The soldier analogy maybe would make sense if kids' books weren't chock full of stories of soldiers in wars. If kids' movies weren't mostly based on plots of violence involving people fighting in wars. If kids didn't "play army" consistently. If kids were never exposed to veterans through school assemblies. If military recruiters weren't given full access to schools. But unfortunately, all of these things happen, I experienced them when I was in school.

It's foolish to think war and soldiers aren't heavily, heavily romanticized in our society, and much of that romanticization is directly aimed at children. I do think this is getting less bad over time, luckily. I know the military is having a difficult time recruiting enough people, so that's good.

But fundamentally, I think sex is cool and good while war is lame and bad, so I would have zero issue with an onlyfans model teaching children and I would not want a veteran or national guard reservist teaching children.

[–] Carguacountii@hexbear.net 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I used the analogy because of how people (parents especially) feel about war, and because its a thing that carries great risks of harm and exploitation, being a soldier. Of course there are circumstances where a parent, out of desperation usually (sometimes out of greed) - as a matter of survival - would be ok with it. But generally speaking, people who aren't desperate don't want their children to be soldiers, they want them to be happy, prosperous, not maimed, not violent and so on, so there has to be a lot of incentive and propaganda around it to convince people - and even then it finds a lot of resistance from people.

I know that soldiers are romanticized, and so is violence, but I don't think that because that occurs, education of children should be a free for all - gambling is another example, because its something that children (and adults of course, but that's a different though related issue) are vulnerable to taking a bad lesson from exposure to, that can lead to harmful consequences for them and others.

Sex is cool, but it can also be harmful, in and of itself or as an aspect of a relationship with others. War is similar - if a soldier is defending out of necessity their people from violence or theft, that's cool, but there is a lot of scope for it not being cool. Things like this, that have a great potential for harm and risk of harm, for individuals and communities, need to be treated very carefully and cautiously when it comes to children (and really, adults of course, but especially children). Despite sex being (usually) cool, its not I don't think an issue to request that teachers of children, as role models and authority figures, should not be pornographers - just as they should not be soldiers.

[–] Are_Euclidding_Me@hexbear.net 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I still think you're putting sex and war at the same general level of harm and I simply disagree with that moral ranking. Sex is almost always positive, war is almost always negative. These are not the same.

[–] TheLepidopterists@hexbear.net 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Sex is almost always positive

I'm sorry, but this is an absurd statement. Sex between consenting adults without coercion, in which neither party is violating an existing relationships boundaries is generally neutral to positive but that is a ton of qualifiers.

It's often positive, not almost always.

[–] Are_Euclidding_Me@hexbear.net 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, sure, you're right of course. Sex can be super damaging in certain contexts. I do still think that fundamentally sex is a beautiful, wonderful part of the human experience while war is an occasional unpleasant necessity that it would really be better to do without if at all possible. They seem fundamentally different to me, and I'd like a world with more (and better) sex and less war. But you're right, sex with no qualifiers isn't "almost always" good. That's a very good point.

[–] TheLepidopterists@hexbear.net 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Right, and sex work often ends up being one of the situations where people get abused right? Like if someone is making money on onlyfans, more power to them, but much of the sex work being performed in the world is being done by desperate people who'd rather not do it?

[–] Are_Euclidding_Me@hexbear.net 5 points 9 months ago

Yeah, that's true. That's part of why in every reply I've made in this thread I've specifically been sure to say "onlyfans model" and not sex worker more broadly. Because there is a ton of exploitation in porn. I don't know, I'm just grumpy that sex is treated as this terrible, dirty thing that must be hidden at all costs and never talked about. It's one of my main issues with the puritanical society we live in, it's damn near impossible to have good conversations about sex, or treat it as something that can (and should be) positive.

Anyway, I'm about to logout and touch-grass , so I likely won't be responding. I hope you have a great day! (And I always love seeing you around, with your good takes and your Venture Bros references!)