No subject

[Leo Mauler]

--- On Wed, 7/16/08, Luke -Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:

> On Wednesday 16 July 2008, Oren Beck wrote:
> > Consider how YOU would write a RFC draft to 
> > sever adult from non-adult content !
> 
> 1. Please don't refer to immoral images as
> "adult"; there are still some decent adults 
> left, no matter how many damn themselves with 
> this crud.

Well, to be entirely fair "porn" has traditionally included "scenes of beings (human or otherwise) having sex", and us adults were all laughing about a recent posted link to an image of a devil having sex with a penguin.

There's also the slight difference between "porn" and "instructional sex  videos".  Mature adults who want to spice up their home lives might buy the latter while utterly condemning the former, even though the difference between the two is largely semantic.

And to top it all off, why is a photograph of a nude woman "pornography" while a painting of a nude woman is "art"?  This distinction has allowed people to get away with all kinds of stuff in the Pornographic Painting Industry.  Sculpture too, as you can even see "David's" tallywhacker on half a dozen websites, entirely for free.

Pornographic paintings have been around for centuries.  Shakespeare's "The Taming of the Shrew" is actually his first use of a "play within a play", and the outer play involves a drunken tinker who is snuck into a lord's house while the lord pretends that the tinker is actually a lord.  The servants are told to provide the tinker with everything that the lord would normally get, and so one servant offers to show the tinker "his" (the lord's) collection of paintings of nude women.  Some of those paintings most likely hang in modern museums and are viewed without condemnation as "crud".

Immoral images can be adult, its just in how you present them.

> 2. Standards on how to say "I am porn!" never work 
> because the porn industry does not want filters 
> blocking access to them. Not only do they *want*
> children and others to get addicted, they certainly
> aren't going to participate in something any ISP 
> blocks off entirely without user consent.

Porn filters never work because of the sheer collective lust drive of teenage boys.  There could be 100% acceptance of a porn filter and teenage boys would still get access to porn.  "Dilbert" gets a few strips a year from this very topic, where Dilbert can't build a porn filter that a teenage boy can't overcome quickly.

Recent News: 
Schoolboy downs Australia’s $84m porn filter with ease
http://tinyurl.com/6m84xa

What I find especially funny is that the Australian government, in response to the kid's 30 second porn filter bypass, immediately implemented a much stronger filter.  The same schoolboy then bypassed the new "stronger" porn filter in about 45 minutes.

However, I can think of a very good reason why the porn industry doesn't want children gaining access to their pornography: MONEY.  Every child who gets on a porn website is a child who is using a credit card in an unauthorized manner, which represents the bane of the retail industry: the "refund".

Sure, there are unscrupulous "fly by night" websites which don't care if children log into their websites with Daddy's American Excess Card, but established, practically mainstream porn websites aren't going to want to have potential lawsuits on their hands when Billy's parents complain to the Attorney General after Billy wanted to see boobies.  They're going to want Billy not to have access in the first place.  They're going to want to make him wait until he gets his first college credit card, because then his money is theirs, all theirs.