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)
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.