Symantec's new report on Online Living tells us many things, but the main one is that parents often have no idea what their sneaky kids are up to.
The Online Living report took information from 12 countries, adults and kids alike, with almost 10,000 participants. To keep it simple, I'll just be looking at the differences between the UK and US.
In both the UK and the US, parents believe their kids spend, on average, 18-19 hours a week online. The big wakeup call should come from the kids, who believe they spend an average of 43 hours a week online. And 62% of the adults believe that's already too much.
The US seems to have a more practical view of the time though, with around two thirds of adults and kids saying that the kids spend much of their time online wasting time. The UKs belief is about 50/50 over wasting time and doing something constructive. This may also explain why 29% of US adults have caught their kids "doing something bad", while only 19% of UK residents have.
A positive item comes across in that 90% of the parents believe it's their responsibility to look after their kids online. Although only 2% believe they're safe to travel without a guardian of some sort present, and a frightening 25% believe the Government is responsible for looking after them online. Mistrust is rife in both countries though, with the US not trusting the Security Companies to provide a decent level of protection, and the UK not trusting the Government to look after their children. I doubt that will come as a surprise.
Parental controls does seem to be a sticking point, with the US use dwindling as the UK turns towards them more.
Overall though, it seems the UK parents are the most loved, perhaps because they're the easiest to fool over not wasting time on the net. They score top for the kids keeping in touch with their parents through text messages and for spending the most time online together
The US kids, however, are the least likely to add their folks to their social network page, but they do have a lot more e-friends. Perhaps because almost half the US parents have told their kids off for doing something stupid online?
I've only touched on the information in this report, and for once, it's actually a thoroughly interesting read. I'd advise a quick peek sometime, perhaps even with your folks.
25% believe the government should be looking after their children. This doesn't surprise me, though it is a little depressing. And UK parents seem somewhat naive towards their kid's internet-ing ways, which is again not very surprising. Kids know they spend to long on line, and don't like their parents knowing.
A positive item comes across in that 90% of the parents believe it's their responsibility to look after their kids online.
... How is that a positive item? Sounds like invasion of privacy to me - regardless of what the law says about guardianship. People need to remember kids are independent human beings as well - with their own thoughts, desires and lives.
"29% of US adults have caught their kids "doing something bad"" I'm guessing that it's about porn, isn't it? People are way to edgy about their kids watching porn.
A positive item comes across in that 90% of the parents believe it's their responsibility to look after their kids online.
... How is that a positive item? Sounds like invasion of privacy to me - regardless of what the law says about guardianship. People need to remember kids are independent human beings as well - with their own thoughts, desires and lives.
Simple really- those thoughts, desires and lives are, by law, not regarded as fully competent until the age of 18. Prior to that, they are their parent's, or the state's (in certain, unfortunate cases) wards. Their privacy comes secondary to their safety.
Besides, the parents pay for the damn internet connection, so they have every right to snoop.
A positive item comes across in that 90% of the parents believe it's their responsibility to look after their kids online.
... How is that a positive item? Sounds like invasion of privacy to me - regardless of what the law says about guardianship. People need to remember kids are independent human beings as well - with their own thoughts, desires and lives.
And you think its safe, to leave a 7-14 year old, alone on a computer doing whatever they want, be they looking at porn, talking to random strangers, gambling or whatever else. When I was younger my parents kept an eye on me using the internet, tho I'll say, I was a sneaky kid that looked at stuff I shouldnt when they wernt around.
The thing with the report is, what if UK kids ARE actually being more constructive with there internet time then US kids. The report kind of sounds as if kids are always up to no good. Heavens forbid if kids ARE actually using it for homework or using it for a french pen-friend.
Kids shouldnt be totally over protected, but they shouldnt get total free reign either.
A positive item comes across in that 90% of the parents believe it's their responsibility to look after their kids online.
... How is that a positive item? Sounds like invasion of privacy to me - regardless of what the law says about guardianship. People need to remember kids are independent human beings as well - with their own thoughts, desires and lives.
Pardon me, but that's retarded. Invasion of privacy? They're kids, not adults. Do they think independently? Sure! But they are still dependent on parents for things like food, shelter, and protection. Especially today when anyone you meet on the internet could potentially be a sex offender. My kids will go online and surf and chat and stuff, but I'll be totally watching them the whole time out of concern for their safety, not because I give a shit who they 'like like' this week.
Thankfully, I'm not the only one here who thinks so.
Insomniactk: "29% of US adults have caught their kids "doing something bad"" I'm guessing that it's about porn, isn't it? People are way to edgy about their kids watching porn.
*edit*
As Nomadic said, let them have their own lives.
Yeah, I would MUCH rather my kid rub one out while watching porn than go out and knock some girl up or get HIV.
A positive item comes across in that 90% of the parents believe it's their responsibility to look after their kids online.
... How is that a positive item? Sounds like invasion of privacy to me - regardless of what the law says about guardianship. People need to remember kids are independent human beings as well - with their own thoughts, desires and lives.
Simple really- those thoughts, desires and lives are, by law, not regarded as fully competent until the age of 18. Prior to that, they are their parent's, or the state's (in certain, unfortunate cases) wards. Their privacy comes secondary to their safety.
Besides, the parents pay for the damn internet connection, so they have every right to snoop.
Bolded the relevant part of my post for you. Also, money and dependency doesn't give you a moral right to invade someone's privacy and integrity - at least not in my eyes.
And you think its safe, to leave a 7-14 year old, alone on a computer doing whatever they want, be they looking at porn, talking to random strangers, gambling or whatever else. When I was younger my parents kept an eye on me using the internet, tho I'll say, I was a sneaky kid that looked at stuff I shouldnt when they wernt around.
The thing with the report is, what if UK kids ARE actually being more constructive with there internet time then US kids. The report kind of sounds as if kids are always up to no good. Heavens forbid if kids ARE actually using it for homework or using it for a french pen-friend.
Kids shouldnt be totally over protected, but they shouldnt get total free reign either.
Yes. Yes, I do think it's safe. The vast majority of internet users - regardless of age - don't run into sneaky pedophiles that manage to arrange a meeting and kidnap them for the purpose of sexual slavery - at all. And then there's a large clique of the people who do run into that sort of person that aren't complete morons, and therefore don't cave in to the creepy guy's demands. You can't let fear rule your life, or your life won't be worth fearing for anyway. And even if you do, you can't let fear rule someone else's life without them having a say. About the porn, let the kids watch whatever they damn well please, this isn't the 17'th century anymore, the world has realized by now that sexuality isn't something inherently evil that will make you burn in an imaginary hell for eternity. As for gambling, good luck I say. Because to do that, they'd need a credit card, or at least a bank account. And I don't know how things are in your country, but in Scandinavia kids don't generally have free access to that sort of thing - on account of being minors.
Kids aren't idiots.
Edit: New post arrived while I was typing.
Baby Tea: Pardon me, but that's retarded. Invasion of privacy? They're kids, not adults. Do they think independently? Sure! But they are still dependent on parents for things like food, shelter, and protection. Especially today when anyone you meet on the internet could potentially be a sex offender. My kids will go online and surf and chat and stuff, but I'll be totally watching them the whole time out of concern for their safety, not because I give a shit who they 'like like' this week.
Thankfully, I'm not the only one here who thinks so.
No. I don't pardon you, because there's no reason to get personal and insult me. Just because someone's under 18 it doesn't mean they're incomplete human beings. Hell, if you interpret law as clear justification, then stoning women to death because of sex before marriage is totally okay - there are countries where that's legal, after all. The fact that they think independently is the core of the matter. Whether or not they're dependent on their parents for food and shelter is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Dependency is not a license for slavery. And yes, anyone on the internet could potentially be a sex offender. As could anyone in real life. And he could also be Elvis returned from the alien abduction to sell you a bucket of fish. These things happen to a clear minority, and you can't base your decisions by what happens to a few people. As a point of reference, more people die each year due to allergic reactions to peanuts than from terrorist attacks. Are you going to issue a world-wide ban for peanuts now? Or at least make every effort to keep your kids away from them?
A positive item comes across in that 90% of the parents believe it's their responsibility to look after their kids online.
... How is that a positive item? Sounds like invasion of privacy to me - regardless of what the law says about guardianship. People need to remember kids are independent human beings as well - with their own thoughts, desires and lives.
And what happens when your kid runs off with Fred the Child Molesting Clown because you failed to pay any sort of attention to their on-line time? I know what happens, you'll blame the government for Fred the Child Molesting Clown being on the streets. Fred the Child Molesting Clown is out there, and your job is to keep Fred the Child Molesting Clown from getting his hands on your kids. Part of thwarting Fred the Child Molesting Clown's nefarious plans is to track what your kids do on line. You don't need to be watching over their shoulder every second, but you do need to check in every so often, by bringing them cookies or other small snack. By bringing them small snacks you keep them too fat and contented to run away with Fred the Child Molesting Clown and win at that part of the parent game.
Oh, and children have NO RIGHT to any kind of privacy, or anything other than to not be abused really.
(Fred the Child Molesting Clown trademark me 2009)
And what happens when your kid runs off with Fred the Child Molesting Clown because you failed to pay any sort of attention to their on-line time? I know what happens, you'll blame the government for Fred the Child Molesting Clown being on the streets. Fred the Child Molesting Clown is out there, and your job is to keep Fred the Child Molesting Clown from getting his hands on your kids. Part of thwarting Fred the Child Molesting Clown's nefarious plans is to track what your kids do on line. You don't need to be watching over their shoulder every second, but you do need to check in every so often, by bringing them cookies or other small snack. By bringing them small snacks you keep them too fat and contented to run away with Fred the Child Molesting Clown and win at that part of the parent game.
Oh, and children have NO RIGHT to any kind of privacy, or anything other than to not be abused really.
(Fred the Child Molesting Clown trademark me 2009)
The statistical probability of that happening is slim to none. And if it does happen, the person I'll be blaming will be Fred the Child Molesting Clown. Why the hell would I blame anyone else? He's the one doing it.
You can't say you're going to control their lives and invade their privacy "for their own good". If you do, you've just got a 1984 situation on your hands.
Also, I know you meant that last thing as a joke, but sadly, it seems that's the way that most people seriously think. And it sickens me that most of them have kids.
Clue #1 to parents; don't put a computer (or game console, for that matter) in your kid's bedroom. Put it in the living room or den instead, and let your kids know that the computer is in a common space and isn't "mine" or "yours" but "ours".
You'll be more aware of how much time the kids are spending online, there'll be fewer fusses about privacy, and you'll be more involved with the kids and their activities.
Kids do deserve their privacy, but they don't truly understand that "privacy" doesn't mean "letting everyone into their bedrooms except their parents".
Baby Tea: Pardon me, but that's retarded. Invasion of privacy? They're kids, not adults. Do they think independently? Sure! But they are still dependent on parents for things like food, shelter, and protection. Especially today when anyone you meet on the internet could potentially be a sex offender. My kids will go online and surf and chat and stuff, but I'll be totally watching them the whole time out of concern for their safety, not because I give a shit who they 'like like' this week.
Thankfully, I'm not the only one here who thinks so.
No. I don't pardon you, because there's no reason to get personal and insult me.
Dependency is not a license for slavery.
As a point of reference, more people die each year due to allergic reactions to peanuts than from terrorist attacks. Are you going to issue a world-wide ban for peanuts now? Or at least make every effort to keep your kids away from them?
First off, I didn't insult you, I insulted your retarded concept.
I highlighted two parts of your humorous response, because they are the most funny.
Who is talking about slavery? Did you really just try to use slavery as a parallel for monitoring my child's internet use? Seriously? I'm not going to go farther with that, because that so absolutely ludicrous (And I'm not talking the hip-hop guy either).
And I'll protect my kid from peanuts if they're allergic! I'll protect my kid from any serious danger I can! By your logic, since I've never been in a car accident when I'm driving, it'd be silly of my to place my kid in a child seat or make them wear a seat belt! Statistically, it's true! Been driving for over 8 years and never an accident! But you buckle up, and monitor your child's internet use, because of the potential for danger. I could be the safest driver in the world and I'd still have my kids buckle up. I could have really smart kids one day, and I'll still monitor their use of the internet.
Yes. Yes, I do think it's safe. The vast majority of internet users - regardless of age - don't run into sneaky pedophiles that manage to arrange a meeting and kidnap them for the purpose of sexual slavery - at all. And then there's a large clique of the people who do run into that sort of person that aren't complete morons, and therefore don't cave in to the creepy guy's demands. You can't let fear rule your life, or your life won't be worth fearing for anyway. And even if you do, you can't let fear rule someone else's life without them having a say. About the porn, let the kids watch whatever they damn well please, this isn't the 17'th century anymore, the world has realized by now that sexuality isn't something inherently evil that will make you burn in an imaginary hell for eternity. As for gambling, good luck I say. Because to do that, they'd need a credit card, or at least a bank account. And I don't know how things are in your country, but in Scandinavia kids don't generally have free access to that sort of thing - on account of being minors.
Kids aren't idiots.
No, not all kids are idiots, but some are. But what you're saying is that kids should have no age limitations at all? So they should be able to go out and get drunk in a nightclub at 9 years old? Or buy some hardcore 50+ animal porn from the topshelf (I hope to god that doesnt actually exist) at 12?
Society has age limitations for a reason, learning to drive, voting, violent or sexual content in media. As such, the internet is a form of media that has adult content, without being easily monitored. Now I don't think the parent should sit there 24/7 stalking the child. But they should be aware of there habbits online, who they interact with.
In my Girlfreind's Guildwars Guild, they had a 14 year old ask to join, he was mature so they said yes, but before he actually joined fully, the father of said child, even though he didn't play the game, checked out the guild forums, and had a phone conversation with the guild leader. I find this very responsible parenting and how things should be done. As the parents can be of relative safe mind the child will be in alright company while playing his online game.
With you saying, its not teh 17th century, let kids look at porn if they want to... you realise thats actually illegal in most places right? What with 18 rating being a law and such, at least within the UK. Or are you of the opinion that a young child should be allowed to play 18 rated games, watch hardcore porn and super violent 18 rated movies?
If the child is mature and 16/17 then thats one thing, but for young teenages or younger still, you have to draw the line somewhere.
Insomniactk: "29% of US adults have caught their kids "doing something bad"" I'm guessing that it's about porn, isn't it? People are way to edgy about their kids watching porn.
*edit*
As Nomadic said, let them have their own lives.
Yeah, I would MUCH rather my kid rub one out while watching porn than go out and knock some girl up or get HIV.
Yepp, but if your kid has a boy/girlfriend, what would be your choice? Them having sex or your kid watching porn? Or do you think that both are ok? I would say that both are ok, but I don't have kids.
A positive item comes across in that 90% of the parents believe it's their responsibility to look after their kids online.
... How is that a positive item? Sounds like invasion of privacy to me - regardless of what the law says about guardianship. People need to remember kids are independent human beings as well - with their own thoughts, desires and lives.
And what happens when your kid runs off with Fred the Child Molesting Clown because you failed to pay any sort of attention to their on-line time? I know what happens, you'll blame the government for Fred the Child Molesting Clown being on the streets. Fred the Child Molesting Clown is out there, and your job is to keep Fred the Child Molesting Clown from getting his hands on your kids. Part of thwarting Fred the Child Molesting Clown's nefarious plans is to track what your kids do on line. You don't need to be watching over their shoulder every second, but you do need to check in every so often, by bringing them cookies or other small snack. By bringing them small snacks you keep them too fat and contented to run away with Fred the Child Molesting Clown and win at that part of the parent game.
Oh, and children have NO RIGHT to any kind of privacy, or anything other than to not be abused really.
(Fred the Child Molesting Clown trademark me 2009)
alright lets get something clear. surfing the internet is about as dangerous as crossing the street. sure you COULD get hit by a car, but if you obey the traffic signals, you probably won't. And the last statement there just shows how much of a republican you are. This is by far the dumbest thing i have seen in all my 2 weeks of using this forum. its even above those bullshit forum topics like, "why do men rape?" or "if a tree falls alone in the forest, does it make a noise"*
Insomniactk: "29% of US adults have caught their kids "doing something bad"" I'm guessing that it's about porn, isn't it? People are way to edgy about their kids watching porn.
*edit*
As Nomadic said, let them have their own lives.
Yeah but a kid watching porn is bad though. If I had kids I would have to tell them they did wrong. Then again I don't like porn either.
Yes. Yes, I do think it's safe. The vast majority of internet users - regardless of age - don't run into sneaky pedophiles that manage to arrange a meeting and kidnap them for the purpose of sexual slavery - at all. And then there's a large clique of the people who do run into that sort of person that aren't complete morons, and therefore don't cave in to the creepy guy's demands. You can't let fear rule your life, or your life won't be worth fearing for anyway. And even if you do, you can't let fear rule someone else's life without them having a say. About the porn, let the kids watch whatever they damn well please, this isn't the 17'th century anymore, the world has realized by now that sexuality isn't something inherently evil that will make you burn in an imaginary hell for eternity. As for gambling, good luck I say. Because to do that, they'd need a credit card, or at least a bank account. And I don't know how things are in your country, but in Scandinavia kids don't generally have free access to that sort of thing - on account of being minors.
Kids aren't idiots.
No, not all kids are idiots, but some are. But what you're saying is that kids should have no age limitations at all? So they should be able to go out and get drunk in a nightclub at 9 years old? Or buy some hardcore 50+ animal porn from the topshelf (I hope to god that doesnt actually exist) at 12?
Society has age limitations for a reason, learning to drive, voting, violent or sexual content in media. As such, the internet is a form of media that has adult content, without being easily monitored. Now I don't think the parent should sit there 24/7 stalking the child. But they should be aware of there habbits online, who they interact with.
In my Girlfreind's Guildwars Guild, they had a 14 year old ask to join, he was mature so they said yes, but before he actually joined fully, the father of said child, even though he didn't play the game, checked out the guild forums, and had a phone conversation with the guild leader. I find this very responsible parenting and how things should be done. As the parents can be of relative safe mind the child will be in alright company while playing his online game.
With you saying, its not teh 17th century, let kids look at porn if they want to... you realise thats actually illegal in most places right? What with 18 rating being a law and such, at least within the UK. Or are you of the opinion that a young child should be allowed to play 18 rated games, watch hardcore porn and super violent 18 rated movies?
If the child is mature and 16/17 then thats one thing, but for young teenages or younger still, you have to draw the line somewhere.
i still think your making a mountain out of a molehill with your fractured logic. also why the fudge would you think the guild wars thing is a great idea? your kids are never going to grow up if you always want to keep them safe. (and no i dont want a million posts quoting me saying how they're going to go hurtling through the windshield at 100kmph if i dont strap them in [even tho i do])
Baby Tea: First off, I didn't insult you, I insulted your retarded concept.
And therefore you insulted him. You resulted his argument which was derived from his logic which is one of the central parts of 'what it is to be human'. Therefore you insulted him.
Who is talking about slavery? Did you really just try to use slavery as a parallel for monitoring my child's internet use? Seriously? I'm not going to go farther with that, because that so absolutely ludicrous (And I'm not talking the hip-hop guy either).
This is fair, he was being emotive and using rhetoric which rarely works well in ascertaining truths in my opinion and can only really be used to attempt to force people to overlook flaws in one's argument through subversive means.
And I'll protect my kid from peanuts if they're allergic! I'll protect my kid from any serious danger I can! By your logic, since I've never been in a car accident when I'm driving, it'd be silly of my to place my kid in a child seat or make them wear a seat belt! Statistically, it's true! Been driving for over 8 years and never an accident! But you buckle up, and monitor your child's internet use, because of the potential for danger. I could be the safest driver in the world and I'd still have my kids buckle up. I could have really smart kids one day, and I'll still monitor their use of the internet.
No, this wasn't his argument. The statistic of 'likelihood of survival in a car crash in a seatbelt is worn' would not be judged on *your* experiences of wearing seatbelts, it comes from the global statistic. So under his logic yes you would have to make your child wear a seatbelt because the relevant statistic shows that car crashes those wearing seatbelts tremendously raise their probability of serious injury. It's got nothing to do with "since I've never". Furthermore there is little to no disadvantage to wearing a seatbelt. There is, however, a disadvantage to smothering your kids with protection.
I understand that you want to ensure that your children are safe but seriously, just making sure you chat to them regularly and help them grow their own moral structure will protect them far more effectively than watching over their every move ever could. Kids need to learn what they do and don't think is wrong for themselves and the internet is a brilliant tool for this since there's little to no repercussions for almost all actions. Of course this applies to mature kids who are no longer in need of constant protection. I reached that age at about 10, but all kids are different so I'm not going to say "at age x" start letting your kid find their own moral system.
BGH122: I understand that you want to ensure that your children are safe but seriously, just making sure you chat to them regularly and help them grow their own moral structure will protect them far more effectively than watching over their every move ever could. Kids need to learn what they do and don't think is wrong for themselves and the internet is a brilliant tool for this since there's little to no repercussions for almost all actions. Of course this applies to mature kids who are no longer in need of constant protection. I reached that age at about 10, but all kids are different so I'm not going to say "at age x" start letting your kid find their own moral system.
Ok, for the record, I completely agree with everything you posted there. I'm not talking about 'smothering' my kids. When did I say that? I'm talking about monitoring my kids internet use! That doesn't mean hovering over their shoulder (Not to me, at least)! That means walking over to the PC every now and again and saying 'Hey son/daughter! What you up to? Oh, talking with your friend from school? Cool! Have fun!' I'm not going to sit in a chair behind them and write down every mouse click.
However, I will take precautions to make sure they don't sneak around on me to places I told them not to go. Things like: Have the computer in a central part of the house, facing the room. Having parental software. Etc. I would be lenient on those things if my child proved they were mature enough to be trusted, but they've got to earn that trust just like everyone else. And, like you said, that time can happen at different ages for different kids.
And I still stand by that I didn't insult him. Even smart people can have dumb ideas.
Reading some of these posts, I am wondering why many of the arguments are so "One way or the other" orientated.
Of course parents shouldnt look over their kids shoulders 24/7 and steal their privacy. Neither should parents let their child do what the hell they want and hope for the best.
Parents should be there to set boundaries and keep their child safe, occasionally check what your child is looking at online by asking them, make sure your child knows not to talk to people that they dont know etc.
I've had net access since I was 12, in my bedroom. My Mom knows roughly what I got up to, gaming, chatting with friends and all that stuff. Now I'm nearly 19, I realise that not once did I doubt my privacy, but not once did I question my safety.
So parents need to take a leaf out of my Mom's book :)
Nowhere did I say the government should be watching, it's entirely the parents' responsibility, but the parents need to be there.
Fred the Child Molesting Clown is out there, and statistically your child is less likely to get shot as school than to have Fred the Child Molesting Clown snag them from the internet, and I'm sure you believe that they should be protected from THAT.
Fred the Child Molesting Clown usually rapes and then KILLS his victims, so instead of the quick release of a bullet, they have them pain and mental anguish that comes with the rape and THEN a slow painful death of some kind (strangulation, beating.)
You don't have to hover over the keyboard (since you apparently chose to ignore when I said that before and focus on them needing some kind of supervision) but you do need to know what they are doing, and making sure they aren't putting themselves in danger.
The best way to prevent Fred the Child Molesting Clown from hurting someone, is to not let those someones meet Fred the Child Molesting Clown. This can be done by randomly popping your head into the room while your child is on the internet.
People that think all children are deserving or responsible enough (and this was a study on children 7-14, so they don't and aren't) to have total privacy are the reason for school shootings, the reason governments try to (and in many cases actually do) censor the internet, and that Fred the Child Molesting Clown has a plentiful supply of easy targets. I'm also going to guess that MOST people that are opposed to an occasional check on the kids are themselves kids.
Baby Tea: I'm not talking about 'smothering' my kids. When did I say that? I'm talking about monitoring my kids internet use! That doesn't mean hovering over their shoulder (Not to me, at least)! That means walking over to the PC every now and again and saying 'Hey son/daughter! What you up to? Oh, talking with your friend from school? Cool! Have fun!' I'm not going to sit in a chair behind them and write down every mouse click.
Oh fair enough! I guess I saw what I deemed to be an insult a saw red. Apologies.
However, I will take precautions to make sure they don't sneak around on me to places I told them not to go. Things like: Have the computer in a central part of the house, facing the room. Having parental software. Etc. I would be lenient on those things if my child proved they were mature enough to be trusted, but they've got to earn that trust just like everyone else. And, like you said, that time can happen at different ages for different kids.
But see this is where I start to quibble. What IS trusted? Do you mean that you trust them not to go on porn? Because I strongly believe that porn is a positive thing in many respects: it answers a lot of questions about the anatomy that a child would be too embarrassed to ask, it keeps your kid from getting girls pregnant (always a plus) and it helps an individual to decide a little better what exactly they like without having to go through a lot of rather awkward first hand experimentation. However if you're going to allow porn you'd obviously have to negate its negatives by ensuring that your child knows that the people in porn are not lovers and behave in a far more carnal manner, that men's penises do not look like they do in porn and it's not right to compare one's own body to that of a pornstar and that part of having the ability to watch porn at one's leisure comes the level of decorum that it requires and an understanding that it is impolite and unsettling to make pornography a casual topic for discussion with all but best friends. Those rules are obviously imperfect but hey, they're just the prima facie rules!
Of course if the material you seek to protect your kids from are things like shock videos then good on you, I'm in full support. Considering the wide variety of foul sadistic acts of torture and mutilation available to watch on the internet it's unwise to watch these before one's mind has properly matured to a level where one understands that such acts are very wrong. I make this the rule because it seems to me that if one understands such acts are wrong and genuinely believes it then they'll not want to watch the videos at all. I personally find people watching such videos hideously immoral as they're directly benefiting from the suffering of others.
But overall you seem like a level headed guy and from what you've said I don't doubt you're a great father.
And I still stand by that I didn't insult him. Even smart people can have dumb ideas.
This isn't really a valid defense, you wouldn't point it out to a very good looking friend that he's looking ugly 'today' and then claim that it's not insulting because even good looking people can be ugly sometimes.
Also, on a separate note, RE this Fred the Child Molesting Clown bullshit: start citing material or I'm going to presume you a troll.
They should do what my mother did when she said things like, "Its OK for you to look at pornography, but just remember, when you see it, its in your head forever."
That makes it all my choice, and makes me the only one who stands to suffer by doing so. Safe to say, I have never sought such things.
i still think your making a mountain out of a molehill with your fractured logic. also why the fudge would you think the guild wars thing is a great idea? your kids are never going to grow up if you always want to keep them safe. (and no i dont want a million posts quoting me saying how they're going to go hurtling through the windshield at 100kmph if i dont strap them in [even tho i do])
Hi, you seem to be new. This is just a few helpful suggestions for you coming into the escapist community. 1) Don't double post, edit your previous posts. 2) Try not to be such a douchebag in your first few posts, this tends to be a tight community and you won't win any friends like that. 3) Express your views in a thought out and well explained way. Simply going "Your wrong you stupid prick" at the end of your arguements does not make them any more correct. 4) For all future thread making ideas you have, the quote "The search button is your friend, use it" is appropriate.
This was written as a friendly bit of advice so I hope you accept it. Also you can usually ignore some of the bullshit topics that you mentioned above like the tree falling in the forest. Hope you enjoy your stay with the escapist.
Erana: "Its OK for you to look at pornography, but just remember, when you see it, its in your head forever."
That, and the line "As long as it's not drugs or anything that gets you arrested, you can do whatever the hell you want" is prolly among the best parental advice I've ever read...
And the crap about Fred the Child Molesting Clown... Everyone who seems to think that 99% of all people you can find on the internet is a pedophile is an idiot, clean and simple... if anything, the one percent is the potential pedophile, if at all, most people you'll ever meet on the internet is most assuredly not a pedophile.
The internet can be a great place to get to know people, granted, of course, that they are who they give themselves out to be. I've gotten to know most of the best people I've ever talked to over the internet, and don't regret a single second of it. Besides, it's nice to have international acquaintances! A reason to travel, and visit them.
Erana: They should do what my mother did when she said things like, "Its OK for you to look at pornography, but just remember, when you see it, its in your head forever."
That makes it all my choice, and makes me the only one who stands to suffer by doing so. Safe to say, I have never sought such things.
Makes one wonder what one stands to suffer in the first place? (Unless this is EXTREEEEEEME pornography we're talking about...in which case yes, it could be mentally scarring to some people ^^')
Extra Punctuation
MovieBob: Intermission
Experienced Points
First Person
Exploding Barrels
Miracle of Sound: Encore
Special Attack
Loading Time
Backchat
Drinking Games
Escape to the Movies
Escapecraft
Escapist News Wrap - Premium
Escapist Podcast
Feed Dump
GinxTV
Jimquisition
LoadingReadyRun
Mahalo
Meatbag and Co
Media Sandwich
Miracle of Sound
No Right Answer
Pro-Gamer Gauntlet
Reviews
Space Janitors
Tales from the Table
The Big Picture
The Escapist Presents
The Retro Show
Trailers
Unskippable
Zero Punctuation
Max Payne 3 Review
Company of Heroes 2
XCOM Enemy Unknown
Black Ops 2
Diablo 3 Review
TERA Review
Firefall Beta Preview
Starhawk Review
Critical Miss
Name Game
Kids Still Lying to Parents About the 'Net
Symantec's new report on Online Living tells us many things, but the main one is that parents often have no idea what their sneaky kids are up to.
The Online Living report took information from 12 countries, adults and kids alike, with almost 10,000 participants. To keep it simple, I'll just be looking at the differences between the UK and US.
In both the UK and the US, parents believe their kids spend, on average, 18-19 hours a week online. The big wakeup call should come from the kids, who believe they spend an average of 43 hours a week online. And 62% of the adults believe that's already too much.
The US seems to have a more practical view of the time though, with around two thirds of adults and kids saying that the kids spend much of their time online wasting time. The UKs belief is about 50/50 over wasting time and doing something constructive. This may also explain why 29% of US adults have caught their kids "doing something bad", while only 19% of UK residents have.
A positive item comes across in that 90% of the parents believe it's their responsibility to look after their kids online. Although only 2% believe they're safe to travel without a guardian of some sort present, and a frightening 25% believe the Government is responsible for looking after them online. Mistrust is rife in both countries though, with the US not trusting the Security Companies to provide a decent level of protection, and the UK not trusting the Government to look after their children. I doubt that will come as a surprise.
Parental controls does seem to be a sticking point, with the US use dwindling as the UK turns towards them more.
Overall though, it seems the UK parents are the most loved, perhaps because they're the easiest to fool over not wasting time on the net. They score top for the kids keeping in touch with their parents through text messages and for spending the most time online together
The US kids, however, are the least likely to add their folks to their social network page, but they do have a lot more e-friends. Perhaps because almost half the US parents have told their kids off for doing something stupid online?
I've only touched on the information in this report, and for once, it's actually a thoroughly interesting read. I'd advise a quick peek sometime, perhaps even with your folks.
Permalink