Can I take it back?

So, apparently the Internet isn't for porn, after all.

There has been call to protect children from the terrors of the Web, mainly boobies and men's no-no spots, but a recent study has shown that perhaps only 1% of webpages in the cyberspace contain pornographic material, according to the San Jose Mercury News. Also, only about 6% of content received during websearches contained sexually explicit content.

Last year, Google and other search engines such as MSN and Yahoo, received orders by the United States government to turn over website addresses and the search-engine queries of their users. Google refused, citing rights to privacy of both theirs customers and the company itself. After orders were changed, Google and the other engines turned in up to 1 million websites, and others besides Google also turned in a small sample of search queries as well.

A blogger-journalist from UK newspaper Guardian Unlimited theorizes that perhaps the 55million+ number of blogs out there may be contributing to the crowding out of pornographic material.

As quoted from the Mercury article, Seth Finklestein, who is both a civil engineer and an activist of civil-liberties said, "What we are learning about the Internet is that it reflects life and that the Internet is not -- contrary to what some people might think -- more sexual than people are in general.''

In my opinion, I think that it's a little ridiculous that taxpayers' dollars are being given to a bunch of old men for the sole purpose of looking up porn. More than a little ridiculous. I would hedge on really ridiculous but I'm not much of a gambler. Look, it's out there, people, it's a thriving business! It's been here since the invention of art and will probably live on through nuclear wars, when we're forced to live in bunkers and make vulgar shadow puppets on the walls for entertainment.

It's not up to the Powers That Be to handle who's letting kiddies see a french maid take it up the dumb-waiter, just as it's not up to Ford to make sure alcoholics can't buy cars. I think parents should take the responsibility here. I mean, children are curious about things they don't understand, so they'll want to look it up. Or maybe they're on a website and a pop-up attacks them with poontang. Hey, Mom, Dad? TALK TO YOUR PROGENY! Eventually they're going to find out how they were created, and that'll probably traumatize them more than any "all gay action, all the gay time!" advert ever could. Is it so hard to grab little Skyler and Madison (I'll go off about how much I hate "hip" baby names at a later time) and talk to them about your family's personal beliefs on naked people?

"Well, you see, our religion tells us that all sexual acts should be kept between two, married people, and that this union is sacred and shouldn't be used as just recreation, but also spiritual bonding and procreation. This is why we don't think it's right for you to look at this, until you grow up and can make your own decisions about life, love and religion."

Okay, that conversation would probably only show up on Leave It to Beaver, if Wally had ever befriended Madge, the town prostitute. The point is that you should tell your kids why something is, instead of just telling them no. Oh, and maybe monitoring them from time to time. But don't make it obvious, folks. We absolutely HATE it when you sit yourself and your ashtray down with us and say, "Hey there, whatcha lookin' at?" If you ever want to drive your kids to find even more secretive ways to look up naughty bits, be direct about it.

And that's all I have to say. Now go wash your hands already.