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
(b) is entirely a deficit of the parents, or of a prudish culture that makes conversations about sexuality taboo. It is not intrinsic to sexuality.

Meanwhile, mainstream culture doesn't bother to similarly "protect" children from alcohol, cigarettes, caffeine, and other vices. It would look weird if parents allowed and encouraged consumption before a certain age (which exactly depends on culture), but we don't bother to hide from them that we consume, and pretty much accept that they will routinely consume at some point too.

We can discuss at length how damaging each of these is, but I find it hard to argue that addictions created by alcohol, cigarettes, and sugar are any less damaging than issues caused by exposure to porn. All of these vices carry danger, but their acceptance in society varies. Because of this, issues with the more taboo ones are more difficult to prevent, to diagnose and to treat.

>>samus+oc1
> (b) is entirely a deficit of the parents, or of a prudish culture that makes conversations about sexuality taboo. It is not intrinsic to sexuality.

That's... my point? It's like you're agreeing with me but in a tone that says you're disagreeing with me.

> I find it hard to argue that addictions created by alcohol, cigarettes, and sugar are any less damaging than issues caused by exposure to porn

I didn't say anything at all about porn, alcohol (except for the 'holding their liquor' metaphor, not meaning children should drink alcohol), cigarettes, or sugar? If not for the fact that you mention my point (b) I would have thought you were replying to the wrong comment. I don't know who is arguing that alcoholism is less damaging than porn, but it isn't me!

>>hairof+Vo1
Yeah, I went off-topic a bit here. My point was that the dangers of violence and porn and other poorly expressed forms of sexuality are not that different from each other. Your presentation read like (b) would be specific to sexuality for other reasons than culture treating it as taboo. The nuance you describe is not a given.