6 ms·

Fuck these prudes. It's time to stop accepting the demonization of sex by religious extremists. If we don't fight for our rights we forfeit them.

Moldoteck 4y ago
[flagged]
- 4ggr0 4y ago
  Porn has its fair share of issues with human trafficking, exploitation etc. But to label all porn as not good is not correct either in my opinion. If, as an example, you find a porn account of a consentual couple who uploads videos on their own terms - why would that be bad?
  - Gustomaximus 4y ago
    Also who defines 'porn'. Is porn any photo that shows nudity, or where do you draw the line on vanilla videos vs more extreme. You might end up with devices blocking all photos of a woman topless, or naked men, even art. Does Michelangelo's David statue get his privates covered or blocked? Or like in China where they increasing block things like picture/videos of women eating bananas as that is taken as sexual (and to be fair some steamers were knowingly doing as so). Obviously there is reasonable ground in these discussions, but when it comes to censorship the best overall position is government should stay out as much as possible. History shows human nature, or the people attracted to powerful positions, seems to not play well in these spaces over time.
    - SauciestGNU 4y ago
      The same religious people pushing this law claim that books acknowledging the existence of queer people is pornographic. Forgive me for my cynicism but I think this is less about pornography and more about providing a legal framework for Christians to censor information about queer identities, reproductive healthcare, and things of that nature.
      - sh4rks 4y ago
        [flagged]
        4ggr0 4y ago
        > Modern porn isn't like your grandpa's playboy magazines I'm sure there was very extreme porn when grandpa was reading his magazines. Maybe access to it is easier today, but I'm sure humans have been into extreme sexual activities for a veeeeeeery long time.
        sh4rks 4y ago
        Yep, accessibility is my concern. Think about the most vile, extreme porn you've seen. Now multiply that vileness by 10. That content is just as easy to access (via the Internet) as some innocent nude selfie. Again, I think adults should be able to watch what they want. The concern is for the children who are given unrestricted access to the Internet from a young age.
        4ggr0 4y ago
        > The concern is for the children who are given unrestricted access to the Internet from a young age Kinda agree - but for me that's up to the parents. Control your kids devices, restrict them, educate them etc. Else, how do you want to control this? Mandatory identification on the whole internet? No thanks... I've seen a lot of things as a teenager which I shouldn't have seen (gore videos of mexican cartels, ISIS etc.), and I'm sure that this has done some mental damage, even though I can't exactly pinpoint what kind. But still, if the alternative is total bureaucratic control over the whole internet with my personal ID being identified everywhere, just to save some uncontrolled kids from watching things they shouldn't...I don't know. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocal... EDIT: to clarify, i do agree that kids should be protected from harmful content. just don't think that ID checks or scanning my own data are a net positive.
        slowmovintarget 4y ago
    - LinuxBender 4y ago
      If we are including all fetishes and kinks, then any photo, video or drawing that shows feet is porn. The internet has a massive foot fetish. Some people are aroused by eyes. So any photo, video or drawing that contains eyes is porn. Some people are into ... I mean, I could keep going but it's already silly. There used to be clear lines drawn for porn penetration, oral copulation, etc... but those lines have been quite blurred. Now anything lewd could be porn and just about anything could be lewd in the eyes of the beholder. There's some case law that tries to put bullet-point requirements on this but is still somewhat subjective even when stare decisis is utilized. A considerable amount of artistic content on DeviantArt could be considered lewd by current US standards. Overall I agree with you. The government should stay out of it. The tech industry should also stay out of it. Just add a header for URL's that may contain user-generated content and let the clients decide what actions to take or not take on that header.
      - Gustomaximus 4y ago
        Quite a coincidental headline to read one day later: "Principal fired after Florida students shown Michelangelo statue" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65071989 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65071989
    - LBJsPNS 4y ago
      A principal in Florida was recently fired for showing students a picture of David. So there's that.
  - lamacase 4y ago
    It could be bad in terms of the outcomes for consumers even if it's produced ethically. Imagine all junk food and sugary soda was produced with sustainable farming and renewable energy. It could still be the case that it leads to worse health outcomes for the population, which seems like grounds for regulation to me. I don't really have a position on this, but it seems easy to imagine how someone could.
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      > It could still be the case that it leads to worse health outcomes for the population, which seems like grounds for regulation to me. I don't see how that would be grounds for regulation, though. Grounds for education, perhaps.
      - lamacase 4y ago
        If you say "I don't see the grounds for banning or regulating porn" but you mean "I disagree with the concept of consumer protection regulation altogether", you're wasting people's time. Just say the more general thing in the first place so people don't have to bother trying to argue the finer points of the specific case.
- goldenManatee 4y ago
  Where is the line between porn and art, and how would it remain a consistently enforceable standard? Since early times, through the Greeks to now, art celebrates nudity and sometimes depicts static (because earlier civilizations had no video) representations of sex and violence mixing in order to tell a story (uhh … Persephone and Hades, much? or Zeus turning into a thousand animals to lure women then rape them). Where do you draw the line; why draw it “there” as opposed to anywhere else; by what right is it to suppress, in the process, others’ definition of where to draw said line?
  - antris 4y ago
    The people who want to ban porn also want to extinguish free culture. So I would say this is a feature, not a bug.
  - kergonath 4y ago
    > Where is the line between porn and art Why would there need to be a line? Something can be porn or art, or both. There is no conflict. Anything done between two consenting adults should be completely un-controversial. > Where do you draw the line; why draw it “there” as opposed to anywhere else; by what right is it to suppress, in the process, others’ definition of where to draw said line? What is the point in having a line? If it’s just to decide what can be shown in public and what cannot, then I don’t see why more or less explicit nudes would be any worse than the various depictions of killings and torture we all seem to be comfortable with for some reason. The sooner we grow up and can go past the kindergarten “OMG we can see her nipple” stage, the better.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
      > two consenting adults Why stop at two?
      - kergonath 4y ago
        Fair enough.
  - 4y ago
- deserialized 4y ago
  Dogmatic and wrong but at least you said it with confidence. This simplistic line of 'porn bad' is just the pretense for labeling anything out of line with your religion's prescribed morality as pornohrafic and therefore worthy of being expunged by violent means. This ideology never stops at videos containing nudity or sex but continues on to being directed at music, literature, women who don't cover their heads, Transgender people, and so on. It's the exact justification currently used by conservative turbo-karens to ban books from public libraries that contain any trace if LGBTQIA+ content, histories that acknowledge the slave trade and racism, or even basic health information about periods.
  - FabrosoFernan 4y ago
    [dead]
  - leereeves 4y ago
    The opinion "porn bad" (for children) isn't limited to conservatives or religious people. Here's what Unicef says: > Pornographic content can harm children. Exposure to pornography at a young age may lead to poor mental health, sexism and objectification, sexual violence, and other negative outcomes. ... > UNICEF is alarmed by the massive quantity of pornography available online, including increasingly graphic and extreme content that is easily accessible to children of all ages. Efforts to regulate content and restrict children’s access to pornography have not kept pace with technological shifts that have profoundly altered the landscape for the consumption of pornography. https://www.unicef.org/harmful-content-online https://www.unicef.org/harmful-content-online
    - kar5pt 4y ago
      OP didn't say "porn bad for children". They said "porn bad".
      - leereeves 4y ago
        I was responding to deserialized, who cited examples like public libraries where books are available to children. (At least I'm not aware of any public libraries with adult-only sections.) And in the context of the overall discussion of a bill attempting to restrict specifically children's (not adults') access to porn.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  Computer freedom is best. My computer is supposed to do what I tell it to do. I couldn't care less about some government's mandatory child passcodes.
- jakobnissen 4y ago
  I disagree, but even if you are right, if we accept censoring porn, we will need a bureaucratic censorship corps, and will need to distinguish porn from, for example, lover sending nudes to each other, art with nude sculptures, sex scenes in films, and so on. And there is zero chance that a bureaucracy designed to censor the citizens will not overextend it's powers and refrain from censoring these things.
- sacnoradhq 4y ago
  Dogmatic, monochromatic view that is obviously wrong.
- Moldoteck 4y ago
  for all people replying. I' m referring to this https://fightthenewdrug.org/ https://fightthenewdrug.org/ (+some peer reviewed studies), not to some religion. Porn is literally bad, if somebody want to jerk off, better use imagination
  - Moldoteck 4y ago
    Also I'm not supporting on-device blocking, it's against privacy and may be used as a precedent to block other stuff, I'm just saying porn is bad and try to minimize it's consumption (ideally to 0)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - commoner 4y ago
    > I' m referring to this https://fightthenewdrug.org/ https://fightthenewdrug.org/ (+some peer reviewed studies), not to some religion "Fight the New Drug" is much more entangled with religion than its owners would like the public to believe. > The group denies a formal affiliation with the Mormon church, though as journalist Samantha Allen notes, its founders are all Mormon, and its facts rely on claims from Mormon author Donald Hilton’s He Restoreth My Soul: Understanding and Breaking the Chemical and Spiritual Chains of Pornography through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The group’s leader Clay Olsen has explicitly distanced his group from the larger sect. His group opts for a newer-age revelation, explaining on its website, “As young college students not too long ago, we came across the recent science of how porn affects the brain and we were shocked!” https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/04/a-crisis-of-education/478206/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/04/a-crisis-... > The leaders and presenters of FTND are not mental health nor sexuality professionals and do not have sufficient training in sexuality or human development to be addressing these subjects. Investigative journalists have recognized FTND as an LDS organization, which FTND continues to deny. > The largest published neuroscience study of this topic to date, as well as a series of published behavioral studies, shows that those who report problems viewing sex films do not resemble any other substance or "behavioral" addictions. According to their own website, 90 percent of FTND attendees end up agreeing that "pornography releases the same chemicals in your brain as other hard drugs" compared to 43 percent who believed this prior to their presentation. FTND is advertising their ability to successfully spread false information. > FTND claims they use "peer reviewed science and research" to back their information. A "sex/porn addiction" diagnosis does not exist in the DSM-5, which was explicitly rejected for "lack of scientific evidence." https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4409139&itype=CMSID https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4409139&itype=CMSI...
- hooverd 4y ago
  So you'd eliminate general purpose computing to get rid of it?
sacnoradhq 4y ago
[flagged]
- leereeves 4y ago
  Are you talking about these bills? They have nothing to do with "what consenting adults do and possibly criminalizing LGBT again". As the article says, adults can "disable the filters...through passcodes". And even children are allowed to bypass the filters, if their parents permit it: "Providing such a passcode to a child would be forbidden, except when done by a parent."
  - marak830 4y ago
    Of course they can! For now. Next step: this porn type needs to be filtered out Eventual step: all LGBT+ material isn't legal in this state and must be filtered. Also: "Providing such a passcode to a child would be forbidden, except when done by a parent." Better hope no one posts it online. Won't someone think of the children!
CommanderData 4y ago
We need a middle ground. Sex is not equal to porn either. No parent wants their child accessing porn but locking devices is the wrong step. ISPs should do a better job at completely blocking porn access. It's poorly implemented in the UK.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dns_snek 4y ago
  Locking devices is the wrong step, but deploying nation-scale firewalls to block content you happen to find objectionable, isn't? If you want to block porn in your own home, there's plenty of consumer gear out there that allows you to do just that. Why do you want to voluntarily expand power of the government to moderate content that you're allowed to access?
  - CommanderData 4y ago
    Consumer gear for all families is an extra step. I don't like national firewalls either but we're already here and have been for 10+ years, ie piracy sites.
    - Fatnino 4y ago
      And this is exactly what people complained would happen back when the piracy blocks went into place. "this is going to be abused to block other things". But at least piracy has been solved /s
- tomjen3 4y ago
  What evidence do you have for that assertion?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
- shitpostbot 4y ago
  [dead]

Moldoteck 4y ago

[flagged]

4ggr0 4y ago
Porn has its fair share of issues with human trafficking, exploitation etc. But to label all porn as not good is not correct either in my opinion. If, as an example, you find a porn account of a consentual couple who uploads videos on their own terms - why would that be bad?
- Gustomaximus 4y ago
  Also who defines 'porn'. Is porn any photo that shows nudity, or where do you draw the line on vanilla videos vs more extreme. You might end up with devices blocking all photos of a woman topless, or naked men, even art. Does Michelangelo's David statue get his privates covered or blocked? Or like in China where they increasing block things like picture/videos of women eating bananas as that is taken as sexual (and to be fair some steamers were knowingly doing as so). Obviously there is reasonable ground in these discussions, but when it comes to censorship the best overall position is government should stay out as much as possible. History shows human nature, or the people attracted to powerful positions, seems to not play well in these spaces over time.
  - SauciestGNU 4y ago
    The same religious people pushing this law claim that books acknowledging the existence of queer people is pornographic. Forgive me for my cynicism but I think this is less about pornography and more about providing a legal framework for Christians to censor information about queer identities, reproductive healthcare, and things of that nature.
    - sh4rks 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - 4ggr0 4y ago
        > Modern porn isn't like your grandpa's playboy magazines I'm sure there was very extreme porn when grandpa was reading his magazines. Maybe access to it is easier today, but I'm sure humans have been into extreme sexual activities for a veeeeeeery long time.
        sh4rks 4y ago
        Yep, accessibility is my concern. Think about the most vile, extreme porn you've seen. Now multiply that vileness by 10. That content is just as easy to access (via the Internet) as some innocent nude selfie. Again, I think adults should be able to watch what they want. The concern is for the children who are given unrestricted access to the Internet from a young age.
        4ggr0 4y ago
        > The concern is for the children who are given unrestricted access to the Internet from a young age Kinda agree - but for me that's up to the parents. Control your kids devices, restrict them, educate them etc. Else, how do you want to control this? Mandatory identification on the whole internet? No thanks... I've seen a lot of things as a teenager which I shouldn't have seen (gore videos of mexican cartels, ISIS etc.), and I'm sure that this has done some mental damage, even though I can't exactly pinpoint what kind. But still, if the alternative is total bureaucratic control over the whole internet with my personal ID being identified everywhere, just to save some uncontrolled kids from watching things they shouldn't...I don't know. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocal... EDIT: to clarify, i do agree that kids should be protected from harmful content. just don't think that ID checks or scanning my own data are a net positive.
        slowmovintarget 4y ago
  - LinuxBender 4y ago
    If we are including all fetishes and kinks, then any photo, video or drawing that shows feet is porn. The internet has a massive foot fetish. Some people are aroused by eyes. So any photo, video or drawing that contains eyes is porn. Some people are into ... I mean, I could keep going but it's already silly. There used to be clear lines drawn for porn penetration, oral copulation, etc... but those lines have been quite blurred. Now anything lewd could be porn and just about anything could be lewd in the eyes of the beholder. There's some case law that tries to put bullet-point requirements on this but is still somewhat subjective even when stare decisis is utilized. A considerable amount of artistic content on DeviantArt could be considered lewd by current US standards. Overall I agree with you. The government should stay out of it. The tech industry should also stay out of it. Just add a header for URL's that may contain user-generated content and let the clients decide what actions to take or not take on that header.
    - Gustomaximus 4y ago
      Quite a coincidental headline to read one day later: "Principal fired after Florida students shown Michelangelo statue" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65071989 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65071989
  - LBJsPNS 4y ago
    A principal in Florida was recently fired for showing students a picture of David. So there's that.
- lamacase 4y ago
  It could be bad in terms of the outcomes for consumers even if it's produced ethically. Imagine all junk food and sugary soda was produced with sustainable farming and renewable energy. It could still be the case that it leads to worse health outcomes for the population, which seems like grounds for regulation to me. I don't really have a position on this, but it seems easy to imagine how someone could.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    > It could still be the case that it leads to worse health outcomes for the population, which seems like grounds for regulation to me. I don't see how that would be grounds for regulation, though. Grounds for education, perhaps.
    - lamacase 4y ago
      If you say "I don't see the grounds for banning or regulating porn" but you mean "I disagree with the concept of consumer protection regulation altogether", you're wasting people's time. Just say the more general thing in the first place so people don't have to bother trying to argue the finer points of the specific case.
goldenManatee 4y ago
Where is the line between porn and art, and how would it remain a consistently enforceable standard? Since early times, through the Greeks to now, art celebrates nudity and sometimes depicts static (because earlier civilizations had no video) representations of sex and violence mixing in order to tell a story (uhh … Persephone and Hades, much? or Zeus turning into a thousand animals to lure women then rape them). Where do you draw the line; why draw it “there” as opposed to anywhere else; by what right is it to suppress, in the process, others’ definition of where to draw said line?
- antris 4y ago
  The people who want to ban porn also want to extinguish free culture. So I would say this is a feature, not a bug.
- kergonath 4y ago
  > Where is the line between porn and art Why would there need to be a line? Something can be porn or art, or both. There is no conflict. Anything done between two consenting adults should be completely un-controversial. > Where do you draw the line; why draw it “there” as opposed to anywhere else; by what right is it to suppress, in the process, others’ definition of where to draw said line? What is the point in having a line? If it’s just to decide what can be shown in public and what cannot, then I don’t see why more or less explicit nudes would be any worse than the various depictions of killings and torture we all seem to be comfortable with for some reason. The sooner we grow up and can go past the kindergarten “OMG we can see her nipple” stage, the better.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
    > two consenting adults Why stop at two?
    - kergonath 4y ago
      Fair enough.
- 4y ago
deserialized 4y ago
Dogmatic and wrong but at least you said it with confidence. This simplistic line of 'porn bad' is just the pretense for labeling anything out of line with your religion's prescribed morality as pornohrafic and therefore worthy of being expunged by violent means. This ideology never stops at videos containing nudity or sex but continues on to being directed at music, literature, women who don't cover their heads, Transgender people, and so on. It's the exact justification currently used by conservative turbo-karens to ban books from public libraries that contain any trace if LGBTQIA+ content, histories that acknowledge the slave trade and racism, or even basic health information about periods.
- FabrosoFernan 4y ago
  [dead]
- leereeves 4y ago
  The opinion "porn bad" (for children) isn't limited to conservatives or religious people. Here's what Unicef says: > Pornographic content can harm children. Exposure to pornography at a young age may lead to poor mental health, sexism and objectification, sexual violence, and other negative outcomes. ... > UNICEF is alarmed by the massive quantity of pornography available online, including increasingly graphic and extreme content that is easily accessible to children of all ages. Efforts to regulate content and restrict children’s access to pornography have not kept pace with technological shifts that have profoundly altered the landscape for the consumption of pornography. https://www.unicef.org/harmful-content-online https://www.unicef.org/harmful-content-online
  - kar5pt 4y ago
    OP didn't say "porn bad for children". They said "porn bad".
    - leereeves 4y ago
      I was responding to deserialized, who cited examples like public libraries where books are available to children. (At least I'm not aware of any public libraries with adult-only sections.) And in the context of the overall discussion of a bill attempting to restrict specifically children's (not adults') access to porn.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
Computer freedom is best. My computer is supposed to do what I tell it to do. I couldn't care less about some government's mandatory child passcodes.
jakobnissen 4y ago
I disagree, but even if you are right, if we accept censoring porn, we will need a bureaucratic censorship corps, and will need to distinguish porn from, for example, lover sending nudes to each other, art with nude sculptures, sex scenes in films, and so on. And there is zero chance that a bureaucracy designed to censor the citizens will not overextend it's powers and refrain from censoring these things.
sacnoradhq 4y ago
Dogmatic, monochromatic view that is obviously wrong.
Moldoteck 4y ago
for all people replying. I' m referring to this https://fightthenewdrug.org/ https://fightthenewdrug.org/ (+some peer reviewed studies), not to some religion. Porn is literally bad, if somebody want to jerk off, better use imagination
- Moldoteck 4y ago
  Also I'm not supporting on-device blocking, it's against privacy and may be used as a precedent to block other stuff, I'm just saying porn is bad and try to minimize it's consumption (ideally to 0)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- commoner 4y ago
  > I' m referring to this https://fightthenewdrug.org/ https://fightthenewdrug.org/ (+some peer reviewed studies), not to some religion "Fight the New Drug" is much more entangled with religion than its owners would like the public to believe. > The group denies a formal affiliation with the Mormon church, though as journalist Samantha Allen notes, its founders are all Mormon, and its facts rely on claims from Mormon author Donald Hilton’s He Restoreth My Soul: Understanding and Breaking the Chemical and Spiritual Chains of Pornography through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The group’s leader Clay Olsen has explicitly distanced his group from the larger sect. His group opts for a newer-age revelation, explaining on its website, “As young college students not too long ago, we came across the recent science of how porn affects the brain and we were shocked!” https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/04/a-crisis-of-education/478206/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/04/a-crisis-... > The leaders and presenters of FTND are not mental health nor sexuality professionals and do not have sufficient training in sexuality or human development to be addressing these subjects. Investigative journalists have recognized FTND as an LDS organization, which FTND continues to deny. > The largest published neuroscience study of this topic to date, as well as a series of published behavioral studies, shows that those who report problems viewing sex films do not resemble any other substance or "behavioral" addictions. According to their own website, 90 percent of FTND attendees end up agreeing that "pornography releases the same chemicals in your brain as other hard drugs" compared to 43 percent who believed this prior to their presentation. FTND is advertising their ability to successfully spread false information. > FTND claims they use "peer reviewed science and research" to back their information. A "sex/porn addiction" diagnosis does not exist in the DSM-5, which was explicitly rejected for "lack of scientific evidence." https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4409139&itype=CMSID https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4409139&itype=CMSI...
hooverd 4y ago
So you'd eliminate general purpose computing to get rid of it?

sacnoradhq 4y ago

[flagged]

leereeves 4y ago
Are you talking about these bills? They have nothing to do with "what consenting adults do and possibly criminalizing LGBT again". As the article says, adults can "disable the filters...through passcodes". And even children are allowed to bypass the filters, if their parents permit it: "Providing such a passcode to a child would be forbidden, except when done by a parent."
- marak830 4y ago
  Of course they can! For now. Next step: this porn type needs to be filtered out Eventual step: all LGBT+ material isn't legal in this state and must be filtered. Also: "Providing such a passcode to a child would be forbidden, except when done by a parent." Better hope no one posts it online. Won't someone think of the children!

CommanderData 4y ago

We need a middle ground. Sex is not equal to porn either. No parent wants their child accessing porn but locking devices is the wrong step. ISPs should do a better job at completely blocking porn access. It's poorly implemented in the UK.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dns_snek 4y ago
Locking devices is the wrong step, but deploying nation-scale firewalls to block content you happen to find objectionable, isn't? If you want to block porn in your own home, there's plenty of consumer gear out there that allows you to do just that. Why do you want to voluntarily expand power of the government to moderate content that you're allowed to access?
- CommanderData 4y ago
  Consumer gear for all families is an extra step. I don't like national firewalls either but we're already here and have been for 10+ years, ie piracy sites.
  - Fatnino 4y ago
    And this is exactly what people complained would happen back when the piracy blocks went into place. "this is going to be abused to block other things". But at least piracy has been solved /s
tomjen3 4y ago
What evidence do you have for that assertion?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

shitpostbot 4y ago
[dead]