Growing up in the country, I saw sex at a young age,as most boys do, and figured out what was happening. We had horses, and it does not take much to see whats going on when they get horny, rub against things, with their penises extended, and then mount. And chickens, and dogs, and cats. I had it figured out early.
But now that we live so far removed from nature, yes, maybe sex seems foreign. But I always have thought of the great god Pan, and as a loosely believing pagan, with a small p, admired this line of thought.
There's no evidence that seeing nudity and sex harms teens; in Sweden and Scandinavia, you can buy such things as soon as you sprout t a few hairs down there.
I don't support censorship in general, but why the US Supreme Court decided gecided violence is OK, and simple nudity is not OK for teems baffles me. There really is no rational explanation, merely superstition, taboo, the force of outmoded morality.
From the notes of USSC justice Breyer, on the case:
"What sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting a sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her? What kind of First Amendment would permit the government to protect children by restricting sales of that extremely violent video game only when the woman -- bound, gagged, tortured, and killed -- is also topless?"
US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, notes on a case that allows children to view graphic violence without parental consent, but not nudity, or *gasp*, sex.
Why does Janet Jackson's breast popping out cause a furor, while the raping and violence of games like Grand Theft Auto has been given the go ahead by the Supreme Court to be OK for kids? Why do we attach such stigma to the things that bring us pleasure, as opposed to pain? Good God, a breast is a life sustaining thing, those things we suckled as babies. And somehow, that is worse than violent video games?