room of people is singing along to the latest lyrics and trying to copy the dance routine. And everyone looks away in shame with red faces as the lessons are taught well.
And guys like sex, that hasnt changed ever. Women mostly use sex, that hasnt changed. But where sex was used in the past for getting their own way, it is now also the accepted (not new) way of being accepted.
So of course its porn causing all womens troubles. Or you could ask if women would like to change any aspect of their appearance or desirability.
-
Wednesday 23rd January 2013 10:58 GMT teebie
"Parents and teachers have a duty to ensure that children develop a healthy view of sexuality, distinct from this porn version that is swamping and infiltrating British life."
I quote this because, on the face of it, it seems to be the only well thought out part of the 'warning'. Of course including it in a speech that is about how the government should control everything because 'think of the children' implies a certain lack of forethought.
-
Wednesday 23rd January 2013 12:07 GMT Anonymous Coward
What kind of porn?
The problem isn't accidental porn, nor 'normal' porn, nor even 'weird' porn; so jumping to defend them is off-topic, to my mind.
What I find disturbing is the dramatic increase in 'abuse' porn. This is not two (or more) raunchy people getting it on, this is men using, abusing, and mistreating women, and enjoying it. And women pretending to enjoy it (or, even worse, quite often not even bothering to pretend).
And it's worrying in both directions: what is it doing to our 'young people', but also what is wrong with our society that makes this porn 'sell'?
(Posted anonymously, as ostensibly I know *nothing* about this topic...)
-
Wednesday 23rd January 2013 19:58 GMT Delbert
how fast can you jump on the bandwagon?
Ah another politician shows olympic class jumping skills. A redtop tabloid newspaper prints a story which is demonstrably inaccurate about kids accidentally accessing porn on the web. Even after repeated google searches by interested parties might have skewed the results a simple duplication of the search still proves the story was based on a downright lie but the bottom feeding frenzy had already been triggered. It is up to parents to take responsibility for the actions of their offspring and not nannies who just look to boost their approval rating with voters if that was a top Labour politician the Milliband must be crying with shame.
-
Wednesday 23rd January 2013 20:32 GMT The Alpha Klutz
...let me put on my Dianne Abbot hat...
Our UK children are being sexualised by militant US pornographers. I am a UK MP, working here, in the UK, fighting for our British and Irish children that live on our UK island together with us. Let me begin by saying that I love all the UK children, in a good way, and will be counting on your votes at the next election. Remember to vote for Labour and the UK children in Ireland and the UK will be safe from internet. I will do it for you and the children.
-
Thursday 24th January 2013 00:48 GMT Old Handle
You keep using the word...
I don't think "slut-shaming" means what she thinks it means. As I understand it, it refers to shaming people (usually women) for engaging in natural but not socially acceptable sexual behavior.
Perhaps I'm wrong, since I've only heard snippets of her message, but it sounds like she's coming dangerously close to agreeing with the slut-shamers and offering "don't be sluts" as the solution.
-
Friday 25th January 2013 20:10 GMT billse10
"top Labour MP"
this is Diane Abbott, right? The one who was on Today going on about how some breakfast foods contain up to nearly 33% sugar - so the packaging needs clear marking for ordinary people to understand that means nearly a third of it is sugar. I did wonder if she really had suggested that "ordinary people" can't cope with the fact that "nearly 33%" means nearly a third but thankfully she said it again. So, "top Labour MP" Diane Abbott thinks ordinary people are stupid. Who voted for her again?
Oh, the ordinary people.
Hmm ....
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
