Uk porn ban to come into effect in july

[nocturnus]

Well how you raise your kids is currently not the business of the state.

What if society were to disagree with the way you choose to raise your three kids and decides to pass laws telling you how to raise them?

Depends on your perspective Mormolyce. The state does take an interest in how we raise our kids; being a parent doesn't mean you can do whatever you want under the guise of parental responsibility. That's a good thing, by the way.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

So do the articles I posted.

No, it's because pornography is extremely subjective, while gambling addiction activates reward systems resembling those of coke addiction, for instance. As an endocrinologist I know a thing or two about hormones.

I'm not sure why you're assuming I watch porn of any kind, to be honest. Nor do I know why you're assuming porn is being banned; the mature content law has been in place for a while. They're going to enforce it, or at least attempt to.

The mature content law, which is a ban, and the way they are now planning to enforce it is pretty fucked up.

And no, its because its an addiction. The work I do lends me knowledge to that as well.

Every other article I have seen in this post against pornography (in general?!) is backed by people with agendas, so that means they are shit.

- - - Updated - - -

Porn gives unrealistic expectations to people who watch it.

You're right dude, every time I order a pizza a guy with a huge dong comes and propositions me.

On a more serious note, literally every kind of fiction, art, etc. gives unrealistic expectations. That is not an argument.

- - - Updated - - -

After all my tours to pattaya and phuket, there has been a drastic change in what people want to do to you over the years. When I was 18-20, I never encountered any guy that wanted to shove their fist places where it doesn't belong or who wanted to choke me or who tried to force me to do things I didn't want to do.

Sounds like you are with the wrong men, but I assure you, the advent of internet pornography didn't start the idea of BDSM, power play within couples, etc. That isn't porns doing, and as I said in my last post to you, most types of media can give unrealistic expectations to people who are not grounded in reality.

- - - Updated - - -

Porn is detrimental to people.

This has been proven false.

[nocturnus]

And no, its because its an addiction.

Unless you have a quote, from a significant source stating that, that's the reason, I'd say it's a huge pile of horse shit. Especially because "it is" not an addiction. It can be addictive.

On a more serious note, literally every kind of fiction, art, etc. gives unrealistic expectations. That is not an argument.

This does not dismiss the general argument that the expectations pornography might raise could be harmful.

This has been proven false.

The scientific articles I posted, accurately describe how pornography can have detrimental effects. These effects range from basic insecurities to actual depression, impotency, etc.

That said, there are also studies that show porn can actually help against ED.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Wouldn't bother if it is LemonParty or whatever account he is using this time.
He just literally exists to shitpost, and argue. That is all.

- - - Updated - - -




You really do like to just in-flame and talk shite, don't you?
You are incorrect in many statements, and are just, like so many people of your ilk that like to spout diatribe, absolutely refusing anything and everything that counters your view. ALso that you are commenting on my posts not even aimed at you shows how argumentative and focused on trying to cause shit you are.

Please, now cue standard bullshit rebuttal of "Well, you said it!" or whatever *rollseyes*.

You don't want to debate, you want to argue. Not going to bother even entertaining your shite anymore. Go troll one of the many other topics you like to chat shit in instead.

#Citation needed on literally every you have to say*

The irony of your posts dude. You are hostile to every single person you respond to, its sad.

Also I have one account, so I'm not sure what your paranoia ridden mind is telling you.

- - - Updated - - -

Unless you have a quote, from a significant source stating that that is the reason, I'd say it's a huge pile of horse shit. Especially because "it is" not an addiction. It can be addictive.


This does not dismiss the general argument that the expectations pornography might raise could be harmful.

The scientific articles I posted, accurately describe how pornography can have detrimental effects. These effects range from basic insecurities to actual depression and impotency.

And the articles I have posted say something counter to that, and even address old studies that get funding from Christian or conservative groups.

I've given quotes from other significant sources, and you didn't seem to even read those, so why bother?

And yes, it does dismiss that argument. Because, once again, pornography isn't baseline issue with people getting unrealistic expectations. That is the people themselves causing the issue. That other forms of media consumption do the same is evidence of this. People get the idea of how a relationship goes from a movie, and as I'm sure you know, movies tend to give unrealistic expectations as well. Holding a boombox at someone, or giving flowers won't solve all your problems. If we want to start banning or prohibiting based purely on that idea, then society and culture would be in shambles.

[nocturnus]

And yes, it does dismiss that argument. Because, once again, pornography isn't baseline issue with people getting unrealistic expectations.

No mate, it really doesn't and your examples are beyond ridiculous for too many reasons to list. So whatever, you're free to believe whatever you want. I just hope you use correct judgement if you ever happen to have kids of your own.

[Kallisto]

Yeah let's ban... human bodies... from being seen by... humans...

Thought all the Puritans went to America?

Nah most actually stayed and created the conservative party through the tories. They basically now take the "Think of the Children." so called moral majority faction within the party that's been around for decades. We had a bitch named Mary Whitehouse in the 1980s being bffs with thatcher trying something like this back then. It even had Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles renamed to Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles in the UK because of it.

[Mormolyce]

Depends on your perspective Mormolyce. The state does take an interest in how we raise our kids; being a parent doesn't mean you can do whatever you want under the guise of parental responsibility. That's a good thing, by the way.

Okay, let's return to the previous example - society decides that eating meat is bad and so you're abusing your children if you feed them meat. Are you okay with this?

[nocturnus]

Okay, let's return to the previous example - society decides that eating meat is bad and so you're abusing your children if you feed them meat. Are you okay with this?

What does "society decides" mean? Is there any evidence? Are there studies that prove as much? How bad, exactly? Candy is bad, should we ban that? Good and bad aren't exclusively black and white.

I'm not fond of your example. Couldn't you have used alcohol?

Anyway, let's assume for the sake of argument that the drawbacks of eating meat at a young age were equally harmful as watching pornography at a young age, I'd answer 'yes' in a heartbeat. Especially because if parents don't decide that of their own accord, they're not fit to be parents and probably shouldn't have children in their care.

[Cosmic Janitor]

I'm always amused how V for vendetta continues to become more plausible as time goes on.

Much like article 13 though, the porn bann was conceived by technically illerate clowns in wigs and robes. It remains to be seen how and if anything at all will change.

[Mormolyce]

What does "society decides" mean? Is there any evidence? Are there studies that prove as much? How bad, exactly? Candy is bad, should we ban that? Good and bad aren't exclusively black and white.

Well that's the question isn't it? I mean, you decided you were okay with a porn ban because apparently "it has been proven" that porn is damaging to children. How damaging? How solid is the science on that? Does it affect all children like this or just some?

Child psychology is a pretty fuzzy science, quantifying something like "harm" done by watching certain content is never going to be very conclusive.

[nocturnus]

Well that's the question isn't it? I mean, you decided you were okay with a porn ban because apparently "it has been proven" that porn is damaging to children. How damaging? How solid is the science on that? Does it affect all children like this or just some?

Child psychology is a pretty fuzzy science, quantifying something like "harm" done by watching certain content is never going to be very conclusive.

Let's formulate things correctly;

I'm okay with enforcing the mature content law, which is 16 years for softcore- and 18 years for hardcore porn. I'm not okay with a blanket ban on pornography, even if I don't care for it myself.

It's not proven that porn is damaging. It's proven that porn can be damaging. It's also proven that porn can have positive effects, by the way. Ergo, nothing is good or bad in the archaic sense; there are shades of grey.

How damaging exactly is pretty well documented; there's a whole list of disorders that can be attributed to the consumation of pornographic material, especially (but not exclusively) at a young age. How young, well, that depends on the individual. But considering the fact that most 18 year olds are still idiots (especially boys), I'd say it's a safe bet to set that standard

[Mormolyce]

I'm okay with enforcing the mature content law, which is 16 years for softcore- and 18 years for hardcore porn. I'm not okay with a blanket ban on pornography, even if I don't care for it myself.

It's not proven that porn is damaging. It's proven that porn can be damaging. It's also proven that porn can have positive effects, by the way. Ergo, nothing is good or bad in the archaic sense; there are shades of grey.

So your litmus test is that the government can pass laws to stop you raising your child the way you like if there are some studies (how many? what about contradictory studies?) which prove that the action in question CAN BE harmful.

Well that's pretty easily abused. How about sugar? Plenty of studies saying that can be harmful, can the government stop you giving your kids anything with sugar in it?

What exactly is the punishment anyway? If I break these laws and show my children porn - what's the punishment? Can you be fined? Jailed? Call CPS and have the kids taken away?

[nocturnus]

So your litmus test is that the government can pass laws to stop you raising your child the way you like if there are some studies (how many? what about contradictory studies?) which prove that the action in question CAN BE harmful.

Well that's pretty easily abused. How about sugar? Plenty of studies saying that can be harmful, can the government stop you giving your kids anything with sugar in it?

What exactly is the punishment anyway? If I break these laws and show my children porn - what's the punishment? Can you be fined? Jailed? Call CPS and have the kids taken away?

There are plenty of laws that prevent parents to raise their child the way they like. Thank God for that.

There are still people that think a good smack is a productive way of educating their child, for instance, eventhough it's an actual offence in more than 50 countries already.

If you want me to list the complete number of studies that corroborate the potentially detrimental effects of pornography, I'm afraid I can't help you. I did post a few interesting ones a few pages back, which might be worth reading. Those covered depression, feelings of inadequacy, impotence, addiction, desensitization and a few others. The effects among teenagers, who're ridiculously insecure to boot, can be even more serious.

I'm assuming you mean processed sugar. Again, you can't quantify harm with an archaic sense of good and bad; "sugar is bad, so ban sugar". It depends on how bad it is and what it can cause in the long run.

The punishments will mostly be in the form of fines and I suspect it's the provider of pornographic material that will get them, not the user. Kind of like a bar that serves alcohol to minors.

[Yunru]

Giving your info to enter those sites --- so bad idea. Everyone will just start using Vpn in Britan. Even adults.
And if those sites have any moneymaking metods from users, they will lose quite a lot of them in britan.

Not to mention the sites that ignore Uk laws will simply get more trafic. Even if they remove it from gogle search, people will just use DuckDuckgo or other similar search engines.

Will this law protect kids? Nope. Maybe ones that dont know how to use Pc.

I can see in future that britan will try to ban Vpn instead.

[lolpve]

I really hate what is happening to this country, cheered on by the looney authoritarians in the LibLabCon parties. It's absolute madness that the only mainstream party in the UK supporting free speech and a free internet is UKIP.

A lot of millennials who grew up with the internet and surveillance are used to the nanny state big government here, much the Chinese are used to it. For those of us who grew up in the 80s and 90s or earlier it's all very sad how this country has been destroyed.

[kamuimac]

what else to expect from country which makes complete clown of itself with brexit

- - - Updated - - -

After all my tours to pattaya and phuket, there has been a drastic change in what people want to do to you over the years. When I was 18-20, I never encountered any guy that wanted to shove their fist places where it doesn't belong or who wanted to choke me or who tried to force me to do things I didn't want to do.

sure people should artificially surpress their fetishes

and let me guess only do it in missionary with lights turned off

- - - Updated - - -

It's good that the UK government is trying to teach kids more about the internet by encouraging them to explore and understand the usage of VPNs.

ye that was my first thought

i mean maybe they never heared about VPN or Tor

[Cosmic Janitor]

ye that was my first thought

i mean maybe they never heared about VPN or Tor

You realize the moment this becomes the common go to way for everything, the legislative will try to ban these in the UK. It would not be the first time politicans try to ban technical methods that are central to modern technology, I mean it was only a couple of years ago that we had some bitch about encryption being evil because they can't read your conversations anymore. The authoritarian mindset of these people is deeply rooted and people not respecting their half-assed laws will just spurn them on to come up with more technically illiterate laws.

[therealstegblob]

Love, T., Laier, C., Brand, M., Hatch, L., & Hajela, R. (2015). Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update, Behavioral Sciences

Kuhn, S., & Gallinat, J. (2014). Brain structure and functional connectivity associated with pornography consumption: the brain on porn.

Wehrum-Osinski, S., Klucken, T, & Rudolf, S. (2015) OR-95: Neuronal and subjective responses in patients with excessive pornography consumption

Norman Doidge - The Brain That Changes Itself

Deirdre Barrett - Supernormal Stimuli: How Primal Urges Overran Their Evolutionary Purpose

You didn't even ready any of those, did you?

[Mormolyce]

I'm assuming you mean processed sugar. Again, you can't quantify harm with an archaic sense of good and bad; "sugar is bad, so ban sugar". It depends on how bad it is and what it can cause in the long run.

Well the devil's in the detail then, isn't it? Where exactly is your line for how harmful something has to be that allows you to put porn in the "okay for the government to tell you how to raise your kid" pile, but sugar or meat in the "not okay" pile? How do you quantify that?

The punishments will mostly be in the form of fines and I suspect it's the provider of pornographic material that will get them, not the user. Kind of like a bar that serves alcohol to minors.

No, you're not following - imagine the father decides his 10 year old kid is old enough to drink, buys beer and gives it to him. Can you punish the bar?

So if I buy porn (haha, I mean more likely google it) and show it to my kids - what then?

[nocturnus]

Well the devil's in the detail then, isn't it? Where exactly is your line for how harmful something has to be that allows you to put porn in the "okay for the government to tell you how to raise your kid" pile, but sugar or meat in the "not okay" pile? How do you quantify that?

There are protocols in place for most things with a grey area; Free speech, disciplining your pet, showing your kid a horror flick, etc. I'll admit it's not an easy task, especially with things that aren't arbitrary right or wrong. Not too long a go, a good smack on the cheek was considered viable parenting. New evidence comes to light at an increasingly rapid pace and legislation follows.

No, you're not following - imagine the father decides his 10 year old kid is old enough to drink, buys beer and gives it to him. Can you punish the bar?

Yes, absolutely. The owner will most likely lose his licence and the father his kid; that's how it works.

So if I buy porn (haha, I mean more likely google it) and show it to my kids - what then?

A lot can happen. If your kid starts to display abnormal behaviour at school, for instance, the teachers can raise a red flag. It happens all the time with abuse.