Violence vs. Pornography

blueeagle25 said:🤣

Try not to choke on your coffee laughing too hard at this one.

...look, I’m all for sex and I’m totally against violence....but when it comes to sex, I don't care how it goes down, as long as it stays within those bounds...
..... but why does it always seem to work the other way around? why is there so much violence? ...I mean, who would actually lead wars or fuel that kind of hatred? who would want to keep people trapped in these endless conflicts against others—the very people being exploited at every single level?
..
...

Nathan Perez5 said:Now, look, federal law prohibits selling or showing pornographic content to anyone under 18, and I’m assuming the people drafting these regulations in D.C. have a bit more expertise than we do, so maybe that age limit actually makes sense and serves a purpose. Once you find yourself standing there looking at your own 12-year-old child—assuming you haven't completely forgotten what it was like to be that age—you'll probably realize that at that stage of life, dreaming about a simple kiss or a hug from a crush is much more appropriate given how emotionally immature kids are back then...

It’s the exact same story when it comes to violence; it’s easy to play philosopher and talk about it in the abstract, but trying to manage that influence within your own four walls is a whole different beast, though I suppose you could reduce how much of that stuff gets consumed by simply setting a good example through your own actions rather than just barking orders...

I was masturbating ten times a day when I was twelve. So why isn't watching violence a punishable offense?
Yeah, because laws are just perfect. We all know that. Just like priests are supposedly flawless moral role models... right.
Look, sorry, but idiots can write laws too. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's okay or even right.

Sarah Wood8 said:Can someone please explain the massive paradox at the heart of our society? We’ve collectively decided that violence and crime—things that are actually illegal—are perfectly fine entertainment for TV, where kids and adults alike sit around watching them together. Yet, when it comes to sex, which is not only natural but beautiful and essential for continuing the species, it's treated like something taboo. It basically boils down to this:
taking a life = good
creating life = bad

I see all these moral crusaders acting outraged because ten-year-olds are joining Facebook groups or communities centered around "loving sex." Of course they are! They have those urges, even if they haven't actually acted on them yet. It's a natural instinct, yet we stare at them like they're some kind of freak. What would be better, though? Should we let them develop a murderous instinct instead of a sexual one? Would that be acceptable? In a society where you can watch dozens, even hundreds, of lives being violently snatched away through murder and torture on TV every single day, I don't see why kids wouldn't just start an online group called "I love killing"
. Sure, obviously that wouldn't be okay, but if killing isn't normal, then why is watching violence considered fine? Humanity treats violence as the ultimate mass entertainment. Go ahead, let the kids watch Ram mow down hundreds of people with a machine gun; heaven forbid they catch a glimpse of a man or woman's anatomy, let alone anything intimate. If they do, suddenly everyone starts shouting about morality. The busybodies run to the police or the courts, and religious types start rambling on about hell, damnation, and eternal punishment.

Just imagine a different scenario. Suppose we grew up in a society that didn't view the human body as shameful—where people weren't embarrassed to swim naked in the ocean or walk to the corner store without clothes when it gets hot, simply because they live in a culture that doesn't treat genitals as something sinister. Imagine a world where you might watch a movie with intimacy at 8 PM, or see people being affectionate in soap operas during the day, because sex isn't a taboo. In such a world, sex is seen as what it actually is: a way to create life, something beautiful, fun, healthy, and universally enjoyed.
Then, out of nowhere, some idiot decides to make a movie about brutal murder. That's a fundamentally stupid idea because killing is wrong; it's evil; it involves someone stripping a human being of their life in the most disgusting way possible.
In that hypothetical world, a society raised on intimacy would suddenly be faced with graphic violence for the first time. How do you think they'd react? People would be traumatized, psychiatric wards would overflow, and children wouldn't be able to sleep at night. Of course they would react that way, because witnessing something that is inherently evil and traumatic would be a normal response. But in our current world, we've been conditioned to accept violence as if we were told from birth that eating garbage every day is perfectly fine.
On the flip side, what is actually wrong with sex?

Where did this mindless, idiotic invention come from—this idea that people should be ashamed of their bodies, or that sex should be portrayed in a way that children hitting puberty at eleven or twelve shouldn't see? So, it's "NORMAL" for kids to watch slaughter, but "NOT NORMAL" for them to see a completely natural and acceptable act like basic intercourse that every person on this planet has the right to experience? That makes no sense.

That specific brand of social hypocrisy is honestly what I find most disgusting about everything.
We have murder, which is a crime, and we're allowed to watch it. We have sex, which isn't a crime, and we aren't allowed to watch it.
And really, if a twelve-year-old isn't allowed to see intimacy, why on earth are they allowed to watch a massacre?
Isn't our society just a little bit... retarded!?

🤣 You're absolutely right

Sarah Wood8 said:Can someone please explain the massive paradox at the heart of our society? We’ve collectively decided that violence and crime—things that are actually illegal—are perfectly fine entertainment for TV, where kids and adults alike sit around watching them together. Yet, when it comes to sex, which is not only natural but beautiful and essential for continuing the species, it's treated like something taboo. It basically boils down to this:
taking a life = good
creating life = bad

I see all these moral crusaders acting outraged because ten-year-olds are joining Facebook groups or communities centered around "loving sex." Of course they are! They have those urges, even if they haven't actually acted on them yet. It's a natural instinct, yet we stare at them like they're some kind of freak. What would be better, though? Should we let them develop a murderous instinct instead of a sexual one? Would that be acceptable? In a society where you can watch dozens, even hundreds, of lives being violently snatched away through murder and torture on TV every single day, I don't see why kids wouldn't just start an online group called "I love killing"
. Sure, obviously that wouldn't be okay, but if killing isn't normal, then why is watching violence considered fine? Humanity treats violence as the ultimate mass entertainment. Go ahead, let the kids watch Ram mow down hundreds of people with a machine gun; heaven forbid they catch a glimpse of a man or woman's anatomy, let alone anything intimate. If they do, suddenly everyone starts shouting about morality. The busybodies run to the police or the courts, and religious types start rambling on about hell, damnation, and eternal punishment.

Just imagine a different scenario. Suppose we grew up in a society that didn't view the human body as shameful—where people weren't embarrassed to swim naked in the ocean or walk to the corner store without clothes when it gets hot, simply because they live in a culture that doesn't treat genitals as something sinister. Imagine a world where you might watch a movie with intimacy at 8 PM, or see people being affectionate in soap operas during the day, because sex isn't a taboo. In such a world, sex is seen as what it actually is: a way to create life, something beautiful, fun, healthy, and universally enjoyed.
Then, out of nowhere, some idiot decides to make a movie about brutal murder. That's a fundamentally stupid idea because killing is wrong; it's evil; it involves someone stripping a human being of their life in the most disgusting way possible.
In that hypothetical world, a society raised on intimacy would suddenly be faced with graphic violence for the first time. How do you think they'd react? People would be traumatized, psychiatric wards would overflow, and children wouldn't be able to sleep at night. Of course they would react that way, because witnessing something that is inherently evil and traumatic would be a normal response. But in our current world, we've been conditioned to accept violence as if we were told from birth that eating garbage every day is perfectly fine.
On the flip side, what is actually wrong with sex?

Where did this mindless, idiotic invention come from—this idea that people should be ashamed of their bodies, or that sex should be portrayed in a way that children hitting puberty at eleven or twelve shouldn't see? So, it's "NORMAL" for kids to watch slaughter, but "NOT NORMAL" for them to see a completely natural and acceptable act like basic intercourse that every person on this planet has the right to experience? That makes no sense.

That specific brand of social hypocrisy is honestly what I find most disgusting about everything.
We have murder, which is a crime, and we're allowed to watch it. We have sex, which isn't a crime, and we aren't allowed to watch it.
And really, if a twelve-year-old isn't allowed to see intimacy, why on earth are they allowed to watch a massacre?
Isn't our society just a little bit... retarded!?

The urge for violence is just a fundamental part of being human. Even little kids show an interest in scrap and wrestling way before they ever care about sex. Those aggressive impulses—the drive to conquer, to overcome an enemy, to prove yourself, to impose your will, to solve problems fast, or simply to survive—that’s exactly what built civilization. In a sense, civilization itself is just humanity exerting violence over nature. Even on a personal level, a person has to be violent enough toward themselves to maintain discipline and stay physically fit. Throughout evolution, anyone who wasn't naturally inclined toward aggression or skilled at using it was either wiped out by wild animals or pushed aside by people who were smarter and stronger. According to some theories, those weaker individuals eventually came up with concepts like... It all comes down to morality... the core of who we are... whether we’re making the right calls when nobody is watching or just following the crowd because it's easier... It's such a heavy topic, isn't it? But at the end of the day, it's what defines us... everything else is just noise... I'm still here... just getting settled in. Looking forward to seeing what everyone has to say today! Evil... I wonder how they’d go about verbally tearing someone down who's actually more powerful than they are... It would be a wild sight to see...

And then, out of nowhere, some idiot decides they want to make a movie centered around killing. It’s honestly such a moronic idea... because, you know, killing is wrong. It’s evil. Having someone in a film take a life in such a disgusting, vile way... it just doesn't sit right with me...

Violence-driven cinema can actually be incredibly high-quality. You get gripping plots, complex characters, and beautifully shot sequences... Take *Cross of Iron*, *Full Metal Jacket*, *Fight Club*, *Elite Squad*, or *Inglourious Basterds*—those are all absolute masterpieces of filmmaking. Then you look at what’s happening in porn... just a group of guys ejaculating on a girl's face. Truly profound stuff...

In our world, we’ve just become so accustomed to this reality... it’s like if people told you from the day you were born that eating garbage was perfectly fine, and you eventually just accepted it as normal...

Not everyone would agree with that... Still, it’s an interesting way to look at things, for sure...

On the other hand, what's actually wrong with sex?...

You can also engage in coprophilia during sex. It's a thing. And if you're looking for a cinematic masterpiece that tackles this subject matter head-on, look no further than Girls 1 Cup... truly a pinnacle of modern American filmmaking...

Honestly, that whole sense of social hypocrisy is what I find most revolting about everything... It just gets under my skin.
It’s such a strange paradox when you really stop to think about it... We live in a world where we can sit back and watch a brutal murder unfold on a movie screen, and it's perfectly legal to do so. But then you have intimate scenes that aren't even against the law, yet they're the very things that get censored or banned from view. It just feels upside down...
On the other hand... if we’re telling twelve-year-olds they aren't mature enough to handle scenes of intimacy, then why on earth is it perfectly fine for them to watch a bloody massacre? It just doesn't add up...
Is it just me, or has our society become a little bit... well, let's just say "dimwitted"!?

The truth is, murder isn't always treated as a crime: think about combat in war, political assassinations, suicide, or even self-defense. There are even times when someone can be honored for taking a life, getting a monument built in their name to serve as an example for future generations. On the flip side, there are certain types of sexual behavior that are strictly illegal—usually involving children as young as 12. This whole discussion is honestly just ridiculous...

The urge for violence is just a natural instinct. Even little kids show an interest in fighting way before they ever care about sex.
Violent impulses—that drive to conquer, to dominate enemies, to prove oneself, to impose one's will, to solve problems fast, to survive—is exactly what built civilization. Civilization itself is just violence exerted over nature. A person has to be violent enough toward their own impulses to maintain self-discipline and physical health. Throughout evolution, anyone who wasn't inclined toward violence or skilled at using it was simply wiped out by wild beasts or crushed by people who were smarter and stronger. According to some theories, those weaker individuals eventually invented concepts like "morality" and "evil" just to verbally harass the stronger ones.

So, you're saying it's perfectly normal for kids to fight, or for a kid to bully someone weaker, and we should just let it happen because it's "natural"? Does that mean if someone beat up your child, you’d just stand there and recite this philosophy to me, or would you actually do something to ensure your offspring survives by quickly solving the problem and beating up the kids who hit your son? And how did the weak invent "morality and evil"? If they were truly the weak, they would have been eaten by predators or suppressed by your so-called "smarter and stronger" humans a long time ago.
Where does this need to equate intelligence with violence even come from? Are violent bullies inherently smart? What happens when someone uses violence against the bully? Does the bully suddenly become the weak one?
Anyway, I get the point of your little story—it's fine to be Stalin, a total thug who takes his frustrations out on others. In the end, all the thugs usually win, and nobody wants to run today's world based on your "philosophy." At least modern society tries to prevent certain groups from living like we're still in the Stone Age. So what does that imply? That the weak and stupid finally triumphed over the strong and smart? Or maybe society just took a wrong turn because we stopped slaughtering each other and instead came up with nonsense like "individual freedom and the right to life"?
I mean, would you actually grant rights and freedom to a weak individual? Why not just kill them if we can, wipe out their kids, rape their wife, and force them to bear our children instead, right!?
Let's be real here!

Violence-driven movies can be incredibly high quality; they have great plots, compelling characters, and beautifully shot scenes... Cross of Iron, Full Metal Jacket, Fight Club, Elite Squad, Inglourious Basterds—they are all stellar cinematic achievements, true masterpieces. Meanwhile, porn is just about a group of guys ejaculating on a girl's face—truly profound stuff.

I'm not saying there aren't good action movies, but what one person calls a masterpiece, another might call absolute garbage.

You can also eat crap during sex. It's called coprophilia. A movie dealing with that theme is, of course, Girls 1 Cup, a massive achievement in modern Brazilian cinema.

You missed the point entirely. I wasn't comparing eating crap to a sexual act or a violent act; I was pointing out how people are trained from childhood to accept any kind of stupidity, no matter how idiotic, and then they spend the rest of their lives sucking up to it.

Killing isn't always a crime: think about combat in war, political assassinations, suicide, or self-defense. Sometimes, a person can actually be honored for taking a life, with monuments erected in their name to serve as icons for future generations. On the flip side, there are certain sexual behaviors that are strictly illegal, often involving children as young as twelve. This whole thread is just ridiculous.

So now you're lecturing me on the law—essentially what’s permitted versus what isn't. Honestly, human stupidity is the most enduring force in history, and that same idiocy is what writes and rewrites our legal codes. I think there's a massive distinction between what the law allows today compared to what was acceptable a thousand years ago, back when "law" functioned much more like the concepts you're pushing. As for those monuments, I'm not seeing many built for violent tyrants. Neither Hitler, nor Stalin, nor Hussein have statues standing anywhere, despite how effectively they crushed anyone they deemed weak or "stupid."

Sarah Wood8 said:

The urge for violence is just a natural instinct. Even little kids show an interest in fighting way before they ever care about sex.
Violent impulses—that drive to conquer, to dominate enemies, to prove oneself, to impose one's will, to solve problems fast, to survive—is exactly what built civilization. Civilization itself is just violence exerted over nature. A person has to be violent enough toward their own impulses to maintain self-discipline and physical health. Throughout evolution, anyone who wasn't inclined toward violence or skilled at using it was simply wiped out by wild beasts or crushed by people who were smarter and stronger. According to some theories, those weaker individuals eventually invented concepts like "morality" and "evil" just to verbally harass the stronger ones.

So, you're saying it's perfectly normal for kids to fight, or for a kid to bully someone weaker, and we should just let it happen because it's "natural"? Does that mean if someone beat up your child, you’d just stand there and recite this philosophy to me, or would you actually do something to ensure your offspring survives by quickly solving the problem and beating up the kids who hit your son? And how did the weak invent "morality and evil"? If they were truly the weak, they would have been eaten by predators or suppressed by your so-called "smarter and stronger" humans a long time ago.
Where does this need to equate intelligence with violence even come from? Are violent bullies inherently smart? What happens when someone uses violence against the bully? Does the bully suddenly become the weak one?
Anyway, I get the point of your little story—it's fine to be Stalin, a total thug who takes his frustrations out on others. In the end, all the thugs usually win, and nobody wants to run today's world based on your "philosophy." At least modern society tries to prevent certain groups from living like we're still in the Stone Age. So what does that imply? That the weak and stupid finally triumphed over the strong and smart? Or maybe society just took a wrong turn because we stopped slaughtering each other and instead came up with nonsense like "individual freedom and the right to life"?
I mean, would you actually grant rights and freedom to a weak individual? Why not just kill them if we can, wipe out their kids, rape their wife, and force them to bear our children instead, right!?
Let's be real here!

Violence-driven movies can be incredibly high quality; they have great plots, compelling characters, and beautifully shot scenes... Cross of Iron, Full Metal Jacket, Fight Club, Elite Squad, Inglourious Basterds—they are all stellar cinematic achievements, true masterpieces. Meanwhile, porn is just about a group of guys ejaculating on a girl's face—truly profound stuff.

I'm not saying there aren't good action movies, but what one person calls a masterpiece, another might call absolute garbage.

You can also eat crap during sex. It's called coprophilia. A movie dealing with that theme is, of course, Girls 1 Cup, a massive achievement in modern Brazilian cinema.

You missed the point entirely. I wasn't comparing eating crap to a sexual act or a violent act; I was pointing out how people are trained from childhood to accept any kind of stupidity, no matter how idiotic, and then they spend the rest of their lives sucking up to it.

Killing isn't always a crime: think about combat in war, political assassinations, suicide, or self-defense. Sometimes, a person can actually be honored for taking a life, with monuments erected in their name to serve as icons for future generations. On the flip side, there are certain sexual behaviors that are strictly illegal, often involving children as young as twelve. This whole thread is just ridiculous.

So now you're lecturing me on the law—essentially what’s permitted versus what isn't. Honestly, human stupidity is the most enduring force in history, and that same idiocy is what writes and rewrites our legal codes. I think there's a massive distinction between what the law allows today compared to what was acceptable a thousand years ago, back when "law" functioned much more like the concepts you're pushing. As for those monuments, I'm not seeing many built for violent tyrants. Neither Hitler, nor Stalin, nor Hussein have statues standing anywhere, despite how effectively they crushed anyone they deemed weak or "stupid."

It’s nothing more than kids playing. Why stop them from having their innocent fun? Besides, getting some physical activity is great for their health, and honestly, getting beat up once in a while can actually make a person think and grow a bit smarter...

Where does the idea come from that intelligence is linked to violence? Are bullies actually considered smart people now?

Intelligence—especially that Machiavellian kind of intellect you see in highly evolved primates—could actually be viewed as a sophisticated form of psychological aggression. It's basically a type of violence where the mind achieves what the body might not be able to handle physically...

Basically, I get your point—it's okay to be a Stalin, an aggressor who lives to crush others. In the end, most bullies have come out on top historically, and modern society doesn't really want to go back to their "philosophy." We try at least a little bit to prevent certain groups from regressing into the Stone Age. So what does that mean? Did the weaker, less intelligent people finally win out over the strong and smart? Or did society just take a wrong turn by moving away from constant slaughter and inventing things like "freedom" and "individual rights"?

Come on, pull yourself together.

I mean, would you actually grant rights and freedom to a weaker individual? Why not just kill them if we have the chance, wipe out their kids, and take whatever we want? That's how it works, right!?

Why on earth would we do that? I don't follow...

Now you're talking about laws and what's allowed. Human stupidity has been the longest-running theme in history, and that same stupidity is what creates and changes laws. There's a massive difference between what's legal today versus what was acceptable a thousand years ago, which seems to align more with your viewpoint. And as for monuments, I don't think many people are building statues to thugs and tyrants. Neither Hitler, nor Stalin, nor Hussein have monuments dedicated to them anywhere, even though they were quite successful at crushing those they deemed "weaker" or "dumber."

This thread is getting ridiculous.

It’s just kids playing. Why stop them from having some innocent fun? Besides, getting some physical activity is definitely good for their health, and those kinds of beatings often force a person to think and actually make them smarter.

There was actually a lot of noise recently about that kid whose classmates posted a video on Facebook showing them ganging up on him, even starting a group called "everyone who wants XY out of school" or something like that. Is systematic bullying or beating someone against their will really just "innocent childhood fun"? Once people start fighting, it stops being innocent play. There are kids who wrestle, play tag, or toss stuff around while staying friends. That’s innocent play; systematic harassment isn't.
This whole "survival of the fittest" nonsense is just a fairy tale used by various lowlifes, like those who believe in racial superiority or when ten guys jump one person in an alleyway... we could go on forever regarding the definition of intelligence here.

Intelligence—especially in terms of Machiavellian intellect, which is a key trait of evolved primates—could be described as a more sophisticated form of psychological aggression, a type of violence where the mind achieves what the body might not be capable of.

Both Gandhi and the Dalai Lama were aggressive in their own way and they were smart, but as far as I know, they didn't solve problems through violence. Psychological and mental aggression can sometimes be desirable when a person is fighting for what they believe in, but we aren't talking about physical violence against another living being here.
Jesus also fought for his beliefs. Was he weak because his pacifist convictions have endured to this day? Whether he existed or not is irrelevant; the convictions remained. The beliefs of various egoistic and megalomaniacal tyrants did not.
It is commonly said that carnivores are smarter than herbivores because they get the necessary nutrients for the brain from meat, but it would be incredibly stupid of me to bring that up as an example in this thread.

Why would we kill him? I don't get it.

Look, I’m not the one who reduced human violence down to the basic survival instincts seen in animals. I could argue with you in this thread if I were a lion and you were, say, a tiger. That would mean we were driven by instinct, but you forgot about the brain. Kudos to the lion and the tiger, but they aren't going to hop on a forum to debate morality. Since we *are* debating it, and you consider it a construct of the "weak," it proves that morality still exists and shouldn't be ignored in a topic this specific.
If we were lions and tigers, then stories about survival of the fittest would make incredible sense, but I think you like reducing everything to some banal, orthodox view of life that only survives in some nerd's 19th-century evolution textbook.

This topic is getting ridiculous.

Ever heard that laughter is the best medicine? Honestly, just laugh more—it’ll do more for your health than sex ever could. 😉

Sarah Wood8 said:

It’s just kids playing. Why stop them from having some innocent fun? Besides, getting some physical activity is definitely good for their health, and those kinds of beatings often force a person to think and actually make them smarter.

There was actually a lot of noise recently about that kid whose classmates posted a video on Facebook showing them ganging up on him, even starting a group called "everyone who wants XY out of school" or something like that. Is systematic bullying or beating someone against their will really just "innocent childhood fun"? Once people start fighting, it stops being innocent play. There are kids who wrestle, play tag, or toss stuff around while staying friends. That’s innocent play; systematic harassment isn't.
This whole "survival of the fittest" nonsense is just a fairy tale used by various lowlifes, like those who believe in racial superiority or when ten guys jump one person in an alleyway... we could go on forever regarding the definition of intelligence here.

Intelligence—especially in terms of Machiavellian intellect, which is a key trait of evolved primates—could be described as a more sophisticated form of psychological aggression, a type of violence where the mind achieves what the body might not be capable of.

Both Gandhi and the Dalai Lama were aggressive in their own way and they were smart, but as far as I know, they didn't solve problems through violence. Psychological and mental aggression can sometimes be desirable when a person is fighting for what they believe in, but we aren't talking about physical violence against another living being here.
Jesus also fought for his beliefs. Was he weak because his pacifist convictions have endured to this day? Whether he existed or not is irrelevant; the convictions remained. The beliefs of various egoistic and megalomaniacal tyrants did not.
It is commonly said that carnivores are smarter than herbivores because they get the necessary nutrients for the brain from meat, but it would be incredibly stupid of me to bring that up as an example in this thread.

Why would we kill him? I don't get it.

Look, I’m not the one who reduced human violence down to the basic survival instincts seen in animals. I could argue with you in this thread if I were a lion and you were, say, a tiger. That would mean we were driven by instinct, but you forgot about the brain. Kudos to the lion and the tiger, but they aren't going to hop on a forum to debate morality. Since we *are* debating it, and you consider it a construct of the "weak," it proves that morality still exists and shouldn't be ignored in a topic this specific.
If we were lions and tigers, then stories about survival of the fittest would make incredible sense, but I think you like reducing everything to some banal, orthodox view of life that only survives in some nerd's 19th-century evolution textbook.

This topic is getting ridiculous.

Ever heard that laughter is the best medicine? Honestly, just laugh more—it’ll do more for your health than sex ever could. 😉

The way you argue is honestly hilarious. I’m going to reply to this one last time just so I can distance myself from these twisted views you’re trying to pin on me, but that's it... I'm done. Your bizarre leaps from Stalinist institutionalized violence—which is supposedly my position, apparently—to claiming Jesus is somehow rooting for pornographers and senseless hooking up... it really pushes the limits, even for a thread meant for trolling...

Gandhi and the Dalai Lama were both incredibly sharp, and they definitely had an aggressive edge to their intellect, but as far as I know, they weren't about solving problems through violence. Sometimes, you actually need a certain level of mental and psychological aggression just to stand up for what you believe in... but that’s a completely different story from physical violence against another living being.
Jesus fought for what he believed in. Does that make him weak, considering his pacifist convictions have actually stood the test of time? Honestly, it doesn't even matter if he was a real historical figure or not... the impact of those beliefs is what remains. On the flip side, look at all those selfish, megalomaniacal tyrants throughout history—their little ideologies didn't last nearly as long...
It’s a common idea that carnivores tend to be sharper than herbivores since they get all those essential nutrients for brain development straight from meat... though, honestly, it would be pretty ridiculous of me to bring that up as an actual argument here...

I honestly think Jesus and Gandhi were pretty misguided in most of their core beliefs. Certain flawed ideologies tend to stick around among people who are naturally predisposed to that kind of thinking, so I don't really see why anyone finds that surprising. But that's not even the main point here. What’s actually kind of hilarious to consider is how much Jesus and Gandhi disliked sexuality in general—let alone the extreme stuff you're talking about. If they ever laid eyes on your opening post, they'd probably have to give you a good smack...

If we were all lions and tigers, I guess the whole "survival of the fittest" thing would actually make sense. You wouldn't believe me if I told you... but honestly, I feel like people love to boil everything down to this incredibly basic, old-school view of life. It’s such a cliché. It feels like something you'd only find in some nerd's dusty 19th-century textbook about evolution...

Yeah...

Ever heard that laughter is actually good for you? Honestly, you should probably laugh more often... it’s better for your health than sex is...

Honestly, nothing beats a good, deep laugh. It’s easily the greatest pleasure there is. When you compare it to sex, well, sex just feels a bit too vulgar and messy... For me, that's why I'm such a staunch opponent of any eugenicist thinking. There's no need to try and "improve" or "strengthen" humanity through design. We should just let all the funny little misfits keep jumping around and making us laugh instead...

The way you argue is honestly laughable. I’m going to reply to this one last time just to distance myself from these twisted views you're pinning on me, and then I'm done. Your bizarre leaps from Stalinist institutionalized violence—which is supposedly my stance—to Jesus being some defender of pornography and meaningless sex actually cross the line, even for a humorous troll thread.

So, I just totally misinterpreted your positions where you defend senseless violence under the guise of "survival of the fittest"? Oh, my bad, let me apologize for that.
No, you got it wrong because I’m not defending sex. First off, sex isn't meaningless, but if it's meaningless to you, does that mean violence is meaningful? You didn't even address the actual topic here. Why should your kid watch violence instead of porn? If you want your child to be strong in this world rather than weak and getting eaten alive by others, you could just as easily show them how sex works instead of just how people kill each other, right!?
Feel free to tell me if you think something completely different from what I think you think.

I think Jesus and Gandhi were wrong about most of their stances. Various bad beliefs persist among people who have psychological inclinations toward such ideas; I don't see what's strange about that. But that's not even the main point. What might be fun to mention is that Jesus and Gandhi had such a negative attitude toward sexuality in general, let alone any extreme version you're bringing up, that they'd probably have to deck you after reading your opening post.

Wrong about which stances? Name them! Psychological inclinations toward beliefs? Someone who believes violence shouldn't be used is what? A schizophrenic? Look, I'm not talking about religion here.
How do you even know what kind of attitudes Jesus and Gandhi had toward sexuality? Haha... please, now you're just becoming ridiculous, and we don't need to be laughing at the same time. 😁
It wasn't Jesus who criticized sexuality, it was the church, and that idiocy has persisted in the minds and subconsciousness of people to this day. In some religions and belief systems, sexuality and sex are perfectly normal things that are practiced, talked about, and not treated like something sick, unlike in our "highly moral" society where a guy beats his wife and then goes to church after paying off the local authorities just so the whole town can see him.
And what exactly is "EXTREME" sexuality? 🤣
I already said it, so I'll say it again. What is so bad about a porn movie that it's okay for violence? Why is it okay to scar a child's psyche by letting them watch, say, Tarantino movies filled with torture (which kids have actually carried out by torturing and killing a kid in England after being inspired by torture in a Tarantino film), but they aren't allowed to watch porn because it's "tooooo" scary? Look, those are double standards. You can't claim sex is extreme and meaningless when the only thing truly extreme and meaningless is taking another human life. If kids aren't allowed to watch sex, then this hypocritical society should ban violence on TV too. That is primarily my point, and my second point is that it isn't abnormal or immoral for kids developing their sexuality to watch porn, because they're going to want to watch it anyway. And why don't we let them? Because it's what? A shame? Bad for them? Yeah, right... as if.

Exactly. Nothing beats a good laugh. Compared to a genuine sense of humor, sex is just too vulgar a pleasure. That’s why I’m such a staunch opponent of any eugenicist nonsense—we shouldn't be trying to "improve" or "strengthen" humanity. We should just leave all those ridiculous little losers to hop around and provide us with some much-needed entertainment.

Honestly, it’s hilarious how some people take themselves so incredibly seriously... trust me, there is nothing funnier than that kind of ego.
Sex is obviously way too vulgar, whereas violence isn't considered vulgar at all; instead, it's supposedly wonderful and desirable for kids to watch so they can learn how the "strong" carve their way through life, right!?
Sure, there are decent movies with violence, but they aren't exactly meant for children.
For instance, you can't even compare a Sergio Leone masterpiece like *Once Upon a Time in the West* to some trash starring Michael Dudikoff or Dolph Lundgren, and frankly, there's far too much of that violent garbage out there.
I'd rather kids watch porn than that crap.

blueeagle25 said:You were probably calling me one of those "moral crusaders." Well, fine then.
I actually agree with everything you said, and I was just thinking the other day about how we tolerate violence but get so worked up over people openly showing sexual stuff.

...

Just try looking at it from a parent's perspective for a second. You've got a ten-year-old. They're surrounded by porn, and they pretty much know everything about sex already. They see how their aunts and uncles enjoy it—they see that passion, hear the sounds of happiness—and as a kid, you just want to experience that too because you see the adults having such a good time. So, the kid finds someone of the opposite sex and decides to go for it. And I'm just asking you nicely: would you really let God allow a child to end up pregnant or forced into an abortion? That would pretty much seal their fate forever, wouldn't it? I doubt it. And yeah, sure, it doesn't even have to be another kid; there could be some predator out there who goes out of his way to convince a child that sex is the greatest thing ever, especially at that age.☕

Did ten-year-olds used to go out and watch Terminator or Rambo and then start roaming the streets acting like they're in a movie, killing everyone because they thought "Hasta la vista, baby" was a great way to live?!
Of course not... because parents and schools exist to raise them and tell them that killing isn't okay...

In the same vein, parents can talk to their kids about STDs, how pregnancy works, and how incredibly painful it can be, so kids actually understand what they're getting into...

And as if ten-year-old boys aren't watching porn!?!?! Obviously, they'd want to mess around, but they don't have anyone to do it with, and even if they did, they wouldn't have a clue what they're doing... no matter how many millions of porn videos they watch... because they're just kids... and honestly, I don't think they'd even like it... I mean, how much pleasure can a ten-year-old really get from sex!?! They aren't even developed yet...

I'm totally with the OP on this... I hate how much violence is shoved down our throats on TV. Even in the regular news, you hear about some killer or a massive accident with a thousand dead, and then at 8 PM, they're showing bodies and blood on the highway and stuff like that... it's just... it's not just bad for kids, it's depressing for adults too...

The OP doesn't have to be some nudist, and I don't think everyone would be hooking up left and right if people were just more open about sex... though, personally, I think being more open would be pretty great...

Just imagine if your parents were talking to you about pregnancy and STDs when you were seven, eight, nine, or ten years old... maybe sharing their own experiences... since most people have dealt with something like a yeast infection or whatever... if I were a little kid and I was allowed to do whatever I wanted, but I had to listen to stories about someone having a nasty infection, how itchy it was, or how someone got pregnant, went for an abortion, and was basically falling apart from the pain... I wouldn't even dream of hooking up...

But this way, when everything is forbidden and treated like a taboo, it just makes it so much more interesting to them...

Let’s just simplify this...
Most of us naturally have an aversion to destructive behavior.
Yet, we remain a mass easily swayed by marketing, media, and TV manipulation.
There is that old saying: "Monkey see, monkey do."

A person almost always restrains actions that would kill another member of their own species.
And average people don't feel the need for such intense inhibition regarding sexual behavior—in fact, they embrace it quite readily.
Just imagine if the entire world started having sex in all sorts of combinations constantly, simply because TV portrays it as normal and desirable twenty times a day. 😁
That is especially concerning when it comes to children.

But then again, maybe I'm wrong. 🤷

Henry Sullivan3 said:It’s nothing more than kids playing. Why stop them from having their innocent fun? Besides, getting some physical activity is great for their health, and honestly, getting beat up once in a while can actually make a person think and grow a bit smarter...

Where does the idea come from that intelligence is linked to violence? Are bullies actually considered smart people now?

Intelligence—especially that Machiavellian kind of intellect you see in highly evolved primates—could actually be viewed as a sophisticated form of psychological aggression. It's basically a type of violence where the mind achieves what the body might not be able to handle physically...

Basically, I get your point—it's okay to be a Stalin, an aggressor who lives to crush others. In the end, most bullies have come out on top historically, and modern society doesn't really want to go back to their "philosophy." We try at least a little bit to prevent certain groups from regressing into the Stone Age. So what does that mean? Did the weaker, less intelligent people finally win out over the strong and smart? Or did society just take a wrong turn by moving away from constant slaughter and inventing things like "freedom" and "individual rights"?

Come on, pull yourself together.

I mean, would you actually grant rights and freedom to a weaker individual? Why not just kill them if we have the chance, wipe out their kids, and take whatever we want? That's how it works, right!?

Why on earth would we do that? I don't follow...

Now you're talking about laws and what's allowed. Human stupidity has been the longest-running theme in history, and that same stupidity is what creates and changes laws. There's a massive difference between what's legal today versus what was acceptable a thousand years ago, which seems to align more with your viewpoint. And as for monuments, I don't think many people are building statues to thugs and tyrants. Neither Hitler, nor Stalin, nor Hussein have monuments dedicated to them anywhere, even though they were quite successful at crushing those they deemed "weaker" or "dumber."

This thread is getting ridiculous.

Look, there's such a thing as kid's play... like when they pretend to fight wars or whatever... but it stops being fun the second someone's teeth get knocked out or they're getting kicked until they're bleeding. Or is that just part of the game to you?

And I totally disagree with the idea that being smarter makes you a better fighter... I'd argue that smarter people are actually more peaceful, because they actually use their brains and realize there’s no real reason to kill, since they can solve their problems through other means instead of just resorting to brute force...
And all those monuments we build to "great leaders" who spent their lives slaughtering people and conquering territory? I don't see that as anything remotely legitimate. That's really the sickest part of our society... viewing those kinds of people as heroes... heroes who sent thousands of their own people to die while they stayed perfectly safe... imagine the sheer "courage" it takes to command an army and just watch them get slaughtered...
People in general tend to value all the wrong things in society. Killing is definitely one of them...

... kids learn how to navigate the real world through play... meanwhile, adults go to absurd lengths to follow their raw instincts—even if they’re too proud to admit it—by weaponizing every social mechanism at their disposal... when it comes to sexuality, instinct tells them that they alone should be allowed to reproduce, and that everyone else should be blocked from doing so. So, they bake that bias right into their morality, their worldview, their legal systems, and their basic etiquette. Honestly, I might as well be from Mars... and that's how we end up in this ridiculous situation where society says, "Sure, you can kill him, but you definitely can't kiss him"... right?

It seems like there's an "either/or" mentality here based on some of the posts I've read—as if people think if they watch violence, they aren't watching porn, and vice versa. But let’s be real: one is bad enough, yet both are. It’s wrong. Both are harmful, and any psychologist you ask will tell you the exact same thing. Since when was it considered okay for kids to be exposed to violence? Just because parents might recoil and flip the channel during an intimate scene doesn't suddenly make the violence they allowed beforehand acceptable.
The point remains: constant, repeated exposure to pornography has devastating consequences for children. As for violence, I believe we need much stricter regulations on TV; honestly, I see it as the even bigger issue. And I don't care who tries to claim that pornography is somehow beautiful or connected to love. It simply isn't.

Look, I can't even wrap my head around reading this entire thread right now.

But man, you're talking like you've been eavesdropping on my life all week.

I've noticed it too—it feels like there isn't a single movie or show out there anymore that doesn't rely on guns or some crazy violence.

Unless we're talking about adult films, which are obviously off-limits for kids 😁 it's just depressing

------------------

Unless one day they decide to just broadcast a clip of Girls 1 Cup or 1man1jar on the news 😁

Or maybe Lemonparty...

Or something straight out of those dark corners of the web like Strangeland, Inhumanity, or God...

Everything's just gone to hell!!111!1

click here: http://meatspin.com/
http://www.1guy2needles.com/

---------

Morgan Bishop4 said:Did ten-year-olds used to go out and watch Terminator or Rambo and then start roaming the streets acting like they're in a movie, killing everyone because they thought "Hasta la vista, baby" was a great way to live?!
Of course not... because parents and schools exist to raise them and tell them that killing isn't okay...

In the same vein, parents can talk to their kids about STDs, how pregnancy works, and how incredibly painful it can be, so kids actually understand what they're getting into...

And as if ten-year-old boys aren't watching porn!?!?! Obviously, they'd want to mess around, but they don't have anyone to do it with, and even if they did, they wouldn't have a clue what they're doing... no matter how many millions of porn videos they watch... because they're just kids... and honestly, I don't think they'd even like it... I mean, how much pleasure can a ten-year-old really get from sex!?! They aren't even developed yet...

I'm totally with the OP on this... I hate how much violence is shoved down our throats on TV. Even in the regular news, you hear about some killer or a massive accident with a thousand dead, and then at 8 PM, they're showing bodies and blood on the highway and stuff like that... it's just... it's not just bad for kids, it's depressing for adults too...

The OP doesn't have to be some nudist, and I don't think everyone would be hooking up left and right if people were just more open about sex... though, personally, I think being more open would be pretty great...

Just imagine if your parents were talking to you about pregnancy and STDs when you were seven, eight, nine, or ten years old... maybe sharing their own experiences... since most people have dealt with something like a yeast infection or whatever... if I were a little kid and I was allowed to do whatever I wanted, but I had to listen to stories about someone having a nasty infection, how itchy it was, or how someone got pregnant, went for an abortion, and was basically falling apart from the pain... I wouldn't even dream of hooking up...

But this way, when everything is forbidden and treated like a taboo, it just makes it so much more interesting to them...

This is spot on. People don't talk about it because the very words "sexuality" or "sexual nature" are viewed as something dirty. But let’s be real: staying silent certainly doesn't kill curiosity. Kids will find answers somewhere else—which usually means turning to pornography.

Morgan Bishop4 said:Did ten-year-olds used to go out and watch Terminator or Rambo and then start roaming the streets acting like they're in a movie, killing everyone because they thought "Hasta la vista, baby" was a great way to live?!
Of course not... because parents and schools exist to raise them and tell them that killing isn't okay...

In the same vein, parents can talk to their kids about STDs, how pregnancy works, and how incredibly painful it can be, so kids actually understand what they're getting into...

And as if ten-year-old boys aren't watching porn!?!?! Obviously, they'd want to mess around, but they don't have anyone to do it with, and even if they did, they wouldn't have a clue what they're doing... no matter how many millions of porn videos they watch... because they're just kids... and honestly, I don't think they'd even like it... I mean, how much pleasure can a ten-year-old really get from sex!?! They aren't even developed yet...

I'm totally with the OP on this... I hate how much violence is shoved down our throats on TV. Even in the regular news, you hear about some killer or a massive accident with a thousand dead, and then at 8 PM, they're showing bodies and blood on the highway and stuff like that... it's just... it's not just bad for kids, it's depressing for adults too...

The OP doesn't have to be some nudist, and I don't think everyone would be hooking up left and right if people were just more open about sex... though, personally, I think being more open would be pretty great...

Just imagine if your parents were talking to you about pregnancy and STDs when you were seven, eight, nine, or ten years old... maybe sharing their own experiences... since most people have dealt with something like a yeast infection or whatever... if I were a little kid and I was allowed to do whatever I wanted, but I had to listen to stories about someone having a nasty infection, how itchy it was, or how someone got pregnant, went for an abortion, and was basically falling apart from the pain... I wouldn't even dream of hooking up...

But this way, when everything is forbidden and treated like a taboo, it just makes it so much more interesting to them...

Unfortunately, I can't really agree with that. In my extended family, I actually know a fourteen-year-old who got pregnant and then, well, had an abortion. It's obvious that fourteen isn't the same as ten, but kids today have access to everything through the internet. Once they start having sex, you can bet there was masturbation involved too, and let's face it, a fourteen-year-old girl is probably going to turn to porn for answers. And despite all that "sex education" available online, and all the news stories about teen pregnancies, our dear little friend here ended up having unprotected sex and getting pregnant.☕

I also should mention that pornography creates these totally unrealistic expectations about sex. You've got women moaning constantly, everyone seems to have huge breasts, and every guy is built like a stallion. So... yeah.

Megan Nguyen22 said:It seems like there's an "either/or" mentality here based on some of the posts I've read—as if people think if they watch violence, they aren't watching porn, and vice versa. But let’s be real: one is bad enough, yet both are. It’s wrong. Both are harmful, and any psychologist you ask will tell you the exact same thing. Since when was it considered okay for kids to be exposed to violence? Just because parents might recoil and flip the channel during an intimate scene doesn't suddenly make the violence they allowed beforehand acceptable.
The point remains: constant, repeated exposure to pornography has devastating consequences for children. As for violence, I believe we need much stricter regulations on TV; honestly, I see it as the even bigger issue. And I don't care who tries to claim that pornography is somehow beautiful or connected to love. It simply isn't.

Pornography has nothing to do with love, but it serves as a decent release through masturbation. Besides, any healthy person has a sexual drive and will masturbate if they can't find someone to hook up with. But not everyone has a drive for violence, since that's inherently negative—you're inflicting pain on a living being or taking a life, etc.—yet we're still served up that stuff to watch.
The way a 40-year-old man masturbates to porn is exactly how a 12-year-old would want to do it, yet we tell him he can't. Why shouldn't he?
If we're going to say no, then let's stop with the double standards and get rid of all those slaughters that those same 12-year-olds watch on TV. Sex itself is a normal, natural thing, and it only leaves harmful effects on a child because we adults, in our infinite "wisdom," portray it as something immoral and twisted.
A century ago, women didn't even swim in the ocean; they'd wade in wearing dresses just covering their lower legs so it wouldn't be "sinful" to see their bodies. We don't live in those times anymore, and regarding sexuality, I think we're moving forward. It's good that people feel less shame and that sex isn't constantly depicted as something bad. How can something be bad when it's a fundamental need for everyone and the reason we're even here in the first place? I have the urge to masturbate more times a day than I have the urge to eat, and when people eat, they show it on TV. Why isn't nutrition a taboo? I don't care what someone has for dinner at 5 PM! I'd rather have porn!

And I agree with casualharbor9.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if there’s some much deeper political agenda driving all this violence. I'm not trying to dive headfirst into conspiracy theories here, but this constant barrage of brutality is definitely desensitizing us. It's reached a point where watching these horrific scenes—whether in movies or real life—has just become our version of saying "good morning."
Take the last twenty years, for example. Back then, seeing a mangled corpse on TV was enough to make anyone turn away in horror. But over the last decade, thanks to endless shows like *CSI* or *Dexter*, we're constantly bombarded with the most revolting footage of human decay, autopsies, and gruesome crime scenes. Two decades ago, people would have been physically sick; today, we've become completely numb to it. It feels like these shows are specifically designed to strip away our empathy. And as for how this is affecting our kids? We honestly don't know yet, and that's the scary part.