4 ms·

As a fellow former 12-year-old boy, I agree that shielding children from legal sexual images doesn't usually serve a purpose other than to deprive them of an ed

As a fellow former 12-year-old boy, I agree that shielding children from legal sexual images doesn't usually serve a purpose other than to deprive them of an education. We wouldn't restrict kids' access to math materials, then expect them to know calculus as adults. Similarly, kids who are banned from talking about and seeing sexual content can't be expected to understand sexual health. From an objective standpoint, the interesting question is whether or not exposure to sexual content at early ages is harmful to children. I did some cursory research on this in college and found that: a) There seems to a big problem with bias in studies concerning sex and adolescents. Even some of the most frequently cited studies use biased language (e.g. abstracts with the phrase "the problem of children viewing sex"). b) A major variable is whether or not parents are there to mediate the kids' exposure to sexual content — not just to restrict their access, but to provide context. To use the math analogy again, it's like the difference between explaining a chapter or dumping worksheets and a textbook on the table.

Swizec 13y ago
> b) A major variable is whether or not parents are there to mediate the kids' exposure to sexual content This. A thousand times this. Kids need someone to explain what they're seeing, not someone to flat out restrict it. You wouldn't let your kid watch a grizzly war movie without explaining to them that it's a movie, that these sort of things happened and war is terrible, and that they're reasonably safe from these things happening to them if they're from the western world. But heaven forbid you explain to your kid what sex is and how it works and that it's awesome. Oh no that's way too awkward. (usually because the adults in question aren't emotionally mature enough themselves)

Swizec 13y ago

> b) A major variable is whether or not parents are there to mediate the kids' exposure to sexual content This. A thousand times this. Kids need someone to explain what they're seeing, not someone to flat out restrict it. You wouldn't let your kid watch a grizzly war movie without explaining to them that it's a movie, that these sort of things happened and war is terrible, and that they're reasonably safe from these things happening to them if they're from the western world. But heaven forbid you explain to your kid what sex is and how it works and that it's awesome. Oh no that's way too awkward. (usually because the adults in question aren't emotionally mature enough themselves)