Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

For the children…

I’m an IT tech*. I am 38. My wife is 33. I have a cat and he is a minor but a complete innocent (he doesn’t have any bollocks for a start) and certainly no interest in pr0n – or at least not what you or me would regard as pr0n – I dunno about you but the torture and killing of small mammals doesn’t do it for me. It does it for Timmy and he is only seven so clearly the TV and internet is to blame. The cute little sod.

Therefore to protect the children I don’t have I shall have my internet hobbled by the government unless I sign-up to the preverts registar. Now I am not really into ‘net pr0n – I’ve had a look, obviously, and so have you and it’s like whatever. In fact, truthfully, much of this has been intellectual curiosity – the categories that exist such as the truly stupifying ones like “ugly” intrigue me. Why? To the very limited extent that I like pr0n it’s tasteful images of very attractive naked women of the sort you find on Met Art or Domai that I like. Domai even has (or had) a positive review on it’s front-page from the Daily Telegraph which is enough to make a retired Colonel’s monocle pop-out. But so what? That is my kink (I am given to understand a not uncommon one and indeed nothing that would look out of place at the North End of Trafalgar Square) but that is not my point. As Ian B said recently if the photo shows an illegal act it is the act that ought to be illegal and not the photo. The photo of course ought to be gold-dust to those prosecuting the act itself – “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury can you deny it was the accused pictured here with a tub of vaseline, a gimp and a cocker spaniel?” As long as we all play nice (and no spies end-up dead in bags) and it is consensual (that doesn’t really include the dog) then we are adults and do adult things like have sex in all the myriad forms that takes (enough to blow Sigmund Freud’s eyebrows off! – Yeah he’s meant to be woo woo but he isn’t is he? I mean if you get off on potty-training then seek professional help and not my bed-chamber) and that is cool. I mean I once met in a club (Queen’s Court, Leeds) a gay bloke who only fancied straight men. He was good-humouredly bitterly amused at his predicament. Takes all sorts I guess.

So, what is wrong with this nonsense?

The first and most obvious thing is the assumption that because many households have children everyone must have censorship put upon them. But that is not really what it is about. Of course actually seeing in the flesh is fine (until the Republic of Gilead is established) but an image is something else (just out of interest – do they know how high they create the image?). The last lot who thought that had bones through their noses and thought photographs took their soul or something. Yet this is an acceptable form of policy discussion in Britain in The Century of the Fruitbat.

The second (and I am not hanging my hat on this peg – my objection is vastly more one of principle – but it must be noted) I always turn Google SafeSearch off. It is a crude tool and will block all sorts of things. I will give good odds that the government filter would make it difficult for gynecological cancer patients to access discussion forums etc because they involve “rude” words. It inconveniences me looking up stuff on graphics cards and fighter jets…

The third is the assumption that pr0n is “corrupting”. Is it really? I grew-up during the early eighties and the VCR revolution. I grew-up in the age during which pr0n didn’t exactly grow on trees but seemed by a process of abiogensis (as yet unexplained by science) to be readily found under hedges. Didn’t do me any harm. I even recall Jordan when she was a 34A. I thought she was well fit**. I think she was 17 at the time so call me a retroactive peado. But seriously nobody springs into life as a sexual adult upon the moment of their 16th birthday. For me (and I bet for you) there was seeing people in magazines and movies and thinking them foxy (and if you’re at all like me I bet you’re embarrassed by a lot of the ones you hada crush over in your callow youth – and yes, that applies just as much to female readers – perhaps more so – I remember the lasses in my year at school going mental over Bros. Sweet Jesus. They had the Grolsch bottle tops in their shoes and neckerchiefs and all. My mum, in her youth, was hit by Beatlemania but… Well, how very dare I compare that with Bros? And even my Mum said that whilst as a teen she liked Paul but on sober reflection she reckoned George was the looker. But anyway, isn’t being a kid about being a bit naughty? How else do you learn? Well, I guess there is “sex and relationships education” which sounds like enough to put anyone on the permanent slack. But whilst that is to do with sex it’s about as sexy as genital warts which are also to do with sex but not sexy. Unless you are into that sort of thing – somebody will be. God help them!

The fourth is that obviously if it’s pr0n today by a week on Tuesday all bets are off as to what else shall be banned. For our own good you understand. Again not a point I hang my titfer upon because whilst there is the thin end of a slippery slope here pr0n is worth defending in itself. It is not just a line in the sand (though it is) but important in it’s own right. That is the first principle of defending lines in the sand anyway. Defend each line because it itself matters. Not because abandoning might lead to tyranny. Tyranny will already be there anyway, waiting for us, in a ’70s gown, legs akimbo.

So it comes to the climax. Oh err missus! And it comes to this. I don’t really do pr0n because he has a wife you know. She has a vagina you know (of course she has – she’s a woman!). And indeed like tits and everything. So what earthly use is Pr0n if I have free access to Coke, not Pepsi (or indeed Shirley)? Well, I dunno! I suspect it adds to the general gaiety of nations. I mean anything banned in North Korea or Iran is good, right? I like pr0n in principle. I like attractive women getting their kit off. Now men doing the same… Well, I’m a liberal-type (unlike Hattie Harmann) so fine. There is a market. But what really winds me is this. At university I did a physics degree and a night-class in life-drawing. We had two models. One was a bloke and the other was a bird who looked like she had just walked out of the studio of a Pre-Raphaelite. Now, this was weird. I mean I tried to draw. And he was trickier than her (men are apparently) but what got me was this. I was a single(ish) heterosexual man and she was an extremely attractive naked female yet I had to wield my pencil, not my cock and what really got me was (a) how it was all done in the best possible taste (b) I almost took the job as a model but didn’t not because it was getting nekkid but because it was holding poses until your legs fell off and (c) the guy who ran the course was a postgrad art student and it was like this. I tried very hard to place on paper an image of this lovely lady (and also the bloke) but I have never felt more naked than when the bloke who ran it took a look at my drawing and said, “Keep trying!”. I actually felt more naked than she did! We just saw her body. He saw my soul. I mean she was just beautiful but was my rendering of her? Let me put it bluntly. At the end of the evening I would bundle-up my piccies and I would much rather get nekkid myself than show them to anyone. I think I did better with the geezer oddly enough.

And here is the point. Were those models exploited personally? No. Was it pr0n? Depends how one looks at it but I would say there was no difference. Really. Did it exploit? I can’t recall what I paid but the models were on like 7 quid an hour which was OK money at the time (I considered it – early ’90s) so is that an exploit? I think not. I think not because I didn’t feel an exploit was going on. It just felt nice. And by buggery – if I am to learn to draw then I guess someone has to get their kit off or it’s still-life’s of baskets of fruit (Imagine studying art in Tehran!). No. Almost the entire schtick of porno-phobia is not about the specific alleged exploitation of the models (we’d have a beer afters – that’s how exploited they were) but this bizarre generalization that it is every women who are obscurely exploited whether they chose to model nude or not. Despite the fact there was a male model too! Despite the fact the female model was perfectly happy. And despite the fact this wan’t pornography (though how does one define that?). No. If you ask me it comes down to one thing. There are women (and men) who people are prepared to pay good money to see in the nip. And there are men (and women) who are pig-ugly. Life is not fair. Certainly not to politicians. And they hate it because nobody will give ‘em 7 quid an hour to model. They have to ponce off the tax-payer instead and sit on moral high-horses. Purely because the populace is prepared to pay Eric Pickles and Tessa Jowell not to disrobe doesn’t mean we ought to be banned from seeing genuine lookers in the nip. That is why they think it generally immoral. ‘Cos they are ugly and they can only take a moral high-chair rather than get their tits out. I bet Pickles has bigger ones than Jowell, mind. That is a horrible thought.

*I have seen things on HDs you people would not believe… And no it wasn’t attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. The one that springs to mind was a video of a naked and heavily pregnant woman declaiming her own poetry. It was emotional. Oh, it was explicit alright but that is not the same as erotic. I had to ask for details because the presenting problem was a fucked IEEE1334 which to all intents, purposes and tastes – the tongue can be a diagnostic tool – had had marmalade jammed in it. It was flatly denied that any child had touched the machine despite the fact the disk also had a lot of Barney the Dinosaur on it. Really nice Acer laptop buggered by a kid. Either that or something unspeakable and dreadful had happened to it. I did re-jiggle the softwares so the performance art looked “OK” for a certain value of “OK” (reasonable raspberrys) but I don’t do hardware with laptops. There is no jam in it for me, so to speak. Perhaps the moral to this story (if there is one and there isn’t) is that kids probably do more harm to computers than vice-versa.

**In a kind of filthy shag, not date sense. That’s “filthy” in a good sense. Seeing as I was a spotty teen who was good at maths and all that it was all fairly hypothetical anyway. Obviously nowadays I wouldn’t touch her with a disinfected 36″ hitting stick. Though if Cate Blanchett and Uma Thurman decided to oil-wrestle on my living-room carpet…


  1. JuliaM says:

    It’s got nothing to do with digital smut that the dear cheeeeeedren are exposed to; that’s just the stated excuse.

    It’s about control. Control of the Internet. Ask yourself this: if the Internet didn’t exist, and was suddenly invented, would it start out free and accessible? Or would governments come together to hobble it before it could be born?

  2. RAB says:

    It’s happening already.

    I have a Dongle, sclerotic piece of shit that it is, you can’t get a signal half the time and when you do the speed is sub dial up. But I only have it for using the laptop at my mum’s place in Cardiff once a month when we’re over for the weekend.

    Well one weekend I was sat in Mum’s front room, checking my emails and I found one from Ann Summers in the spam filter. Oh go on then, I said to myself, let’s see what overpriced badly made tat they have on offer for the erotically challenged.

    The Vodaphone dongle would not let me open the email. It said that I had to ring a special number to be able to access the email. Now Ann Summers is hardly Pron is it? More Sears and Roebuck for the sex starved. This came as a big suprise and pissed me off considerably on general principles. But I certainly didn’t ring the number cos I couldn’t be arsed.

    I did wonder what else might be blocked, but did no more about it. Then later I found out that perfectly innocuous sites are being blocked too. I clicked on the link we have on the sidebar here for Biased BBC, and the same message came up. Ring for permission!

  3. John says:

    There is no doubt this is the thin end of the wedge as far as the Government is concerned. The minister has already said so.

    After pr0n she wants to move onto anorexia sites, suicide sides, self harming sites. You decide where the line may end up being drawn… well in fact you won’t – SHE will decide…

  4. JuliaM says:

    “The Vodaphone dongle would not let me open the email.”

    Same thing with 02 netnanny software on my iPhone – won’t let me open some blogs, like Edwin Greenwood’s, or humour sites, like ‘Oglaf’. When it was fist pushed out, it blocked a lot of local newspaper sites too!

    Can’t be arsed to ring up, frankly.

  5. David Gillies says:

    Who does the classification of content? Is it algorithmic? It would have to be, since there isn’t even a billionth of the manpower necessary to do it by hand. Who creates the algorithms? How easy are they to spoof? What is the false negative/false positive rate? If using end-to-end encryption, how are the content filters applied? If agile IP addresses are being used, especially via tools designed to defeat traffic analysis such as Tor, how is source-based filtering meant to work? Will they try to ban SSL? IPSec? Piss about with IP’s routing and packet reassembly algorithms?

    Unlike anybody in the Cabinet, I actually know how IP works, because I am not some arts-degreed spastic control freak. This will do nothing to control online porn. There are two explanations: either JuliaM is right because since this cannot be used for its stated purpose, there must be an ulterior motive or the ruling class comprises such a fantastic menagerie of fuckwits, puritan weirdos, and dirigiste socialists busy wanking themselves into a sweaty lather as to defy reason. Either way, all that will happen is that barriers will be put in place to make the embuggerance factor higher for the technically maladroit while making my life so marginally more difficult as to be negligible.

    I’d honestly like to put whichever gang of useless cunts thought this up in a room somewhere, toss them Vol. I of the Prentice Hall series on Internetworking with TCP/IP and say, “there are 206 bones in the human body. You have five minutes to explain how the sliding window algorithm is used to increase network throughput in a TCP internetwork, or we’re going for 412.”

  6. John Galt says:

    I can’t get that worked up about porn to be honest. Sure a bit of grumble in the 80′s when I was a teenager, but when you start getting into the IRL (In Real Life) bit of rumpy-pumpy all the fit birds in the world don’t cut the mustard.

    The site 4Chan, infamous as the playground in which Anonymous and Lulzsec struggled to life, once came up with a jokey rules of the internet. The vast majority were rehashes or 4Chan specific in-jokes, but 1 stuck and it is known as Rule 34.

    Rule 34 says “If it exists there IS porn of it. No exceptions”.

    If I had to make a bet between the ability of the of the UK government or ISP’s to implement technical barrier’s to porn and the ability of millions of spotty youths to bypass such measures, my money is on spunky Sid and his mates every time.

  7. Kendall says:

    My local council’s content filter blocked their own website when they supported a breast cancer awareness campaign. That same filter didn’t stop the office manager from downloading gigabytes of hardcore porn and wanking the day away locked in his office.

    Even the best of these filters often miss adult content, while blocking plenty of innocent false positives. It’s bloody annoying to have this forced on us.

  8. Sam Duncan says:

    As it happens, I do enjoy a bit of pr0n now and then, but you don’t want to know about that. And anyway what I really like about it is simply that it exists. The fact that there are people in this world paid to shag each other in multifarious imaginative ways for the entertainment of others gives me a warm glow inside, because it shows how the market will reward anyone with a popular skill. People want to see beautiful people fucking or indulging their weird fetishes, other people want to show off, everyone’s happy. Except the gits who have managed to wangle themselves power over the rest of us.

    And what really annoys me is the spinelessness behind all the tough talk. Blocking… well, anything you like, from your own local network is simple. It really is (inasmuch as it works at all, with all the false positives). There’s free stuff like Dansguardian, or you can buy things if you’re into that. But ooooh no: rather than take five minutes to find out how to protect their own kids from stuff they don’t want them to see, they have to break the whole damn Internet instead. It’s the fucking red flag acts all over again.

    “Will they try to ban SSL? IPSec? Piss about with IP’s routing and packet reassembly algorithms?”

    I wouldn’t put anything past them. They think they’re “running the country”.

  9. fake says:

    The missus has been diagnosed with “something” that basically kills her sex drive.

    Seeing as I am young, fit and as randy as a dog in heat, porn is something that helps a great deal in not straying from home.

    So yea, I agree, this should be stopped not because of the slipper slope argument, but because it is itself a pile of dogshit.

  10. Tim Newman says:

    The missus has been diagnosed with “something” that basically kills her sex drive.


  11. NickM says:

    You appalling man! Amused me. But then I am a dreadful cunt.

  12. PeterT says:

    I think we should have more pron not less…or at least we would be better off with a Danish attitude to it. How is watching it more dangerous for children than seeing a couple of dogs going at it in the street?

    Clearly if this noise about censuring the internet demonstrates anything it is that our country needs pron.

  13. NickM says:

    Genuine pr0n has nothing to do with kids anyway. I like girls with tits. Prepubescent girls don’t have tits.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: