Apple to Start Allowing Adult Content on iPad

[osx11]

Why is this rated so negative?

I'm sorry to burst the American bubble, but this is reality, deal with it. I'm from Europe, (the real free world) and there you can do whatever you want - things don't get censored like in the States. As a matter of fact, the largest Austrian Newspaper "Kronen Zeitung" features a topless model every day, and yes, this is already on the appstore with no special parental controls. Just learn to deal with it folks. Millions of Africans run around naked and every documentary gets censored. Come on guys - can't you just accept human nature?

 

[WestonHarvey1]

You're right on. Americans are so funny - they live in a bubble. No nudity, no alcohol - but come on, US is such a free country....right........

I don't understand this at sentiment at all.

The US is the porn capital of the world, we probably have more strip clubs than the rest of the world combined. Prostitution is explicitly legal in several places, and de-facto legal everywhere else via the "escort service" system.

We manufacture and consume oil tankers full of alcohol and advertise it freely everywhere. We distribute condoms to children and force them to practice their use in schools.

Yet any time someone here lodges the tiniest complaint about it, we get tarred by the rest of the world as some puritanical society.

 

[jimbobb24]

Wow

I always love these issues, as it brings out the thoughtless in droves.

Anyone who uses the following phrase needs to pause:
"Patents are dumb/stupid/hypocritical."
Parents are average. Your disagreement about moral valuations do not constitute an intellectual insight on your part nor a deficiency on anyone elses.

"People in X country are dumb/stupid/hypocritical."
Countries are not monolithic. On intelligence they are average, on education they are average. Guess what Europeans - you are not that smart. You just, for reasons no one else in the world can figure, have started to think you are. As for the people in a country dogging on your own country...your just deluding yourself that you are above average. Remember, your disagreement about moral valuations do not constitute an intellectual insight on your part nor a deficiency on anyone elses. Unless you are still in high school or never went to a good college or never decided to expand your mind, then go ahead and think that because nothing can change your mind. And remember not to vote.

Remember whenever you think someone who who disagrees with you about political/social/moral issues is stupid...uh oh...you are are not using your brain. They may be ignorant, but by and large we are all relatively ignorant outside our spheres of expertise. Why do ignorant people argue with each other about the relative social impact of viewing nudity as a way of arguing for the social impact of widespread pornography is beyond me. Maybe it is fun. Maybe that is why we have the internet!

As for the issue at hand...pornography is widely available and I hope that Apple continues to allow those who are interested to use technology to tailor the experience of themselves and those for whom they have a legal and moral obligation to.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

While I do agree that Playboy is not porn, I believe is not artistic nudity either. To me their photos are just cliché, and as such the magazine is doing a disservice, but no harm, to both women and men.

Artistic nudity. That term bugs the crap out of me. So if a woman spreads her legs in a beautiful garden with a sephia filter its art but, if she does so in a bedroom with a digi cam its porn.

Nudity is nudity.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

Nudity is nudity.

And a photograph of a sunrise is artistic? It's a sunrise.

Art is anything that someone finds artistic.

So what?

 

[Steve121178]

Once again, I strongly recommend purchasing Kleenex stock. You should get a fap-tastic return on your investment.

 

[alust2013]

Once again, I strongly recommend purchasing Kleenex stock. You should get a fap-tastic return on your investment.

Hahahahaha, post of the day.

 

[Ironduke]

Dirty Filthy Beggars

 

[fabianjj]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; sv-se) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

I like to use that violence comparison and obviusly i would keep my children away from it till a certain age just because a five year old has not fully understood the concept of whats real and whar issent.
But just like i argued with sex before, i also think viloence, violent phantasys and the abilety to differ betwen whats real and whats not is something very human.

Just look at how grusom faritales are, people still tell them to their kids and they have been toled many many years.


If your son goes on a killing spree in his school it´s not because you let him play EgoShooters on your iPad. He is also not turning into a crazy rapist because he has seen breast in a photograph. The paranoia your teaching is the real evil...

I don't think the two are the same thing. Though humans are capable of violence the very act of being aggressive is very unpleasant to most people. You know how you feel when you accidentally hurt someone? You feel terrible, right? We may be capable of violence but it is not, as some would claim, in the nature of humans to be violent. For the vast majority of people acting in a violent manner is something that requires extreme provocation. Even then we do not enjoy it.

Sex, on the other hand, is something we all have a natural urge to do. While most people will never deliberately cause someone an injury in their entire life, the vast majority will have sex often. Thus, anything that can skew our expectations of sex has a direct impact with a very central plank of what it means to be a human.

In most regards I think a closer analogy is to how we treat children when it comes to food. We know that children want to eat sweets all the time but we don't want them to grow up with bad habits and eating food which will make them ill. So we take great pains to ensure that our kids don't grow up thinking that vegetables are yucky and that a cheese sandwich and a packet of crisps is a suitable evening meal. If we want a child to grow up with a good attitude towards sex (since we know that, like eating, having sex is something he or she will want to do for most of their life!) then we should think hard about what ideas about sex we allow them to be exposed to.

You really have a good point, the food analogy really made reconsider my own position in the matter.

However, I do believe that with the proper parental controls, children will be kept out of the way of any harm (I am talking about small children, not teenagers who just reached puberty).

I think under the right circumstances these apps should be allowed.

 

[Jelite]

You don't have to protect the kids they'll all be busy killing people in Call of Duty.

 

[The Phazer]

About the link: google for the book published by sociologist Gail Dines...you'll find the right title.

Gail Dines work is completely discredited. Her stats work was so poor that it wouldn't have passed a maths exam for a 12 year old.

Please cite something that wasn't a complete fabrication in order to sell books.

The outright lies told in this thread about adult content, and some people's incredible belief that they have the right to impact on what other people can see, is incredibly depressing.

As for the news, it would be a great thing - Apple's censorship of material on the App Store is completely wrong and morally evil. It damages people trying to access information for their healthy sexual development. It brings damaging financial uncertainty to companies because Apple's definition of adult content is as clear as mud. Apple's justifcations have been outright fabrications in many cases.

But there is absolutely no evidence that this release means anything - there are three scenarios.

1) This is really about adult content being allowed into the app store - and if people want to block it using good parental filters, then fine. Even make it the default. But the access is there if required by the user. And it applies to the entire app store, so for instance websites can write native apps to allow file uploading without having to worry if Steve can search it, find a picture of a nipple somewhere and arbitrarily decide to delete their entire business.

This would be great news.

2) That this is, sadly, a false dawn. As there's nothing here that says this couldn't just be an HTML5 based subscription web app that Playboy is building to fit on the iPad nicely via Safari and has nothing to do with Apple whatsoever.

3) That, and this is the worst of all the scenarios, that Apple keeps blocking access to apps that deal with adult topics for the most part, but lets Playboy into iBooks/Magazines whatever. Proving that if you wanted to make a sex education app that's a complete no-no, but as long as you're willing to give Apple 30% of a revenue stream you can do what you like.

It's bad because it's staggeringly hypocritical. It's bad because it's almost certainly illegally anticompetitive in Europe. It's bad because it just makes Apple look like hypocritical, selfish gits.

If this happens, my company (one of the largest in the UK) will end its iPad trial and pursue the Playbook as its tablet solution.

Can you please tell me who your company are, as I would like to boycot them over how incredibly stupid they are.

Phazer

 

[balamw]

In most regards I think a closer analogy is to how we treat children when it comes to food. We know that children want to eat sweets all the time but we don't want them to grow up with bad habits and eating food which will make them ill. So we take great pains to ensure that our kids don't grow up thinking that vegetables are yucky and that a cheese sandwich and a packet of crisps is a suitable evening meal. If we want a child to grow up with a good attitude towards sex (since we know that, like eating, having sex is something he or she will want to do for most of their life!) then we should think hard about what ideas about sex we allow them to be exposed to.

You really have a good point, the food analogy really made reconsider my own position in the matter.

Not getting the analogy. Sweets are readily available, so are cheese sandwiches and crisps. Their sale is not restricted in any fashion. If a child has enough money in their pocket, they can walk into almost any store that sells food and walk out with a Twinkie. They can't (generally) buy Playboy from the same shop or presumably on the iPad.

Kids will get exposed to junk food whether their parents like it or not, and as most experiments in prohibition show the forbidden fruit often becomes that much more desirable when it is pushed underground. I had a friend as a teen who would eat a ham sandwich every week from the school cafeteria, just because his parents' religion forbade eating pork. He didn't actually like ham, just the act of doing something forbidden.

We teach our kids about good food by making that more available than junk food, talking to them about their food choices and pointing them in that direction instead. We don't picket Kroger or 7-11 to get them to stop carrying Twinkies, even though we probably should.

As evidenced in this thread many of those who object to Playboy on the iPad, object to all forms of nudity, sex ed, etc...

So what's the equivalent of the good food in the porn analogy? How do you develop a healthy attitude towards sex, if sex doesn't exist until you reach the age of consent?

(FWIW alcohol or tobacco might be a better analogy because they are products aimed at adults whose sale and consumption is regulated.)

B

 

[ThunderSkunk]

Ok, so, to recap, we've established in this thread:

1. There is real actual porn on the web.

2. Playboy doesn't appeal to people who like porn.

3. If you prefer playboy anyway, you can get your paid subscription on the ipad like any other magazine.

4. Harvey Weston has numerous personal issues which he will proudly reveal in great detail should the opportunity arise.

5. Parents who find the female nipple (but not the male one) obscene, and want to protect their children from the permanent psyche-damaging horror of seeing one, ought to not let their children anywhere near the internet and raise them in the loft of a barn on the prairie instead. Also, they ought to enable parental controls on their ipads & iphones. However, encouraging them to assume the role of first-person shooter and fantasize about being a homicidal sociopath for hours on end throughout their developmental childhood, is perfectly acceptable because shutup it's fun and you can't prove anything.

6. Americans, scratch that... People from the United States, have some pretty screwey ideas about Europeans, and the United States alike.



Ok, that was productive.
Can we go home now?

 

[WestonHarvey1]

As for the news, it would be a great thing - Apple's censorship of material on the App Store is completely wrong and morally evil. It damages people trying to access information for their healthy sexual development. It brings damaging financial uncertainty to companies because Apple's definition of adult content is as clear as mud. Apple's justifcations have been outright fabrications in many cases.

Will you sell me some naked pictures of your sister? No? You're wrong and morally evil. I'm just trying to access information for my healthy sexual development!

 

[studio¹³¹]

Ok, so, to recap, we've established in this thread:

1. There is real actual porn on the web.

2. Playboy doesn't appeal to people who like porn.

3. If you prefer playboy anyway, you can get your paid subscription on the ipad like any other magazine.

4. Harvey Weston has numerous personal issues which he will proudly reveal in great detail should the opportunity arise.

5. Parents who find the female nipple (but not the male one) obscene, and want to protect their children from the permanent psyche-damaging horror of seeing one, ought to not let their children anywhere near the internet and raise them in the loft of a barn on the prairie. Also, they ought to enable parental controls on their ipads & iphones. However, encouraging them to assume the role of first-person shooter and fantasize about being a homicidal sociopath for hours on end throughout their developmental childhood, is perfectly acceptable because shutup it's fun and you can't prove anything.

6. Americans, scratch that... People from the United States, have some pretty screwey ideas about Europeans, and the United States alike.



Ok, that was productive.
Can we go home now?

awesome -- i wish i would have seen this before reading all the other pages!

 

[The Phazer]

In most regards I think a closer analogy is to how we treat children when it comes to food. We know that children want to eat sweets all the time but we don't want them to grow up with bad habits and eating food which will make them ill. So we take great pains to ensure that our kids don't grow up thinking that vegetables are yucky and that a cheese sandwich and a packet of crisps is a suitable evening meal. If we want a child to grow up with a good attitude towards sex (since we know that, like eating, having sex is something he or she will want to do for most of their life!) then we should think hard about what ideas about sex we allow them to be exposed to.

What "good" eating habits is objective. It can be measured and tested mathmatically.

What "good" sex is can't. It's subjective. And at that point your entire analogy falls apart.

It's nasty because of the way it objectifies women. I'm not talking about the women who pose for the magazine - they have a choice - but women in general. It says that women are objects.

No it doesn't. That's a lazy, trite generalisation. The only object is the photograph. It doesn't make the human portrayed by the photograph into an object any more than any other photograph does. Or working in McDonalds turns someone into a vending machine. Or working in an office turns someone into a word processor.

And there's no evidence of ill effect - and indeed correlations showing quite the opposite is true. Sex crime goes *down* with a very strong correlation with the availability and consumption of more sexually explict material.

Phazer

 

[WestonHarvey1]

4. Harvey Weston has numerous personal issues which he will proudly reveal in great detail should the opportunity arise.

Right, because I revealed any of my "personal issues", even once. I totally did that.

 

[studio¹³¹]

Will you sell me some naked pictures of your sister? No? You're wrong and morally evil. I'm just trying to access information for my healthy sexual development!

add me to the sister pics email chain. thanks.

 

[The Phazer]

Will you sell me some naked pictures of your sister? No? You're wrong and morally evil. I'm just trying to access information for my healthy sexual development!

I don't have any sexually explit pictures of my sister to sell you, nor would doing so without her consent be acceptable.

If she wants to sell some of her to you, she should go for it. If you want nude pics of me, feel free to make an offer.

Phazer

 

[WestonHarvey1]

I don't have any sexually explit pictures of my sister to sell you, nor would doing so without her consent be acceptable.

If she wants to sell some of her to you, she should go for it. If you want nude pics of me, feel free to make an offer.

Phazer

I admire your consistency on the porn issue. However I think the point I'm trying to make is still clear. If you had consent, it would be your choice to sell them to me or not.

Apple is choosing what to sell and is applying their own morals, whatever they may be, flawed or not, to what to put on their virtual shelves. This isn't censorship any more than it is when any other store does it.

The Safari comparisons aren't valid. Safari is a tool for accessing the Web, which Apple doesn't own or control. I would be very opposed to any type of forced content filtering applied to the browser. It would make me instantly abandon the platform. It would be just like filtering text or voice communications, or Pages refusing to let you write about certain topics.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

Right, because I revealed any of my "personal issues", even once. I totally did that.

You're doing it in every post, ya goof.

 

[Savor]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8A293)

iTunes offers movies and TV shows with plenty of nude, sex scenes. What is wrong with Playboy? They aren't Hustler.

 

[anim8or]

All Ill say is, is that the said parents dont like it then they dont have to view it. As long as the content can only be accessed in a secure way then its content that should be available. Its more revenue for Apple and we live in a democracy so I have as much right to see adult content as much as little johnny has launching silly little birds about the place or finding out where the nearest McDonalds is. What needs to change is people attitude! People really must lead a boring bedroom life if they are put of by adult content! God the sparks must fly in your house LOL!

So tell me how they will police this then... not all parents want to completely cut off the app store... correct me if i am wrong but iOS doesnt have age certificated apps or controls!

 

[WestonHarvey1]

You're doing it in every post, ya goof.

You sound like Janeane Garofalo, blaming disagreement with your views on deep psychological or personal problems, instead of addressing the substance of the opposing view itself.

 

[balamw]

iTunes offers movies and TV shows with plenty of nude, sex scenes. What is wrong with Playboy? They aren't Hustler.

I mentioned that earlier too. They also have music with explicit lyrics and "romance" books with steamy content. Netflix has a category called "Steamy Romance" which is Playboy-esque which is available on the iPad/AppleTV.

All subject to parental controls, but already available.

B