it's easy for me to see almost no connection between viewing violence and people commiting violent behavior. It's much easier for me to see a connection between sexy media and sexual behavior with consequences like teen pregnancy and STDs.

I watch a violent movie yet I don't want to commit violent acts after. I watch a sexy movie and I do start to desire to have sex.

it seems therefore reasonable to argue that violent media has no consequences but sexy media does.

No idea in reality if sexy media has real world consequences.

You've been tangoed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV8zGNe7Ebg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Man_(advertisement)

> The advertisement features an orange man slapping a Tango drinker across the cheeks, a wacky metaphor for tasting Tango, and was intended as a reaction against the norm of "cause and effect" television advertising at the time was largely focused on scenarios where peoples lives were improved by the product being advertised. Orange Man caused controversy after reports of injuries when children began copying the events of the advertisement in school playgrounds, and was subsequently banned, with two other versions of Orange Man replacing it, both showing different scenarios aside from slapping.

I don’t necessarily agree that game/movie violence leads to violence in real life, such a claim requires proof, however at this point we can see an obvious correlation.

American culture prefers violence in movies/games, while banning nudity and waging an expensive war on drugs and yet it has some of the highest rates of violence, teen pregnancies and drug addictions among the western countries.

IMO you should rethink your assumptions. When it comes to stats and trends, this isn’t about you or your preferences.

Second: if we're going to go by anecdotal evidence, then we'll definitely have to ban anything remotely violent, as kids imitate that. While anything but overt depictions of sexuality are fine, since kids tend not to imitate them.

Oh, and we should also ban the Teletubbies. Some kids started to hug their oversized tv sets ("big hug!"), causing it to topple and hurt the children.

Alternatively, we could try standards not based on anecdotal evidence or one small group's moral views.

Nudity can lead to sex, but it can also contribute to sexual education (which reduces teen pregnancy and STD risk). It can also change you body image in negative or positive ways. It depends a lot on the content, the environment and the person.

In any case, America's war on the nipple is in no proportion to the risks.

In otherwords it's possible violent media has little consequence, sexy media has consequences.

This is a response as to why some cultures are okay with violent media and not okay with sexy media.

Sorry, I just cannot take you seriously after that. Dude, people used to have kids even younger than that, when media didn’t even exist.

If you really want to rationalise current mores, you could try looking at how kids might have to use or face violence earlier that they get any sexual instinct, so they should be trained right away. But it’s still a baseless theory to justify a state of things mostly driven by arbitrary religious taboos.

I think 16yr olds watching pornhub with gangbangs and other extreme sexual behavior leads some 16yr olds to seek that out. Something my parents for example had zero exposure too when they were growing up in the 50s. Where would they have seen that kind of stuff at 16?

https://qz.com/849487/they-go-into-a-different-world-and-we-...

https://www.bbc.com/news/education-36527681

Note: I'm an in no way suggesting going back or banning anything. I'm only responding to the very common argument

> Q: Why is a sexual media considered harmful to children while graphic displays of violence aren’t? I will never understand that norm.

A: Sexual media has measurable consequences, violent media does not (so far)