5 ms·

I could have easily replaced "breasts" with "intercourse" and the message conveyed would be the same. Children are being exposed to exponentially more sexually

I could have easily replaced "breasts" with "intercourse" and the message conveyed would be the same. Children are being exposed to exponentially more sexually charged content in the first few years of their lives than most men historically have been in their entire lives. This isn't a case of rampant puritanism, go to Pornhub (one of the milder purveyors) and tell me that most of their front-page content is a depiction of healthy sex between two loving adults.

justsomehnguy 5y ago
> and tell me that most of their front-page content is a depiction of healthy sex between two loving adults Go to [0] and tell me how that is a depiction of a healthy whatever. Also please describe how the paywall on porn sites would help poor 13 y.o. chaps not to see this. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsm4poTWjMs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsm4poTWjMs
- MathCodeLove 5y ago
  Thats certainly not as bad as most mainstream pornography, regardless your argument is a red herring. Sexual content existing on one platform isn't an argument against restricting access to platforms made for sexual content.
  - justsomehnguy 5y ago
    > Sexual content existing on one platform LOL. So you DO think this is a sexual content. And the difference between 'other platforms' sexual content is the lack of an exposed genitals.
    - MathCodeLove 5y ago
      What's your point?
      - justsomehnguy 5y ago
        You identify both of it as a sexual content, yet one should be cash-blocked as it doesn't depict a healthy sexual relationship between two loving[0] adults and other shouldn't be blocked the same way because... it DOES depict a healthy sexual relationship between two loving[1] adults? [0] should be sex depicted only between a loving adults? what about a non-loving adults who does that for fun and health? [1] really?
        MathCodeLove 5y ago
        You're arguing against yourself. I didn't say any of that.
vidarh 5y ago
> I could have easily replaced "breasts" with "intercourse" and the message conveyed would be the same. The message becomes incredibly different. The very fact that you talk about "sexually charged content" while saying that the message would be the same with "breasts" vs "intercourse" is a demonstration of the cultural differences scrollaway mentioned. A lot of places "breasts" does not automatically imply anything sexually charged.
- MathCodeLove 5y ago
  Given the context of the conversation you'd have to intententionally misinterpret the message to assume I was talking abut breasts in a non-sexual context. The core takeaway is very much still the same: A child in 2022 will likely be exposed to extreme amounts of sexual content online, far more than most humans in history have had the ability to see their entire lives.
  - vidarh 5y ago
    It's not at all clear that you see the distinction, was the point that scrollaway was making, and I agree. It matters, given that it is far less obvious to me whether or not your "updated" statement is true, depending on which specific age range we're talking about when you say "child" and how large a proportion of that age group needs to have seen any to justify generalising, and what "extreme amounts" are.

justsomehnguy 5y ago

> and tell me that most of their front-page content is a depiction of healthy sex between two loving adults Go to [0] and tell me how that is a depiction of a healthy whatever. Also please describe how the paywall on porn sites would help poor 13 y.o. chaps not to see this. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsm4poTWjMs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsm4poTWjMs

MathCodeLove 5y ago
Thats certainly not as bad as most mainstream pornography, regardless your argument is a red herring. Sexual content existing on one platform isn't an argument against restricting access to platforms made for sexual content.
- justsomehnguy 5y ago
  > Sexual content existing on one platform LOL. So you DO think this is a sexual content. And the difference between 'other platforms' sexual content is the lack of an exposed genitals.
  - MathCodeLove 5y ago
    What's your point?
    - justsomehnguy 5y ago
      You identify both of it as a sexual content, yet one should be cash-blocked as it doesn't depict a healthy sexual relationship between two loving[0] adults and other shouldn't be blocked the same way because... it DOES depict a healthy sexual relationship between two loving[1] adults? [0] should be sex depicted only between a loving adults? what about a non-loving adults who does that for fun and health? [1] really?
      - MathCodeLove 5y ago
        You're arguing against yourself. I didn't say any of that.

vidarh 5y ago

> I could have easily replaced "breasts" with "intercourse" and the message conveyed would be the same. The message becomes incredibly different. The very fact that you talk about "sexually charged content" while saying that the message would be the same with "breasts" vs "intercourse" is a demonstration of the cultural differences scrollaway mentioned. A lot of places "breasts" does not automatically imply anything sexually charged.

MathCodeLove 5y ago
Given the context of the conversation you'd have to intententionally misinterpret the message to assume I was talking abut breasts in a non-sexual context. The core takeaway is very much still the same: A child in 2022 will likely be exposed to extreme amounts of sexual content online, far more than most humans in history have had the ability to see their entire lives.
- vidarh 5y ago
  It's not at all clear that you see the distinction, was the point that scrollaway was making, and I agree. It matters, given that it is far less obvious to me whether or not your "updated" statement is true, depending on which specific age range we're talking about when you say "child" and how large a proportion of that age group needs to have seen any to justify generalising, and what "extreme amounts" are.