Internet Porn is too available...

[Gregg Bolinger]

So if I walk into a store where they sell pornographic material or wanted to go buy a playboy or something, I would be ID'd to make sure I was of age.
What makes that media more inaccessable than internet porn? Why is pornographics material on the internet so easy to get? I don't mean why is there so much of it. What I mean is, why is one able to see so much of it without being of age.
What laws say it's ok for me to get a picture of a naked man/woman in my E-mail randomly, but I must be 18 to buy a playboy?
FYI - I'm not hoping that playboy's, etc become easier for young people to obtain. Rather the opposite. I would rather internet porn be more difficult to access.
I have a 3 year old and I know that I am going to have to really monitor his internet access in a few years. Not because he will seek it out (at least not until puberty) but it can just wind up in his inbox or on some random popup screen.

[John Smith]

I lived in the Soviet Union until I was 23 years old, and the hormones were all over me. I tied to think about the origins of the Universe, but all that was on my mind was sex. I could ejaculate up to 4 times during a given night, and not have enough. While the internal "voice" was very clear in articulating its inclinations, I was hearing a different story from the Party. The communists were people of high moral standards, you see, and they went to the extend of annonouncing that "There is no sex in the Soviet Union". In their progressive view, sex was the thing of the past, the "bourgeoisie" waste of time inconsistent with the proletarian way of life -- struggle against the imperialists, liberating the workers around the world, and reading the works of Lenin during your free time.
So, when I got here in America, one of my first trips was to the sex shop, quite naturally. I wanted to see how an artificial vagina might look like, in a free and technological society. Imagine how puzzled I was when near the entrance to the shop, we were stopped (my wife was with me) by some people with the large transparants. I could barely speak (much less write) English, but it was clear that these people were the messengers from the Party, judging from the portraits of some nice looking bearded man they were carrying. They also had the camcoders and the photographic equipment to document the slippery slope that I was taking. The way that they talked to me was reminiscent of that by my high school teachers and the PolitWorker in the Soviet Union.
Now that I am 37, I don't hold any illusions about the Party members in either county. I consider it a major accomplishment if I sin twice a week, and no matter how hard I try to think about sex, all that is on my mind is the origin of the Universe. My favorite writer speculated in one of his books that orgasm is a portal to God. For a few seconds, your world stops and you can't think of absolutely anything. No soccer moms outraged about the exposed breast on TV, no "mother of all bombs" to drop, no motherland to defend, no alma mater to be a proud graduate, no moder to be afraid of in MD. Just you and God, and you can't tell one from another.
[ May 10, 2004: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]

[Jeroen Wenting]

You also have to remember that the internet is NOT a US medium, however much many US people would like to think (or even make) it so.
As such pornographic sites (at least those whose creators are not US based companies or have a corporate identity outside of the US) don't have to abide by US prudency laws.
In many countries there's no law against children seeing porn, or if there is the age limit might well be lower.
Of course sex-shops may take a moral stance and restrict sales to adults only, but that's not necesarilly because of legal issues.
I agree that pornography should not be divulged on people without them explicitly asking for it.
But the same goes for so many things that are thrown out over your inbox all the time like Nigerian scams, illegal pharmaceuticals (don't know about the US, but it's illegal here to offer medication for sale unless you're a licensed pharmacist), etc. etc.
I'd rather see my kids exposed to the occasional boob in their email than to the constant stream of ads for viagra, anti-depressants and make-rich-quick schemes.

[Eric Pascarello]

All I can say is Google image search

[Warren Dew]

I have to say "available" is a bit of an understatement for the situation that happens if one makes one's email public. I don't see the pictures, though, as I have my email set on "text only" - and if I see HTML formatting, the email tends to get deleted without further examination. Seems like it ought to be possible to automatically delete any mail with HTML formatting in it.
I do think surfing the web is equivalent to going outside in todays' world, and it's advisable for parents to accompany young children. There are some services that seem reasonably good at providing a kid safe environment (e.g., AOL), at least relative to the uncensored web.

[Steve Wink]

Originally posted by Eric Pascarello:
All I can say is Google image search

I'm curious as to what your search criteria are...
You can set google image search to be safe ( i think its the default... )

[Michael Ernest]

Get aggressive. Load up the bookmarks with cartoonnetwork.com, dragonball.com, or whatever. There's so much out there for kids that will capture their attention far more readily.
Sure they get curious, but it's easier to point them to stuff made for them than wag a finger or install endless filtering software. Filtering's good, but the better part of guiding kids is sharing with them the stuff made for them, and then second about securing all the boundaries.
A bored kid in front of a computer, that's the thing to worry about. When they go to find something, they don't have much time for the crap that's available. I've yet to see a "teenage farm chicks can't get enough!" popup from a kids' site.

[George Custer]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
I lived in the Soviet Union until I was 23 years old, and the hormones were all over me. ....
[ May 10, 2004: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]

I love Eugene's stories about the old days in USSR and comparing them to life in the US. That last one was a classic. Flesh it out a little more, extend it to 2 or 3 pages, and then submit to some magazines for publication.

[David Weitzman]

I like to find a sound reasoning to support any moral viewpoint. The only reason I can give to support not letting people walk around naked in public is that people aren't used to it right now and might not react sensibly if laws regarding clothing were repealed tomorrow. Can anyone think of a better reason? Because if that's the only one, I see no reason not to slowly relax restrictions over the next fifty years until you can walk to work naked if the weather's nice. Is there any pyschological basis for believing that if children are exposed to nudity on a regular basis from a young age they still won't be able to adjust to it?
From a different angle, you might claim that it's good for nudity to be exciting and unusual, but I think that's not the government's problem and I'd like to avoid restrictions on my rights that don't serve a utilitarian purpose.

[Michael Ernest]

DW: I like to find a sound reasoning to support any moral viewpoint.
The only reason I can give to support not letting people walk around naked in public is that people aren't used to it right now and might not react sensibly if laws regarding clothing were repealed tomorrow. Can anyone think of a better reason?
ME: We all like to keep our food down?
DW: Because if that's the only one, I see no reason not to slowly relax restrictions over the next fifty years until you can walk to work naked if the weather's nice.
ME: Ok, but nudity is not pornography, which is what we've been about in this topic so far.
DW:Is there any pyschological basis for believing that if children are exposed to nudity on a regular basis from a young age they still won't be able to adjust to it?
ME: Nope, but again, nudity isn't the core issue. Displays of adult sexual behavior in front of children, that's what we're talking about here.
DW: From a different angle, you might claim that it's good for nudity to be exciting and unusual...
ME: You might make such an argument, but there's no "reason" to believe it's necessary or important. We have cultures on the globe for whom the barest amount of clothing is simply well-suited to their environment. The cultural codes surrounding dress and conduct, and by what means people signal sexual intent can easily adjust to those conditions.
On the most practical of levels, most cultures seem to understand that pure nudity in most societies serves no practical purpose of its own, other than public demonstration. As such, it might make for an interesting 'message,' but has few useful purposes to serve.
[ May 11, 2004: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[stara szkapa]

Originally posted by David Weitzman:
I'd like to avoid restrictions on my rights that don't serve a utilitarian purpose.

How about rights of people who don't wish to see your rear.

[David Weitzman]

Originally posted by stara szkapa:

How about rights of people who don't wish to see your rear.

Outside of your own home, you have no rights to choose what you do and do not see. Perhaps I have some exciting non-contagious disease that causes me to look deformed. Should I stay off the streets because my appearence might unnerve people around me?

[Michael Ernest]

C'mon now, when's the last time you saw a programmer walking around in sunlight?

[David Weitzman]

ME: We all like to keep our food down?
DW: There are societies in which they eat things that I would puke just looking at. You could have a chicken vs. egg discussion of whether disgust at ugly naked people is natural or conditioned, but that doesn't change the simple fact of it. There have been and are societies where people felt comfortable around others without clothing, so the current response of a randomly selected American is a poor indicator of how things should work in an ideal society.
ME: Ok, but nudity is not pornography, which is what we've been about in this topic so far.
DW: Where is the line between nudity and pornography? I'll grant that there is a line, but I think the line isn't as big as it seems. Suppose one site has images of people engaged in sexual activity. The next has images of naked women posing in suggestive positions alone. The next has images of flashing during Mardi Gras. The next has images from a hidden camera of naked people who aren't thinking about sex and didn't know they were being filmed. The last has women in suggestive positions but without full nudity. Which ones are porn, which are just nudity, and which are something else altogether? There's a close relationship between nudity and pornography even if they aren't the same.
ME: Nope, but again, nudity isn't the core issue. Displays of adult sexual behavior in front of children, that's what we're talking about here.
DW: The concern here is that kids in a certain age range who see explicit sexual content will go on to do stupid things (I don't see any possible harm in kids completely failing to understand, just in misunderstanding). Kids always do stupid things. I've seen kids pick up dirty pennies off public bus floors and shove them into their mouths. I wonder: What's the worst that could happen if kids were aware of sex, would it scar anyone for life, and how likely would it be? Don't forget to turn off 2004 perspective and think about the question in the proper context.
ME: On the most practical of levels, most cultures seem to understand that pure nudity in most societies serves no practical purpose of its own, other than public demonstration. As such, it might make for an interesting 'message,' but has few useful purposes to serve.
DW: I'm not claiming it's useful, I'm claiming it's meaningless in the greater cosmic scheme of things. I'm not concerned with what you will do if I walk up to you without any pants on. I'm concerned with what you should do if that scenario. I can't think of any reason why the presence or lack of pants should change the way we interact, or why people should be able to fall in love in PG movies but not take off their clothes and have sex.

[Jeroen Wenting]

ME: Ok, but nudity is not pornography, which is what we've been about in this topic so far.
Many people in the US seem to be unable to differentiate between the two.
When JJ bares a breast for a few seconds the country is up in arms about it...
There's a close relationship between nudity and pornography even if they aren't the same.
That depends mainly on the definition of pornography as used in the US where basically anything that someone finds sexually arrousing is considered pornographic.
There's people who have been arrested for making child porn when all they did was take pictures of their babies being bathed and having those printed at the local supermarket.
Kids always do stupid things
Not just kids... Most people will do stupid things.
There's arguments that say porn causes people to become mass murderers and rapists.
It may happen, but does that mean we should ban porn or should we try to educate people so they don't lapse into that kind of behaviour?
Exposing them more to sex at an early age might do that.
I'm not talking hardcore porn here, no torture or rape movies obviously.
But learning kids that there is such a thing as sex and that it's related to love might prevent people from relating sex to something negative later in life.

[stara szkapa]

Originally posted by David Weitzman:
Should I stay off the streets because my appearence might unnerve people around me?

Yes, because if you cause distress to people around you, ultimately you will become distressed. Can you imagine entire street including you getting stress related diarrhea? In your previous post you asked for utilitarian purpose of dressing up, here you are.

[Gregg Bolinger]

I'm torn between wanting my children protected from pornography and keeping my rights, all of them. I don't want my internet to become China's internet where the government feels they can ban whatever sites they see fit.
However, I do think it is not unreasonable for pornography to be made less attainable by minorities. Especially when they aren't even looking for it.
You also have to remember that the internet is NOT a US medium, however much many US people would like to think (or even make) it so.
True, but I feel that even 0's and 1's that cross over into American computers should fall under US laws. I used to live in Oklahoma and one of my roomates in college tried to order some porn video. The company wouldn't ship it because those kinds of videos are illegal to sell or buy in the State of Oklahoma. No foul in owning them. You just have to drive to Kansas or Texas to get them.
Get aggressive. Load up the bookmarks with cartoonnetwork.com, dragonball.com, or whatever. There's so much out there for kids that will capture their attention far more readily.
Sure they get curious, but it's easier to point them to stuff made for them than wag a finger or install endless filtering software. Filtering's good, but the better part of guiding kids is sharing with them the stuff made for them, and then second about securing all the boundaries.
A bored kid in front of a computer, that's the thing to worry about. When they go to find something, they don't have much time for the crap that's available. I've yet to see a "teenage farm chicks can't get enough!" popup from a kids' site.
Very good advice Michael. Thanks.
Outside of your own home, you have no rights to choose what you do and do not see.
I realize that this was in the context of what Stara said, however, in the context of the current discussion, I guess it's hard to determine whether or not the Internet accessed from your home is considered being at home or being outside.
There's people who have been arrested for making child porn when all they did was take pictures of their babies being bathed and having those printed at the local supermarket.
I've read about these cases. For the record, if I was arrested for something like that I would be pissed. However, if I was questioned about taking pictures of my children without clothes on, then I would be thankful that someone is doing their job trying to keep children safe.

[Jim Yingst]

[GB]: However, I do think it is not unreasonable for pornography to be made less attainable by minorities.
I hope you mean "minors" here rather than "minorities".

[Jeroen Wenting]

True, but I feel that even 0's and 1's that cross over into American computers should fall under US laws. I used to live in Oklahoma and one of my roomates in college tried to order some porn video. The company wouldn't ship it because those kinds of videos are illegal to sell or buy in the State of Oklahoma. No foul in owning them. You just have to drive to Kansas or Texas to get them.
In that case, you will either want mandatory censorship on every webserver worldwide to comply with US laws?
Or do you propose the US government mandates the installation of some sort of V-chip (like was proposed for US televisions) in every computer which blocks access to data which some government body finds objectionable?
Or maybe do it just at ISP level, mandate US ISPs to constantly monitor everything their customers do and call the FBI if they're doing something they're not supposed to? (FBI because the crime will cross not just state but international boundaries).
As it is, it's your choice to visit these sites or not, and your choice to stay within your local laws or not.

[David Weitzman]

SS: Yes, because if you cause distress to people around you, ultimately you will become distressed. Can you imagine entire street including you getting stress related diarrhea? In your previous post you asked for utilitarian purpose of dressing up, here you are.
There are two issues here. The first is that this massive diarrhea epidemic is the result of cultural conditioning and we could just as easily raise a society where it doesn't happen. That's been my main argument so far. I haven't proposed legalizing sex with barnyard animals on public streets tomorrow.
But that aside, if my existence causes everyone else around me to feel stress without me having to interfere in any way with their lives, the people around me have a serious problem. As a utilitarian leader I would consider it my civic duty to assist my people in becoming happier by helping them overcome their propensity to feel bad about the existence of other humans in the world who aren't the same as them. Otherwise they'll spend their whole lives feeling bad because it just so happens to everyone is different. After a short period of higher than usual stress comes an infinate period of no stress. Seems like a good deal.

[Warren Dew]

Speaking of objectionable pop up ads - some would say the "objectionable" is redundant - I've found that disabling pop ups has worked wonders for my web browsing experience. I'd guess that most kids would feel the same way if one disabled pop ups for them as well.