The UK will block online porn from April

[yetgdhfgh]

I guess old people will need to ask there grandkids how to do it LOL

Jesus this fucking government is so fucking stupid! Why do they always feel need to crack a nut with a fucking sledgehammer!

I do thank god i live in the US but iam British and it irks me the way the British governments always has so many knee jerk reactions to every story that is posted on the Daily Mail or the Guardian!

Sometimes wish Britain would take a leaf out of the US book and create a written constitution and i wish the House of Lords would be abolished and something better created to keep the house of commons in check.

[Techno-Druid]

What the hell are you talking about. There is no comparison between net neutrality and making porn companies paying up which is absolutely needed since they're totally out of control.
Some stretching you're doing there.

- - - Updated - - -



I haven't seen any really. Not wanting your kids to go through videos of girls being gangbanged by 15 thugs isn't exactly puritanism.

Again with the gang banging dude

[Mistame]

I haven't seen any really. Not wanting your kids to go through videos of girls being gangbanged by 15 thugs isn't exactly puritanism.

If you're letting your children (not teenagers) browse the web, the responsibility of protecting them from adult content is yours, not the government's. As far as teenagers go, there's nothing "wrong" with them seeing porn.

[Missed]

Again with the gang banging dude

Love gangbanging

- - - Updated - - -

If you're letting your children (not teenagers) browse the web, the responsibility of protecting them from adult content is yours, not the government's. As far as teenagers go, there's nothing "wrong" with them seeing porn.

Oh is there not? That's bizzarre. Several studies say the opposite is true but hey, if you think there is nothing wrong in something thats potentially addictive that totally destroys everything we know about how to relate to each other, well then you must be right.
All kids need to access the Internet is one phone. Not event a computer. A phone left unchecked.

[Varitok]

You gotta up those unwanted teen pregnancy somehow!

[Tico]

UK is seriously on the path backwards right now.

[Missed]

You gotta up those unwanted teen pregnancy somehow!

Porn lowers teen pregnancies? And here I was thinking it was due to education.

- - - Updated - - -

UK is seriously on the path backwards right now.

Nothing says backwards more than enforcing an age restriction that's actually already in place.

[Mistame]

Oh is there not?

No, not really.

That's bizzarre. Several studies say the opposite is true

Then they're using "wrong" pretty subjectively.

but hey, if you think there is nothing wrong in something thats potentially addictive

Whether addictive or not doesn't make it inherently "bad".

that totally destroys everything we know about how to relate to each other

This is hyperbole based on "nuclear family" idealism and/or anti-porn feminism. Porn doesn't "destroy" anything, it merely challenges social norms and some uptight twats don't like that. Too fucking bad. Better that teenagers understand how things works and what to avoid than to be sheltered through their prime learning years by backwards, incompetent parents.

[serendipity11]

I hate censorship. Children are watching porn, big deal get over it. It's not a new thing. Kids have been getting into their parents porn magazines since before the internet was a thing. The internet makes it more convenient but its not new.

- - - Updated - - -

No, not really.



Then they're using "wrong" pretty subjectively.



Whether addictive or not doesn't make it inherently "bad".



This is hyperbole based on "nuclear family" idealism and/or anti-porn feminism. Porn doesn't "destroy" anything, it merely challenges social norms and some uptight twats don't like that. Too fucking bad. Better that teenagers understand how things works and what to avoid than to be sheltered through their prime learning years by backwards, incompetent parents.

Food can be addictive, video games can be addictive. Almost anything CAN be addictive. And no matter what they do children will always find a way to access porn. They'd have to remove every single freedom the individual has in order to truly stop it. Even then there will be lapses. It's not worth spending money on. As a feminist I support pornography. I believe there are some issues with it, but pornography itself is not evil, or bad. One of the first times I'm ever saying this. But sure am glad I don't live in the UK. I'm over 18, but it doesn't really matter. This is a slippery slope change. It will lead to the government completely controlling what you can and cannot see on the internet.

[Deleted]

Bitter is an understatement, I am disgusted to my core on a daily basis at the lack of basic human empathy our government displays, I work for some of the most vulnerable people in the UK and they arent apparently worth a damn, but fuck me its fine because we're going to protect kids from porn on the internet by taking away more of your freedoms, can only imagine how many millions this plan will suck up.

You especially should have more reason to hate Westminster than I do.

But whatever, fly the flag, see if I give a shit, not like I can change your mind.

I don't particularly like Westminster but then the minister of state for digital and culture doesn't really have imput in serious issues that concerns me....

[Missed]

No, not really.



Then they're using "wrong" pretty subjectively.



Whether addictive or not doesn't make it inherently "bad".



This is hyperbole based on "nuclear family" idealism and/or anti-porn feminism. Porn doesn't "destroy" anything, it merely challenges social norms and some uptight twats don't like that. Too fucking bad. Better that teenagers understand how things works and what to avoid than to be sheltered through their prime learning years by backwards, incompetent parents.

Ahah ok so here we go.

Yes there is. It was a rhetorical question.
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.psyc...ent-boys%3Famp
No there is nothing subjective about the release of dopamine while watching porn. It's bad. Period.

This has the potential to lead to great problems in sexual compulsivity and sex addiction throughout the adolescent boy's life because his brain gets shaped to expect the "heroin-like" porn dopamine rush from all of his real-life sexual experiences. When he realizes that his actual sexual experiences are lacking this rush, he may seek out riskier and more visceral experiences that resonate with his early porn use. This is a scary vision for generations to come where men's brains have been "porno-sized" in adolescence to lead to a lifetime of sexual pathology.

Nuclear family? Idealism? Anti-porn feminism?
What the FUCK are you talking about. We are talking about a teenage boy or girl being influenced by watching 15 tough guys spit on a girl. Or even being influenced by the physical aspect of what he's seeing. The average pornstars penis is 8 inches. Many pornstars have gone through surgery. Porn doesn't "challenge" anything. What a ridiculous pseudo 70's happyhippy view of things. Wake the fuck up.
Porn is not exactly "how things work". That is EXACTLY the focus of the issue.

Wake up dude. This isn't the 70s. There is research being done on this shit.

- - - Updated - - -

I hate censorship. Children are watching porn, big deal get over it. It's not a new thing. Kids have been getting into their parents porn magazines since before the internet was a thing. The internet makes it more convenient but its not new.

- - - Updated - - -



Food can be addictive, video games can be addictive. Almost anything CAN be addictive. And no matter what they do children will always find a way to access porn. They'd have to remove every single freedom the individual has in order to truly stop it. Even then there will be lapses. It's not worth spending money on. As a feminist I support pornography. I believe there are some issues with it, but pornography itself is not evil, or bad. One of the first times I'm ever saying this. But sure am glad I don't live in the UK. I'm over 18, but it doesn't really matter. This is a slippery slope change. It will lead to the government completely controlling what you can and cannot see on the internet.

It's not worth spending money on cause kids can still access it. Why restricting alcohol then?

[Woadnson]

Bitter is an understatement, I am disgusted to my core on a daily basis at the lack of basic human empathy our government displays, I work for some of the most vulnerable people in the UK and they arent apparently worth a damn, but fuck me its fine because we're going to protect kids from porn on the internet by taking away more of your freedoms, can only imagine how many millions this plan will suck up.

Why would you expect anything else from a Tory government? Empathy, understanding and compromise are never watch words for their work or principles. On the flipside, they're actually pretty incompetent when it comes to the internet, computers and technology in general, so I wouldn't expect any actions they take to make much difference. IIRC May has to push this because it was a promise by Cameron (which was incompetently implemented) and is an easy morality issue (at least in the Tory party's eyes). Of course if they kill people's ability to anonymously watch porn, they might well reconsider whom they'll vote for next time round...

[Deleted]

Why would you expect anything else from a Tory government? Empathy, understanding and compromise are never watch words for their work or principles. On the flipside, they're actually pretty incompetent when it comes to the internet, computers and technology in general, so I wouldn't expect any actions they take to make much difference. IIRC May has to push this because it was a promise by Cameron (which was incompetently implemented) and is an easy morality issue (at least in the Tory party's eyes). Of course if they kill people's ability to anonymously watch porn, they might well reconsider whom they'll vote for next time round...

Both parties are as bad as each other and they're not incompetent.

[Mistame]

Food can be addictive, video games can be addictive. Almost anything CAN be addictive. And no matter what they do children will always find a way to access porn. They'd have to remove every single freedom the individual has in order to truly stop it. Even then there will be lapses. It's not worth spending money on. As a feminist I support pornography. I believe there are some issues with it, but pornography itself is not evil, or bad. One of the first times I'm ever saying this. But sure am glad I don't live in the UK. I'm over 18, but it doesn't really matter. This is a slippery slope change. It will lead to the government completely controlling what you can and cannot see on the internet.

Agreed.

Yes there is.

There can be, but there's not inherently.

It was a rhetorical question.

That's not how "rhetorical" works.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.psyc...ent-boys%3Famp

Not sure what a blog by some random soft "scientist" is supposed to prove. Not to mention that a woman has no clue whatsoever how males think.

No there is nothing subjective about the release of dopamine while watching porn. It's bad. Period.

There's nothing inherently wrong with dopamine release. It happens when they masturbate, too. Which, by the way, they'll do with or without porn.

We are talking about a teenage boy or girl being influenced by watching 15 tough guys spit on a girl. Or even being influenced by the physical aspect of what he's seeing.

I certainly don't speak for every teenage boy or girl, but when I was a teenager, gangbangs grossed me out. They sure as hell didn't make me think, "I need to go find 14 guys and a girl". That line of logic is stupid, not to mention irrational.

The average pornstars penis is 8 inches. Many pornstars have gone through surgery. Porn doesn't "challenge" anything. What a ridiculous pseudo 70's happyhippy view of things.

This is the same junk science that people use to bitch about models being attractive and skinny. No one with a half an ounce of sense is buying it.

Porn is not exactly "how things work". That is EXACTLY the focus of the issue.

It may not be accurate, but it's better than not knowing anything. But again, you're using the "unrealistic expectations" logic, which is inherently fallacious.

Wake up dude. This isn't the 70s. There is research being done on this shit.

You're right. This isn't the 70's. And we damn well should have learned a long time ago that "protecting" teenagers from sex and porn is a waste of time and more detrimental than it is beneficial. So you "wake up".

[Trassk]

Oh is there not? That's bizzarre. Several studies say the opposite is true but hey, if you think there is nothing wrong in something thats potentially addictive that totally destroys everything we know about how to relate to each other, well then you must be right.
All kids need to access the Internet is one phone. Not event a computer. A phone left unchecked.

back up your claims, present evidence.

[Missed]

back up your claims, present evidence.

It's not a contested field. There's studies, and then theres the guy above you. Inform yourselves.

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed.



There can be, but there's not inherently.



That's not how "rhetorical" works.



Not sure what a blog by some random soft "scientist" is supposed to prove. Not to mention that a woman has no clue whatsoever how males think.



There's nothing inherently wrong with dopamine release. It happens when they masturbate, too. Which, by the way, they'll do with or without porn.



I certainly don't speak for every teenage boy or girl, but when I was a teenager, gangbangs grossed me out. They sure as hell didn't make me think, "I need to go find 14 guys and a girl". That line of logic is stupid, not to mention irrational.



This is the same junk science that people use to bitch about models being attractive and skinny. No one with a half an ounce of sense is buying it.



It may not be accurate, but it's better than not knowing anything. But again, you're using the "unrealistic expectations" logic, which is inherently fallacious.



You're right. This isn't the 70's. And we damn well should have learned a long time ago that "protecting" teenagers from sex and porn is a waste of time and more detrimental than it is beneficial. So you "wake up".

There can be. So we legislate. As we do with alcohol. End of.

That's exactly how rethorical questions work. The answer is obvious to anyone that has done a tiny bit of research on the topic.
Questioning the source already. How desperate.

The availability and use of pornography has become almost ubiquitous among adults and adolescents. Consumption of pornography is associated with many negative emotional, psychological, and physical health outcomes. These include increased rates of depression, anxiety, acting out and violent behavior, younger age of sexual debut, sexual promiscuity, increased risk of teen pregnancy, and a distorted view of relationships between men and women. For adults, pornography results in an increased likelihood of divorce which is also harmful to children. The American College of Pediatricians urges healthcare professionals to communicate the risks of pornography use to patients and their families and to offer resources both to protect children from viewing pornography and to treat individuals suffering from its negative effects.

American College of Pediatricians good enough for you?

There is when related to excessive use of porn as it gets the brain used to a certain level of satisfaction which might be hard to replicate in real life.
I really REALLY dont care what you were doing as a teenager. Your experience. Keep it to yourself.
No one is buying into social pressure on kids from.the fashion industry? Are you for real?
No it's not accurate and its not better. It's distorted and leads to issues. Inform yourself. There's nothing fallacious.
This isn't the 70s. So inform yourself before talking next time.

- - - Updated - - -

I can't believe that in 2018 there are still idiots talking about the beneficial aspects of porn.... in kids?!

[Faenskap]

I think most parents already try to block access to porn, so this is just another step to help them out. I don’t see an issue with it, really. I’m one of the few people here who think children shouldn’t have so much access to it.

I suppose I agree. I mean, at first it sounds weird and controlling, but then again, viewing porn as a 13-year-old in 1980 and 2018 is two different worlds. We're all adults here, we know that for the most part double anal, bukkake, rosebud and holeswapping aren't common occurances and even if you're into the weirder (and likely damaging stuff such as rosebud*) a lot of preparation takes place.

When you're 13, you don't know. You grow into a sexual being, thinking all the weird shit you see is normal, and you bring your views with you and force them on your partners. I guess anal sex is a good example. Some people like it, some don't. It's up to the individual to decide, without pressure. These days it's supposedly "normal" to have anal sex when you're 14-15 - I'm not sure it happened that much back in 1980, especially among teenagers, but if you do say no, you're a prude so I wouldn't be surprised if young girls grow up to learn sex is on the boy's/man's demand.**

*anal prolapse - how erotic!
** Yes, I'm taking the feminist approach here, because being in a relationship with a shithead nagging about anal while being a terrible and inconsiderate lover himself sucks

[Al Gorefiend]

How about a neckbeard verification ID when trying to access cartoon porn?

[zephid]

American College of Pediatricians good enough for you?

You have no idea what the American College of Pediatricians is, do you? If you did, I seriously doubt you would use them as a way to support your argument.

The American College of Pediatricians have about 200-500 members, compared to the American Academy of Pediatrics that has over 66 000. This is a sample of the The ACPeds (American College of Pediatricians) stance on some issues:

• Discouraging the adoption of children by same-sex couples or single parents;
• Limiting children's exposure to electronic media, particularly in relation to explicit violent and sexual content;
• Parental choice as to when and whether a child receives the HPV vaccine. ACPeds opposes legislation requiring HPV vaccination;
• Support for selective parental use of spanking in child discipline;
• Opposition to abortion and euthanasia;
• Opposition to gender reassignment, including the use of puberty blockers;
• Support for abstinence until marriage sex education rather than "comprehensive sex education", based on “the public health principle of primary prevention – risk avoidance in lieu of risk reduction.”

"Some scientists have voiced concerns that ACPeds mischaracterized or misused their work to advance its political agenda. Gary Remafedi, a pediatrician at the University of Minnesota, wrote ACPeds a public letter accusing them of fundamentally mischaracterizing his research in their publications to argue that schools should deny support to gay teenagers. Francis Collins, a geneticist and director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), issued a statement through the NIH accusing the ACPeds of misleading children and parents on its Facts About Youth website. Warren Throckmorton, a therapist who specializes in sexual orientation issues, similarly stated that his research had been misused, saying of ACPeds: "They say they're impartial and not motivated by political or religious concerns, but if you look at who they're affiliated with and how they're using the research, that's just obviously not true."

This is just the tip of the iceberg. You really don't want to use the American College of Pediatricians when trying to support your argumet, at least not if you want to be taken seriously.

[Daedius]

It's a filter block, not a ban... stop getting your knickers in a twist people... nothing stopping you from unblocking it.

Plenty of ISPs already do it...

Are you too embarrassed to ask for your porn back?