Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

minors viewing explicit content

PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 11:28:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In our society, it is ok for minors to view violent and gory content depicting killing and death, yet it is taboo to view sexual content that depicts lovemaking and joy. I am not advocating for either.

Discuss.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 11:35:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'd say both are reasonably stupid (the restrictions).
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 7:45:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 11:35:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I'd say both are reasonably stupid (the restrictions).

Does your username relate to your viewing of explicit content?
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 7:46:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 7:45:47 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:35:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I'd say both are reasonably stupid (the restrictions).

Does your username relate to your viewing of explicit content?

*headdesk*

...

No.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 7:53:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 7:46:32 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/23/2014 7:45:47 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:35:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I'd say both are reasonably stupid (the restrictions).

Does your username relate to your viewing of explicit content?

*headdesk*

...

No.

It does now.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 7:53:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 7:53:05 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/23/2014 7:46:32 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/23/2014 7:45:47 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:35:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I'd say both are reasonably stupid (the restrictions).

Does your username relate to your viewing of explicit content?

*headdesk*

...

No.

It does now.

...
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 8:37:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 7:53:05 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/23/2014 7:46:32 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/23/2014 7:45:47 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:35:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I'd say both are reasonably stupid (the restrictions).

Does your username relate to your viewing of explicit content?

*headdesk*

...

No.

It does now.

I smirked and nodded slightly in approval.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 8:56:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 8:37:30 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 10/23/2014 7:53:05 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/23/2014 7:46:32 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/23/2014 7:45:47 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:35:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I'd say both are reasonably stupid (the restrictions).

Does your username relate to your viewing of explicit content?

*headdesk*

...

No.

It does now.

I smirked and nodded slightly in approval.

*likes*
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 9:07:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 11:28:24 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
In our society, it is ok for minors to view violent and gory content depicting killing and death, yet it is taboo to view sexual content that depicts lovemaking and joy. I am not advocating for either.

Discuss.

One doesn't generally get "turned on" by violence.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 9:08:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 9:07:03 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:28:24 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
In our society, it is ok for minors to view violent and gory content depicting killing and death, yet it is taboo to view sexual content that depicts lovemaking and joy. I am not advocating for either.

Discuss.

One doesn't generally get "turned on" by violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 9:09:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 9:08:57 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/23/2014 9:07:03 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:28:24 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
In our society, it is ok for minors to view violent and gory content depicting killing and death, yet it is taboo to view sexual content that depicts lovemaking and joy. I am not advocating for either.

Discuss.

One doesn't generally get "turned on" by violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I fail to see your point. Please elaborate.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 9:11:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 9:09:50 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/23/2014 9:08:57 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/23/2014 9:07:03 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:28:24 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
In our society, it is ok for minors to view violent and gory content depicting killing and death, yet it is taboo to view sexual content that depicts lovemaking and joy. I am not advocating for either.

Discuss.

One doesn't generally get "turned on" by violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I fail to see your point. Please elaborate.

While people dont technically get "tuned on" by violence, they take great pleasure in viewing it. I fail to see the relevance of this to the OP>
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 9:22:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 11:28:24 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
In our society, it is ok for minors to view violent and gory content depicting killing and death, yet it is taboo to view sexual content that depicts lovemaking and joy. I am not advocating for either.

Discuss.

I think I'll start by pointing out that you're wholly incorrect, and minors are restricted from viewing both in equal measure.

I think what you're looking for is an exploration of the fact that viewing sex at all is taboo, while viewing violence is celebrated, even among adults.

My response to that is that violence will never get old, because it's something that most people avoid and which is banned across the board in most societies in action. However, almost everyone will have sex at some point in their lives, and force and young children aside, the law is relatively lax about people engaging in it. Thus, I think that people in general have a natural aversion to inundating ourselves with sex in a casual way, because it will make the act itself less exciting. That could be pretty bad for the species, methinks.

Of course, there was a time when sex was everywhere, all over the streets. There were frequent orgies, etc. But, there's two things about that. The people of those societies ended up pretty deviant after a while, likely to keep that spark burning. Also, when they weren't having sex, everything else they were doing was sharply distinct from sex. But nowadays, media is everywhere. If sex became a casual, public thing, we'd probably become more accustomed to nudity, for example, than people who are fully clothed. We would see sex more than any other act. It would be, well... kind of awesome for a little while, and then we'd all get obsessed with something else.

Which is just no bueno.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 9:28:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 9:07:03 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:28:24 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
In our society, it is ok for minors to view violent and gory content depicting killing and death, yet it is taboo to view sexual content that depicts lovemaking and joy. I am not advocating for either.

Discuss.

One doesn't generally get "turned on" by violence.

I get turned on by violence, but only when it's inflicted on me by a hot girl.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 9:29:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 9:22:07 PM, Such wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:28:24 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
In our society, it is ok for minors to view violent and gory content depicting killing and death, yet it is taboo to view sexual content that depicts lovemaking and joy. I am not advocating for either.

Discuss.

I think I'll start by pointing out that you're wholly incorrect, and minors are restricted from viewing both in equal measure.

Not in the USA. I get a prison sentence for showing a minor sexually explicit material, but a minor can view violent and gory material so long as they are accompanied by an adult.


I think what you're looking for is an exploration of the fact that viewing sex at all is taboo, while viewing violence is celebrated, even among adults.

Yes.


My response to that is that violence will never get old, because it's something that most people avoid and which is banned across the board in most societies in action. However, almost everyone will have sex at some point in their lives, and force and young children aside, the law is relatively lax about people engaging in it.


It appears that this is an argument for increased restrictions on violent material, and less on sexual material.

Of course, there was a time when sex was everywhere, all over the streets. There were frequent orgies, etc. But, there's two things about that. The people of those societies ended up pretty deviant after a while, likely to keep that spark burning. Also, when they weren't having sex, everything else they were doing was sharply distinct from sex. But nowadays, media is everywhere. If sex became a casual, public thing, we'd probably become more accustomed to nudity, for example, than people who are fully clothed. We would see sex more than any other act. It would be, well... kind of awesome for a little while, and then we'd all get obsessed with something else.

Which is just no bueno.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 8:23:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 9:29:11 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/23/2014 9:22:07 PM, Such wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:28:24 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
In our society, it is ok for minors to view violent and gory content depicting killing and death, yet it is taboo to view sexual content that depicts lovemaking and joy. I am not advocating for either.

Discuss.

I think I'll start by pointing out that you're wholly incorrect, and minors are restricted from viewing both in equal measure.

Not in the USA. I get a prison sentence for showing a minor sexually explicit material, but a minor can view violent and gory material so long as they are accompanied by an adult.

That's simply not true. Even in some PG-13 movies, there's nudity, which means that a minor can view it unaccompanied. Of course, "adult situations," which is simply non-graphic sexual material, can appear in PG-13 movies, as well. As long as they're accompanied by an adult, a child can watch a rated R movie, whether it's rated R for sexually explicit material or for gory violence. It's not as though a movie rated R for its sexual content results in some sort of refusal from the ticketmaster. In any case, ultraviolence and graphic sexual material (short of pornography) are considered one and the same.

So, I think what you're getting at is pornography. Well, the difference is, they're really having sex. So, for something violent to be comparable, it would need to be actual violence. Well, there's two variations of those -- violent documentaries and snuff films, and neither are for general public consumption. You need to seek them out, much like pornography, and they're minor restricted, much like pornography.

As far as legality is concerned, I think it depends on the state. In Texas, for example, it's not illegal to show porn to your kids: http://watchdogblog.dallasnews.com...

I think what you're looking for is an exploration of the fact that viewing sex at all is taboo, while viewing violence is celebrated, even among adults.

Yes.

Well, I already gave one reason why it's taboo. But, lets explore this further -- why not. This conversation is already one-sided, so fuckit.

Viewing sex is celebrated, too. One doesn't go all the way like porn does -- we don't zoom into the point of penetration and watch the ejaculation happen and all that -- but, we still love sex. Just about everything is sexualized. Most advertisement is sexualized. The Alien franchise is sexualized. Children, with their beauty pageants and inclusion in foreign and local cartoons, are unfortunately sexualized. Everything is. People love sex, much like how they love food and physical competition like sports. It's part of our makeup. Give me some feedback here, where are you at with all of this?

My response to that is that violence will never get old, because it's something that most people avoid and which is banned across the board in most societies in action. However, almost everyone will have sex at some point in their lives, and force and young children aside, the law is relatively lax about people engaging in it.


It appears that this is an argument for increased restrictions on violent material, and less on sexual material.

No. It's an argument that suggests that greater leniency on sex would make it banal, and who wants that? Not me! I like being turned on by provocative clothing and suggestive behavior. That would go out the window if I could just whip it out and beat one in while waiting in line at the DMV whenever, without repercussion. Who would even go to clubs anymore? You know? Scantily clad would be meaningless. Women would need to do something drastic just to get attention. Men would need to do something disgusting just to ejaculate. It would be madness!

I think, let's just not. And, i think that's also why we've gone in that direction, as far as sexual taboos are concerned. Otherwise, everything wouldn't be so imbued with sexuality, while so muted at the same time. Everything is a suggestion, an insinuation, an innuendo. But, you can't just turn on the TV and see breasts -- that's for pay television, like HBO. But, it comes part and parcel with the gory violence we love, and I don't know about you, but I freaking love Game of Thrones.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:09:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 11:28:24 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
In our society, it is ok for minors to view violent and gory content depicting killing and death, yet it is taboo to view sexual content that depicts lovemaking and joy. I am not advocating for either.

Discuss.

I think in general, that "protecting" kids from "the world" is something that sounds nice in theory and in some regards has positive impacts but more frequently than not translates into very bad outcomes.

I think the continuum of parenting is probably something like this:

<===lower class working parents===upper middle class two-income households===normal middle class parents===lower middle class religious parents===tiger parents===middle class helicopter parents with one working parent and a stay at home parent===>

There are arrows on both ends because obviously, a child could be totally abandoned in the world, and on the other end, a child could be totally shielded from the outside world... but those are the "most common" variations...

The reason these parenting styles are important is because they affect how kids relate to the world; parenting is the first "step" in the socialization process, and their impact is often more lasting and prominent than one might at first think.

There is a balance, I think, between upper middle class two income households and normal middle class parents that is probably the ideal balance between being "protected" and "exposed."

The idea is that we want kids to learn to be independent, to function on their own, to think critically and for themselves, to play by the rules and all other aspects of being a productive member of society.

Exposing them to too much violence at too young an age (like, watching Braveheart at 5) probably isn't a good idea. But, I think most 11 or 12 year olds are capable of understanding complicated moral issues like revenge, suffering and the like by that age -although it might be good to explain them just to be sure.

There is no evidence which causally links "viewing violent movies" or "video games" with aggressive behavior, although there is generally a trend that kids who are exposed to violence in their families do tend to play more violent video games and also tend to be more aggressive. But, even absent the video games, the aggressive behavior still more or less causally results from kids' witnessing members of their families commit violent acts and those kids' exhibiting violent or otherwise aggressive behavior themselves. That's been the case since the dawn of man, though.

So, like a dad beating up the kid's mom is "explicit content" that no kid should ever see; but only because no one should ever see that. It's not that kids should uniquely be shielded from spousal abuse. But, I think that 'most' kids who are at least 9 or 10 can distinguish between fantasy or TV and reality.

I also think that the stigma that people place on sex is absurd, but that doesn't mean that I think kids should be allowed to watch porn. The fact that women's nipples are not allowed on American TV yet American Horror Story is, nonetheless, is monstrously idiotic. While it may be unfair to compare "sex" and "violence" in terms of their relative degrees of cultural taboo, they're both taboo, but for different reasons.
Tsar of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:16:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 11:28:24 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
In our society, it is ok for minors to view violent and gory content depicting killing and death, yet it is taboo to view sexual content that depicts lovemaking and joy. I am not advocating for either.

Discuss.

They will need to be prepared for both when they become adults. It is their parent's responsibility to make the decision of when it is right for their child. However, it does need to be noted that because both are a part of life, government cannot create a perfect bubble to "protect" your kids for you. Their are shows that are for adults that have this "adult" (or "mature" if you prefer) content. If you don't want your kids watching it, then you need to stop them.

Of course, I would encourage TV stations to pander their channels to the right demographics, so you don't have a HUB channel go from My Little Pony: Equestira Girls to My Little Pony: Twillight's Rule 34 Spell, Uncensored Edition on the same channel. At least make it possible for the parents to control if they need (those shows should be on two different channels. one of channel 43, and the other on channel 34, so you flip by when channel surfing and catch only a 1/4 second that you will never unsee and it will haunt your dreams).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:22:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 8:56:23 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/23/2014 8:37:30 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 10/23/2014 7:53:05 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/23/2014 7:46:32 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/23/2014 7:45:47 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:35:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I'd say both are reasonably stupid (the restrictions).

Does your username relate to your viewing of explicit content?

*headdesk*

...

No.

It does now.

I smirked and nodded slightly in approval.

*likes*

I'll just say it: you're acting as mature as a ten year old...
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:24:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 9:22:54 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/23/2014 8:56:23 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/23/2014 8:37:30 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 10/23/2014 7:53:05 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/23/2014 7:46:32 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/23/2014 7:45:47 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:35:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I'd say both are reasonably stupid (the restrictions).

Does your username relate to your viewing of explicit content?

*headdesk*

...

No.

It does now.

I smirked and nodded slightly in approval.

*likes*

I'll just say it: you're acting as mature as a ten year old...

dude, it's the internet.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:33:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 9:24:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:22:54 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/23/2014 8:56:23 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/23/2014 8:37:30 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 10/23/2014 7:53:05 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/23/2014 7:46:32 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/23/2014 7:45:47 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:35:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I'd say both are reasonably stupid (the restrictions).

Does your username relate to your viewing of explicit content?

*headdesk*

...

No.

It does now.

I smirked and nodded slightly in approval.

*likes*

I'll just say it: you're acting as mature as a ten year old...

dude, it's the internet.

And I think he's immature.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 11:52:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 9:33:27 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:24:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:22:54 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/23/2014 8:56:23 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/23/2014 8:37:30 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 10/23/2014 7:53:05 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/23/2014 7:46:32 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/23/2014 7:45:47 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:35:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I'd say both are reasonably stupid (the restrictions).

Does your username relate to your viewing of explicit content?

*headdesk*

...

No.

It does now.

I smirked and nodded slightly in approval.

*likes*

I'll just say it: you're acting as mature as a ten year old...

dude, it's the internet.

And I think he's immature.

Come on, my maturity is at least 12.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 11:54:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 11:52:53 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:33:27 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:24:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 9:22:54 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/23/2014 8:56:23 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/23/2014 8:37:30 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 10/23/2014 7:53:05 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/23/2014 7:46:32 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/23/2014 7:45:47 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:35:59 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I'd say both are reasonably stupid (the restrictions).

Does your username relate to your viewing of explicit content?

*headdesk*

...

No.

It does now.

I smirked and nodded slightly in approval.

*likes*

I'll just say it: you're acting as mature as a ten year old...

dude, it's the internet.

And I think he's immature.

Come on, my maturity is at least 12.

No.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Material_Girl
Posts: 264
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 6:21:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Our society is far, far too sex-negative in general, but on a more relevant note, I'd say that the sheltering of children from sex, violence and other things deemed (stupidly, in my opinion) unpleasant actually has a negative impact. I understand that parents love their children and want to construct little utopias of sunshine and rainbows to bring them up in, and companies have to cater to that desire, but violence exists and sex exists (and the latter is something that should be embraced and celebrated) and children are going to either find out about them through gradual introduction that allows them to be fully informed and educated on the topics, or they'll be hit in the face with how sh!tty humans are and the fact that that boy who sent them a Valentine's card might want to stick their d!ck in them once they hit a certain age. Isn't the former a lot more intelligent and mature than being a child and squirming at the notion of showing the kids "yucky stuff?"
http://commissaress.wordpress.com...

Political Compass
Economic Left: -10.00
Social Libertarian: -7.13

Yes, I am an evil godless commie.