[_8j50]

It's called consent. For a minor, their parent or guardian must consent to show them adult or other traumatizing content. Despite your personal experience, parents and guardians ultimately have the right,authority and responsibility to do their best to ensure the well being of a minor under their care which could mean no porn or even no meat in their diet. You don't have to agree.

> Much worse than adult content is addictive content that forms obsessive behaviors...

There is literally nothing more addicting than porn. Not only that but the long term social and behavioral issues that result from porm addiction are far more harmful than for example cocaine or lsd (which isn't addictive).

But let's say porn is not harmful or addictive, showing porn to people against their consent is a form of sexual abuse much like exposing yourself in public is (despite nudity laws). It boils down to the fact that biologically speaking naked people arouse a sexual reaction and sexual interactions of any kind must be between consenting parties. Period.

This isn't about policing morality but consent and it is a shame that it is neccesary to begin with.

[DaiPlusPlus]

> There is literally nothing more addicting than porn.

Citation?

> biologically speaking naked people arouse a sexual reaction

Have you never been to a nudist beach?

-------

> not [...] morality but consent

"morality" is not distinct from consent: it's more that your/my/our position on sexual morality is grounded in individual consent. "morality" as a word is not shorthand for (Western) Christian or Victorian traditional attitudes and prejudices.

[idontknowifican]

people really loose sight of “normal habits” when talking about sex. there’s this intense religious shame, so the folks with the most fucked up libidos assume everyone must be like them. i see posts like this as a confession, much less an anecdote

[_8j50]

Religion has nothing to do with it, you are changing the subject and attacking me personally by claiming I am confessing to shame or something (like I give a shit):

Try sticking to facts. Naked people arouse sexual desires in others, yes, myself included and most people from any country and religion (or no religion). If you contest this near universally accepted fact the the burden of proof is on you.

I mean give me a break, even if this was a super religious person keeping themselves or child away from sexual content who are you to tell them they have no right and they must see your dick or vagina whether they like it or not.

Laws are literally getting passed against sending dick pics, how do you feel about that? Is that women who feel shame that support it? Of course not!

[idontknowifican]

nudity has nothing to do with sex as you’ve said elsewhere, it’s all about consent. i don’t sexualize strangers, because i don’t have their consent. when i walk around my home nude, i’m doing it because i’m comfortable being nude. it’s a preference for me, but people like who who can’t see nudity without complaining about “sexuality and sexualization of all nude bodies” bore the shit out of me. convince me your stance is different in anyway from demanding a burqa? the logic feels the same to me, cover up because i can’t control my own body, and it’s not my fault!

grow up and stop thinking about fucking everything you see naked, it’s odd

[gcr]

as someone who used to have exactly this sort of internalized shame, i think you've hit the nail on the head 100%.

let's look at the statement: "biologically speaking, naked bodies arouse a sexual reaction".

i'm wary of this way of thinking. here's one possible consequence: "anyone who chooses to be naked around me is trying to interact in a sexual way"

when boiled down, the same root of thought leads to dark conclusions, like

- "she was asking for it because she wore revealing clothing"

- "i was sexually aroused and therefore couldn't control myself"

[_8j50]

No no no! You and the parent comment are ansolutley twisting what I am saying and turning it into a personal attack.

I can't believe this, are you saying naked people don't sexually please other people? That's basically all I said.

Internal shame my ass. How about I use the samw logic and claim you have an internal perversion and desire to abuse others against their will, would that be fair? It works by your messed up logic but I know it is an unfair thing to say so I would never say that.

Facts are facts, let's stick to those. Maybe there are a small minority that feel no sexual desire when they see a naked adult person but since majority are not wired that way (even if they were a minority actually) you have to ask permission first. That's it, ask permission.

And people like you love to blame your upbringing or religion so you can make it about that. Stick to facts. You can pick a random atheist from scandanavia, a chinese buddhist, a muslim from pakistan and an african with a local religion (men that is) and show them a naked porn star and most if not all will be sexually aroused. This is hormones.

[alphabettsy]

People are offering their perspective and refuting your claims.

You don’t think hyperbolic statements like “porn is the most addictive thing known to man” weren’t going to be challenged?

Sexuality is a very normal part of human life, even if someone does get aroused in the image example (I don’t always from images even with a very high libido), what is the problem with that?

I’ve been places where nudity is normal such as beaches, saunas and gym locker rooms and most times wasn’t aroused at all.

[_8j50]

Challenged is of course fine but the challenge being accusations and attacks is not fine.

My claim about the addictiveness of porn was an opinion based on what I have leanred and observed. Of course I welcome anyone to show me anything more addictive than your own body and mind.

There is no problem with getting aroused or with sexuality, you and others so far keep twisting what I am saying to be an attempt to police sexuality. Rule #1 of any sexual interaction is consent. If you want to see naked people go ahead. If you want to show your naked self and arouse others, get their consent or at least do it in a way where others can be forewarned and decide to choose or not choose to be part of that experience. Don't take people's choice away so you can feel validated or whatever your reason is.

If you want to go to a nude beach, you are consenting to do that, I am clearly not talking about that. I am talking about getting nude at a normal beach where people who chose to avoid a nude beach go to and force that experience on them, if they get aroused then you just made them part of a sexual encounter without their consent. This is sexually abusive behavior.

Moreover, you people are sociopaths if you don't understand the simple fact that you live in a society and you have to function without harming or harassing others. No significant burden is places upon you other than to get consent from people who you know have a good chance of experiencing sexual arousal with you as the subject before you make them part of that interaction. I mean, I even understand a city where public nudity is allowed so long as visitors to that city are notified when they travel there. I am not even complaining about porn sites that ask your age and let you know the site contains nudity before you see the content.

[hrgiger]

"showing porn to people against their consent is a form of sexual abuse" is more descriptive then your quotes I believe, at least this kind of precautions adds an alarm/notification options between kids in social media and twisted adults

[hjgjhyuhy]

As far as biological reactions go, in certain countries lots of people visit public saunas naked and find nothing sexual about it. People’s perceptions of nudity vary by culture.

[_8j50]

The keyword there is visit, it is consensual. People kiss on the lips without making it sexual as well but you still need consent right? If all parties consent I have no problem with it. Why do people have a need to expose others to their nudity or to sexual content against the consent of other people? Even nude beaches have a sign so that non-consenting parties can stay out. That's my standard for public nudity, it should not be allowed everywhere just in areas line parks and beaches with clear signs for others so long as there are similar public places where people who don't consent can go to.

[gcr]

do you see the difference between "user stumbles across sexual content" (the previous conversation topic) and "showing porn to people against their consent"?

[_8j50]

How do you mean? Presuming a person give consent by default and making it public and accesible without warning and explicit consent is the same as ... well not asking consent . Same logic as nude texting and flashing.

[bluefirebrand]

You give consent to be served search results that match best fit with some content filtering based on best intentions.

Implied is an understanding that despite best intentions of the search provider, stuff may slip through.

This is vastly different than being flashed.

[_8j50]

My comment was more general than search results. All the major search engines as you said make best effort to exclude nsfw content by default and I have no problem against that.

[jasonhansel]

> or even no meat in their diet. You don't have to agree.

Somewhat irrelevant, but: do parents actually have a right to enforce a no-meat diet on their kids?

I understand (say) having a "no meat in the house" rule, telling your kids not to buy meat products with your money, and/or only cooking vegetarian food.

But requiring your kid to adopt a vegetarian diet at all times--even when they're away from home--seems excessive.

Maybe it's OK at age 5, but once the kid is old enough to understand the distinction it should be entirely their choice.

[_8j50]

You may disagree with it but so long as the kids get all the same nutrients from other food sources and they don't go hungry it is the parent's discretion what the child eats. Otherwise it would be the government or society that raises the kids not the parents or guardians which are the people who have the most affection and desire to see the best outcome for that specific child. If a parent or guardian is acting in malice or willful ignorance of facts that will result in harming a child, I have no problem with the government stepping in and figuring out who else would be best suited to care for the child.

[jasonhansel]

I'm not saying, of course, that such a parent should have their kids taken away by the government.

But I do think that a good parent would grant their kids a certain level of privacy and autonomy, depending on the child's age and the risks involved.

In this case, the risks of a kid eating meat are fairly low; one kid's chicken tenders aren't going to build a factory farm, and they can always change back to a vegetarian diet later.

(Of course, some vegetarians will have stomach issues if they suddenly start eating meat. The kid should know about that risk, but the reactions in question are usually very mild.)

[_8j50]

Oh, yeah, I don't agree with that, no problem with moderate meat consumption. I mentioned it in my first comment as an extreme example of what parents can do at their discretion.

[gjsman-1000]

Yes - they can, though by the time they become teenagers, what is a parent going to do if they disobey and eat meat?

Funny story though - we have a family relative with younger children who was raising them strictly vegetarian. No meat (the mother insisted), though the dad quietly admitted he eats meat on occasion much to her chagrin. On a family vacation the children were left at the house for dinner, and another relative began preparing a chicken dinner.

The conversation between that relative and the children went something like this:

"Dinner's ready! Come get the chicken!"

"This doesn't have meat in it, right?"

"What? Well, it's chicken!"

"Right, but does that have meat in it?"

"Well... No... Certainly not. This is bona-fide, 100% pure, Grade A Chicken. Now eat!"

[mlindner]

> It's called consent.

You don't appear to understand what that word means. This has nothing to do with consent.

> For a minor, their parent or guardian must consent to show them adult or other traumatizing content.

Pray tell how adult content is "traumatizing"? Before the internet kids used to pull porn magazines out of the trash or sneak down late at night to watch their parent's adult channel subscriptions. Finding it on the internet is the modern era's version of that. Probably in a few more decades we'll have a new version of it again.

> Despite your personal experience, parents and guardians ultimately have the right,authority and responsibility to do their best to ensure the well being of a minor under their care which could mean no porn or even no meat in their diet. You don't have to agree.

I fully achnkowledge that parents have the _right_ to control content if they so wish, however my argument is that they are absurd for doing so. It's not a matter of the child, it's a matter of the personal morals of the parents.

> But let's say porn is not harmful or addictive, showing porn to people against their consent

No one's talking about showing children porn against their consent.

> This isn't about policing morality but consent and it is a shame that it is neccesary to begin with.

That is absolutely what this is about.

[_8j50]

> This isn't about policing morality but consent and it is a shame that it is neccesary to begin with. >> That is absolutely what this is about

No, that's the strawman you want it to be about. Neither I nor no one else talked about preventing any willing person from interacting with sexual content.

[mlindner]

That's the entire point of internet filters. To prevent people from accidentally or intentionally seeing it.