Wednesday, 22 December 2010

What Is It About Porn?

"The British government has joined China, Iran and Australia in seeking to actively restrict access to [porn on] the Internet."

Why are politicians so outraged about porn and children viewing it? Why is it such an issue that it, and it alone, requires laws and regulations governing that access?

I understand why people find porn objectionable; I also understand if they don't want their kids to view it. But why this demand to protect everyone's' children? (What I find ironic is that this argument usually comes from the conservative side of the fence, the same side that decrees government intervention in raising our children.)

Do I want my 6 and 4 year old sons to see porn? No I do not, but I don't get my panties boxers all in a twist about it. When it comes to what is available on the internet that I do not want my children to see, it becomes a very long list. And porn is not the number one item.

If I were making a list off of the top of my head, here is the content on the Internet that I would prefer my children not see until they are adults.

1) Nazis marching Jews into the gas chambers
2) Realistic pictures or videos of murder or abuse
3) People mistreating animals (violently or otherwise)
4) Racist Propaganda
.
.
.
.
.
100) Scenes showing consulting adults engaged in sexual behavior. (I just don't want to explain what they are doing yet.)

When I look at the Internet as a whole, pornography is way down on the list. I would sooner explain what sex is than what genocide is if it came down to a choice.

I agree with the ISPs that are cited in the article for two reasons. It is the responsibility of the parent to choose if, what and when to filter, it should not be dictated by an outside agency. And secondly, being in the business, any technical solution is fraught with peril and will cause more problems than it solves. Which means it is a dumb idea that isn't feasible anyway.

So to all politicians that want to protect my children from porn on the Internet, do me a favour and fuck off!

3 comments:

Ken Breadner said...

"do me a favour and fuck off!"
No pun intended.
George Carlin once said he'd rather have his kids watch two people making love than two people trying to kill each other. "In fact," he said, "I'd go farther. I'd replace the world 'kill' with the word 'fuck' in all those old movie cliches...'well, sheriff, we're gonna FUCK ya now!...but we're gonna fuck ya SLOW."
You're bang on here. Western society has collectively decided secks is icky--the hypersexualization of our culture is just advertisers pushng envelopes and titillating our taboos. Interestingly, in many so-called 'primitive' cultures, sex is nothing to be ashamed of and is often a public performance.

Catelli said...

Sex as a public performance? Ugh. On a related note, I'm not in favour of women being allowed to go topless in public because men can. To make it fair to both sexes, make men wear shirts in public. My eyes will thank you.

On a more serious note, we watched the Looney Tunes Christmas special last night, a modern usage of the Looney Tunes characters re-telling A Christmas Carol. You can tell it was animated by writers that didn't get the original Looney Tunes story lines. The 3 ghosts would just randomly smack Daffy "Scrooge" Duck with no provocation whatsoever. He was being belted because he was a scrooge. The message was if someone is being a dick you get to belt them in the mouth as hard as you can.

That made me more uncomfortable as a parent than if they showed Daffy banging Foghorn Leghorn in the closet. Violence is OK, sex is not. Funny message we;re conveying.

Ken Breadner said...

Just because woman can go topless...I've seen all of one since Gwen Jacobs, and the one I saw was beyond intoxicated. I'm torn on the whole topless thing. On the one hand, it's just skin. We've all got it, what's the big deal? On the other--apparently I'm from another planet, and so maybe you're right, everybody should wear tops...