You call it puritanical, but if you allow an “anything goes” mentality to prevail in media, and then young men and adolescent boys start emulating the behaviors they absorb through their hypersexualized media, you’ll call them deviants and sex pests and you’ll wrack your brain trying to figure out why that behavior is normalized.
If media depicts women as gratuitous sex objects, you’ll take issue with it, right? But then you ask why sexually explicit content should be censored, and suggest that it could only be because of puritanism?
Because, what’s the assumption? That A), media doesn’t influence behavior; and B), sexual activity isn’t maladaptive?
If both are true, then how do you justify all the arguments about depicting women and minorities in media? Cause it seems like those arguments often contradict Assumption A above…
For the record, I’m not arguing in favor or against. Just encouraging logical consistency, because I don’t find cognitive dissonance very convincing.
You call it puritanical, but if you allow an “anything goes” mentality to prevail in media, and then young men and adolescent boys start emulating the behaviors they absorb through their hypersexualized media, you’ll call them deviants and sex pests and you’ll wrack your brain trying to figure out why that behavior is normalized.
If media depicts women as gratuitous sex objects, you’ll take issue with it, right? But then you ask why sexually explicit content should be censored, and suggest that it could only be because of puritanism?
Because, what’s the assumption? That A), media doesn’t influence behavior; and B), sexual activity isn’t maladaptive?
If both are true, then how do you justify all the arguments about depicting women and minorities in media? Cause it seems like those arguments often contradict Assumption A above…
For the record, I’m not arguing in favor or against. Just encouraging logical consistency, because I don’t find cognitive dissonance very convincing.
Sex isn’t bad, lack of consent is bad.