Just about every telephone book, newspaper, mens magizine, the WWW etc is loaded with ads for "Escorts", "Escort Services" or "In Room Massages". Should the room telephone be prohibited from calling to these businesses.
Programs: AF Gold, BA EC Blue, LH FTL, HH Gold, A|Club Silver
Posts: 4,367
This is all about personal tastes. If you want to imbibe in adult entertainment, that is your business. If you don't, don't watch that channel. The moral police amaze me. If we are going to become a nation of religious zealots (and emulate our current leadership), why don't we just invite the taliban in to enforce it.
I'm simply dumbfounded how many people blindly believe what they read in books that were written by men. Or that they blindly follow what someone who wants their money preaches at them.
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA (Recently of San Francisco)
Programs: UA-1P,SPG-Gold,Marriott-Silver
Posts: 10,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Efrem
In case this was a serious question, the major reason is so that parents won't worry about their kids watching it when the parents aren't in the room.
Then don't leave the kids alone in the room, or don't take the kids at all. We live in the world, not in Disneyland, and it is ridiculous to make every environment conform to a G-rated standard on the possibility that some ill-supervised kid might see or hear something to which the parent objects.
And, no, I don't watch porn in hotel rooms (or, for that matter, anywhere else), but I really resent the scope of what I can see being censored to conform to the tastes and compartivie maturities of 5 year olds.
Well a slight diversion - someone recently asked me what would happen if they brought a porn dvd on the plane and watched it on their portable dvd player? I really didn't know the answer!
Then don't leave the kids alone in the room, or don't take the kids at all. We live in the world, not in Disneyland, and it is ridiculous to make every environment conform to a G-rated standard on the possibility that some ill-supervised kid might see or hear something to which the parent objects.
And, no, I don't watch porn in hotel rooms (or, for that matter, anywhere else), but I really resent the scope of what I can see being censored to conform to the tastes and compartivie maturities of 5 year olds.
So you are saying that you do not think that someone should even have the OPTION to opt-out of viewing porn in their hotel room?
Let me rephrase that... You are saying that you do not think someone should even have the option of opting-out of viewing porn from their room during their stay.
If you read the post you were replying to and the original post it referred to that is what was being talked about... the ability to opt-out, for that one person for their specific stay.
Always good to actually read what is being referred to.
Unless you actually do not think the option to opt-out is a good thing. In that case, you should not take that route whenever you recieve spam in your inbox.
As a side note, I don't really care if porn is shown or not, if my chlidren see it I will explain it to them. Just like I will explain a lot of other things they see (drunks, smokers, druggies, street-walkers, speeders, road ragers, unkind people in general, pompous fliers, etc) and will probably have questions about.
I believe that my job as a parent is not just to protect my child from "bad things" but to help them to prepare in dealing with and handling "bad things".
__________________
"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." -Frederick Douglass, 1857
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA (Recently of San Francisco)
Programs: UA-1P,SPG-Gold,Marriott-Silver
Posts: 10,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinityplusone
So you are saying that you do not think that someone should even have the OPTION to opt-out of viewing porn in their hotel room?
No, I didn't say that at all. The topic of this thread is banning certain kinds of videos because we should "think of the children." I don't care if there is an opt-out provision, or an opt-in provision, or whatever. I care very much when someone says that something shouldn't be available at all because children might see it.
Quote:
If you read the post you were replying to and the original post it referred to that is what was being talked about... the ability to opt-out, for that one person for their specific stay.
Nothing wrong with that, as long as it's not a legal requirement.
Quote:
I believe that my job as a parent is not just to protect my child from "bad things" but to help them to prepare in dealing with and handling "bad things".
That's great -- I applaud you (seriously) and, particularly, for your inclusion of what I regard as the key words: "my job." It's your job, not the job of everyone else.
Just about every telephone book, newspaper, mens magizine, the WWW etc is loaded with ads for "Escorts", "Escort Services" or "In Room Massages". Should the room telephone be prohibited from calling to these businesses.
MisterNice
Not here.
On the other hand, the phone book is loaded with "Entertainers - Adult". Many years ago I counted over 100 pages of them.
No, I didn't say that at all. The topic of this thread is banning certain kinds of videos because we should "think of the children." I don't care if there is an opt-out provision, or an opt-in provision, or whatever. I care very much when someone says that something shouldn't be available at all because children might see it.
Nothing wrong with that, as long as it's not a legal requirement.
That's great -- I applaud you (seriously) and, particularly, for your inclusion of what I regard as the key words: "my job." It's your job, not the job of everyone else.
I thought you were replying to someone who had posted the idea of one person being able to opt-out of seeing porn on their hotel TV for their specific stay. That you were replying in the negative, that someone should not be allowed to do that. Maybe that is not what you meant, I don't know.
re-reading this thread...
To clarify, there was a line of replies to majorwibi and then a reply to the reply and so on... the original statement was, "Dont most hotels offer the ability to call down to the front desk and have porn locked out from the purchase channels?".
Since you were replying to a reply to a reply to that statement I thought you were saying people should not even have the option of opting-out of porn in their hotel rooms.
All that just to clarify.
__________________
"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." -Frederick Douglass, 1857
Programs: WorldPerks Gold, SPG Gold, SkyClub Member
Posts: 1,574
I never order porn in the hotel rooms, but I think that it is WRONG if a fundamentalist moralistic group tries to impose their will on others by pressuring a chain to stop offering adult movies.
I'm one of those die-hard believers that what someone does in the privacy of their home or hotel room is their OWN d*** business.
It depends since you can look at it from two viewpoints. One is it's a pay service and you"the adult" need to make the right choices. If you watch an X rated film without making a big deal go ahead. If your religous then of course it could be blocked. Either way the X rated films can be blocked so there would be no point in not offering them. Sex on Demand lol
Location: Between Caltech and JPL (very seldom in BNA now)
Programs: AAdvantage Pt, Delta Ag (demoted), Hyatt Pt (demoted), Marriott Au (demoted), BevMo Club Bev
Posts: 4,948
I am not in favor of *banning* anything, though I don't watch hotel porn and very seldom watch any PPV programming in hotels. Let those who want to enjoy it, enjoy it. (And I am sure this includes many a supposed fundamentalist--in my hometown, the massage parlors always enjoy a nice surge in business when the largest Protestant denomination in the region (name withheld to avoid opening that can of worms) holds a convention there.) What I want is a way to tell my hotel that I am not likely to order any movies of either the "family" or "anti-family" kind, and I don't want to have the TV reset to the same sales pitch for PPV programming, every time I turn it off! If I watch CNBC in the morning, let CNBC appear in the evening when I turn the TV back on! (And to my usual Hyatt: what's with having National Geographic Channel and Biography Channel, and no Comedy Central or Cartoon Network? I am in "Daily Show" and "Adult Swim" withdrawal. )
The thing I would feel worst about is being stupid enough to pay whatever exhorbitant fee they charge for those movies. It makes raiding the mini-bar look like a stroke of genius. I have never ordered any pay per view movie in the zillion hotels I've stayed in, but if somebody else wanted to do so I can't for the life of me see how that should bother me in any way. Some people need to find more to do with their time than to try to control other people's activities, since those are so often the people who cannot control their own very well. Opt-in, opt-out seems a very benign solution, though I'm sure someone will find something offensive about that too.
Programs: AA EXP & SPG PLT. Long-suffering Mets fan.
Posts: 3,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by BNA_flyer
... Let those who want to enjoy it, enjoy it. ... What I want is a way to tell my hotel that I am not likely to order any movies of either the "family" or "anti-family" kind, and I don't want to have the TV reset to the same sales pitch for PPV programming, every time I turn it off!
Right on, BNA_flyer! At a minimum, hotels should be able to link this to frequest guest profiles, and have a check-box on the registration form for you to reverse the "default" selection -- one that gets processed instantly by the desk staff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BNA_flyer
What I want is a way to tell my hotel that ... I don't want to have the TV reset to the same sales pitch for PPV programming, every time I turn it off! If I watch CNBC in the morning, let CNBC appear in the evening when I turn the TV back on! (And to my usual Hyatt: what's with having National Geographic Channel and Biography Channel, and no Comedy Central or Cartoon Network? I am in "Daily Show" and "Adult Swim" withdrawal. )
That is the single biggest hassle with hotel TVs -- the automatic startup on the marketing channel. But not having Comedy Central is grounds for finding a new hotel.
This might be a bit off topic, but it always seems to me that there are two different sides to the problem, similar to the case of psychoactive drugs.
The supply-side harm is the social harm that comes about through the entire supply chain from production through distribution. For porn, this is the issue of exploitation of women/men during production, etc... For psychoactive drugs, this involves the forced labor of peasants, territorial wars among distributers, etc...
The consumer-side harm is what is born by those who actually use the product, their friends, employers, and family members. This again divides into the harm caused by the product use itself and that induced by the financial costs of supporting the habit.
What is surprising in this context is that nobody has brought up the counterpart of the "legalization" argument that always arises in the drug context. As far as supply-side harm and financial costs of psychoactive drugs goes, many plausibly claim that the problem arises due to the government giving and enforcing essentially a monopoly on drug-dealing to the criminal element. They argue that eliminating that monopoly would substantially reduce the supply-side harm caused by psychoactive drugs.
In the porn context, the government has a similar role in giving an enforced monopoly to porn producers through the system of copyright authorized (at least in the USA) by the constitution only to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts."
The supreme court recently ruled (Eldred v. Ashcroft) that "promotion of progress" is whatever Congress says it is, so why hasn't the idea of simply withdrawing copyright restrictions from porn gathered a following similar to that for drug legalization? No constitutional problems, no change in the freedom of expression for artistic works, while presumably completely eliminating the financial incentive to abuse women on the supply-side and simultaneously completely eliminating the financial costs of supporting a porn habit on the consumer side. (As a side-effect, this also gets rid of the troubling idea of public prosecutors having to exercise their discretion on which pornographers to criminally prosecute, etc... Let a randomly selected jury in the relevant locality decide whether some civil case is copyright infrlngement or not based on whether there is any "science or useful art" involved in the relevant piece of smut by the preponderance of evidence.)
The only downside to this is that existing porn would become essentially free for anyone who wants to get it, but does anyone think that genie isn't already out of the bottle with the internet and filesharing today? (You can always download free porn using the hotel's internet service. You can't get free opium the same way.) The arguments on how to regulate and deal with the consumer side issues can proceed in the same way even if we remove copyright restrictions (aka government granted and enforced monopolies) on porn.
It seems that today we have the worst of all worlds... Why isn't this a no-brainer with a huge following?
)
