h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I don't know why but this entry disturbed me. Rather than an article on internet porn it seems to be an instruction manual. I have nothing against porn, I have friends in the industry, I read and view it myself (although not usually on the net) and it sounds hypocritical even to myself, but I just don't like it.

I agree. Its not the content, which is bland enough, but something else that I cannot put my finger on. Perhaps its the motivation. Why write it (No, thats not fair, write what you like, how you like. The correct question is 'Why include it?'). The effort to avoid prurience somehow renders the whole thing pointless. I would have preferred a straightforward guide telling people where/how to look, should they be interested or 'How not to get found out', etc., or even some sort of look at how different cultures deal with the Internet and its pornographic content.

I would agree with you about those feelings. However on review of the entry it is really only the final section that gives this impression.

All the other sections are being factual and informative, and all state relatively obvious information. The final section however about cleaning up (bit ironic for an entry about porn ) is not obvious to anyone without reasonable computer experience. It does therefore have the feel of an instruction manual for beginners e.g. children or spouses to allow them to keep their obsession secret.

Of course there is nothing illegal or particularly offensive about what this section teaches us, it is just the use it is being put to that open the subject for debate. In another context this is all very good info.

I guess this is on the edge between being informative and being socially unacceptable. Overall I can live with it.

So what do the rest of H2G2 community think?

Seems a bit odd, given the level of moderation now, that this one was allowed. But it didn't actually force anyone to view anything, and did give a few tips on how to control availability of porn (even pointed out that kids can get round filters) so I suppose it wasn't bad.
Just wasn't what I'd expected really.

If it was a set of instructions purely on how not to be taken for a proverbial ride by internet pornographers, or how to safeguard one's hardware etc from the various viruses or scams or whatever, then this entry would be fine.

As it is, I think the timing's a little off, given the high-profile internet child pornography arrests recently, and given that this entry reads like a beginner's guide to how to access such stuff and get away with it. More than merely being informative about what internet porn is, it tells you how to get it and cover your tracks, which is surely gratuitous if this entry was for information purposes alone.

NexusSeven, child pornography and its illegal nature is explicitly discussed, as is the fact that some people feel all pornography is exploitative. I don't think the article has avoided the issues.

I added a lot of material to this entry because I originally felt it *did* dodge the issues to some extent. I wanted to correct that. I feel it is better now than it was.

Of course, some people will be at least borderline offended by the tacit admission that internet pornography is viewed by people you'd never guess who then feel a guilty compulsion (for whatever reason) to hide their activities. But it's reality. Internet pornography viewers are very often in the closet!

To what extent are people offended by the article, as opposed to the social reality?

It seems to be encouraging deceit.
I think trust between partners, or parents and children should be encouraged more. I know the article is not about people communicating about the things that they want to pursue in their sex lives, but this seems to be doing the opposite.

Although I am glad to know I am not a lone voice on this.

I can tell from reading this entry that the writer is an avid fan.
Anyone who has a telephone line with their name on the bill, is responsible for the outgoing calls. There is one infallible method of net-nannying. Disconnect the modem when you are not using your own pc. If your child wishes to surf, sit with them.
I have no answer for spouses who wish to cheat their partners.
Cheating will always go on.
The methods just change.

I don't think the entry is 'encouraging deceit.' It allows that people are already hiding the activity, and provides rather obvious tips. Please remember that *some* people don't feel that hiding internet porn is wrong in every case. Some people feel perfectly justified hiding their habit from a child, a roommate, a visiting acquaintance, the computer repairman, etc. Wouldn't denying basic information to these folks be a method for you to impose your sense of morality on them?

Some people will say that providing the tips at all is a sort of encouragement. I disagree since, to get to the tips, you have to read through all sorts of stuff about the issues. A person who has read through these and has decided to do it anyway obviously doesn't need any encouragement. At least this way, someone who is already doing it and is seeking tips may be confronted with the implications of their actions.

It would be nice if every family and every marriage allowed people to be totally honest about their sexual interests. But the reality is anything but the case for many people. In a few very sad cases, someone admitting their interests would be summarily divorced, thrown out of the house, or even beaten upon discovery. I don't think it's realistic to expect everyone to be honest and open, though I too would prefer it in an ideal world.

Can I thank Fragilis (my co-author and the one who made this article in mine and the guides view a balanced piece) 4 the comments so far, she has said everything i would have done and much better.

1 point which i made in PR was that if by writing this entry with the link to the site to report child porn, a single person reports a site containing such images and that site is removed and those behind it prosecuted (or hung depending on local laws - why don't child poronographers work out of Saudi I wonder?) then i feel that the entire thing has been worth it.

also encouraging deciet' mmmmm i know of several happy couples who view such sites but as Frag points out would not want others 2 know about it in the same way they wouldn't want any other details of their sex life known.

at the end of the day people will visit these sites, and yes i do on occasion, i wouldn't say i was a fan as there is such a lot of dross out there that is simply sad let alone erotic, and there is a whole different debate. What is erotic? and how does it differ from porongraphic? if indeed it does? anyone want to take that one on, i'll co-research if required.

Kadu Flyer

I have a question to pose: why is porn censored? I understand that child and the infirm need to be protected but so long as it harms no-one what is the problem. Don't get me wrong, I in no way condone child porn or any other 'sick' stuff but it being illeagal to show a hard penis is strange. In addition what about when the porn is cartoon or (in the future) computer generated. Should child porn still be illeagal if it doesn't involve children?
I personally believe it is not the right of the majority to out-law thing we belive are wrong or sick so long as it halms no-one. Using that arguement people would never have been punished for being gay or communist.

Mention of cartoon porn reminds me of that great question about why is it that Donald Duck wanders around with only a coat and hat on, yet when he gets out of the shower he has a towel wrapped around him ....

"or (in the future) computer generated"

The future is here and has been 4 sometime.

the link on the entry "Issues of Criminal Liability Mark Gould University of Bristol" states that image of or images that have been created to appear to be children are against the law, the link appears broken so you'll have 2 take my word for it

KF

Cartoons r lies. Animals don't take showers (except for hamsters). Ever wondered where foot and mouth came from?!
At present CGI is nothing compared to photos. I don't think any Computer Gen images should be illeagal so long as no-one gets hurts.

I just wanted to give my support to Fragilis and Kadu - I can't see any kind of problem with this entry. It's perhaps a little ambitious in trying to cover the whole of Internet Porn, but it touches all the bases, and over time, as it gets updated, its ambitions will be fully realised. Besides, ambition is a good thing. Perhaps some people in this very thread will contribute material which helps this process: the wheel turns onward.

--

On the tricky issue of CGI(etc) child porn, the argument has always been that the viewing of the faked stuff will encourage people to try and obtain the real stuff, or even to abuse children themselves. Hence, children may indeed get hurt.

There are those biologists who claim that we all suffer from some degree of latent paedophilia. If true, then the inadvertant viewing of child porn, real or faked, might be sufficient to turn one into a full blown paedophiliac, causing irreparable harm.

On the other side, some of the more extreme free market anarchists claim that if the state didn't penalise child porn, then the market would flow much more freely, and fewer numbers of chlildren would need to be sacrificed to satisfy the perversions of adults. They also hold out the carrot that if child porn were freely available then interest in it would rapidly fade.

Very few normal people agree with such logic. But then, what do you expect from a philosophy which claims to be about chaos, but whose practitioners all use an identical symbol to demonstrate their beliefs?

Myself, I firmly believe child pornography is a very bad, very nasty thing, and should be stamped upon with appropriate force. Whether the perpetrators are evil, or merely insane, makes little difference to the sheer levels of damage their acts can cause.

--

On the less tricky issue of nudity in cartoons, I was told that once there were complaints when Porky (the pig )was seen without his jacket - some parents felt that this level of nudity was unacceptable - urban myth? probably.

I think we can all agree that child porn is always bad, where real children are involved in its production. I mean, it seems to be one of the few values that you'll find in pretty much every legal system worldwide.

I feel differently about 'child porn' that isn't created using real children, though. And by this, I should explain what I'm referring to. One example is the cartoon anima/manga in Eastern cultures that revolves around girls in their teens. Another example is the use in the West of young adult models who dress and pose in such a way to create the appearance of being underage. And I suppose CGI images would fall into this category too, as long as real child models aren't involved.

I agree with the biologists who think there is 'some degree of latent paedophilia' among us. To put it simply, it has only been the past few hundred years that teenagers were off-limits for sex. Until quite recently, it was common to get married as soon as reproduction was possible -- and sometimes earlier. And it was also quite common for people to marry outside their generation, especially older men marrying teenaged girls. Hence our modern dilemma.

I think 'child porn' created with fakery provides a legitimate outlet for people with fantasies about underage children. It helps them recognize and satisfy their fantasies to some extent without hurting anyone. Perhaps if all such images were eliminated, more people would fail to recognize their fantasies until they were presented with an opportunity to act on them. And perhaps if all such images were eliminated, more people might turn to real human beings as an outlet for their feelings. In both cases, I feel society loses by its over-zealousness.

Of course, my feelings on sex and violence in the media differ from many people's. While more people see these as encouraging immitation, I subscribe to a beliefe in Greek style catharsis. So this is entirely my humble opinion.

Fragilis, I couldn't have said it beeter my self. But then I'm but a lowerly hamster and you're a Guru.
People should be able to explore their fantasies through images and stories. Without this people go crazy.

People become inured to things they see around them every day. They start wanting to go one step further. That's what would happen if it was considered acceptable to see child porn with no real children. Before long they would want to see real children. But that's not what the article is about.

I accept the point that room mates or repair men are not ideal for sharing our habits with, I hadn't thought about that. However, the first main paragraph in your article states "A married man can reasonably keep his wife from discovering his dissatisfaction with their sex life; a paedophile can conceal his interest from family members and co-workers; and a teen can learn a great deal about the facts of life without his/her parents' knowledge simply by clicking a link saying s/he is older than s/he really is." So I think I can be forgiven for thinking these are the people you were thinking of when you wrote the entry.

Yes, but if I hadn't mentioned the married wife and so forth, I would have got complaints for not mentioning these social issues. Argh!

I think we should agree to disagree on the child porn without children. I just feel a need to point out that such laws do involve a change away from what we have done in the past to something new. That's why it's such a hot topic for me.

I concur