this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2026
279 points (95.4% liked)
Comic Strips
22465 readers
1433 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- AI-generated comics aren't allowed.
- Limit of two posts per person per day.
- Bots aren't allowed.
- Banned users will have their posts removed.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You call it puritanical, but if you allow an "anything goes" mentality to prevail in media, and then young men and adolescent boys start emulating the behaviors they absorb through their hypersexualized media, you'll call them deviants and sex pests and you'll wrack your brain trying to figure out why that behavior is normalized.
If media depicts women as gratuitous sex objects, you'll take issue with it, right? But then you ask why sexually explicit content should be censored, and suggest that it could only be because of puritanism?
Because, what's the assumption? That A), media doesn't influence behavior; and B), sexual activity isn't maladaptive?
If both are true, then how do you justify all the arguments about depicting women and minorities in media? Cause it seems like those arguments often contradict Assumption A above...
For the record, I'm not arguing in favor or against. Just encouraging logical consistency, because I don't find cognitive dissonance very convincing.
Kids emulating bad behaviours from outside influences is called "bad parenting". The best teachers are parents and a kid can learn to recognise the morals or lack of morals before them if their parents take the time to actually talk to their kids.
The only way a toxic outside influence will effect a kid to the point where they grow up emulating it, is because the parents failed at being good role models.
Sex isn't bad, lack of consent is bad.
That's a really convenient way of turning things around to make me sound like a monster for something that I didn't say.
I never mentioned non-consensual material. In fact, depictions of non-consensual scenes are often used to demonstrate the monstrosity of it. Maya Angelou discusses non-consensual experiences, to call attention to the heinousness.
That's a red herring though, because I didn't ask "should non-consensual media be banned?" I asked "Should media that depicts women as gratuitous sex objects be banned?" That type of media wouldn't bother depicting non-consensual scenes, because the author can easily write consent into it any way he wants. People would be complaining about the sexualized depictions of women.
They even have terms for it. "Written for the male gaze," "Jezebel," etc. But how is banning that sort of content any different from banning 50 Shades of Grey or smutty literotica in general?