zlacker

>>Clumsy+(OP)
Meanwhile we have hundreds of videos of a man being brutally chopped off his hand, hung upside down while he bleeds, then legs chopped off and finally dies gasping all over Twitter and Facebook, for anyone to see, even kids who stumble upon it. Apparently such content doesn't harm users as much as some Renaissance nudes.

>>Santos+yb
I agree with the sentiment. My theory is that while the stuff you name is indeed horrifying, the issue with sexuality is that it acts like a drug (it changes your behavior chemically, can be addictive, etc.) and it’s a combination of (a) kids haven’t learned how to “handle their liquor” in that department yet, and (b) many adults have also not learned how to do that and so find it difficult to engage in that topic conversationally, and so avoid the topic in the guise of protecting the children. The violence you describe above is less complicated: it’s bad. Not a lot of nuance there.

I’ve seen people make the argument that an image of an exposed breast is harmful to young children (even when those same kids are still breastfeeding).

>>hairof+ur
Violence can be addictive too. It frequently is, judging by the amount of gore (simulated or real) sites and rape-fantasy/BDSM porn out there. The addiction to violence actually (IMO) works a more vicious evil in your brain than plain sex/porn addiction, though that is damaging in its own way too.

>>Santos+Jt
I agree! However, I think when violence becomes addictive its because it gets linked to sexuality. Mostly I’m just saying I agree.

I read an interesting essay years ago from a psych-educated person (leaving that intentionally vague because I don’t remember) who was urging moviemakers not to reduce the amount of sex or violence in movies, but to separate those scenes in movies by some amount of time like 5 minutes: ok to have a sex scene, ok to have a murder scene, but please no sexy murder scenes.