I Have A Serious Question...

[estevie]

Yeah- when I was little, my mom let me watch the rated "R" movies on HBO (half of them would probably now be PG-13 though), as long as they weren't violent. Look at me- I turned out fine!
Hmmm.... maybe it ISN'T such a good idea to let your kids watch movies with adult sexual content then....
*This is just a joke- I agree with you guys, so no one jump on me please...

LOL

I agree, its parents responsibility to monitor what our children see. I personally don't have 'net nanny' or any of the other web watchers, but he does have his own screen name and it is set up for his age. On the off chance that he is on under my screen name, i'm sitting right here and watching where he goes. Its MY responsibility, not anyone elses.

oh, and i also agree...is seeing boobs and what not, really that big of deal??? and i'm not talking all out porn, just pics of naked ladies...I mean, he is a boy for god's sake!

 

[Guest]

You are are all really that stupid, aren't you?

As responsible owners, any forum where there are naked pictures posted should be protected somehow or require a password.

Asking if someone is of age is not practicing responsible board management. The pictures I went and looked at, to check out KidRock's allegations are in fact disturbing, because one of the posters Hick chick looks all of 16 years old.

You can't pull the free speech argument either, it doesn't apply to pornography.

You'd rather have your children see someone shoving a wine cooler bottle up their crotch and butt than watching tv today? You are the ones that are sick and the reason that your kids are the way they are.

Most RESPONSIBLE porn sites make it impossible for the hardcore to be viewed without A) a membership B) a password.

But then again judging from what I've read and seen here, the word responsible is a misnomer.

I'm sure there are agencies that this can be reported to and will be.

 

[estevie]

You are are all really that stupid, aren't you?

As responsible owners, any forum where there are naked pictures posted should be protected somehow or require a password.

Asking if someone is of age is not practicing responsible board management. The pictures I went and looked at, to check out KidRock's allegations are in fact disturbing, because one of the posters Hick chick looks all of 16 years old.

You can't pull the free speech argument either, it doesn't apply to pornography.

You'd rather have your children see someone shoving a wine cooler bottle up their crotch and butt than watching tv today? You are the ones that are sick and the reason that your kids are the way they are.

Most RESPONSIBLE porn sites make it impossible for the hardcore to be viewed without A) a membership B) a password.

But then again judging from what I've read and seen here, the word responsible is a misnomer.

I'm sure there are agencies that this can be reported to and will be.

This is a troll, right?

 

[lilminx]

This is a troll, right?

You got it Aren't these self-righteous idiots pathetic?

 

[Mistress]

Just to make a point.......


At KR1's board there is an under age poster or two who they had gladly given permission to enter their erotic forum, as well as the link to Literotica. Infact one of them posts here once in awhile.....


So, maybe you should take a look at yourself if you think Laurel and Manu are not responsible adults. They at least have a disclaimer, to where KR1's board does not, all you have to do is email Rhi/Sexy Thang and ask for access.

 

[Calamity Jane]

You'd rather have your children see someone shoving a wine cooler bottle up their crotch and butt than watching tv today? You are the ones that are sick and the reason that your kids are the way they are.

I'm sure there are agencies that this can be reported to and will be.

While you're reporting all this horrid porn to the proper agencies, please also find out which liquor store that 'girl' purchased her alcohol from so you can report them as well. After all, it just wouldn't do to have drunk minors looking at porn.

Oh yeah, and please grow the fuck up. Last time I checked there was not a damned thing about the human body to be ashamed of.

 

[Guest]

Okay, so you'd let your kid look at a girl sticking a wine bottle up her cunt?

good idea.

 

[SexyThang]

Misti

Hold up there..who is at our board that is underage that has access to a porn forum? We don't have a porn forum and when we did, they didn't have access.

Get your facts straight about SOMETHING at least. I know it's hard for you.

 

[Calamity Jane]

Okay, so you'd let your kid look at a girl sticking a wine bottle up her cunt?

good idea.

Not exactly what I said. HOWEVER if I had a 16 or 17 year old child with a healthy outlook on life, I seriously doubt I'd monitor them at all. I was on my own at 17, didn't need mommy looking over my shoulder, and I got a long just fine.

.

 

[Svedish_Chef]

Okay, so you'd let your kid look at a girl sticking a wine bottle up her cunt?

good idea.

Where?

I wanna see

 

[KID ROCK1]

Someone Mentioned The First Ammendment...

I belive i'm also entitled to free speech and my topic is a legit concern that this board promotes hardcore porn and has no restrictions on who can or can't view it...

There were about 6 or 7 people who said they monitor what their children look at on-line and thats great but just because some of you police the internet for your kids doesn't mean that everyone does and i'm willing to bet by some of the comments on this thread that if some of you have kids or have them in the future you wouldn't give a shit what they looked at on the tv screen or the computer screen...

At any given time their are about 50-100 visitors on this site and there is no way you can tell me that they are all over 18 years old...

Visitors have access to all the forums and they also have the ability to post and reply to topics and there is no guarentee these "visitors" aren't 14 or 15 year old kids...

Of course why would I expect anyone that posts here on a regular basis to have any morals in the first place...This board is a microcosm of whats wrong in this country and by condoning such dispicable pix to be posted by some chick who looks 16 years old is a testament to the mindset of the members who post here and for the members here not to care if underage children are not only viewing this board but posting too is deplorable...

If you're over the age of 18 then why wouldn't you support a more restrictive board when it comes to who can or can't be here and have features in place that would almost safe-guard this board from a major lawsuit one day...Its only a matter of time if this board continues to allow all access to everything without making sure the people viewing and posting here are of legal age before this place will be in some hot water...

I find it funny that the owners of this place are more worried about if someone posts someone elses first name on the board then worrying about just who the hell is reading and posting here...

~i~

 

[Myrrdin]

K.R

How do you propose to police the system, to ensure that people don't lie about their age, when they sign up for membership?
Are you volunteering to vet every wouldbe member individually? Will you want to do a full bodysearch to verify their declared sex? Vet their bank account to ensure they are the registered user of that internet connection. Are you going to ask for references? Will you be checking marriage records to estabish their true marital status?

 

[lilminx]

Re: Someone Mentioned The First Ammendment...

Damn double post

 

[lilminx]

Re: Someone Mentioned The First Ammendment...

I belive i'm also entitled to free speech and my topic is a legit concern that this board promotes hardcore porn and has no restrictions on who can or can't view it...
At any given time their are about 50-100 visitors on this site and there is no way you can tell me that they are all over 18 years old...
Visitors have access to all the forums and they also have the ability to post and reply to topics and there is no guarentee these "visitors" aren't 14 or 15 year old kids...
Of course why would I expect anyone that posts here on a regular basis to have any morals in the first place...This board is a microcosm of whats wrong in this country and by condoning such dispicable pix to be posted by some chick who looks 16 years old is a testament to the mindset of the members who post here and for the members here not to care if underage children are not only viewing this board but posting too is deplorable...
If you're over the age of 18 then why wouldn't you support a more restrictive board when it comes to who can or can't be here and have features in place that would almost safe-guard this board from a major lawsuit one day...Its only a matter of time if this board continues to allow all access to everything without making sure the people viewing and posting here are of legal age before this place will be in some hot water...
I find it funny that the owners of this place are more worried about if someone posts someone elses first name on the board then worrying about just who the hell is reading and posting here...
~i~

Why the fuck do you care? If you don't like it, you also have the right to not come to this site!!!!
Geez, find something better to do than to preach- why do you come here if you don't like and approve of the practices here? Is it b/c no noe likes you here, so you have to come and incite everybody? Do everyone a favor and just be gone! I've tried to keep quiet b/c I'm pretty new here, but I've seen what's been going on and you are just a thorn in everyone's side...

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

What really is the argument against having some sort of age verification system for pornography sites?

I'm inclined to think that the responsibility for shielding children from pornography shouldn't be the exclusive sphere of the parents. After all, computers and internet access are becoming ubiquitous and parents only have control over computers in their own homes. I don't see how somehow requiring age verification would limit our freedoms - unless you believe that young children have the right to view pornography.

I also don't get the argument that because children are exposed to violence on television that there's then nothing wrong with them being exposed to explicit sex. There are certainly significant inconsistencies in our culture with regard to how we treat our children, but should we excuse one inappropriate behavior simply because there are others? The more logical response to the presence of explicit images of sex and violence would be to try to limit them both rather than make them equally permissible.

Let the flaming begin.

 

[lilminx]

What really is the argument against having some sort of age verification system for pornography sites?

I'm inclined to think that the responsibility for shielding children from not exposing children to pornography shouldn't be the exclusive sphere of the parents. After all, computers and internet access are becoming ubiquitous and parents only have control over computers in their own homes. I don't see how somehow requiring age verification would limit our freedoms - unless you believe that young children have the right to view pornography.


Let the flaming begin.

Well, as for age verification systems, most of them require that you give a credit card to verify that you're over 18- I personally don't feel comfortable doing this. Additionally, many underage kids could simply get a hold of their parent's credit card for 5 minutes, enter the info, and viola!- instant access.
If there is a verification system that is free and doesn't require a credit card, I have no problem with it.

 

[Guru]

 

[Calamity Jane]

GRRRRR

 

[login]

What really is the argument against having some sort of age verification system for pornography sites?

No one has developed one that's secure against hormone-crazed teenagers.

Requiring a credit card is one of the lamest I've heard yet. Very simple to get around, and it has an incredible downside... it asks the user to give their credit card info to someone that they have no intention of purchasing something from. MSN's latest move is unbelievably stupid. I'm supposed to give them my credit card information and trust them? How long has it been, two weeks since the last time thousands of webservers running Microsoft software were cracked? No thanks.

 

[Calamity Jane]

What really is the argument against having some sort of age verification system for pornography sites?

I'm inclined to think that the responsibility for shielding children from pornography shouldn't be the exclusive sphere of the parents. After all, computers and internet access are becoming ubiquitous and parents only have control over computers in their own homes. I don't see how somehow requiring age verification would limit our freedoms - unless you believe that young children have the right to view pornography.

My aversion to age verification is that it requires a lot of personal information on my part, and is too easily faked. Why should I, who has every right to be here, have to give someone my CC#? I'm very tired of restrictions and laws that only serve to restrict and criminalize those who shouldn't be affected by them.

It IS the parent's responsibility to monitor their children. Totally. And to raise them to be trustworthy and not NEED constant supervision.

I think it's just about time we quit expecting others to raise our children for us.

 

[Myrrdin]

Since it is legally possible to get a credit card at 16, according to banks I found on a Google search, how is giving a credit card number going to be any use for age verification ?How are you going to ensure people are truthful about their date of birth , when they apply for a credit card? I weekly get invitations in the post to try out the great new wonder card. How much checking up do the banks do, in their haste to obtain new customers?.

Keeping the under aged out is of course important, but until anyone can come up with a solution that doesn't involve self verification, it's a rule that is difficult to enforce.

The only way to pin responsibility , is to the homeuser who signed the contract with the internet provider. If you have a gun licence, the firearm is your responsibility at all times. The same with the internet subscriber, if you pay the bill, you take the responsibility.

 

[estevie]

You are are all really that stupid, aren't you?..

No, its stupid people like you that leave it up to someone else to protect YOUR children.

 

[Laurel]

You are are all really that stupid, aren't you?

As responsible owners, any forum where there are naked pictures posted should be protected somehow or require a password.

Asking if someone is of age is not practicing responsible board management. The pictures I went and looked at, to check out KidRock's allegations are in fact disturbing, because one of the posters Hick chick looks all of 16 years old.

You can't pull the free speech argument either, it doesn't apply to pornography.

You'd rather have your children see someone shoving a wine cooler bottle up their crotch and butt than watching tv today? You are the ones that are sick and the reason that your kids are the way they are.

Most RESPONSIBLE porn sites make it impossible for the hardcore to be viewed without A) a membership B) a password.

But then again judging from what I've read and seen here, the word responsible is a misnomer.

I'm sure there are agencies that this can be reported to and will be.

KidRock,

The problem with this country is you and people like you. It is your dream that the Internet would contain only sites which YOU personally find to be inoffensive. You are promoting the ultimate "dumbing down" of America, and not only that, you're promoting the idea that the Government should be in charge of this "dumbing down". In your world, parents have no responsibility, so adults are limited to seeing only those things which every parent in the country agrees is appropriate for their specific son or daughter. I know you are just making another incendiary post to try to promote The Flame Place, but let me address a couple points:

1) Adult Verification Systems do not work. Only people with valid credit cards can use the system, and the systems record the identity and browsing patterns of anyone who uses them. That is to say, they are not so much a verification that you are an adult as a monitoring of people who hold a specific ability to purchase using a chosen method. People under 18 have credit cards, and many people over 18 do not. Adults should be allowed to view any legal material they want at any time without anyone else knowing about it, and without you or anyone else telling them any different.

2) There's never been any research that has shown conclusively that adult material is harmful to children. This is a "moral" issue, not a fact by any means. I have no problem with religion nor with different people having different morals, but there is NO body of work by ANY objective organization which shows that looking at naked pictures is harmful to the development of a child.

3) If there is material posted in an unmoderated part of this site which you or any other member feels is questionable legally, then you are encouraged to notify us of that specific material. We would never knowingly allow illegal material to be posted on Literotica. We cannot, however, monitor every single part of the site at all times. We rely on the help of users in this regard. Courts have ruled repeatedly that webmasters, like AOL, are not responsible for material posted by users in unmoderated forums, chat rooms, etc. Our responsibility - and we are fully aware of it - is to review specific complaints about specific content and act accordingly. Each post on the forum has a "Report This Post" link. If you've seen content which you believe may be illegal, and you have not reported that content to us, then how are we to know it exists? Where is your sense of "responsibility"?

4) This site is registered with all of the major child blocking agencies. That means that any responsible parent can install blocking software on their child's computer and that child will have no access to this site.

5) Using your logic, the government should be allowed to censor and/or limit access to other websites as well. What about the parent who finds pictures of aborted fetuses offensive? What about the parent who finds neo-Nazi websites offensive? What about the parent who finds the High Times website offensive? What about the parent who finds Marilyn Manson's website offensive? What about the parent who finds pro-Islam websites offensive? What about the parent who finds pro-gun websites offensive? What about the parent who finds gun control websites offensive? Where do you draw the line? Aren't each of these parents entitled to the same "protection" as you? Shouldn't we ban ANYTHING that ANYONE might wish their child not see? Shouldn't we make the entire Internet - wait, the entire WORLD - safe for every child?

I suggest that you, KidRock, run down to your local library at once and rush through the aisles, pulling books from the shelves - especially those with nude anatomy drawings, nude paintings, and/or scantily clad people of any variety - and these books shall be taken outside and burned. Why shall they be burned? In the Name of the Children, of course. We must protect the Children.

Here's a book that I suggest you read, and if you feel it offensive, by all means burn it when you're done, lest if fall into the hands of a child:
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2001/06/11/children/index.html

Literotica provides all of the necessary tools to parents, schools, libraries, etc. should they decide to block specific websites based on specific content. Your assertion that websites that use AVS or membership systems are doing it out of the goodness of their heart is total bullshit. Those systems are in place to make money. Isn't it nice that the Dodgers make you buy tickets before you go see a game? That's responsible baseball playing. No kid could afford $30 on their own! Those Dodgers are so altruistic in having that ticketing system in place to protect children!

I told myself I wasn't going respond to this obvious troll thread, but it is Saturday and I had a little spare time. I'm sure you'll respond with some ridiculous, illogical, pro-censorship, anti-American bullshit, in which the government is just protecting us from ourselves. And I'm sure you'd rather live in a world where Bill Clinton and George W. Bush decide what material we and our children are allowed to access, and our access to that material is carefully logged and monitored by some government agent who is always just a phone call away, ready to remind us if we've strayed off the path that the government has chosen for us.'

I, on the other hand, believe in the concept of Free Speech.

Troll away!

 

[*bratcat*]

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

God I love a clear argument.