Not my words. Look upthread.

>Imo it’s a bit different in this case, as a more natural instinct (sexuality) is affected.

I personally don't see the difference. Violence is a primal instinct and studies on video games and violence only concluded short term increases in aggression. Why would a similar conclusion with yet another primal instinct not conclude with short term increased arousal? I don't see arousal as inherently dangerous.

>how will it affect your view on women if you frequently consume highly sexist content?

Do you feel that people just find "sexist content" from some algorithm, or that already sexist people seek out content to conform to their views? I have my criticisms of Steam, but I am glad they are one of the few bastions left that aren't driven by "engagment boosting" algorithms. Just a simple tag system recommending other content with similar tags and good ratings.

I agree with the undertone that we need better sex education. Those early years where we don't sell content to 10 year olds should be used to talk about the dangers before sending them off. Too bad such groups also go for an all-abstinence approach.

If you start down this road, policing which media people have access to based on your own totally subjective moral standards and interpretations, you will end up with pervasive censorship that severely stunts cultural development. Because who is "you", anyway? The answer is, of course, whichever monstrous nutjob chooses to devote a huge chunk of their time and money to seizing the levers of power so that they can impose their monstrous nutjobbery on everyone else.

Seriously, outside of special, clearly delineated cases with indisputable negative externalities (especially on the production side), when has [effectively] banning certain [types of] media been a net good? Seems to me that all it's good for is political repression and fueling moral panics.