Free Porn 4 Underage Viewers

no one and I mean no one wants to talk about the idea that with all this free porn out there, that it may be the reason why so many politicians and people are upset at the porn industry. Paysites at least have all their content hidden behind in a password set up to put a stop gap for underage viewers.

yet we don't want to talk about free content - tgp's, blogs etc. that seem to give away the farm - and that it makes it easy for far too many kids to access this content.

I hear people screaming at paysites that have pictures of people that "look" under 18 even though the ID's show it but no one ever says that with those in the industry being called ****'s and creeps - we love to stand up and say, "hey we care about our kids not viewing porn".. but in reality we turn around and offer it for free - in huge quantities.

feel FREE to comment that I am wrong

I'm only 27, but grew up in this computer age. When I was 13-14 years old, it was not in the least bit difficult to find any type of porn that I wanted to see on the internet. 13 years later, the kids are smarter than we are when it comes to computers and the internet. As long as there is porn out there, and they have the desire to see it, they will see it.

Now I don't think the free sites are helping the cause any by just giving them a free tour into hardcore content, but it's still there. All I try to do is keep everything I do as secure and child-resistant as I can so I'm atleast not contributing to the issue.

Kids should be forced to buy Men's Fitness for their porn like most of us did :p

if parents would use filtering software, all gallery owners would have to do is add a small piece of code and kids wouldn't be able access the content. n in fact, a lot of webmasters put the code there anyway, so it's that easy for parents to take responsibility for their kids.

if parents can't be bothered, perhaps they shouldn't have a computer in the house. in all seriousness, you don't send your 6 year old to a public park alone - it would be illegal. parents who do that can lose custody of their child. why should this be any different? in fact, it's much easier to install filtering software. takes less than a minute.

it all honestly boils down to dollars. if shutting or limiting free content is going to hurt someone's wallet at the end of the day - my guess is that they dont care if kids see their content, if that is the case - then they need to shut up about tour pages and all the other content out there that even though they are 2257 compliant - happen to look 18 or under.

simple double standard

Getting rid of every single free porn image and movie isnt going to hurt anyones wallet, in fact its going to do the exact opposite.

Regards,

Lee

what lee said

but then there's always bittorrent, password trading sites, xtube, irc....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee

Getting rid of every single free porn image and movie isnt going to hurt anyones wallet, in fact its going to do the exact opposite.

Regards,

Lee

---

I agree with you completely here. I was talking to someone the otherday, yesterday in fact, who loves porn. However, he said flat out that he won't pay for it anymore because xtube has so much, that he can just get off on there. I have heard this echoed many many times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ethan Masters

Kids should be forced to buy Men's Fitness for their porn like most of us did :p

---

that was my porn
I had a whole bag of those mags, probably 30 or 40 haha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ethan Masters

I'm only 27, but grew up in this computer age. When I was 13-14 years old, it was not in the least bit difficult to find any type of porn that I wanted to see on the internet. 13 years later, the kids are smarter than we are when it comes to computers and the internet. As long as there is porn out there, and they have the desire to see it, they will see it.

Now I don't think the free sites are helping the cause any by just giving them a free tour into hardcore content, but it's still there. All I try to do is keep everything I do as secure and child-resistant as I can so I'm atleast not contributing to the issue.

---

True, I mean I agree with you. However maybe we should come up with something else to "market" traffic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

if parents would use filtering software, all gallery owners would have to do is add a small piece of code and kids wouldn't be able access the content. n in fact, a lot of webmasters put the code there anyway, so it's that easy for parents to take responsibility for their kids.

if parents can't be bothered, perhaps they shouldn't have a computer in the house. in all seriousness, you don't send your 6 year old to a public park alone - it would be illegal. parents who do that can lose custody of their child. why should this be any different? in fact, it's much easier to install filtering software. takes less than a minute.

---

I agree with you however, there are alot of filtering programs that don't work well. and or bad webmasters that "skirt" the whole adult thing for their adult sites

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jIgG

what lee said

but then there's always bittorrent, password trading sites, xtube, irc....

---

Yeah but that's a diffrent area, we're just talking about what we can personally do.

a good example is IRC I remember in 97 there was some guy named Deliverance or something and he had beta version of the new windoes 95 ect ect ect.


we'd need to stop thoese people in a very diffrent manner

The "we must protect the children" line is an old right wing conservative christian standby for a free pass to move their agenda forward.

Protecting children is a parents responsibility, it always has been, it always will be. Wether it's surfing porn on the home computer, chatting to strangers on the home computer, walking the streets at night, etc. It's a parents responsibility.

This is a very basic concept yet so many are getting brainwashed into believing that everything must be censored in the name of a childs innocence ~ very smart manipulation to forward the conservative christian agenda. They're always coming up with some new angle to shape society the way they see fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

The "we must protect the children" line is an old right wing conservative christian standby for a free pass to move their agenda forward.

Protecting children is a parents responsibility, it always has been, it always will be. Wether it's surfing porn on the home computer, chatting to strangers on the home computer, walking the streets at night, etc. It's a parents responsibility.

---

I agree and disagree.

Here's why.

Not only am I a webmaster, traffic getter content editor.

I'm a father as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ounique

Yeah but that's a diffrent area, we're just talking about what we can personally do.

a good example is IRC I remember in 97 there was some guy named Deliverance or something and he had beta version of the new windoes 95 ect ect ect.


we'd need to stop thoese people in a very diffrent manner

---

different or not
it exists and you can't just pull the plug on it
those who want to find free always will

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jIgG

different or not
it exists and you can't just pull the plug on it
those who want to find free always will

---

No you can't unless your willing to shut down like twenty thousand server and that obviouslly won't happen.

I'm split on this issue as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ounique

I agree and disagree.

Here's why.

Not only am I a webmaster, traffic getter content editor.

I'm a father as well.

---

What do you agree with, and what do you disagree with?

The "we must protect the children" line is an old right wing conservative christian standby for a free pass to move their agenda forward.


I disagree with this line. I don't think it's always used as some end all be all.




Protecting children is a parents responsibility, it always has been, it always will be. Wether it's surfing porn on the home computer, chatting to strangers on the home computer, walking the streets at night, etc. It's a parents responsibility.


I agree here, however I think reasonable security is needed from a webmaster. If my son when he's older looks at porn in my home that IS my issue, most parents use the excuse of 'They are better with computers then me." well learn is what i say.

For home use I plan on running X Windows ect ect

However there are ALOT of webmasters that don't give a shit

Ya know once (more then once ) in 1998 someone got the bright idea to make their adult website pop up under searches like Disney ect ect ect

we're paying for it now.

This is a very basic concept yet so many are getting brainwashed into believing that everything must be censored in the name of a childs innocence ~ very smart manipulation to forward the conservative christian agenda. They're always coming up with some new angle to shape society the way they see fit.

Again it's almost as if your attacking Christian's or something.

It's both it starts in the home but ends with us.

I disagree with this line. I don't think it's always used as some end all be all.

I agree. I don't think it's always used as an end all and be all, but it is an old standby. I remember when it was used against homosexuals because we were "recruiting young boys and girls to be Gay"


Protecting children is a parents responsibility, it always has been, it always will be. Wether it's surfing porn on the home computer, chatting to strangers on the home computer, walking the streets at night, etc. It's a parents responsibility.


I agree here, however I think reasonable security is needed from a webmaster.

I agree. It's funny though, goto a library and where is the security keeping children from seeing naked bodies in books, pornographic texts, sex ed books, etc.?


Again it's almost as if your attacking Christian's or something. It's both it starts in the home but ends with us.

Stating facts about the conservative christian agenda isn't attacking them. However we are in the adult industry, and we are homosexuals, we are under attack both in our freedom of speech and civil rights, as we all know. I'm not one of the hate all christians or hate all republican types.

I have a hard time being convinced that the internet should be deemed a child safe zone or that a site owner is responsible for what a parent gives their child access to. If a parent let's their child surf the internet alone, or goto the library alone, they can expect that something they don't approve of might happen right?

I agree. I don't think it's always used as an end all and be all, but it is an old standby. I remember when it was used against homosexuals because we were "recruiting young boys and girls to be Gay"

I guess my opinion would be diffrent if i was older.
Truth be told I find that more Gay men dislike the fact I have a nasty habit of having sex with women from time to time.


I agree. It's funny though, goto a library and where is the security keeping children from seeing naked bodies in books, pornographic texts, sex ed books, etc.?


True.



Stating facts about the conservative christian agenda isn't attacking them. However we are in the adult industry, and we are homosexuals, we are under attack both in our freedom of speech and civil rights, as we all know. I'm not one of the hate all christians or hate all republican types.


I guess for me I've always felt that my speech and civil rights were under attack. So yeah I see that. I want things even I guess. First i was wrong beacuse I liked men, then I was wrong beacause I liked (a) women.
I think we as a gay comunity are actually segrigating straight people.


I have a hard time being convinced that the internet should be deemed a child safe zone or that a site owner is responsible for what a parent gives their child access to. If a parent let's their child surf the internet alone, or goto the library alone, they can expect that something they don't approve of might happen right?


TRUE!

But as a gesture of good faith we should try to come up with some method, beacuse it's better then none, and then no one can't say that we didn't try.

i'm a webmaster who raised a son and helped raise a daughter. i feel strongly that it is a parent's responsibility to take care of their kids, and i felt that way many years before i was a webmaster.

no one can take care of my kids the way i want them cared for but me becauase no one has the same beliefs and desires for them that i do. i watched every cartoon before i let my son watch it, and that includes video games, too. i worked with him on his schoolwork. and in no way would i trust a body of people like any government to do what i think is right for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ounique

I agree and disagree.

Here's why.

Not only am I a webmaster, traffic getter content editor.

I'm a father as well.

---

I think no matter which way you slice this argument, you cant get away from the fact that parents should take more responsibility for what their kids are doing on the internet. I have two kids, mostly grown up now but when they were little, they had limited time on the computer and the monitor was always facing a main walkway in the house as well as kept in the family area. If the y were on a site they shouldnt have been, we pretty much knew about it.

I dont come from a computer background as such from growing up. However, even back then, I could get my hands on whatever porn I wanted, when ever I wanted it, and you now what? I still turned out ok. Im not a perv, psycho or anything of that nature because I looked at porn at an early age. in this country a few years ago, the government tried to make it law that every household had to have a filtering software on their family computers to make this country more 'surfer friendly' for our kids. It didnt become law.

Parents have a huge responsibility for their kids safety even when surfing the web and should stop blaming everybody else because their kids get sucked in by chat room phoneys. Its the world we live in and banning free sites (eventhough i really dont think they are a good thing) to take responsibility away from the parents, isnt the way to go. Why dont we ban everything that could be 'detrimental' to or kids safety? Needless to say there are some types of sites that should be banned, but thats a totally different argument.:humble:

Come on parents, grow up and stop bitching about stuff you cant really control and concentrate on what you can control, namely,what your kids are up to on the internet.

Thats my rant for the day cause its nearly over here...:bananacock:

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycar

Thats my rant for the day cause its nearly over here...:bananacock:

---

Please continue! I like it when you get feisty :bananacock:

he he , u do huh?? well, hop on ICQ and Ill start on you then mr!!! :cowboy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycar

he he , u do huh?? well, hop on ICQ and Ill start on you then mr!!! :cowboy:

---

Fuck ICQ I'm calling your mobile.. Aussie accents are cute and yours is sexy as hell ;)

believe me, my voice is the least sexy thing about me...lol
:angel:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycar

believe me, my voice is the least sexy thing about me...lol
:angel:

---

WOW you're right :groovy:

is that why u asked me over for a romp in your hot bed of lerv?? :rolleyes:

my opinions :D

Leave porn alone
--

Close myspace, youtube, social networking all together ;)
And chat room sites!

Kids will then be safe online :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

i'm a webmaster who raised a son and helped raise a daughter. i feel strongly that it is a parent's responsibility to take care of their kids, and i felt that way many years before i was a webmaster.

no one can take care of my kids the way i want them cared for but me becauase no one has the same beliefs and desires for them that i do. i watched every cartoon before i let my son watch it, and that includes video games, too. i worked with him on his schoolwork. and in no way would i trust a body of people like any government to do what i think is right for him.

---

Here's the issue as I see it. The world at large, will come up with any excuse to put down what er do, we all agree there I would guess.

Yes it is a parents issue however everyone is going to look to us to do something about it.


so we should. out of the kindness of our hearts

okay fine - so we all agree to a point that its the parents job - so lets not worry about crack dealers because parents should watch their kids so that they dont get into drugs.

same as on the net - be nice if the parents can watch every moment, but as a parent myself and to those that are, we know if the kids want to get at the stuff they will.

is there NO responsibility to the adult industry? are we content with free content being served up? those that deal in traffic etc. are making a killing - those with paysites are suffering with the attitudes, "why pay for it when I can get it for free".

government and parents want more paysites or control over porn so that underage viewers will have a more difficult time finding it, and if they are faced with more paysites - it will decrease the numbers viewing porn.

I find it surprising that those that have free sites or have free content on the web never want to admit that kids are looking at it for fear that once that realization hits us - we may have to admit we are making it easier for kids to view porn.

What exactly is wrong with underage kids looking at porn, how underage are we talking? I hate to buck the responsibility party line, but underage teenagers find porn because they want it. They have hormones, a sex drive, and they don't have the best available outlets. Looking at the average age that most people first have sex more than half of teenagers are having sex before they can legally view porn. Haven't we accepted that that's not going to change. You can't legislate away the sex drive of teenagers. I understand keeping kids 12-14 and under from looking at porn, but why make a big deal about keeping sexually active or interested teenagers from seeing porn. It seems like it would be more responsible to redirect teenagers looking for free porn to safe sex websites and try to deal with the much bigger problem of teen pregnancy.
What do the parents out there think? At what age are you going to be okay with your kids sneaking porn behind your back?
On another issue. I think that homosexuality should recruit. I'm straight, so naturally I think the commercials would be hilarious, and the shock from the right might be hilarious. At the same time it might have the positive effect of laying out a path for closet gays to come out and be themselves (preferably before they get married, become preachers, and start resorting to gay prostitutes.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesXR

What exactly is wrong with underage kids looking at porn, how underage are we talking? I hate to buck the responsibility party line, but underage teenagers find porn because they want it. They have hormones, a sex drive, and they don't have the best available outlets. Looking at the average age that most people first have sex more than half of teenagers are having sex before they can legally view porn. Haven't we accepted that that's not going to change. You can't legislate away the sex drive of teenagers. I understand keeping kids 12-14 and under from looking at porn, but why make a big deal about keeping sexually active or interested teenagers from seeing porn. It seems like it would be more responsible to redirect teenagers looking for free porn to safe sex websites and try to deal with the much bigger problem of teen pregnancy.
What do the parents out there think? At what age are you going to be okay with your kids sneaking porn behind your back?
On another issue. I think that homosexuality should recruit. I'm straight, so naturally I think the commercials would be hilarious, and the shock from the right might be hilarious. At the same time it might have the positive effect of laying out a path for closet gays to come out and be themselves (preferably before they get married, become preachers, and start resorting to gay prostitutes.)

---

I dont know what to say James - it is a very dangerous attitude to say, "why should we care if kids (under 18) look at porn". this sentiment is exactly why society and DOJ are after us, because they feel we don't care who looks at porn. To simply say, "they are going to find it anyways" is a cope out I feel of responsibility and a dangerous attitude to carry.

If we allow ourselves to not care about underage viewers eventually we will find a way to market to them, and eventually why not just shoot underage content since they should see their age group anyways and not be swayed by older people? There is no stopping the rollercoaster once we allow ourselves to allow and not care about children. sadly, if webmasters do have that attitude then I would have to be encouraging 2257 and the DOJ to stop webmasters who are more for the dollar and less concerned who they harm to get it.

It may be a dangerous attitude in terms of appearances, but is there any evidence that porn is even harmful to teenagers, or is this some stupid holy crusade. I don't think that there's a slippery slope to child porn here. The best and most realistic reason for blocking kids I've heard so far is that kids don't have credit cards, and even if they do they don't want porn on their statements, so they're a waste of bandwidth.
Right now nothing is really being done to keep kids off of tgps, mgps, and site tours. Sure theres the stupid "You must be 18 to enter!" pages, unless your adding a magical jpg of truthfulness that compels surfers not to lie and claim to be 18 those are pretty ineffective. Is rhetoric about not wanting kids to see porn the only defense the industry has?
I want to see a survey detailing what percentage of adult males were exposed to pornography in some form before their eighteenth birthdays. I'm willing to bet that number is in excess of 50% of the population. If I had to put money on a number I'd go with 85%. I'll bet the advent of the internet upped the number a bit, but I'll bet it was high even before.

As for this: "If we allow ourselves to not care about underage viewers eventually we will find a way to market to them, and eventually why not just shoot underage content since they should see their age group anyways and not be swayed by older people? There is no stopping the rollercoaster once we allow ourselves to allow and not care about children. sadly, if webmasters do have that attitude then I would have to be encouraging 2257 and the DOJ to stop webmasters who are more for the dollar and less concerned who they harm to get it."

That is a terrible slippery slope argument and I'd like to see some substantiation for the "harm" that that porn does to teenagers. By the way, the victims of porn website seems to mostly be people who were abused as children by someone who had porn on hand. Most of the websites that talk about the harm of porn seem to argue backwards from the supposition that it does harm, and that isn't exactly and strong argument.

Let's have some real conversation in here. Who here believes that porn is harmful to teenagers? Are there any reasons? We accept that kids have sex in high school why is it so scary to accept that they're going to look at porn, especially when I'm not seeing any evidence that it's harmful? I'll be glad to be proved wrong if someone has some evidence.

as we all know, porn has a lot of faces so to speak. If you are talking about the type of porn thats just plain sex or a little bit of kink, then no, I do not believe it is harmful in any way to kids under 18. For gods sake, I was sneaking porn when i was 12 from my older brothers room (the days before the internet). But you have to admit the more extreme fetish type sites can be used as justification for some really bad behaivoir by some who have a few mental issues to start with.

I do believe however that the industry has to take some sort of responsibility in at least doing something to try and counteract minors gaining access to porn. Remember that people opposed to porn believe what they want to and no amount of arguing to try and prove them wrong is going to change their minds. Religion, politics and people basic human emotions play a huge part in what people will believe. theres nothing wrong with coming up with some sort of safeguards to stop kids viewing porn.

I dont think the question should be 'is porn harmful to young kids minds' but more to the point ' is there anything that the adult industry can do that will make these opposers of porn happy'? The answer to that is NO! There is no simple cut and dry answer here because it is a far bigger issue because religion and politics are involved. Add those two to any problem and you are rooted!!

if your children are youngish, filtering that you password protect should do the job. or you could get them on aol and make it so they can only access the aol kids section.

kids aren't meant to have free access to the street, the tv or the web. they don't have the judgement, but it takes less than one minute to set up filtering. then you don't have to watch them every minute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLegacy

okay fine - so we all agree to a point that its the parents job - so lets not worry about crack dealers because parents should watch their kids so that they dont get into drugs.

same as on the net - be nice if the parents can watch every moment, but as a parent myself and to those that are, we know if the kids want to get at the stuff they will.

is there NO responsibility to the adult industry? are we content with free content being served up? those that deal in traffic etc. are making a killing - those with paysites are suffering with the attitudes, "why pay for it when I can get it for free".

government and parents want more paysites or control over porn so that underage viewers will have a more difficult time finding it, and if they are faced with more paysites - it will decrease the numbers viewing porn.

I find it surprising that those that have free sites or have free content on the web never want to admit that kids are looking at it for fear that once that realization hits us - we may have to admit we are making it easier for kids to view porn.

---

Certain aspects of our industry are very responsible.. most paysite owners, producers, etc.

The majority of people, in other aspects of our industry don't give a shit and are out to make a quick buck where consequences don't come to bite them in the butt, because it's not their content, or sites future at stake.