(b) is entirely a deficit of the parents, or of a prudish culture that makes conversations about sexuality taboo. It is not intrinsic to sexuality.
Meanwhile, mainstream culture doesn't bother to similarly "protect" children from alcohol, cigarettes, caffeine, and other vices. It would look weird if parents allowed and encouraged consumption before a certain age (which exactly depends on culture), but we don't bother to hide from them that we consume, and pretty much accept that they will routinely consume at some point too.
We can discuss at length how damaging each of these is, but I find it hard to argue that addictions created by alcohol, cigarettes, and sugar are any less damaging than issues caused by exposure to porn. All of these vices carry danger, but their acceptance in society varies. Because of this, issues with the more taboo ones are more difficult to prevent, to diagnose and to treat.
> (b) is entirely a deficit of the parents, or of a prudish culture that makes conversations about sexuality taboo. It is not intrinsic to sexuality.
That's... my point? It's like you're agreeing with me but in a tone that says you're disagreeing with me.
> I find it hard to argue that addictions created by alcohol, cigarettes, and sugar are any less damaging than issues caused by exposure to porn
I didn't say anything at all about porn, alcohol (except for the 'holding their liquor' metaphor, not meaning children should drink alcohol), cigarettes, or sugar? If not for the fact that you mention my point (b) I would have thought you were replying to the wrong comment. I don't know who is arguing that alcoholism is less damaging than porn, but it isn't me!
Yeah, I went off-topic a bit here. My point was that the dangers of violence and porn and other poorly expressed forms of sexuality are not that different from each other. Your presentation read like (b) would be specific to sexuality for other reasons than culture treating it as taboo. The nuance you describe is not a given.
Meanwhile, mainstream culture doesn't bother to similarly "protect" children from alcohol, cigarettes, caffeine, and other vices. It would look weird if parents allowed and encouraged consumption before a certain age (which exactly depends on culture), but we don't bother to hide from them that we consume, and pretty much accept that they will routinely consume at some point too.
We can discuss at length how damaging each of these is, but I find it hard to argue that addictions created by alcohol, cigarettes, and sugar are any less damaging than issues caused by exposure to porn. All of these vices carry danger, but their acceptance in society varies. Because of this, issues with the more taboo ones are more difficult to prevent, to diagnose and to treat.