• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best places on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! Community members will not see the bottom screen advertisements.

David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

Status
Not open for further replies.
3,655
Posts
16
Years
Yeah, but you can still do it without it being violent porn. It also doesn't say that nudey mags are outlawed or erotic shops are banned, so you could still in theory pick up some spreads at the corner store or pleasure store in your neighbourhood.

Some people may not receive enough stimulation unless the pornography is violent. People have fetishes you know.

Yes I did consider that point when constructing my previous post - Not everyone can get 'into it' from just viewing a magazine or whatever.


And you make men sound like natural monsters lol If you really wanna beat off, you'll just do it, magazine or nothing. It's almost as sick and demented as this guy on POF telling me that, "He's a man" so one-night stands are "acceptable." It's a different sex, not a different species, and women like sex as much as any guy and you won't see 'em out killing people because they come home, stressed from work and kids or whatever, and instead of there being their favourite pseudo-Twilight porn on TV there's an infomercial. If you go all psycho because you refuse to beat off to anything but a video or image of a woman (or man) being chained up and raped by one or many dudes, then perhaps a psychologist is in order.

Perhaps but as I said earlier, people get fulfilment in different ways.

Women are wired in different ways than men to the point that you could never truly understand the emotional agony and rage men struggle against. People deal with things in different ways and as long as they aren't doing any real harm to anybody else then what's wrong with someone maintaining self control by whacking one out to some violent sex scene or whatever?


Noting that "you" doesn't mean "you" as in Drakow. It means "you" as in "the audience" or a general term for whoever it may apply to.

Just so that's clear.

Responded to your argument in red.
 
2,305
Posts
13
Years
  • Age 25
  • Seen Dec 16, 2022
Why is the government doing the parenting for us? Because apparently, nanny Britain need this badly.

IF you want to block pornographic content from young people, just do it yourself as there are many apps that let you do that. This really says something about the government's trust in it's residents.
 

François2

#FutureSun&MoonMod
396
Posts
11
Years
Why is the government doing the parenting for us? Because apparently, nanny Britain need this badly.

IF you want to block pornographic content from young people, just do it yourself as there are many apps that let you do that. This really says something about the government's trust in it's residents.

Why is a government necessarily wrong for not trusting its parents?
 
10,769
Posts
14
Years
I wonder how these proposals (if they go through) would affect the BDSM community.

Why is a government necessarily wrong for not trusting its parents?

I guess you have to ask whether or not parents are trustworthy. If they're not, and have shown that they're not, then it does make sense that someone steps in and does something. Whether that someone is the government, and whether the answers are this kind of censoring, are different questions entirely.
 

Silais

That useless reptile
297
Posts
10
Years
  • Seen Jul 17, 2016
Hasn't any government learned by now that banning something will only increase its production and use? Just as the United States did with prohibition, porn will still be available and will become a black market business, which makes it even more unsafe for both parties involved. When you criminalize sexual acts, you criminalize humanity.
 

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen
4,307
Posts
15
Years
This is silly on all fronts. Banning "simulated rape" is silly, as it harms no one. Making a blacklist of search terms is inherently flawed; how are they going to get around the problem of legitimate searches, such as "long-term effects of child molestation?" Machines don't understand context, their program will just see "child molestation" and say it's a blacklisted search term.

And of course, censoring the internet by default is beyond abhorrent. People say Americans are apathetic; David Cameron deserves to be ousted more than any single American politician.
 

PureAurorae

Comrade
26
Posts
10
Years
  • UK
  • Seen Sep 17, 2013
Shame on you David Cameron! You are just using this as an excuse to censor the internet! Once he takes Pornography off the internet, he will then start taking down other websites.
 
4,181
Posts
10
Years
This is just me beating a dead horse again, but I think this is a good article as to why this will not work.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/aug/08/porn-filters-evidence-for-against

Spoiler:


David Cameron has better things to do than trying to filter pornography in a futile effort. This is just worthless.
 

Corvus of the Black Night

Wild Duck Pokémon
3,416
Posts
15
Years
Why do you want to filter pornography? I understand that sex is such a super bad thing, it's not like it brought anyone into existence or anything, and it's certainly not like humans are born with minds wired towards sex (which is why NOBODY EVER MASTURBATES, EVER) but, honestly, pornography 95% of the time is between consenting adults, produced in film (whether or not it's real). There should be no reason why pornography should be banned because in the end, there's very little that's truly bad about it, bar the one in a thousand individual that gets addicted to it (but you can get addicted to gambling and food, and there are more cases of both). So what? Porn. Bits that you have and that the other gender have, being used in some way. Big whoop. As long as it's between adults and not say like, children or animals, I could give less of a **** (and so should everyone else)
 

The Void

hiiiii
1,416
Posts
13
Years
I don't see what's wrong with this. Cameron only referred to "extreme pornography" -- porn that features violence and abuse of women. Also, the main purpose of this is to crack down on pedophilia. I seriously doubt this will work, considering proxies are a thing now, and filter bypassing is commonplace, but it's worth a shot.
 

bobandbill

one more time
16,876
Posts
16
Years
This thread is a touch old - before it got bumped by mr spambot here (drakie), it was last posted in August last year.

Needless to say, closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top