[lilboiluvr69]

I am going to say something that is not popular to say but has been on my mind for a while.

Why is it bad for our kids to see two humans have sex?

When you say porn is bad for kids, I think you mean that mainstream porn can be misogynistic, addictive (like most pleasurable things), and give people unrealistic body standards and expectations about what sex is like. All of which I agree with.

Okay, so, if I had a website that just showed consensual sexual relationships between a husband and wife in a committed relationship, just doing normal sex like people do, would that be okay for kids to see? Would it be okay for me to show my kid if they were curious about what sex was like? What if that was something I /wanted/ my teenager to jerk off to as opposed to something I wasn't curating? Wouldn't it be better for me to be able to say "Here's what normal human sex looks like, you'll experience this yourself when you're older and ready for it, but I was a young teen and I know young teens get horny too, just don't spend all day masturbating to it" rather than letting them stumble onto whatever they find on PornHub? I mean we educate kids about every other aspect of human existence, but sexuality is some weird taboo...

I'm just confused here, I mean, are we saying that young people are irreparably harmed by visual exposure to the human reproductive system? If so, why would we as a species have evolved that way? And if not, then how can we justify a blanket ban on young people seeing all forms of recorded sexual activity?

If you look at my comment history you'll see I'm not a normal person, and I don't really understand 'normal' views on human sexuality. Maybe it's because I lived so long in a clothing optional community...I don't really understand why it's okay for parents to show their kids extremely violent media but showing two people having sex, even if it's educational, is considered some form of abuse. But then again, as I said, maybe I'm just mentally ill or something...

[omeid2]

> Why is it bad for our kids to see two humans have sex?

Because porn is not sex. In the same way that candies are not food.

[swells34]

Porn isn't sex the same way pictures and videos of food is not food... You picked a very strange and convoluted analogy instead of the very simple and very straightforward one that is an accurate 1:1 analogy. Strange way to announce an agenda.

[omeid2]

You're making the absurd assertion that porn reflects real life sex. It does not.

A more forgivable analogy to pictures would be that porn is to food, what artificial, constructed, and edit advertisements of food is to food.

https://www.businessinsider.com/fast-food-advertisements-vs-...

The only agenda is the push for normalisation of porn everywhere. We see it.

[swells34]

No, I'm making the assertion that the analogy that most closely matches should be used, and that you picked one so poorly that it immediately smells of bad faith arguments and agendizement.

Your analogy is comparing media of a physical act to... A physical thing, candy. Why not compare media to media? It's the same abstraction. Pictures of food to pictures of sex, instead of actual food to pictures of sex?

You just keep making up more and more convoluted and inaccurate analogies specifically to back up whatever weird agenda you are vaguely trying to push. Please take the rhetorical tricks to another platform; reddit is a good place to start, they'll love this type of yelling match.

[omeid2]

Reflect on why criticism of pornography makes you so angry and emotional.

[lilboiluvr69]

Yeah but people let their kids have candy, you're just supposed to guard them against overindulgence or damage to their health...

Also by definition porn /is/ visual depictions of sex.

[omeid2]

Porn is a visual depiction of sex as much as advertisement of fast food is a real depiction of food.

[lilboiluvr69]

Mainstream porn may be unrealistic, but that doesn't mean you can't find realistic depictions of sex.

[omeid2]

Exceptio probat regulam.

[lilboiluvr69]

Yes but generally when curtailing free speech courts apply strict scrutiny, and even minors are generally understood to have the right to produce and accept speech, banning someone from viewing all visual depictions of sex outright seems overbroad even if only a minority is not 'harmful', whatever that means.