Somewhat irrelevant, but: do parents actually have a right to enforce a no-meat diet on their kids?
I understand (say) having a "no meat in the house" rule, telling your kids not to buy meat products with your money, and/or only cooking vegetarian food.
But requiring your kid to adopt a vegetarian diet at all times seems to me like an extremely controlling thing to do.
Maybe it's OK at age 5, but once the kid is old enough to understand the distinction it should be entirely their choice.
But I do think that a good parent would grant their kids a certain level of privacy and autonomy, depending on the child's age and the risks involved.
In this case, the risks of a kid eating meat are fairly low; one kid's chicken tenders aren't going to build a factory farm, and they can always change back to a vegetarian diet later.
(Of course, some vegetarians will have stomach issues if they suddenly start eating meat. The kid should know about that risk, but the reactions in question are usually very mild.)
Funny story though - we have a family relative with younger children who was raising them strictly vegetarian. No meat (the mother insisted), though the dad quietly admitted he eats meat on occasion much to her chagrin. On a family vacation the children were left at the house for dinner, and another relative began preparing a chicken dinner.
The conversation between that relative and the children went something like this:
"Dinner's ready! Come get the chicken!"
"This doesn't have meat in it, right?"
"What? Well, it's chicken!"
"Right, but does that have meat in it?"
"Well... No... Certainly not. This is bona-fide, 100% pure, Grade A Chicken. Now eat!"
Citation?
> biologically speaking naked people arouse a sexual reaction
Have you never been to a nudist beach?
-------
> not [...] morality but consent
"morality" is not distinct from consent: it's more that your/my/our position on sexual morality is grounded in individual consent. "morality" as a word is not shorthand for (Western) Christian or Victorian traditional attitudes and prejudices.
let's look at the statement: "biologically speaking, naked bodies arouse a sexual reaction".
i'm wary of this way of thinking. here's one possible consequence: "anyone who chooses to be naked around me is trying to interact in a sexual way"
when boiled down, the same root of thought leads to dark conclusions, like
- "she was asking for it because she wore revealing clothing"
- "i was sexually aroused and therefore couldn't control myself"
I can't believe this, are you saying naked people don't sexually please other people? That's basically all I said.
Internal shame my ass. How about I use the samw logic and claim you have an internal perversion and desire to abuse others against their will, would that be fair? It works by your messed up logic but I know it is an unfair thing to say so I would never say that.
Facts are facts, let's stick to those. Maybe there are a small minority that feel no sexual desire when they see a naked adult person but since majority are not wired that way (even if they were a minority actually) you have to ask permission first. That's it, ask permission.
And people like you love to blame your upbringing or religion so you can make it about that. Stick to facts. You can pick a random atheist from scandanavia, a chinese buddhist, a muslim from pakistan and an african with a local religion (men that is) and show them a naked porn star and most if not all will be sexually aroused. This is hormones.
You don’t think hyperbolic statements like “porn is the most addictive thing known to man” weren’t going to be challenged?
Sexuality is a very normal part of human life, even if someone does get aroused in the image example (I don’t always from images even with a very high libido), what is the problem with that?
I’ve been places where nudity is normal such as beaches, saunas and gym locker rooms and most times wasn’t aroused at all.
My claim about the addictiveness of porn was an opinion based on what I have leanred and observed. Of course I welcome anyone to show me anything more addictive than your own body and mind.
There is no problem with getting aroused or with sexuality, you and others so far keep twisting what I am saying to be an attempt to police sexuality. Rule #1 of any sexual interaction is consent. If you want to see naked people go ahead. If you want to show your naked self and arouse others, get their consent or at least do it in a way where others can be forewarned and decide to choose or not choose to be part of that experience. Don't take people's choice away so you can feel validated or whatever your reason is.
If you want to go to a nude beach, you are consenting to do that, I am clearly not talking about that. I am talking about getting nude at a normal beach where people who chose to avoid a nude beach go to and force that experience on them, if they get aroused then you just made them part of a sexual encounter without their consent. This is sexually abusive behavior.
Moreover, you people are sociopaths if you don't understand the simple fact that you live in a society and you have to function without harming or harassing others. No significant burden is places upon you other than to get consent from people who you know have a good chance of experiencing sexual arousal with you as the subject before you make them part of that interaction. I mean, I even understand a city where public nudity is allowed so long as visitors to that city are notified when they travel there. I am not even complaining about porn sites that ask your age and let you know the site contains nudity before you see the content.
Heroin.
I made no personal attacks against you. I will say you’re probably not coming across in your comments here the way you believe you are.
Try sticking to facts. Naked people arouse sexual desires in others, yes, myself included and most people from any country and religion (or no religion). If you contest this near universally accepted fact the the burden of proof is on you.
I mean give me a break, even if this was a super religious person keeping themselves or child away from sexual content who are you to tell them they have no right and they must see your dick or vagina whether they like it or not.
Laws are literally getting passed against sending dick pics, how do you feel about that? Is that women who feel shame that support it? Of course not!
grow up and stop thinking about fucking everything you see naked, it’s odd
Implied is an understanding that despite best intentions of the search provider, stuff may slip through.
This is vastly different than being flashed.
You don't appear to understand what that word means. This has nothing to do with consent.
> For a minor, their parent or guardian must consent to show them adult or other traumatizing content.
Pray tell how adult content is "traumatizing"? Before the internet kids used to pull porn magazines out of the trash or sneak down late at night to watch their parent's adult channel subscriptions. Finding it on the internet is the modern era's version of that. Probably in a few more decades we'll have a new version of it again.
> Despite your personal experience, parents and guardians ultimately have the right,authority and responsibility to do their best to ensure the well being of a minor under their care which could mean no porn or even no meat in their diet. You don't have to agree.
I fully achnkowledge that parents have the _right_ to control content if they so wish, however my argument is that they are absurd for doing so. It's not a matter of the child, it's a matter of the personal morals of the parents.
> But let's say porn is not harmful or addictive, showing porn to people against their consent
No one's talking about showing children porn against their consent.
> This isn't about policing morality but consent and it is a shame that it is neccesary to begin with.
That is absolutely what this is about.
No, that's the strawman you want it to be about. Neither I nor no one else talked about preventing any willing person from interacting with sexual content.
> Much worse than adult content is addictive content that forms obsessive behaviors...
There is literally nothing more addicting than porn. Not only that but the long term social and behavioral issues that result from porm addiction are far more harmful than for example cocaine or lsd (which isn't addictive).
But let's say porn is not harmful or addictive, showing porn to people against their consent is a form of sexual abuse much like exposing yourself in public is (despite nudity laws). It boils down to the fact that biologically speaking naked people arouse a sexual reaction and sexual interactions of any kind must be between consenting parties. Period.
This isn't about policing morality but consent and it is a shame that it is neccesary to begin with.