Porn blocking
Moderators: Admin, Ralph, asl, Robin
So the government is trying to go ahead with this filtering of porn on the internet. My favourite part of the debate so far was something I heard on the radio this morning when a guy rang in and said his brother was a wildlife photographer and he already can't access his website on his mobile phone because Orange have blocked it due to it featuring things such as "Blue tits" and "Bird's fat balls".
-
- Posts: 29813
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
15 years too late for me.
Would have saved getting on £4,000 minimum if I'd not go hooked on porn as a kid.
Has been incredibly hard to get over it at times and at sometimes I relapse.
If I'm on my own in the house, I cannot physically go on a computer without looking up sexual material of some sort, and I've missed trains, bank opening times, TV shows etc because of it.
As with any addiction the personality change and lies/deceit effects those close to you as well, with the added impact of distorting your view on sex and relationships. I have always found it difficult to intiate normal sex with partners with the thoughts of extreme abusive (18+) videos and/or prostitutes going through my head.
I just have to listen to my brothers (18 and 16), who aren't abnormal in anwyay in how much and what porn they look, and the impact it has on their view of women and sex is disturbing.
Banning because the minority cannot control themselves is not on - hence why Alcohol and Cigarettes are licenced but not banned - but this regulation is not a ban, it's a restriction so anyone over the age of 18 can still access porn at will 24/7 for free, rather than having 14 year olds doing so which in my view is a good thing.
It'll be a huge relief to me when Virgin ask us if we want the filter on, and any other households are free to have it turned off so I don't know why people are against it.
Would have saved getting on £4,000 minimum if I'd not go hooked on porn as a kid.
Has been incredibly hard to get over it at times and at sometimes I relapse.
If I'm on my own in the house, I cannot physically go on a computer without looking up sexual material of some sort, and I've missed trains, bank opening times, TV shows etc because of it.
As with any addiction the personality change and lies/deceit effects those close to you as well, with the added impact of distorting your view on sex and relationships. I have always found it difficult to intiate normal sex with partners with the thoughts of extreme abusive (18+) videos and/or prostitutes going through my head.
I just have to listen to my brothers (18 and 16), who aren't abnormal in anwyay in how much and what porn they look, and the impact it has on their view of women and sex is disturbing.
Banning because the minority cannot control themselves is not on - hence why Alcohol and Cigarettes are licenced but not banned - but this regulation is not a ban, it's a restriction so anyone over the age of 18 can still access porn at will 24/7 for free, rather than having 14 year olds doing so which in my view is a good thing.
It'll be a huge relief to me when Virgin ask us if we want the filter on, and any other households are free to have it turned off so I don't know why people are against it.
WTF!RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:15 years too late for me.
Would have saved getting on £4,000 minimum if I'd not go hooked on porn as a kid.
Has been incredibly hard to get over it at times and at sometimes I relapse.
If I'm on my own in the house, I cannot physically go on a computer without looking up sexual material of some sort, and I've missed trains, bank opening times, TV shows etc because of it.
As with any addiction the personality change and lies/deceit effects those close to you as well, with the added impact of distorting your view on sex and relationships. I have always found it difficult to intiate normal sex with partners with the thoughts of extreme abusive (18+) videos and/or prostitutes going through my head.
I just have to listen to my brothers (18 and 16), who aren't abnormal in anwyay in how much and what porn they look, and the impact it has on their view of women and sex is disturbing.
Banning because the minority cannot control themselves is not on - hence why Alcohol and Cigarettes are licenced but not banned - but this regulation is not a ban, it's a restriction so anyone over the age of 18 can still access porn at will 24/7 for free, rather than having 14 year olds doing so which in my view is a good thing.
It'll be a huge relief to me when Virgin ask us if we want the filter on, and any other households are free to have it turned off so I don't know why people are against it.
- Educated Bertie
- Posts: 109
- Joined: 24 Nov 2009, 00:18
- Location: In & Out of all fine watering-holes.
Have to pawn (misper) my PC PC.
-
- Posts: 29813
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
A must read for anyone with an opinion on the Porn Blocking issue:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/10 ... -boys.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/10 ... -boys.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sad state of affairs. Girls pressured to look like sluts.RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:A must read for anyone with an opinion on the Porn Blocking issue:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/10 ... -boys.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- Posts: 29813
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Many more in Syria - when will we go in?Joey wrote:I blame Miley Cyrus.
In other news, 100 Iraqis have been killed this month and we're only 3 days in.
It will do our nation more harm than good if we were to intervene.RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:Many more in Syria - when will we go in?Joey wrote:I blame Miley Cyrus.
In other news, 100 Iraqis have been killed this month and we're only 3 days in.
-
- Posts: 29813
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
I want in. SAS to take out Assad.Joey wrote:It will do our nation more harm than good if we were to intervene.RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:Many more in Syria - when will we go in?Joey wrote:I blame Miley Cyrus.
In other news, 100 Iraqis have been killed this month and we're only 3 days in.
-
- Posts: 29813
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Then no need to take him out.Joey wrote:I've heard his brother, Maher al-Assad is a lovely man.RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
I want in. SAS to take out Assad.
As long as our boys get finished in time to call in to save The Rock from the Spanish on the way back through The Med.
-
- Posts: 29813
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Interesting piece on Internet and porn.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ual-damage" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ual-damage" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Despise articles such as these, makes people fearful of the world.RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:Interesting piece on Internet and porn.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ual-damage" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It's too easy to "blame the internet".
-
- Posts: 29813
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
More evidence.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/be ... -help.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"A fifth of boys aged between 16 and 20 told the University of East London they were “dependent on porn as a stimulant for real sex”.
The online sexual imagery study surveyed 177 students and found 97 per cent of the boys had viewed porn.
Of those, 23 per cent said they tried to stop watching it but could not, while 13 per cent reported the content they watch has “become more and more extreme.
Seven per cent said they wanted professional help because they felt their porn habit was getting out of control."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/be ... -help.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"A fifth of boys aged between 16 and 20 told the University of East London they were “dependent on porn as a stimulant for real sex”.
The online sexual imagery study surveyed 177 students and found 97 per cent of the boys had viewed porn.
Of those, 23 per cent said they tried to stop watching it but could not, while 13 per cent reported the content they watch has “become more and more extreme.
Seven per cent said they wanted professional help because they felt their porn habit was getting out of control."
-
- Posts: 29813
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking ... rains.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
“The boys are very confused about how to approach girls,” she says. “Their sexual education is porn. And it’s very misogynistic and violent porn.” Porn has become more extreme over the last two decades, probably because its users’ “tolerance” has rapidly increased with the ubiquity of internet connections. Steiner-Adair had conversations with boys who wanted to know why women liked being choked when they were having sex or why women liked being urinated on."
“The boys are very confused about how to approach girls,” she says. “Their sexual education is porn. And it’s very misogynistic and violent porn.” Porn has become more extreme over the last two decades, probably because its users’ “tolerance” has rapidly increased with the ubiquity of internet connections. Steiner-Adair had conversations with boys who wanted to know why women liked being choked when they were having sex or why women liked being urinated on."
Porn has become more extreme? Have they not seen some of the nasty s#!t that was being produced in the 70's?! It's just more available now, the same as everything.
Also, I'd say the main reason boys don't know how to talk to girls is the same reason as always throughout decades - men don't know what women want and are afraid of being embarrassed. And a lot of girls these days have a high opinion of themselves and false sense of entitlement due to celebrity culture and c!#p TV shows like X Factor. Porn is only a part of the "problem".
Let's face it, we're all doomed.
Also, I'd say the main reason boys don't know how to talk to girls is the same reason as always throughout decades - men don't know what women want and are afraid of being embarrassed. And a lot of girls these days have a high opinion of themselves and false sense of entitlement due to celebrity culture and c!#p TV shows like X Factor. Porn is only a part of the "problem".
Let's face it, we're all doomed.
This is a few old people talking about how the youth of today are bad at something.RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking ... rains.html
“The boys are very confused about how to approach girls,” she says. “Their sexual education is porn. And it’s very misogynistic and violent porn.” Porn has become more extreme over the last two decades, probably because its users’ “tolerance” has rapidly increased with the ubiquity of internet connections. Steiner-Adair had conversations with boys who wanted to know why women liked being choked when they were having sex or why women liked being urinated on."
Nothing new here.
-
- Posts: 29813
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
I was actually talking about neurological pathways being altered and the very nature of human relationships and behaviour being irreparably altered. Surprised at you Joey as usually you are quite liberal in terms of racial and sexual equality and when discussing fundamental morals of humanity - maybe you have a problem you don't want to admit?Joey wrote:This is a few old people talking about how the youth of today are bad at something.RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking ... rains.html
“The boys are very confused about how to approach girls,” she says. “Their sexual education is porn. And it’s very misogynistic and violent porn.” Porn has become more extreme over the last two decades, probably because its users’ “tolerance” has rapidly increased with the ubiquity of internet connections. Steiner-Adair had conversations with boys who wanted to know why women liked being choked when they were having sex or why women liked being urinated on."
Nothing new here.
The quote in your original post is from - "Gallop is 53 and “only dates younger men, usually men in their twenties". She doesn't sound the kind of person to be giving out sexual advice.RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:I was actually talking about neurological pathways being altered and the very nature of human relationships and behaviour being irreparably altered. Surprised at you Joey as usually you are quite liberal in terms of racial and sexual equality and when discussing fundamental morals of humanity - maybe you have a problem you don't want to admit?Joey wrote:This is a few old people talking about how the youth of today are bad at something.RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking ... rains.html
“The boys are very confused about how to approach girls,” she says. “Their sexual education is porn. And it’s very misogynistic and violent porn.” Porn has become more extreme over the last two decades, probably because its users’ “tolerance” has rapidly increased with the ubiquity of internet connections. Steiner-Adair had conversations with boys who wanted to know why women liked being choked when they were having sex or why women liked being urinated on."
Nothing new here.
I find it hard to believe that people watch explicit content of various types and think "I should do it like that". It's like playing Call of Duty and expecting war to be like that. If we had an epidemic of girls swinging naked on wrecking balls or a birth shortage due to men doing it incorrectly then I might understand where these people come from.
-
- Posts: 29813
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
What do you have against relationships with a big age gap. One could argue she is best place to see first hand the changing sexual psychology of men of that age.
You may find it hard to believe (or don't want to believe), but the scientific evidence of the impact of porn on behaviour is there, referred to in my links. It is not a case of 'just thinking', the whole way the brain works is altered and people may not even realise.
You are speaking like someone who dismisses mental illnesses depression or addiction as weakness that someone can snap out of, rather than an actual illness which requires treatment, and I thought you were less ignorant and more empathetic than that.
You may find it hard to believe (or don't want to believe), but the scientific evidence of the impact of porn on behaviour is there, referred to in my links. It is not a case of 'just thinking', the whole way the brain works is altered and people may not even realise.
You are speaking like someone who dismisses mental illnesses depression or addiction as weakness that someone can snap out of, rather than an actual illness which requires treatment, and I thought you were less ignorant and more empathetic than that.
I think it's the "only dates younger men, usually in their twenties" bit that means she is blinkered and possibly biased. Sure, she sees these things...but then she only sees men who go for much older women, doesn't she? What about the guys in their twenties who only date girls their own age? There is no mention of these people. There is no mention of how many people had problems before internet porn, and how many are just using internet porn as an excuse for something else.
I know people have addictions, I know a few mentally imbalanced people see things and think they're normal (like the whole "somebody played Grand Theft Auto and then went and did a drive-by" stuff), but I don't think it's as big a catalyst to the changing of people's attitudes or psyche as some are trying to make out. As I said in my previous post, the "want everything now for free" mentality promoted by the media and TV shows are as much, if not more, to blame for young people's attitudes towards women/men/life.
People seem to forget that it is very rare that anything is new. There were pedophiles before the internet. There were violent murders and massacres before violent video games. There was nearly always a bigger storm before "global warming", even if it hasn't happened "since records began" (which it usually has). Similarly, there have always been men who have wanted to watch naked women, and do stuff to them. Just because it's 2013 doesn't mean that it's going to stop and people are going to act differently.
I know people have addictions, I know a few mentally imbalanced people see things and think they're normal (like the whole "somebody played Grand Theft Auto and then went and did a drive-by" stuff), but I don't think it's as big a catalyst to the changing of people's attitudes or psyche as some are trying to make out. As I said in my previous post, the "want everything now for free" mentality promoted by the media and TV shows are as much, if not more, to blame for young people's attitudes towards women/men/life.
People seem to forget that it is very rare that anything is new. There were pedophiles before the internet. There were violent murders and massacres before violent video games. There was nearly always a bigger storm before "global warming", even if it hasn't happened "since records began" (which it usually has). Similarly, there have always been men who have wanted to watch naked women, and do stuff to them. Just because it's 2013 doesn't mean that it's going to stop and people are going to act differently.
-
- Posts: 29813
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Not disputing that Shade. Though I do think you are missing the point slightly.
Your quote:
"there have always been men who have wanted to watch naked women, and do stuff to them."
Of course there is, that isn't a problem and not what I am talking about.
I'll use the analogy of religion.
A perfectly rational adult may read religious texts for the first time and choose to follow one, all, or neither of them based on how they view it and what they like.
Akin to a man watching some naked women and choosing whether he likes it and wanting to do more.
A class of young children may be exclusively preached one religion at school and at home and will be effectively brainwashed and will grow up to believe that is the best religion and what they have been taught is true.
Similarly, a class of children who have become addicted to extreme porn before ever even kissing someone from the opposite sex will not be able to choose what they want to do as their brain neurology has already been changed. When a generation of 15 year old boys grow up thinking that sex is about them choking a girl and slapping her around to do things to you that she finds uncomfortable and painful without having to care what she likes, let alone doing anything for mutual or her enjoyment (or love), I consider that to a bad thing and completely different from choice or a fully formed adult making a rational decision like you described.
I consider it exactly the same as giving a child a pack of fags, cocaine or a bottle of vodka on a regular basis as the addictive nature of the material, and the permanent impact on brain chemistry and function is the same.
If this debate was about banning Big Tobacco from handing out ciggies in schools, or about drug dealers waiting outside year nine classrooms, or pubs giving free drinks to anyone under 15 to get them hooked, I think most people would be in agreement that it is not a good thing for society. I do not view this issue as different from those.
Your quote:
"there have always been men who have wanted to watch naked women, and do stuff to them."
Of course there is, that isn't a problem and not what I am talking about.
I'll use the analogy of religion.
A perfectly rational adult may read religious texts for the first time and choose to follow one, all, or neither of them based on how they view it and what they like.
Akin to a man watching some naked women and choosing whether he likes it and wanting to do more.
A class of young children may be exclusively preached one religion at school and at home and will be effectively brainwashed and will grow up to believe that is the best religion and what they have been taught is true.
Similarly, a class of children who have become addicted to extreme porn before ever even kissing someone from the opposite sex will not be able to choose what they want to do as their brain neurology has already been changed. When a generation of 15 year old boys grow up thinking that sex is about them choking a girl and slapping her around to do things to you that she finds uncomfortable and painful without having to care what she likes, let alone doing anything for mutual or her enjoyment (or love), I consider that to a bad thing and completely different from choice or a fully formed adult making a rational decision like you described.
I consider it exactly the same as giving a child a pack of fags, cocaine or a bottle of vodka on a regular basis as the addictive nature of the material, and the permanent impact on brain chemistry and function is the same.
If this debate was about banning Big Tobacco from handing out ciggies in schools, or about drug dealers waiting outside year nine classrooms, or pubs giving free drinks to anyone under 15 to get them hooked, I think most people would be in agreement that it is not a good thing for society. I do not view this issue as different from those.
Ok, I understand where you're coming from and I don't see it differently. What you're describing are things that are against the law (in this country at least), kids having access to these things that it is deemed they shouldn't until they are an adult and "know their own mind".
In all cases, in my opinion, it is firstly the parents job to keep their children from accessing these things, to keep their children safe. I think the main question should be "Why are children able to watch this kind of material/able to drink vodka?" etc. Parents need to take responsibility and stop relying on government to do everything for them. Obviously, children are always going to try and get these things - 18 cert games/movies, porn, et al - but a good parent will find out, educate their offspring and keep a bloody eye on them. Not like the kind of mum's who like to take the easy way out from the nagging and, to keep them happy, buy their 12 year old Grand Theft Auto - is there an increase in the number of children going around saying the N-word, btw?
I always blame the parents for everything. It's hard not to.
In all cases, in my opinion, it is firstly the parents job to keep their children from accessing these things, to keep their children safe. I think the main question should be "Why are children able to watch this kind of material/able to drink vodka?" etc. Parents need to take responsibility and stop relying on government to do everything for them. Obviously, children are always going to try and get these things - 18 cert games/movies, porn, et al - but a good parent will find out, educate their offspring and keep a bloody eye on them. Not like the kind of mum's who like to take the easy way out from the nagging and, to keep them happy, buy their 12 year old Grand Theft Auto - is there an increase in the number of children going around saying the N-word, btw?
I always blame the parents for everything. It's hard not to.
As a primary school teacher, I can state categorically that there are children aged 11 and under who have watched some fairly extreme pornography. Having taught many year 6 sex education lessons and been asked questions that have clearly come from an exposure to pornography (e.g. 'why do they sometimes spray it on their tits?'; yes, a direct quote), this is something quite new. Just a few years ago, it would have been difficult for most children that age to have encountered pornographic video. Now it could be considered difficult for them not to have. They will certainly, through normal use of the internet, have encountered links at the very least to sites which will be a gateway to more explicit sites. This IS a serious issue for children; I have seen first hand the very negative impact that the underage use of violent video games and graphic images have on children. Children develop fixations on things that they do not fully understand. It is scary stuff standing in front of a child who has clearly been damaged by exposure to something that they are not yet ready to process and understand. It is even scarier that the vast majority of parents can listen to this message, nod their heads gravely and agree, then go home and buy their 9 or 10 year old child the latest Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto.
How are children of that age obtaining knowledge to access these sites. Parents can ask their broadband provider to filter sites on the black list. I believe parents should do more.TheRaven wrote:As a primary school teacher, I can state categorically that there are children aged 11 and under who have watched some fairly extreme pornography. Having taught many year 6 sex education lessons and been asked questions that have clearly come from an exposure to pornography (e.g. 'why do they sometimes spray it on their tits?'; yes, a direct quote), this is something quite new. Just a few years ago, it would have been difficult for most children that age to have encountered pornographic video. Now it could be considered difficult for them not to have. They will certainly, through normal use of the internet, have encountered links at the very least to sites which will be a gateway to more explicit sites. This IS a serious issue for children; I have seen first hand the very negative impact that the underage use of violent video games and graphic images have on children. Children develop fixations on things that they do not fully understand. It is scary stuff standing in front of a child who has clearly been damaged by exposure to something that they are not yet ready to process and understand. It is even scarier that the vast majority of parents can listen to this message, nod their heads gravely and agree, then go home and buy their 9 or 10 year old child the latest Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto.
-
- Posts: 29813
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Only thing I can say about parents is that many don't realise the problem exists.
There is a difference though - drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes are all licensed and restricted. Parents can lock the drinks cabinet and search pockets for drugs and fags and confiscate and all sorts. When tge kids are out parents know pubs and shops are licensed and the law helps them. A parent could put a filter on, or try and restrict smartphone access permission but they are incredibly easy to overcome and as soon as the kids go out the house there is no restrictions. Friends house or plenty of free wifi zones.
The supply of alcohol is controlled and parents can opt in to give it to their children if they want. Why should the same not be for porn?
There is a difference though - drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes are all licensed and restricted. Parents can lock the drinks cabinet and search pockets for drugs and fags and confiscate and all sorts. When tge kids are out parents know pubs and shops are licensed and the law helps them. A parent could put a filter on, or try and restrict smartphone access permission but they are incredibly easy to overcome and as soon as the kids go out the house there is no restrictions. Friends house or plenty of free wifi zones.
The supply of alcohol is controlled and parents can opt in to give it to their children if they want. Why should the same not be for porn?
-
- Posts: 29813
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Pretty hard for anyone to be happy with that happening to children.TheRaven wrote:As a primary school teacher, I can state categorically that there are children aged 11 and under who have watched some fairly extreme pornography. Having taught many year 6 sex education lessons and been asked questions that have clearly come from an exposure to pornography (e.g. 'why do they sometimes spray it on their tits?'; yes, a direct quote), this is something quite new. Just a few years ago, it would have been difficult for most children that age to have encountered pornographic video. Now it could be considered difficult for them not to have. They will certainly, through normal use of the internet, have encountered links at the very least to sites which will be a gateway to more explicit sites. This IS a serious issue for children; I have seen first hand the very negative impact that the underage use of violent video games and graphic images have on children. Children develop fixations on things that they do not fully understand. It is scary stuff standing in front of a child who has clearly been damaged by exposure to something that they are not yet ready to process and understand. It is even scarier that the vast majority of parents can listen to this message, nod their heads gravely and agree, then go home and buy their 9 or 10 year old child the latest Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto.
It's a bit harsh to claim I dismiss mental illnesses because of my opinion on this matter, I'm actually quite ashamed of societies viewpoint of mental illness.
Back onto the OP.
Most of these issues can be resolved through educating parents on how to manage their router settings, you can block site categories and specific sites very easily. Cameron's censorship crusade to "help the children" is plain stupid, it's either that or terrorism for a reason to get a free pass. I just know that this will go horribly wrong, how do decide which site to block and which site not to block? Will sites such as Reddit, 4chan, Imgur, Tumblr and even Twitter be blocked because NSFW content can be viewed on there? You could even go as far as blocking erotic fiction sold on the various eBook sites. This is simply some PR spin by Cameron to gain him brownie points with the parents who are floaters. The worst stuff isn't even on the web, it's hosted on the Tor network which anyone can access if they have half a brain about them.
It's very easy for you to bang on about how it's bad for you. Alcohol, cigarettes, fast food and pollution are even worse for you, why not ban those too?
As the saying goes "it's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't eat steak."
One more thing - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/g ... meron.html#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Right, because women don't look at porn. Just men.
Stupid sexist c!#p.
Stupid government treating people like children.
Back onto the OP.
Most of these issues can be resolved through educating parents on how to manage their router settings, you can block site categories and specific sites very easily. Cameron's censorship crusade to "help the children" is plain stupid, it's either that or terrorism for a reason to get a free pass. I just know that this will go horribly wrong, how do decide which site to block and which site not to block? Will sites such as Reddit, 4chan, Imgur, Tumblr and even Twitter be blocked because NSFW content can be viewed on there? You could even go as far as blocking erotic fiction sold on the various eBook sites. This is simply some PR spin by Cameron to gain him brownie points with the parents who are floaters. The worst stuff isn't even on the web, it's hosted on the Tor network which anyone can access if they have half a brain about them.
It's very easy for you to bang on about how it's bad for you. Alcohol, cigarettes, fast food and pollution are even worse for you, why not ban those too?
As the saying goes "it's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't eat steak."
One more thing - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/g ... meron.html#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Right, because women don't look at porn. Just men.
Stupid sexist c!#p.
Stupid government treating people like children.