Family First thinks there is a Cafe porn watching crisis

Written By: - Date published: 8:00 am, January 19th, 2019 - 104 comments
Categories: David Farrar, dpf, internet, making shit up, Media, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

Holy bejebus.

Not only are we in a porn crisis but there is an epidemic of porn watching in cafes. At least as far as Family First is concerned.

From Benedict Collins at One Network News:

A new poll suggests there is strong public support for cafes and other businesses to block pornography websites on their in-store Wi-Fi. 

It comes after Starbucks Coffee rolled out an international block in this year, following consumer pressure.

Family First commissioned the poll by Curia Market Research that found 79 per cent of respondents thought there should be adult filters in place for public Wi-Fi, with 16 per cent opposed and six per cent unsure. 

Bob McCoskrie of Family First said the result was “indicative of the growing community concern over this issue”.

Family First supporters went around some cafes and fast food restaurants testing if they could access pornography on the Wi-Fi, finding some blocked pornography, and some did not. 

I have never ever seen someone accessing porn in a cafe before.  But if I do I will check to see if they are Family First activists.

And the polling company was Curia …

I trust they are paying Mr Farrar well.

104 comments on “Family First thinks there is a Cafe porn watching crisis ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Sanctuary 1
    19 January 2019 at 8:18 am

    Curia, a company you can rely on to ask the right questions to get the right answers…

  2. millsy 2
    19 January 2019 at 10:10 am

    What is Family Fist’s definition of porn anyway? Baroque era paintings? The Warehouse’s bikini range? Pin-up girl galleries? Ancient Roman and Greek mosaics?

    Anyway, people are mature enough to know what is and isn’t acceptable, even in a liberal society. Someone watching hardcore porn in a cafe will soon decide to leave once they notice the looks of dissaproval on other patrons faces.

    • Editractor 2.1
      19 January 2019 at 1:47 pm

      “The Warehouse’s bikini range?”

      Indeed!!!! I hope FF commission a poll about the filth that gets put in our letterboxes three times a week!!!!

  3. JustMe 3
    19 January 2019 at 10:13 am

    It certainly does appear that Family First is more concerned about what goes on in cafes than the all too numerous families who are homeless. It certainly shows where Family First’s ‘priorities’ are and it’s definitely NOT for families.

    I guess Family First will then blame the current government for the ‘loose living’ of people who frequent cafes and coffee shops.

    Did Family First ever conduct or waste money on commissioning someone to look at the number of homeless families during the past National government? And if there was a survey did Family First then blame the National government at the time? Or were they(Family First)told not to criticise or blame the National government because future funding would be severely affected ie significant funding cuts like what happened to Lifeline?

    Still National in their pure arrogance at the time(and still has)would have rejected, denied, refused to accept and then as per usual blamed a previous Labour government.

    I do think Family First needs to focus on helping families in the wider communities around New Zealand and not conduct a ‘Patricia Bartlett’ on cafes and coffee shops.

  4. bwaghorn 4
    19 January 2019 at 10:26 am

    Uuum who actually still uses cafe and hotel wifi most of us have heaps of data on the ph plan . Usually onsite wifi is slow and crappy.

  5. Morrissey 5
    19 January 2019 at 10:31 am

    Keep an eye out for Family First’s notorious Obergruppenführer Bob “Hit ‘Em With A Hairbrush” McCoskrie. If you see him viewing pornography in your local cafetaria or library, please report him to the police or to Daisycutter Sports Inc.

    Phile photo of Bob McCoskrie….

    https://thesystemworks.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/01102012saville_6728881.jpg

  6. Anne 6
    19 January 2019 at 10:42 am

    Poto Williams
    ✔
    @PotoChchEast
    Does anyone else think it’s ironic that Family First are investigating access to porn at public places by accessing porn at public places?

    That’s funny, but the likes of the F.F. dumb-bells would never be able to recognise the humorous irony.

  7. Ad 7
    19 January 2019 at 10:45 am

    It was a national crisis for a tourist to throw their toast on the ground.

    Auckland Transport bans advertising on any of its fleets or facilities of there’s so much as a glimpse if lace apparent. Don’t even dare consider cleavage.

    Cinemas ban specific kinds of advertising if the film is targeted at young people. Same as broadcast television.

    And of course, porn is ubiquitous in private life now.

    Seems legitimate to ask the question about the regulation of far stronger forms of sex expressed in public and commercial life when far weaker forms are already self-regulated.

    • Anne 7.1
      19 January 2019 at 10:59 am

      Seems legitimate to ask the question about the regulation of far stronger forms of sex expressed in public and commercial life when far weaker forms are already self-regulated.

      Bringing it to everybody’s attention like the F.F. busy-bodies do is a great way to spread the word among the cafe communities… just visit your local cafe folks. It’s all there – porn n’ all. Bob McCroskrie told us.

      As someone above has noted, I wonder what F.F.’s definition of porn is anyway?

      • Ad 7.1.1
        19 January 2019 at 11:12 am

        Definitional issues are a total red herring.
        People will respond to the word in the questionnaire with their own assumed meaning.

        In one year of one term of Parliament we are debating moral and practical issues about medicinal marijuana use, legalized marijuana use, abortion, and euthanasia.

        So yes, our society is robust enough to take a debate about pornography on as well.

        • patricia bremner 7.1.1.1
          20 January 2019 at 6:36 am

          We are communicating and these next two years are critical for bedding action in imo.

      • arkie 7.1.2
        19 January 2019 at 11:25 am

        They don’t define pornography on their website that I can find. They do list these policy prescriptions:

        Family First is calling on immediate legislative support for families including:

        1. Online Child Safety Act: This bill would require ISP’s to provide or make available to all subscribers (parents) the technology which will allow the parents to monitor, control, supervise, block, and restrict their child’s access to the internet.
        2. Online Public Areas Safety Act: This bill would require retail shops, schools, businesses and public areas which provide free Wi-Fi to the general public (and especially children) to ensure that the appropriate filtering from pornography is in place (Starbucks has already started this).
        3. Raising Awareness on the Harms of Pornography Act: This bill would require education materials to be made available to parents, schools, and the general public – similar to alcohol and tobacco health warnings – regarding the public health risks and harms of pornography, its close link with sex trafficking, how parents can engage filters, and more.
        4. Government Accountability, Trust, & Etiquette (G.A.T.E) Act: This bill would require government agencies to adopt policies which would prohibit users of government-owned devices (like laptops and cellphones) from accessing sexually explicit, pornographic, and sexually harassing material. It would also ensure that appropriate filters are in place in all government agencies and services.

        Point one evidences they don’t entirely understand how to use the parental controls included in web browsers.

        • Anne 7.1.2.1
          19 January 2019 at 12:39 pm

          Points 2,3 and 4 indicate a holier than thou attitude and an obsessive belief that anything related to sexual content is wrong and evil. Someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t they rail on for years about sex education in schools? Now it is acceptable practice.

          As for the public health risks aspect… I would have thought the risks associated with pornographic material are generally speaking unrelated to the normal person having a giggle at sexually explicit images. The vast majority of people can handle it with no deleterious effects. Why should they be denied a bit of fun in their own time because of a bunch of poke faced prudes.

          Btw, I have never accessed sexually explicit material (wouldn’t know how) nor have I ever watched a blue movie, but I object to the ‘we know best’ gang who want to force their prudish attitudes on to everyone else.

          • Anne 7.1.2.1.1
            19 January 2019 at 1:14 pm

            Just to prove my point @ 7.1:

            I had the bright idea to google kamasutra

            Bejesus is the word… 😯

            Warning: sexually explicit little stick-like figures at play.

            • veutoviper 7.1.2.1.1.1
              19 January 2019 at 2:24 pm

              Now, now, Anne.

              You didn’t apply any filters at all there. You just grabbed the first listing! ROFL.

              Which reminds me, where Is my copy of S. C. Upadhyaya’s 1960s translation? It probably is in a box somewhere …

              Oh, I see that there was a new translation/book on the KS published in 1994 by Alain Daniélou. Sounds interesting … Academic interest only, you understand …

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kama_Sutra

              • patricia bremner …
                20 January 2019 at 6:41 am

                Probably couldn’t get into the positions these days lol
                ‘Honey you’re dreaming!!”

        • greywarshark 7.1.2.2
          19 January 2019 at 1:42 pm

          Forbid, filter. They wouldn’t want to have detail about how awful rape is, or show pictures of someone breast-feeding. or mention masturbation, or have naked children running around. Betcha. We are so prudish under our facade.

          I went to Dr Strangelove recently and they had fun with USA obsessive approach to cleanliness, connected with morality. One of the top USA Forces guys referred a lot to bodily fluids which I think meant he was anxious that he had virile sperm. And then he was convinced that the evil Russkies were trying to poison the good Americans by putting fluoride in the drinking water. Paranoia personified.

          As for Family First – whose family? And first at what – the lolly scramble of prizes for being the best and brightest and prosiest?
          The names Patricia Bartlett and Mary Whitehouse come to mind. This follows in their tradition. By all means let us have controls. I don’t think that what appears on much of the internet is decent for the human soul, much less young impressionable ones.

          • arkie 7.1.2.2.1
            19 January 2019 at 1:58 pm

            Interesting that you bring up US notions of morality. Their answer to the question ‘What do you mean by Family’ is adapted from from The Natural Family: A Manifesto by the World Congress of Families.

            https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/world-congress-families

            This is the adapted ‘Principles on Family’:

            1. We affirm that the natural family, not the individual, is the fundamental social unit.
            2. We affirm the natural family to be the union of a man and a woman through marriage for the purposes of sharing love and joy, raising children, providing their moral education, building a vital home economy, offering security in times of trouble, and binding the generations.
            3. We affirm that the natural family is a fixed aspect of the created order, one implanted in human nature. Through time it may grow weaker or stronger. However, the natural family cannot change into some new shape; nor can it be re-defined by eager social engineers.
            4. We affirm that the natural family is the foundational family system. While we acknowledge varied living situations caused by circumstance or dysfunction, all other “family forms” are incomplete or fabrications of the state.
            5. We acknowledge the tremendous contribution made by single parents and step-parents in society. We wish to ensure they receive appropriate levels of assistance, without denying the clear empirical evidence that the best environment in which to raise children is the natural two-parent, husband-wife family.
            6. We affirm the marital union to be the authentic sexual bond, the only one open to the natural and responsible creation of new life.
            7. We affirm the sanctity of human life from conception to death; each newly conceived person holds rights to live, to grow, to be born, and to share a home with his or her natural parents bound by marriage.
            8. We affirm that the natural family is prior to the state and that the task of government is to shelter and encourage the natural family.
            9. We affirm that the world is abundant in resources. The breakdown of the natural family and the consequential moral and political failure, not human “overpopulation,” account for poverty, starvation, and environmental decay.
            10. We affirm that the complementarity of the sexes is a source of strength. Men and women exhibit profound biological and psychological differences. When united in marriage, the whole becomes greater than the sum of the parts.
            11. We affirm that lasting solutions to human problems rise out of families and small communities. They cannot be imposed by bureaucratic and judicial fiat. Nor can they be coerced by outside force.

            https://www.familyfirst.org.nz/about-us/frequently-asked-questions/

            • greywarshark 7.1.2.2.1.1
              19 January 2019 at 2:27 pm

              Well I start reading down this and come across love and joy and think what the hell this is written by a deluded bureaucrat paid by the word. In case it gets better I’ll look further later but it sounds as if its written by some middle-class university woman who is full of prunes and prisms, and probably says that someone who hits their child anywhere should go an extensive re-education course modelled on ones that they ran/run in China.

              And whose idea of psychological harm is speaking to your child in any other tones than sweet and low, and always being reasonable, so as to be a good role model, and never frowning because that gets imprinted in the child’s brain etc.

              And taking a quick look at No.11 – The End. ‘…lasting solutions to human problems rise out of families and small communities.’ That certainly applied to the young girls hanging from a tree in India because they were sexually abused by some men and shamed their families by talking about it and being distressed, this was probably ordered by wise old village elders eager to keep their hamlet clean and pure. Or the young Saudi Arabian woman given a place in Canada, might have something to say about it, being that she is afraid of being hurt, locked up, killed, something very unpleasant, by her family.

              One would tend to call for bureaucratic and judicial fiat against this sort of behaviour, I would think! Even coercion.

              • ropata …
                19 January 2019 at 2:47 pm

                Interesting that you think a Christian family advocacy organisation is a hate group but the only examples you could come up with were from Saudi, China, India

                • greywarshark …
                  19 January 2019 at 2:52 pm

                  Interesting why you are so picky and negative about my comment. I had the idea that you cared about people, but you possibly have another agenda.

                  • ropata …
                    19 January 2019 at 3:06 pm

                    My problem is the left wing habit of lumping peaceful charitable organisations with totally unrelated violent hate groups

                    • McFlock …
                      19 January 2019 at 5:10 pm

                      Well, FF did campaign in favour of violence against children…

                    • ropata …
                      19 January 2019 at 6:12 pm

                      Shame that a wet bus ticket piece of legislation did absolutely nothing to resolve NZ’s shameful epidemic of child abuse – and corporal punishment was already abolished in 1987

                    • greywarshark …
                      19 January 2019 at 10:52 pm

                      ropata
                      I’m not a left wing apparatchik I am an individual thinking for myself. What peaceful charitable organisation are you referring to?he World Congress of Families?

                      Hate speech? I referred to some very nasty things that occurred
                      perpetrated by people who fit in No.11.
                      11. We affirm that lasting solutions to human problems rise out of families and small communities. They cannot be imposed by bureaucratic and judicial fiat. Nor can they be coerced by outside force..

                      And I suggest that you do not add to peaceful and thoughtful debate by using the words ‘hate speech’ with such ease. I
                      again say I thought you were interested in having a better society.
                      But that means having respect for people who are thinking about how to bring this about. If you have some narrow idea of what you will permit, and then sock anyone else in the jaw, I give you a fail. Fight with marty mars, you two deserve each other.

                    • ropata …
                      19 January 2019 at 11:28 pm

                      gws, I usually like your contributions. Forgive me for being harsh lately.

                      But arkie’s link implies that FF is a hate group: /fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/world-congress-families

                      and then you started going on about Chinese re-education camps, the Saudi regime, and dead girls in India.

                      Perhaps I am jumping to conclusions

              • Sabine …
                20 January 2019 at 12:07 am

                well i see your extremists form other countries and i raise these

                his is the adapted ‘Principles on Family’:

                1. We affirm that the natural family, not the individual, is the fundamental social unit.

                fuck you individual, better get a family or else you are not a ‘fundamental social unit’.

                2. We affirm the natural family to be the union of a man and a woman through marriage for the purposes of sharing love and joy, raising children, providing their moral education, building a vital home economy, offering security in times of trouble, and binding the generations.

                fuck you all others who are not man/women units, who would like to create a union through marriage for the purposes of sharing love and joy, raising children (their own or adopted) providing their moral education, building a vital home education ,offering security in times of trouble and binding the generations. This is not for you homosexuals, lesbians, bi etc etc etc, no t’is only for the heterosexual male and his missus.

                3. We affirm that the natural family is a fixed aspect of the created order, one implanted in human nature. Through time it may grow weaker or stronger. However, the natural family cannot change into some new shape; nor can it be re-defined by eager social engineers.

                fuck you again you all non heterosexual others, you are not a fixed aspect of the created order one implanted in human nature. You are some sort of abomination and you are not part of the natural family.

                4. We affirm that the natural family is the foundational family system. While we acknowledge varied living situations caused by circumstance or dysfunction, all other “family forms” are incomplete or fabrications of the state.

                fuck you single parents, fuck you single women and men, fuck you patchwork families, fuck you all of you who would like to be other then married heterosexual family.

                5. We acknowledge the tremendous contribution made by single parents and step-parents in society. We wish to ensure they receive appropriate levels of assistance, without denying the clear empirical evidence that the best environment in which to raise children is the natural two-parent, husband-wife family.

                fuck you single parents and step parents. We don’t want you to starve or die in ditches, but best is that you don’t ever be a single parent or a step parent. So no matter how fucked up your heterosexual marriage and family is don’t divorce, don’t seperate. Cause its better for your children to live in a loveless disfunctional even abusive heterosexual marriage/family then they grow up with two mum, or two dads, or mum and stepdad, or dad and stepmum. And if you are a godly single parent because your wife/husband died, marry quickly so the wife has a meal ticket and the husband has a new wife to clean, cook and raise the children.

                6. We affirm the marital union to be the authentic sexual bond, the only one open to the natural and responsible creation of new life.

                fuck all of you, no naughty unless you are married and then only for procreation.
                And again, no naughty ever if you are a homosexual or a lesbian or bi or or, better to pretend to be heterosexually married and not enjoying sex. After all its only for procreation anyways.

                7. We affirm the sanctity of human life from conception to death; each newly conceived person holds rights to live, to grow, to be born, and to share a home with his or her natural parents bound by marriage.

                No need to even mention the human incubator and her right to live, to grow, and to now have a child that is unwanted, result of a rape/abuse, could kill her. see above point of single parents, if the incubator dies, marry a new one. rinse repeat.

                8. We affirm that the natural family is prior to the state and that the task of government is to shelter and encourage the natural family.

                Fuck you all other you, only enough money for you to not starve and if you are not a heterosexual family, or a not heterosexual individual ready to marry you deserve to starve and die of neglect.

                9. We affirm that the world is abundant in resources. The breakdown of the natural family and the consequential moral and political failure, not human “overpopulation,” account for poverty, starvation, and environmental decay.

                Keep that incubator incubated, blessings for god and such. But only of a certain colour, of course, brown or black people should be more responsible and only have blessings they can afford. So no naughty for you guys.

                10. We affirm that the complementarity of the sexes is a source of strength. Men and women exhibit profound biological and psychological differences. When united in marriage, the whole becomes greater than the sum of the parts.

                Just be submissive women, husband knows best, and besides with you incubating one after the other, it is best to keep sweet. Would not want to upset the leader of the household. Right?

                11. We affirm that lasting solutions to human problems rise out of families and small communities. They cannot be imposed by bureaucratic and judicial fiat. Nor can they be coerced by outside force.

                No good came ever from government. You might have grown up in a disfunctional family, got beaten by dad, raped by brother or uncle, deprived of education on grounds of your gender etc etc etc, but that is all good, cause natural family is the best.

                Oh can you feel the love and joy?
                so much love and joy, but only if you are heterosexual, married with dad always knowing best and always being right and without fertility control. 🙂

      • Wensleydale 7.1.3
        21 January 2019 at 1:10 pm

        I have it on good authority Bob McCoskrie showers in his Y-fronts. Because that’s not porn.

    • Ankerrawshark 7.2
      20 January 2019 at 10:29 am

      Ad 100+. I Agee. Imo porn is problematic from so many angles.

      When I am in a public place, be it a cafe, airport, bus shelter etc I don’t want to inadvertently see pornography. I remember on a completely unrelated internet search I was doing some years back being taken to a website that had extremely explicit images, and in part due to not expecting that it was an unpleasant experience.

      People who want to watch porn ideally would be respectful enough to realize some others don’t want to see it or their maybe young children around and watch in the privacy of their own homes. I realize the world doesn’t work like that, so I am all for regulation.

  8. Dean Reynolds 8
    19 January 2019 at 10:52 am

    Family First are just another National Party front, like the Taxpayers Union. Family First don’t give a shit about families sleeping in cars, or parents holding down 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet, or families paying high rent for an unsafe rental property.

    The Coalition Govt are addressing all these issues, but for Family First, being the loony evangelical cult which they are, the only morality which matters to them is sexual morality. It never crosses their tiny minds that homelessness, low wages or sub standard dwellings, could also be moral issues

  9. Infused 9
    19 January 2019 at 10:53 am

    I’ll be screwed!

  10. gsays 10
    19 January 2019 at 10:54 am

    This is a potentially sticky post.
    Three main issues at play: the ‘lefts’ attitude to Family First, Curia/Farrar and the access to free pornography.
    For me the first two are going to do what they do.
    The porn proliferation is not a helpful thing when it comes to young men forming attitudes to women.

    What the answer is, apart from men modelling good behaviour to the women in their life, I don’t know.

    • RedLogix 10.1
      19 January 2019 at 11:50 am

      The porn proliferation is not a helpful thing when it comes to young men forming attitudes to women.

      Maybe, but then what are we to make of the reported information that about 30% of people using the big porn sites are women?

      And what are we to make of the fact that while we get very anxious about the visual forms of porn that appeal to men, we’re generally oblivious to the narrative based forms that most women prefer? And consumed in equal if not greater quantity.

      • gsays 10.1.1
        19 January 2019 at 2:39 pm

        Hey Red, I don’t pretend to have the answers, especially in regards to female experience of pornography.

        Jim Jeffries, an Aussie comic does a routine about his experiences of porn.
        In his day a ‘stick magazine’ was found beside a skip bin. He took it and cycled miles out of town and buried the mag beside a tree. Then when he wished to ‘use’ the magazine it was an exhaustive exercise all round.
        Compared to nowadays, anything the imagination can conceive is a click away.

        There is a depraved, cruel and sadistic aspect to some modern pornography, which without a counter narrative, becomes normal or ok.

        As a society we seem to becoming colder and lacking empathy towards each other.
        I pick up on the damage done by and to boys, adolescents and young men because of friends and family experiences and being a father to a 16yr young man.

        • Compass Rose 10.1.1.1
          19 January 2019 at 4:06 pm

          This may be an unpopular opinion but as a feminist human being I agree with FF that we have an out-of-control porn epidemic that is ruining relationships and lives of both women and men, but especially women as the escalating sexual violence depicted is being done to them. For the sake of entertainment. The porn out there is horrifying. And instantly accessible. And free to consume. And when I say horrifying, I mean horrifying. Not sexy. Not erotic. Violent, misogynistic, sickening. This article investigates the problem in the Australian context…starting with the case of a teenage girl who suffered such severe bowel damage from copying group anal sex seen in porn that she now needs a colostomy bag for life. We on the left need to step up and draw some boundaries on what we accept as ok, because this really is not ok. https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-16/australias-porn-problem/10668940?pfmredir=sm

          • gsays 10.1.1.1.1
            19 January 2019 at 4:28 pm

            Thanks Compass, as a middle aged male who is constantly learning and seeking to grow, I agree about our needs in regards to boundaries etc.

            I see it as a two pronged approach, at an individual level and as a community.
            Issues around consent, trust, love etc for the individual, hopefully from home, well informed peers etc.
            Then the community side of things, which I must admit is a bit beyond me.
            Apart from showing respect to the others in our life, I am not sure what else.

            I am an eternal optimist but I think the influence and harm that free, violent pornography is going to get worse before it gets better.

            • Sabine 10.1.1.1.1.1
              20 January 2019 at 12:18 am

              Porn has been around for a long long time.
              And it has never been pleasant for women generally, and this has more to do with the general way women are treated by society – as objects for many in many forms. Be it the sultry temptress, the virginal naive, the coistered nun etc etc etc. One only has to read Marquis de Sade who wrote about these things just before the french revolution. One only has to look at the engravings of the rape of the Sabines, etc etc etc.

              Is it easier to access it today> Yes, the internet allows for it. But i would honestly think that he parental blocks should be on computers at home, on the devises of the childrens phones etc.

              The idea that people go in a cafe, order a latte and log on to wank of is a bit far fetches. So i would agree with others that believe this has nothing to do ‘what about the children’ but rather is designed to censor a product that these guys might find unattractive. In saying that, a similar conservative group peddled that type of ‘remove porn from the internet’ in the states and wow, it was the conservative states taht consumed most of the online porn and still do today 🙂 .

              https://conquerseries.com/which-u-s-state-consumes-the-most-porn/

              also this one here has some nice stats with also shows NZ habits a bit

              https://thenextweb.com/market-intelligence/2015/03/24/who-are-the-biggest-consumers-of-online-porn/

          • McFlock 10.1.1.1.2
            19 January 2019 at 5:16 pm

            The horrifying stuff is already illegal, and anyone watching it in a cafe will be arrested rather than simply asked to leave. FF aren’t talking about that stuff. They want people to think they are talking about that stuff, but in reality they’re talking about anything involving nudity or sex or more than one person of each cis gender.

            • Wensleydale 10.1.1.1.2.1
              21 January 2019 at 1:21 pm

              Agreed. FF have a real bee in their bonnet about anyone accidentally glimpsing their own genitalia. I remember when the Boobs On Bikes parade was going on, shrieking zealot, Bob McCoskrie, pilloried Len Brown relentlessly for not putting a stop to that iniquitous cavalcade of depravity. “The children! Won’t someone think of the children?!” There’s plenty of awful stuff in the world to get indignant about. Some hapless dim-bulb attempting to watch porn in the middle of a cafe or library is fairly pedestrian to be honest.

          • Ankerrawshark 10.1.1.1.3
            20 January 2019 at 10:33 am

            Agree compass Rose.
            Let’s get real about porn in public or private. That is a truly sickening story.

        • RedLogix 10.1.1.2
          19 January 2019 at 4:11 pm

          There is a depraved, cruel and sadistic aspect to some modern pornography, which without a counter narrative, becomes normal or ok.

          There is a depraved, cruel and sadistic aspect to all of us. Just most of the time we get away with pretending it doesn’t exist.

          The question is; does exposure to this kind of material encourage and feed these appetites, or is it better to confront them and come to terms with what we are capable of? There are good arguments both ways.

          • arkie 10.1.1.2.1
            19 January 2019 at 4:38 pm

            This reminds me of the many previous moral panics of the last 100 years.

            Does rock music encourage devil worship? Does astrology?
            Does violence in films encourage violence in society? Does violence in video games? Does gangster rap?

            I think the best analogy in this case is Pro-Wrestling. Pro-wrestlers are athletes, they work hard on their fitness and health, train extensively in techniques to perform safely. But they are performers; they’re not actually wrestling. They are performing for an audience that understands this but can still enjoy it for what it is.

            There were cases over the years of young people injuring themselves permanently by attempting to perform pro-wrestling moves they had watched without the requisite training.

            Pornography isn’t documentation of ‘how-to’ sex, it’s an unrealistic exaggerated performance for what we hope is an audience that understands this.

            Family First want sex ed removed from classrooms. Where do they expect young people to learn about what sex really is like and what pornography is if not through education?

            • gsays 10.1.1.2.1.1
              19 January 2019 at 4:51 pm

              “Pornography isn’t documentation of ‘how-to’ sex, it’s an unrealistic exaggerated performance for what we hope is an audience that understands this”

              That’s the nub of it arkie, the ‘hope’ is sorely misplaced. The effect of the porn habit carries on with or without hope.

              • arkie …
                19 January 2019 at 7:10 pm

                That’s why we must educate ourselves and our youth. They are our hope and they won’t learn from the right sources if we react like FF.

                • gsays …
                  19 January 2019 at 7:22 pm

                  Hey, true.
                  Don’t for a moment think I am down with ff.
                  I reckon this is a desperate attention grab on their behalf.

                  I suppose like a lot of vices, some folk can partake in a harmless enjoyable way and others, it is their undoing.

          • gsays 10.1.1.2.2
            19 January 2019 at 4:42 pm

            I don’t believe cruelty is innate in us.
            I think behaviour like that is learnt and/or accepted by our experiences.

            To tell if something is good, judge by the fruits of it.

            There was a case in the States, in the ’90s, of a teen who shot himself in the face with a shotgun, after listening to Judas Priest.
            I think the tune was ‘Do it’.

            This lead to all sorts of calls for banning Priest, banning heavy metal etc.
            I think the band was unsuccessfully sued over the incident.
            I don’t believe listening to Judas Priest caused him to shoot himself but it certainly contributed. As does being excluded from peer group, low self.esteem, hormones, peer pressure etc.

            I see modern porn similarly. Only unlike listening to heavy metal, porn tends to be a private, perhaps shameful activity, unlikely to be checked by a mate.

            • RedLogix 10.1.1.2.2.1
              19 January 2019 at 4:58 pm

              I don’t believe cruelty is innate in us.

              The potential for it most certainly is. Most people who think themselves harmless have simply never been in a situation where they could get away with being cruel.

              Or worse, a situation where it was expected of them by peer pressure or authority.

              Personally I tend to agree with you, it’s probably wrong for young people to be exposed to the extremes of human depravity too early in life. Yet neither is it wise to shelter them completely either.

      • Incognito 10.1.2
        19 January 2019 at 11:33 pm

        Jung argued that acknowledging our Shadow side is necessary to become fully integrated whole humans. He also stated that accepting our Shadow is at the basis of forming and maintaining (healthy) relationships. Thus, knowing why watches or ‘consumes’ porn can actually be beneficial to (family) relationships. I guess that once this question has been satisfactorily answered (integrated) the habit/addiction will cease to exist and (sexual) energy will be direct towards and into the relationship with the (sexual) partner.

        • Ankerrawshark 10.1.2.1
          20 January 2019 at 10:34 am

          Incognito Jung is out of date. Theory is not supported by evidence of the existence of a shadow side.

          Group think might be a more helpful concept with research to back it up. Ie if a group of people have things normalised, eg porn, bullying they will accept it and go along with it…….not good

          • RedLogix 10.1.2.1.1
            20 January 2019 at 11:00 am

            Theory is not supported by evidence of the existence of a shadow side.

            That has to be the most foolish, naive thing I’ve ever read here. What no-one has ever done anything evil in human history?

            Whether you think Jung is ‘out of date’ or not, has no relevance to the question of human evil; and our universal capacity for it.

            It’s the people who pretend that they could never do something really terrible, who are the most dangerous. In the normal course of events most of us are never faced with serious moral choices. When we think about the great disasters of the past, we like to think that if we had been there we would have done the ‘right thing’. But the truth is we would not have.

            When faced with peer pressure, or authority figures, telling us to be cruel … most of us comply. That’s reality. And it arises because most people don’t like to believe they are capable of being cruel, so when faced with circumstances where they have to choose between their own interests, and choosing a morally difficult course … we justify our cowardice to ourselves by pretending the cruelty of the easy course isn’t real.

            ‘Group think’ is a relevant concept here, but ultimately ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances are capable of the most horrendous acts. Especially when they do not expect there will be any consequences. And regardless of the social pressures to cruelty or bullying, the decision not to will always be a costly one that only each individual can make.

            Indeed one of the most common settings in which people commit terrible cruelty is within the private confines of the family. Parents often inflict great harm, sometimes physically, but more often psychologically on their vulnerable children … precisely because they will almost certainly never be held to account for it. And at the same time have every justification in the world for why they did it and why they aren’t ‘bad people’.

            Jung’s idea was a simple way of thinking about this problem; that if we face up to our capacity for evil, ‘the Shadow side”, understand it and can control it, before we are plunged into a moral crisis, or great temptation … we stand a far better chance of emerging with our integrity and soul intact.

            • greywarshark 10.1.2.1.1.1
              20 January 2019 at 11:04 am

              Interesting discussion. Since when has the shadow side been discounted?
              By whom? Links please to a summary that doesn’t require a scholarly treatise to read through. It seems to me from looking around and at history that the shadow is always with us just behind our left shoulder!

  11. ropata 11
    19 January 2019 at 11:17 am

    The real epidemic is baristas/service workers coming to NZ on student visas, not to study but to work for slave wages

    And then National MPs bully them by pulling their hair and demanding “do you know who I am?”

    NZ identified as destination country for labour and sex trafficking

    • greywarshark 11.1
      19 January 2019 at 1:45 pm

      Isn’t that interesting – that ‘Do you know who I am’ was what one of the Brit tourists being deported I hope, said to a reporter.

  12. Incognito 12
    19 January 2019 at 11:26 am

    If watching hardcore porn makes the coffee taste better or the food more palatable you should think of going to a different eatery IMHO. Similarly, if social media are more interesting than present company, e.g. best friend or spouse w/wo kids, then maybe consider breaking up with the friend or a divorce. It’s all about decluttering your life to achieve joy and happiness and focus on the things that really matter to you.

    • Ankerrawshark 12.1
      20 January 2019 at 10:38 am

      Incognito you are overlooking the addictive nature of hardcore porn.

      Also many people go to cafes alone

  13. WeTheBleeple 13
    19 January 2019 at 11:41 am

    I have it on good authority there is a direct correlation between pornography and masturbation. We wouldn’t want that on our conscience now would we.

    Family First understand the science and dangers of masturbatory myopia, palm-related palsies, whackers warts, and the ultimately finite number of sperm.

    Shame and damnation be upon these latte frothing frotters for the end is nigh – and it’s all their fault because Jesus hates wankers.

    • greywarshark 13.1
      19 January 2019 at 1:47 pm

      There is a lot of eye trouble in old people. Do you think that a lifetime of doubtfully moral behaviour may be coming to a head, so to speak, in old men and threatening to cause blindness?

      • Rapunzel 13.1.1
        19 January 2019 at 8:28 pm

        I’m an old person. I’m not sure what to say to you about that and old people, I’m a female one and as case has it involved for quite some time with a male who is now an “old person” too. I find a what you say peculiar, have we all never been affected by the images presented over time? Well that would be a lie. There’s nature and certain instincts but what has been marketed and put in front of people has certainly changed.
        Usually everyday occupation in family and earning a livng and just living left no room and less opportunity to be preoccupied with “porn”, what can I call it fanciful? – makes me sound like a prude which I’m not.
        All I can say is basically I think “porn” is presented, not because it offers more than what should and does happen naturally with most people but for the usual reason that someone else gets something from it either money or “their jollies”.
        FF would be best to stop, like the National Party does, manufacturing interest in something best left to people’s own judgement and commonsense, others also need to not be deciding what people should be “open” to and leave others to their personal business and preferences. At its extreme it is like religion I suppose and will be an individual leaning or choice.

        • greywarshark 13.1.1.1
          20 January 2019 at 11:00 am

          I think it is important to have a sense of humour in discussing matters. I should have put /sarc under my post. I am an old person also and find it important to have a laugh at myself and I don’t treat anyone who is ‘old’ as being outside being laughed at or with.

  14. Siobhan 14
    19 January 2019 at 11:50 am

    “It comes after Starbucks Coffee rolled out an international block in this year, following consumer pressure.”..so, it’s actually Starbucks who noticed and then reacted to this ‘issue’, presumably at the behest of their customers, who can’t all be members of NZ’s Family First. Family First simply jumped on the bandwagon. So why isn’t the piece about Starbucks..aren’t they your ‘sex denying nutters’?

    https://www.gq.com/story/starbucks-starts-porn-war

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11842644

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0106/S00106/images-fair-trade-campaigners-protest-starbucks.htm

  15. Adrian Thornton 15
    19 January 2019 at 11:51 am

    Family first….

  16. Puckish Rogue 16
    19 January 2019 at 1:13 pm

    I’m sure Shane Jones will on to this one 🙂

  17. Editractor 17
    19 January 2019 at 1:43 pm

    A cursory look shows that Starbucks was pressured into their porn block by a group called “Enough is Enough”, even though Starbuck’s rules already prohibited accessing explicit content.

    No doubt Family First heard of this and saw it as an easy way to raise their profile. How many customers will a cafe lose by blocking porn? So it is a no brainer for them to do so (presuming they can set the filters) and Family First then claim a victory.

    Just more PR bullshit. I wonder how much FF really care about extra foam in their latte

    • greywarshark 17.1
      19 January 2019 at 2:10 pm

      This is about childbirth – Victoria Wood going on so humorously – I need to know whether is pornography so I can skite that I have watched it, appearing sophisticated and knowledgable. Please advise.

      • Editractor 17.1.1
        19 January 2019 at 2:34 pm

        I grew up on Benny Hill, Kenny Everett and Pam Ayres – how the f should I know?

        But seriously, I have no idea what your comment means beyond the vague impression you are having a go at me for some reason.

  18. greywarshark 18
    19 January 2019 at 2:03 pm

    Under all the froth, is likely cold coffee if we don’t keep on drinking what is in our cup, but get side-tracked by what others around us are having.

    Bowalley Road makes good and salient points to bear in mind from now on; very seriously.
    https://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-politics-of-distraction.html

    • ropata 18.1
      19 January 2019 at 2:25 pm

      Excellent post by Trotter. The Left cannot be complacent, even though Bridges is incompetent, we cannot underestimate the threat posed by powerful vested interests on the Right.

      And we should not underestimate the stupidity of left wing identity politicians who wouldn’t stop to think before shooting themselves in the foot, and blowing the next election. The trans debate is utterly toxic and must be recognised as the dangerous diversion that it is

      • greywarshark 18.1.1
        19 January 2019 at 2:47 pm

        ropoata
        I thoroughly agree with you. For myself, I was extremely sorry to see Marama Davidson making an issue with the c word. It made her seem so narrowly focussed on the issues that aware women go on about, which are big part of the things that are unsatisfactory in our general culture.

        But it is connected to really big main points, like structural poverty and all that brings. A decimation of our domestic industries which gap is filled by imports, for which we run a balance of payments deficit. Stuff that doesn’t get a knee jerk reaction from the peeps who don’t get the joined-up paths to poverty, stress, mood lifters, depression and degradation. These have to be demonstrated and explained, and to get listened to there is need to promise immediate improvements in some small ways that are useful. There are big dreams, but people have learned to be humble, so small improvements would have big cost-effect results if political financiers were looking to get good results for the people and themselves.

        I saw the doc In the Zone and that demonstrates the above point. Is going round in the Film Festival circuit. Is a good example of one success that has been driven by a an almost too good to be true guy. He has done wonders.

      • RedLogix 18.1.2
        19 January 2019 at 4:46 pm

        The principle that men and women were equal started out with the idea that each sex was complementary to the other, but of equal value and dignity in the eye of their Creator.

        Then it morphed into the idea that the two sexes were equal, in particular anything that a man could do, a woman could and should have the opportunity to do as well.

        This not producing quite the expected results, it was decreed that women should have equal outcomes as men. That proved awkwardly complicated to achieve and unfortunately a lot of women found that being treated just like a man didn’t suit their temperament at all, so it was decided instead that it would be better if men should become just like women.

        But men being stubborn creatures remained just as they were. ‘Biology’ they said; ‘toxic masculinity’ said the women.

        At the same time while celebrating and empowering all aspects of female sexuality, all but the most anodyne of male sexual expressions were deemed anti-social, creepy and unattractive at best.

        And so in order to deal to those pesky XY chromosomes they came up with the brilliant idea that biology didn’t have to matter at all, that gender being merely a social construct, the two sexes could be regarded as completely equivalent, interchangeable and malleable to suit the dictates of the ideology. Indoctrinate several generations of children and voila the whole problem of nasty rapey males might go away. Rendered harmless and pan-sexual.

        It’s quite the vision really. You have to impressed at it’s radical boldness and how far it came from it’s original intentions.

        And here is my serious point; whether you think the above chain of thought has any merit or not is irrelevant. A lot of people will. Politically this is orders of magnitude more radioactive than the debate we had over Section 59 reform.

        And we all know how that ended up.

        • McFlock 18.1.2.1
          19 January 2019 at 5:30 pm

          ISTR that it ended with the blackshirts bleating and some pretty effective legislation being passed anyway, and society has become better because of it.

          • RedLogix 18.1.2.1.1
            19 January 2019 at 5:37 pm

            The polls turned at the peak of that debate, never recovered and Labour lost the election. It was a high price to pay.

            And in case you weren’t around, I died in multiple ditches defending that legislation at the time.

            • ropata 18.1.2.1.1.1
              19 January 2019 at 5:56 pm

              Yup. I’ve been chatting to @wekatweets about this as well. He(?) says that Trotter is being unhelpful by trashing the Greens.

              IMHO intransigent and divisive Greens are even more unhelpful. Voter concern about inequality in NZ is the main reason the Coalition was elected, and able to come to an agreement.

              NZ First is pretty much dead (for 2020) after taking their voter base for granted. If Labour drops the ball on poverty/inequality/housing then they don’t deserve to govern.

              If Labour ignores working class concerns, and gets caught up in trendy progressive issues, they will bleed votes to National.

            • McFlock 18.1.2.1.1.2
              19 January 2019 at 6:04 pm

              Labour lost the election because they were out of ideas. They were out of steam, and they were still far enough right that the nats could pretend to be “labour-lite”.

              Blaming it all on s59 is a bit much.

              • RedLogix …
                19 January 2019 at 6:13 pm

                I don’t have to “blame it all” … all it will take is a 4% swing and this will be the last progressive govt for another decade.

                You have a point that at the end of three terms Labour was looking tired, but I’m crystal clear on my recollection of the polls, and Labour had nothing to come back with.

                • McFlock …
                  19 January 2019 at 7:05 pm

                  McCroskie doesn’t strike me as being a Labour voter. But Labour didn’t give their actual likely supporters anything to offset the FF whinging.

                  FF gonna whinge, nats gonna whinge, SS(notatrust) gonna whinge. About everything. As you say, any left government needs to maintain a vision and energy to offset the whinging. As soon as they run out ideas, they lose – and frankly quite properly, too.

        • ropata 18.1.2.2
          19 January 2019 at 5:48 pm

          That is wrongthink, don’t you know that science is a social construct, therefore “male” and “female” categories are no longer valid. Burn your biology textbook.

  19. mauī 19
    19 January 2019 at 2:26 pm

    The only cafe I’ve been into where people were watching porn was a shady one in the red light district where a lot of men were in there watching videos from Russssiaaaa Today tv, John Pilger and Craig Murray.

    • ropata 19.1
      19 January 2019 at 6:02 pm

      The 6 o’clock news is so shocking and horrific it’s worse than porn. I don’t want to see snuff movies at dinner time. News is not safe for kids

  20. mary_a 20
    19 January 2019 at 2:35 pm

    To be truthful, I’ve never given onsite cafe porn wifi access a thought when visiting my local cafe, or any cafe for that matter! Too busy enjoying my coffee and the company I’m with.

    However thanks to BMcC and his Hallelujah Chorus, I will look on a flat white and a long black completely differently now.

  21. NZJester 21
    19 January 2019 at 3:21 pm

    Normally I would disagree with rightwing crackpots, but this time I might have to agree.
    The rightwing has this projection policy in the media that the left is doing what they are doing or thinking of doing. So if they think there is an epidemic of porn watching in cafes then there likely is and you will find it is the Family First people at the epicenter of the epidemic of porn watching in the cafes!

  22. Psycho Milt 22
    19 January 2019 at 5:30 pm

    Who the fuck watches porn in public in a cafe? Does McCroskie have even one example of someone doing it who wasn’t a Family First member?

  23. Philj 23
    19 January 2019 at 6:26 pm

    We don’t want slavery, or trafficking. But the government is having to confront the immigration trafficking business and all the other profiteering rackets associated. The government does not want to upset the business lobby or do fundamental change.

  24. Ovid 24
    19 January 2019 at 7:16 pm

    They want to bring in a Chinese style internet filter to NZ. And, well, first they’ll go after porn because most people are too embarrassed to defend it. Then it’s a slippery slope to other forms of speech online. This survey is a figleaf for a puritanical predilection to interfere in the sex lives of people when it’s none of their business.

    • ropata 24.1
      19 January 2019 at 7:22 pm

      “they” being National, which is by now a fairly blatant vehicle for PRC commercial interests, authoritarian censorship, and election stuffing

  25. Sabine 25
    20 January 2019 at 12:35 am

    We need to teach about consent. From little on until they leave high school the kids of all genders and identifications need to learn about consent.

    sex should be fun, love and happiness
    it should not be pain, illness, injury and misery.

    and the only way to go about it is to teach consent, to boys and girls.

    And yet, i don’t see the FF guys advocate consent and sex ed. Wonder why?

  26. Jenny - How to get there? 26
    20 January 2019 at 6:51 am

    Family Fist need to put their mouths where their ideals are, and call for cafe owners to have the right to hit their customers and staff.

  27. Jenny - How to get there? 27
    20 January 2019 at 7:12 am

    There is a Family First porn watching crisis in cafes.