4 ms·

Would you still exert this much effort to minimize or trivialize if we were talking about 10 year old children instead of 13 year old children? What if it was

Would you still exert this much effort to minimize or trivialize if we were talking about 10 year old children instead of 13 year old children? What if it was 8 year old children? Would you feel differently then?

vidarh 5y ago
At 8 and 10 I'd spent time on beaches in Denmark on holiday that were all clothing optional. I'd seen plenty of people of all ages fully nude. It was perhaps a novelty for a few minutes, and then it wore off. If anything, I'm a bit worried at what growing up in puritan countries without even visiting places like that and getting nudity normalised does to people.
- MathCodeLove 5y ago
  Did you see them also having hardcore sex constantly? Because that's the true equivalent here.
  - vidarh 5y ago
    The claim I replied to came in response to a chain where this is what I initially reacted to: > Fruit and nudity are not the same. Fruit doesn’t trigger hormonal responses, nudity does. Nothing about hardcore sex. That your intent with the comment further above that was about sex is irrelevant to what I replied to.
    - tekknik 5y ago
      It’s called context, the entire subject is about pornography not nudity.
LatteLazy 5y ago
Yes. Because this is trivial. People have seen genitals for a long time. Humans have coped. If everyone was dying or going insane because the internet makes this different, we'd have noticed starting over 20 years ago. But that hasn't happened. The minute someone has some actual evidence of a problem, I am all ears, whatever the ages involved (at least until people are consenting adults anyway). But you comment is, respectfully, exactly what I object to: how I feel about a 4, 8, 12, or 16 year old is irrelevant. Maybe I don't like it. But that doesn't make it harmful. So we should either show some harm or calm down a bit. Or at least admit this is nothing to do with health or child safety, it's just our personally feelings about ickyness... We've literally had the same moral panics about everything since the dawn of civilization. Just 200 years ago it was common knowledge that showing the legs on a piano would drive me wild with lust. 40 years ago reefer madness was a fact. 20 years ago masterbation made you blind. Now it's porn. Isn't it time we grew up? Aren't we more mentally prepared for change than the victorians?
- vidarh 5y ago
  > Now it's porn. Isn't it time we grew up? Aren't we more mentally prepared for change than the victorians? It's been porn for many decades already. As a child combing my parents book cases for interesting stuff at some point in the mid 1980's, one of the things that initially got me excited because of a rather misleading title (and then disappointed, but still fascinated by lots of weird case studies) was a book from the 1970's about research into the psychological impacts on porn. The internet has just re-ignited a many decades old argument by arguing now that it isn't porn per se, but the sheer amount of porn and ease of access, this time.

vidarh 5y ago

At 8 and 10 I'd spent time on beaches in Denmark on holiday that were all clothing optional. I'd seen plenty of people of all ages fully nude. It was perhaps a novelty for a few minutes, and then it wore off. If anything, I'm a bit worried at what growing up in puritan countries without even visiting places like that and getting nudity normalised does to people.

MathCodeLove 5y ago
Did you see them also having hardcore sex constantly? Because that's the true equivalent here.
- vidarh 5y ago
  The claim I replied to came in response to a chain where this is what I initially reacted to: > Fruit and nudity are not the same. Fruit doesn’t trigger hormonal responses, nudity does. Nothing about hardcore sex. That your intent with the comment further above that was about sex is irrelevant to what I replied to.
  - tekknik 5y ago
    It’s called context, the entire subject is about pornography not nudity.

LatteLazy 5y ago

Yes. Because this is trivial. People have seen genitals for a long time. Humans have coped. If everyone was dying or going insane because the internet makes this different, we'd have noticed starting over 20 years ago. But that hasn't happened. The minute someone has some actual evidence of a problem, I am all ears, whatever the ages involved (at least until people are consenting adults anyway). But you comment is, respectfully, exactly what I object to: how I feel about a 4, 8, 12, or 16 year old is irrelevant. Maybe I don't like it. But that doesn't make it harmful. So we should either show some harm or calm down a bit. Or at least admit this is nothing to do with health or child safety, it's just our personally feelings about ickyness... We've literally had the same moral panics about everything since the dawn of civilization. Just 200 years ago it was common knowledge that showing the legs on a piano would drive me wild with lust. 40 years ago reefer madness was a fact. 20 years ago masterbation made you blind. Now it's porn. Isn't it time we grew up? Aren't we more mentally prepared for change than the victorians?

vidarh 5y ago
> Now it's porn. Isn't it time we grew up? Aren't we more mentally prepared for change than the victorians? It's been porn for many decades already. As a child combing my parents book cases for interesting stuff at some point in the mid 1980's, one of the things that initially got me excited because of a rather misleading title (and then disappointed, but still fascinated by lots of weird case studies) was a book from the 1970's about research into the psychological impacts on porn. The internet has just re-ignited a many decades old argument by arguing now that it isn't porn per se, but the sheer amount of porn and ease of access, this time.