Studies have shown that in places where porn is blocked, rape occurs at higher frequencies than in places where that is not the case, possibly due to higher levels of feelings of frustration and repression. This may be only one website now, but if others likewise follow the trend out of fear of litigation… then Texas may become a much more dangerous state to live in in the very near future, even compared to what it already is now.
Would you be okay with letting children freely watch people having sex? The issue is not with freedom its with what we allow minors to see. I dont know how it is possible to stop this, but I agree its a problem that needs to be addressed if possible.
If you do not want something - an abortion, a vaccine, porn, to own a gun, etc. - then the solution is simply: do not take it. Beyond that, why heap heavy burdens upon other people, rather than offering to help?
I am saying that “children watching people having sex” is not the issue here. Some few sickos aside, I think MOST people are agreement on that point. The issues are all the other issues surrounding that topic - e.g. who should be the ones held responsible for stopping that.
Like, why not the parents? It is exceedingly easy to block websites from a home router, and from devices such as ipads, so why should the website be the one upon whom all of the blame and burden should go to? Will Amazon be next, b/c it is possible to find sex toys on it? What about Wal-Mart, b/c you can purchase dangerous ammunition there? For that matter, any child can go into a gun show and see rifles and ammunition on display - why are those not banned? Children have even been known to be able to purchase those weapons, which are literally lethal - which is far worse than merely seeing some skin!!!
Fwiw I think you mean well, but are missing the nuances of this discussion. Children will end up seeing porn - someway, somehow, I guarantee you that it is possible, b/c that is simply how the internet works. It is like playing whack-a-mole and you can’t stop them all, especially like 90% of all domain names are already registered to porn and pirate websites. This law will not have the effect that it is intended to stop - and there is a goodly chance that it will make things worse actually, bc when people go off the well-trodden pathways, they will find themselves in the… darker corners of the internet.
Then again, I am not a lawmaker, so what do I know. I was just sharing my thoughts, in case they would be of interest to you.
I mean, unintentionally, but I’ve been walked in on by my little one before. You can’t always control what your kids are gonna see.
It isn’t rocket science; it’s education. Being sexually repressed is a choice - a bad one. Sit down with your kids, teach them the birds and the bees, and maybe they won’t end up with a completely unrealistic view of sex.
Sexual repression is the American way. Americans wonder why Europeans are buckwild in this regard, and it’s because they have healthy conversations about sex and regard it as natural. They still have laws involving minors and all that, but their view is much more humanistic.
Unless the internet is dismantled and containerized, there’s no realistic way to prevent minors from viewing porn. The problem is that American parents have puritanical views on sex and rely on prohibition rather than being uncomfortable and having a chat with their kids about one of the most natural things humans engage in because they themselves are prudes. It’s the same reason people get all wound up when they see a pair of boobs, because they view them as sexual objects and not yet another part of the human anatomy. Mind boggling, but that’s religious influence for you.
While I disagree wholeheartedly with the relevant law, this is an incredibly dangerous argument to make against it. It insinuates an innate propensity towards sexual aggression and ignores many other factors that might occur alongside such laws.
There might be a misunderstanding. I was talking about a correlation between areas where where porn is blocked i.e. repressive regimes and rape. Not necessarily a casual effect from one directly to the other, although that might not be able to be ruled out either.
Either way it is a question of fact, so not up to either of our mere opinions. Though I find that it is darn near impossible to find such things these days using Google - it refuses to show “relevant” results and instead tries to show only “recent” ones that it wants to promote, and DuckDuckGo is far too narrow to make that easy. So finding the full unvarnished truth is a research project that I do not want to undertake, though in case it helps to share my remembrance of having read such a thing once I thought I would offer. This is nowhere near my area of expertise so was only a comment not an authoritative statement of definitive fact.
Also there could be other factors involved - e.g. higher incidents of rape in neighborhoods that tend towards being poorer and more heavily religious in nature, e.g. within the United States that would be Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Texas, etc. I don’t recall if the study checked for similar levels of poverty but with different religious leanings - if suitably comparable places could even be found.
So my statement was saying how sad it is that Texas is choosing to become more like e.g. Florida rather than more like e.g. California, or to remain more of its own separate thing as it has done in the past. Becoming “repressive” does not sound conducive to good health (especially women’s health).
Studies have shown that in places where porn is blocked, rape occurs at higher frequencies than in places where that is not the case, possibly due to higher levels of feelings of frustration and repression. This may be only one website now, but if others likewise follow the trend out of fear of litigation… then Texas may become a much more dangerous state to live in in the very near future, even compared to what it already is now.
Studies have shown that in places where porn is blocked,
rapefreedom occurs at higher frequencies than in other places **FTFY
(/s obv)
Yeah! Personal rights! Personal choice! We shouldn’t have government telling us what to do.
Okay I guess they know what’s best for me yes papa gubberment
So long as the libterds get pwnd. Which they definitely did. By blocking my porn. You see the way it works is uh…
Would you be okay with letting children freely watch people having sex? The issue is not with freedom its with what we allow minors to see. I dont know how it is possible to stop this, but I agree its a problem that needs to be addressed if possible.
If you do not want something - an abortion, a vaccine, porn, to own a gun, etc. - then the solution is simply: do not take it. Beyond that, why heap heavy burdens upon other people, rather than offering to help?
I am saying that “children watching people having sex” is not the issue here. Some few sickos aside, I think MOST people are agreement on that point. The issues are all the other issues surrounding that topic - e.g. who should be the ones held responsible for stopping that.
Like, why not the parents? It is exceedingly easy to block websites from a home router, and from devices such as ipads, so why should the website be the one upon whom all of the blame and burden should go to? Will Amazon be next, b/c it is possible to find sex toys on it? What about Wal-Mart, b/c you can purchase dangerous ammunition there? For that matter, any child can go into a gun show and see rifles and ammunition on display - why are those not banned? Children have even been known to be able to purchase those weapons, which are literally lethal - which is far worse than merely seeing some skin!!!
Fwiw I think you mean well, but are missing the nuances of this discussion. Children will end up seeing porn - someway, somehow, I guarantee you that it is possible, b/c that is simply how the internet works. It is like playing whack-a-mole and you can’t stop them all, especially like 90% of all domain names are already registered to porn and pirate websites. This law will not have the effect that it is intended to stop - and there is a goodly chance that it will make things worse actually, bc when people go off the well-trodden pathways, they will find themselves in the… darker corners of the internet.
Then again, I am not a lawmaker, so what do I know. I was just sharing my thoughts, in case they would be of interest to you.
I mean, unintentionally, but I’ve been walked in on by my little one before. You can’t always control what your kids are gonna see.
It isn’t rocket science; it’s education. Being sexually repressed is a choice - a bad one. Sit down with your kids, teach them the birds and the bees, and maybe they won’t end up with a completely unrealistic view of sex.
Sexual repression is the American way. Americans wonder why Europeans are buckwild in this regard, and it’s because they have healthy conversations about sex and regard it as natural. They still have laws involving minors and all that, but their view is much more humanistic.
Unless the internet is dismantled and containerized, there’s no realistic way to prevent minors from viewing porn. The problem is that American parents have puritanical views on sex and rely on prohibition rather than being uncomfortable and having a chat with their kids about one of the most natural things humans engage in because they themselves are prudes. It’s the same reason people get all wound up when they see a pair of boobs, because they view them as sexual objects and not yet another part of the human anatomy. Mind boggling, but that’s religious influence for you.
Plus when you consider Texas’ abortion policies…
Might as well rename the state the Republic of Gilead.
While I disagree wholeheartedly with the relevant law, this is an incredibly dangerous argument to make against it. It insinuates an innate propensity towards sexual aggression and ignores many other factors that might occur alongside such laws.
There might be a misunderstanding. I was talking about a correlation between areas where where porn is blocked i.e. repressive regimes and rape. Not necessarily a casual effect from one directly to the other, although that might not be able to be ruled out either.
Either way it is a question of fact, so not up to either of our mere opinions. Though I find that it is darn near impossible to find such things these days using Google - it refuses to show “relevant” results and instead tries to show only “recent” ones that it wants to promote, and DuckDuckGo is far too narrow to make that easy. So finding the full unvarnished truth is a research project that I do not want to undertake, though in case it helps to share my remembrance of having read such a thing once I thought I would offer. This is nowhere near my area of expertise so was only a comment not an authoritative statement of definitive fact.
Also there could be other factors involved - e.g. higher incidents of rape in neighborhoods that tend towards being poorer and more heavily religious in nature, e.g. within the United States that would be Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Texas, etc. I don’t recall if the study checked for similar levels of poverty but with different religious leanings - if suitably comparable places could even be found.
So my statement was saying how sad it is that Texas is choosing to become more like e.g. Florida rather than more like e.g. California, or to remain more of its own separate thing as it has done in the past. Becoming “repressive” does not sound conducive to good health (especially women’s health).
[citation needed]
You can use Google. Oh wait…
“Trust me bro”
I’m sure you preemptively provide citations for every claim you make.