Free to parents, it claims to tackle what Dines calls the “public health crisis of the digital age”. She backs up her claims with hard facts and figures. For a start, a third of all young people under the age of 12 have seen pornography; about 20% of sexts are photos of girls under the age of 15; and 35% of all internet downloads are porn. Also, children have access to a mobile phone at earlier ages than they did five years ago. Today, an estimated 25% of six-year-olds in the UK use a mobile phone, and the average age in the US is 10. This means that large groups of young children are just a click or two away from free hardcore porn.
The missing bit is the proof that those numbers show that there’s a problem, whether in public health or anything else.
Over the long term we might in fact find that this is all terribly helpful. There was a time when all children – near all OK – were raised on a farm so any introduction to sex would have been when the sow went off to get covered*. At least the demos today are of the correct species. Often enough. At least there are fewer girls wondering why it’s not curly.
*There are, by some accounts, urban areas today where pubs, lipstick and a good night out serve much the same function, vide all those photos of gannin’ doon the toon.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the technical term for most pr0n watched on the interweb “streamed”? “Downloaded” would normally apply to material that is saved to a permanent file. In which case, 35% of streaming being pr0n seems very unlikely with it competing with audio streaming & YouTube music videos.
Yes, it’s terrible you can’t download as much p0rn nowadays,
So I’m told.
@BiS: these ‘journalists’ know as much about IT as they know about….well, anything.
It’s the more extreme stuff that worries me – some of the Japanese stuff, for example – eels in vaginas and the like and all the rest. A random porn scene with a bit of anala and cumshot on face doesn’t really bother me so much.
Some of the Meatholes/Facial Abuse/Insex etc. type stuff is frankly very upsetting to me, and I wouldn’t want a 13-year-old child watching that stuff.
@BiP
Please, I’m trying to finish my breakfast. (Second breakfast, to be accurate.)
I never cease to be amazed by how much crap Bindel can get in a paragraph.
‘Free to parents, it claims to tackle what Dines calls the “public health crisis of the digital age”.
There is no “public health crisis” in England. None. For/by any cause. First world countries don’t have public health crises.
‘She backs up her claims with hard facts and figures. For a start, a third of all young people under the age of 12 have seen pornography’
A hard fact, eh?
‘about 20% of sexts are photos of girls under the age of 15’
Hard fact?
‘35% of all internet downloads are porn.’
Hard fact?
‘Also, children have access to a mobile phone at earlier ages than they did five years ago. Today, an estimated 25% of six-year-olds in the UK use a mobile phone, and the average age in the US is 10.’
The average age in the U.S. is 38.
‘This means that large groups of young children are just a click or two away from free hardcore porn.’
And only a chunk of beef away from chocking to death. Only a knife in a wall socket away from being electrocuted. Only a trigger pull away from murder. So what? We go through life with millions of options, only a choice away.
Could they not come up with at least one example of a youth whose life was ruined by having seen porn? Is a person really unable to maintain a healthy adult relationship because in childhood they once saw a video of some weirdos doing weird stuff?
I’d suggest that any kid who shares Japanese eel porn will quickly be shunned by his classmates. This stuff can only be found if you’re actively looking for it; you don’t just stumble across it.
“…so any introduction to sex would have been when the sow went off to get covered”
Modern Danish technique.
https://youtu.be/beXgvgh7oYg?t=43s
‘The missing bit is the proof that those numbers show that there’s a problem.’
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves, the missing bit is the proof that these numbers are valid. There is no way they can be.
But anyway… so what?
It’s a cause of obesity as kids no longer go to find what gnomes have left in the railway sidings.
OK, so Bindel is both a loon and a halfwit. And her hard facts are anything but.
However, i agree with BiP that there’s some nasty stuff out there and I can’t imagine watching it would do a child any good.
She’s using the favourite gambit of authoritarians – what about the children? To which the answer in this case is that children’s access to internet porn has to be managed by their parents – who shouldn’t provide 6yo’s with smart phones and who should install content blockers where appropriate.
So this person missed out on previous decades.
When I was a teenager (over 30 years ago) we didn’t have mobile phones. We did have pornos.
Back when my father was a teenager there were magazines and books. Back when his father was a teenager there were magazines and books.
Go back far enough and all you had was people having sex when you were around too – people sharing one bed and having kid after kid, no way the children didn’t witness sex by accident or because the parents were moving the cover.
Come to think of it, if so much sexting is of underage children… (are there any other sort of children?) then we have current laws regarding child porn. Why are they not applied? Because the incidence is not as described?
Porn happens. That’s really the point. A good bit of fappage did no-one any harm. Regular American-type porn I think is fine, but obviously I think it’s a bit gross watching Annette Schwarz taking on ten black guys or whatever (all on xHamster I believe).
It’s the more extreme stuff we’d want the kids to avoid, as it’s not representative of normal sexuality and it’s a problem because of complex factors in the actor/actresses’ lives that wouldn’t be public.
I think you worry needlessly, BiP. Kids would see the weird stuff as . . . weird.