[Gloomshade]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Once again proving that psychology shouldn't be mixed with politics or religion...

Issues of qualification aside, I've never been a big fan of parental controls because they only offer the illusion of security. Most children know how to operate parental control settings better than their parents do, and they're pathetically easy in most cases to change, over-ride, or by-pass. Besides the entire procedure just reeks of self-imposed ignorance. Trying to ignore the existence of sexual imagery isn't going to make it go away and it's impossible besides to block or filter all of it.

The thing about porn is it has to be labeled as such for the filters to have any effect on it which pretty rules out any new, private, or misclassified image on the net. If you stop and think about it, there are far FAR more people that post to the internet on a daily basis then there are people or programs to regulate it. When all is said and done there is no substitute for proper parenting. If people are going to let there children use the internet then they are going to have to explain about the harsh realities before hand.

[Conspicuous]

This is more about prevention of violence towards woman than anything else. Its clearly described here:

The evidence gathered in the review suggests a clear link between consumption of sexualised images, tendency to view women as objects and the acceptance of aggressive attitudes and behaviour as the norm.

Both the images we consume and the way we consume them are lending credence to the idea that women are there to be used and that men are there to use them.

Originally Posted by Gloomshade

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Once again proving that psychology shouldn't be mixed with politics or religion...

Issues of qualification aside, I've never been a big fan of parental controls because they only offer the illusion of security. Most children know how to operate parental control settings better than their parents do, and they're pathetically easy in most cases to change, over-ride, or by-pass.

Sorry but I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Parental controls work. A great example would be the parental controls on some of the cable boxes. 4 digit pin code required to access its settings or a blocked channel. Too many attempts will cause the system to lock out the user and prevent any possible attempts for a certain amount of time.

Another example would be the parental control settings computers. Most of them are designed so that the user does not know its there. Wont appear in the task manager or in the start menu or in the add/remove programs. Uninstallation often requires a password (like with Norton Anti-virus).

I personally find surveillance software to work much better as you can catch them on the act.

Besides the entire procedure just reeks of self-imposed ignorance. Trying to ignore the existence of sexual imagery isn't going to make it go away and it's impossible besides to block or filter all of it.

This is just a ploy by the Cosmopolitan magazine to use pornography as the reason for violence towards women. Even though the tangible data out there shows a clear decrease in said violence.

I know this might sound jeering to some of you but, seeing as this comes from the Cosmopolitan magazine, it doesn't seem that far fetched to think it comes from a feminist movement to make pornography seem like its degrading women.

The thing about porn is it has to be labeled as such for the filters to have any effect on it which pretty rules out any new, private, or misclassified image on the net. If you stop and think about it, there are far FAR more people that post to the internet on a daily basis then there are people or programs to regulate it.

Google's SafeSearch seems to be doing a pretty good job at preventing pornographic images from showing up when you don't want them.

When all is said and done there is no substitute for proper parenting. If people are going to let there children use the internet then they are going to have to explain about the harsh realities before hand.

I firmly believe it just comes down to explaining your child what is what. Leaving your kids in the dark doesn't protect them at all. But that also doesn't mean that a child should be allowed to roam through the internet without proper surveillance.

[goozilla]

I really don't see the point in protecting child innocence. They're going to lose it one way or another, and honestly, over the internet seems a lot better.

[gordo437]

i lol, perental control in anyform on the internet is to be laughted at, the only way ur gonner know what ur childs been on is if ur sat next to her/him for 6hours. hell my mums so computer illiterate its not even funny so i lol

[FenRirFX]

14 year old kids are allowed to do so (to see any shit..) -i'd say

13< y.o. -have no rights >> no internet, controll easy made
(if has to be.. -.- use WOT - or other prot. software)

/end of story

[Gloomshade]

The parental controls on most cable boxes can easily be bypassed with... well let's just say the convenience of automated troubleshooting has it's pitfalls. It's also not too difficult to turn off Google safesearch and even that is useless if children navigate to a porn site directly or use one of any number of private search engines found therein. Porn is so pervasive on the net even a child knows that typing triple x on the address bar will get them started, and that's only if their classmates don't tell them all the best sites beforehand. Hell I got my hands on my first copy of the anarchists cookbook back in GRADESCHOOL and if I can get that porn is a mild concern by comparison.

i discovered porn when i was like 12 and i still respect females nuff said.
did anyone else watch the video?

[Janeface67]

Originally Posted by SirLoine

i discovered porn when i was like 12 and i still respect females nuff said.
did anyone else watch the video?

I watched it and Fin wah So what they dont look like porn stars and models did you ever notice how people who are against porn are people you wouldn't shag in the first place .And as a Parent of three kids my self I control what they see but I know I cant police them 24/7 also the schools are teaching safe sex classes in 5th grade Hello !

Originally Posted by Janeface67

I watched it and Fin wah So what they dont look like porn stars and models did you ever notice how people who are against porn are people you wouldn't shag in the first place .And as a Parent of three kids my self I control what they see but I know I cant police them 24/7 also the schools are teaching safe sex classes in 5th grade Hello !

they'll get over it seriously they sound very insecure thats normal during your teen years.

[Phleet]

The important thing is to protect elementary level kids from both violent and sexual images. In middle school its almost impossible to preserve that innocence so the parental controls should be a lot more lenient.