Russia Bans Popular Tube Sites

Discussion in 'Pornography Addiction' started by 40New30, Jun 27, 2017.

  1. 40New30

    40New30 Keep going

    In case you guys were not aware Russia has recently banned national access to a bunch of porn Tube sites...Putin has also commented on the fact that he wants to see Russia's fertility rate rise back to 2.1 babies per 2 people, or replacement rate.

    If a nation does not get it's fertility rate to replacement rate, there is no choice but to increase immigration from outside it's borders (and it's culture), or the nation won't have enough workers and will eventually go bankrupt.

    I read another article where Russia's fertility rate indeed has risen in the last couple of years, and that Russia is taking other active steps to increase fertility. Food for thought and a definite political statement, no?

    This is not an isolated incident, there are ads in Denmark calling on Danes to have more babies...supposedly that's working too.

    On the flip side we can look at Japan where porno is absolutely everywhere and the birth rate is plummeting at an alarming rate.

    Is this a trend that will continue? I think it will...I'm definitely not for outright banning by governments, but people definitely have the right to know that excessive porn use leads to lack of confidence, lack of motivation, less marriages, more divorces and less baby making.

    What about creating a law where every porn video accessible by the internet is preceded by a friendly reminder of the potential dangers of porn consumption? Kind of like the warning on a pack of cigarettes?

    It worked for cutting the smoking rates in the U.S.

    Warning Porn Consumption May Cause A Limp Noodle.
    Now on with the show.

    :)

    Peace.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2017
    dig deep and Boxer17 like this.
  2. Boxer17

    Boxer17 Member

    :eek::cool::) LOL. But very good
     
    40New30 likes this.
  3. BaldrRising

    BaldrRising Member

    You make lots of great points here. I won't go into detail or else I might get accused of being a racist! LOL!!!

    I'm not for a ban either, but porn shouldn't be so easily accessible as it is now. Back in the day of brick and mortar stores, if a kid tried to sneak into the adult section of a video store, he'd get kicked out. If you looked too young, you had to show ID to buy a magazine or a vhs tape. Also, there was that fear of seeing your crush at the video rental store while holding a copy of some porno movie in your hand.

    It's so easy to access porn from your home these days. I think all porn should be behind a paywall. That way, before you take out that credit card from your wallet, you can think twice before making that purchase. Also, you don't have to worry about stumbling onto a site with NSFW content because all of that will be behind a paywall.

    So one of the first steps would be to remove all porn from the internet where everyone can access it. This can be done. Google has algos that can scan and remove NSFW content from YouTube, and they also work with the Feds in removing illegal shit as well. We have the technology to remove the free stuff that's out there.

    Now comes the argument of "muh free speech!" Well, porn site owners haven't done shit to prevent those who shouldn't look at porn from accessing it. At most is a warning that goes away when you click "accept." And, first amendment rights won't apply to something that causes harm to others, which porn is know to do.

    Back in the vhs days, we had laws limiting the sale of pornography only to adults. There is enough jurisprudence to apply this to porn on the internet. We just have to enforce it.

    I'm all for personal responsibility and making better choices. Someone will say to me "if porn is such a problem, then just don't look at it!" That is such a tired and worn out argument that holds no weight. People who believe in that argument probably have no clue how the brain works in the mind of a porn addict. In a world of high speed internet combined with a hypersexual pop culture, it can be a living hell for someone dealing with issues of addiction, porn, and one's sexuality.
     
  4. saneagain

    saneagain Member

    Good summary of my thought, for which I was too lazy to write them down ;).

    You can not buy cigarettes or booze when you're not 18 at the store (at least here in Europe). But you can watch the most hardcore porn at age 8 when your parents are not at home. This has to be changed. It's not an issue of morality or religion. I've been an atheist my whole life and watched some of the most explicit content, just because I didn't know the harm I was doing to myself. It's an issue of public health.

    A good step in the right direction from the Russians.
     
  5. 40New30

    40New30 Keep going

    Great comments and contributions, boys. :)

    Unfortunately common sense legislation is in short supply these days. But, I think the times they are changin'.
     
  6. Imfree

    Imfree Member

    Porn has absolutely nothing to do with the first amendment. Porn isn't speech, nor is it written language. It's graphic images. The founding fathers didn't anticipate photography, video, or the Internet. At that time perhaps erotic artwork would have been available, but reading the first amendment does not suggest that the founding fathers were expressing an opinion on whether such works should be disseminated or not. The spirit of the first amendment is that people should be free to criticize the government and hold it's representatives accountable. It does not seem to suggest that being inundated with vulgar, obscene, and trivial media is good for the republic. Similarly, the second amendment is about defending yourself against tyranny, not about a paranoid and irrational fear of your fellow citizens. People interpret the Bible too literally and don't interpret the Constitution literally enough. While rationally I doubt that prohibition will be effective, my first inclination is to say good for Russia. They oppose ISIS as well, whereas the west provides covert support. Maybe this will be used as propaganda to further the cause of the second Cold War. All they did was switch the anti-Russia faction from the right wing to the left wing. What a crock.
     
  7. lookingahead

    lookingahead To restore my inmost being.

    Everyone here made good points. I have to say that a lot of libertarian purists on this forum argue that anything short of total and complete anarchy online will lead to censorship and dictatorship, or whatever. In other words, allowing the slightest control methods, even built-in filtering options similar to satellite TV's v-chip, will lead to oppressive government overreach.

    • Either the most graphic sex scenes, orgies, gangbangs, rape and humiliation scenes are a click away to any 8 year old at high speed HD,

    -or-

    • CENSORSHIP!! COMMUNISM!! NORTH KOREA!!!

    Clearly, something is out of balance with that conundrum.

    (And I am not exaggerating, a lot of people have argued this way)

    Their 3 basic claims -

    The slightest legal filtering requirements will lead to:

    1) A slippery slope where more and more stuff will get censored, leading to censoring our free speech.

    2) It will criminalize large classes of people who are acting on their primal instincts

    3) It will push pornography in a deeper online underground black market, which will make the problem even harder and problematic to censor.



    So, I can blow up this logical bubble with a single prick -

    They make an exception to their arguments when it comes to child pornography. But why? If they were to remain logically and ideologically consistent, NOTHING should be censored, even child pornography, for the SAME REASONS -

    1) Censoring CP could lead to censoring other things

    2) censoring CP has criminalized large classes of people who act on their primal instincts, including kids who sext pictures of their own bodies for example.

    3) Censoring CP has pushed it to online black markets like the tor network and the dark web, which has made it extremely problematic to censor.

    "But but, lookingahead, that's different."

    Oh really? How?

    Tell me, dammit, how it's different when adults look at kids as opposed to kids looking at adults. Either way, kids have been sexually exploited. And the former is usually rooted in the later.

    "But you have to draw the line at consent. Adults can consent to being featured in porn, kids cannot, that's why CP should be censored"

    ...okay, so if kids can't consent to broadcasting themselves in porn, remind me how they can consent to watch porn.....?

    Look, I'm not in any way advocating for the legalization of child pornography. I'm just making the argument that the libertarians make their arguments not on principle alone. They realize and admit that some things are so morally reprehensible that they are willing to make exemptions to their own rigid belief system.

    And so I contend that children being exposed to pornography is just as reprehensible as adults being exposed to CP. That is a truth that society has generally not realized yet. Society has changed its attitude on slavery and other things, hopefully one day it will change its attitude on pornography.

    You know what, I don't care any more. Honestly, I don't give a shit. What happened to my own inner child, happened. And all I can do is protect my own future children from making the same mistakes. But after writing this post, I have lost interest. I don't think I'll respond to anyone else, whether they agree with me or not. I just don't care.
     
  8. HeyRevolver

    HeyRevolver Active Member

    Wholeheartedly agree with looking ahead on this one. I've heard the reverse argument ad nauseum and it seems a lackadaisical argument that neither helps a situation nor reduces it. The part I agreed with most is the 'inconsistency' point, identified by looking ahead. If you are to ban child porn, ban porn!! Why the double standard? Be consistent.

    Imo why don't we do unilateral porn reduction in the way nations with nuclear weapons advocate nuclear disarmament? You may call it alarmist but is it really, people hate sex, can't enjoy it, which is much the same thing, the symptoms abound. For all this talk of government tyranny if censorship occurs, why is the argument so linear not many will consider juuuust maybe proliferation is the tyranny?

    What if actually this all serves an agenda of devaluing sex, population control, citizens obsessed with sexual urges so pose no threat to government. I think we're misunderstanding this very thing called addiction, addiction occurs through novelty, novelty occurs through its proliferation/liberalisation if I chose a synonymous word.

    Then you say not everyones an addict? True, but how is that license to not protect the masses. At least we should send porn back to the video store days, where adults can monitor. Our rationalisations has only lead to the development of virtual porn and we know the arguments of don't censor porn has hastened this abuse of technology.

    I'm afraid guys, once this happens the state of world misery will be at an all-time high. Marx might have predicted worker dissatisfaction leading to overthrow of a bourgeoisie but the cost is far dismal than this. Addiction and social disorganisation, mental health-depression, adhd, suicides etc.

    There is a shade of grey, cut consumption, gradual phase out at least. Let people mature on their own terms, most the stuff we never get hooked to is because we didn't overindulge them as children. Guys, please, stop doing this mccarthy-communist crock of nonsense, its dated, our world is more black and white than the 50s.
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2017
  9. Imfree

    Imfree Member

    I agree with the last two posts. I recently read Gabor Mate's In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts. I would recommend this book to people struggling with addictions. One thing in the book that stood out to me was how the author pointed out that as a society we have the utmost pity for children who have been sexually abused, yet as soon as they grow up (typically to become junkies or prostitutes) we see them as absolutely reprehensible.
     
  10. spoofy

    spoofy Member

    Totally agree, and that's coming from a person who doesn't mind moderated porn.
    The biggest problem with porn atm is how easily accessible it is, tube sites in particular.
    The youth today are having their brains destroyed, teenagers are already getting ED wtf.

    In early 80/90s porn was perfectly fine imo, be it old school porno & magazines, peepshows, etc ...
    I'd say even early internet days were okish, most porn was only accessible via pay sites, and even p2p transfers required significant amount of time to get the goods, that's enough to bypass addiction impulse.

    I'm still puzzled how tube sites ever became a thing, how is this crap even legal?
     
  11. saneagain

    saneagain Member

    I just read an article from 3 days ago, which states that you can access Pornhub in Russia again. But it requires a login from VKontakte (the Russian version of facebook) and to use VKontakte you have to provide a phone number, which is assigned to your personal data i.e. age.

    @lookingahead

    I sign your post. Sums up perfectly everything.
     

Share This Page