2 ms·

Wow, that's actually a really interesting analysis. Complicated it may not be, but it is, to me, novel. Thanks! I'm not sure it obviously follows, though, that

Wow, that's actually a really interesting analysis. Complicated it may not be, but it is, to me, novel. Thanks! I'm not sure it obviously follows, though, that because it's private it's inappropriate for children, but not inappropriate for adults. A counterexample would be any private emotional moment between two people. Please enlighten me further. Orthogonally, I think it is fairly self-evident that extreme graphic violence isn't appropriate for children, though not because it's private. At the very least, I don't understand why it's ok to be so cavalier about it.

ars 15y ago
> but not inappropriate for adults Plenty of people think it is for adults as well. But adults can choose to override their feeling on the matter (and that's what makes it so exciting). That's why clinical or medical depictions of nudity don't have the same feel. > any private emotional moment between two people An emotional moment is not inherently private though. Many moments are, but many are not, so it's diluted. > it is fairly self-evident that extreme graphic violence isn't appropriate for children, though not because it's private. Yup, and since it's a different type of issue, parents will permit a certain degree of violence - it depends of the type of violence. But for sexual material they will veto anything, and not try to determine how sexual it is.