At a office meeting, I shared that I bought street snacks in Asia. Some new guy said, “You got Asian street meat?” And i nodded. He proceeds to tell the whole office about how I got Asian street meat to the confused/nervous laughs from everyone. I didn’t know what it meant.
Manager then called me in asking why did I share that, and I explained. Then he explained what Asian Street Meat was (to my absolute horror), called in the other guy, and went off on him. New guy quit after six months.
Honestly I had no idea what it actually was until the responses to this thread. I just thoughtit was funny. Now my comment is pretty funny without any context.
It’s a bot from kbin that started posting yesterday. Some lemmy instances temporarily blocked the community it was coming from until the kbin admins fix it.
This isn’t even funny. my parents weren’t that tech savvy and i learnt about porn from about 4th grade or so. parents need to be in control of what their children are browsing
Do you feel like you’re a worse person for learning about porn at such a young age? I also learned about porn around that age (2nd~4th grade) and I feel like it had no impact on my life whatsoever as an adult.
The funny part of the post is referring to “teaching crabs how to read” as “forbidden knowledge”
It’s not about making me a worse person. It lead to addiction. At first it was maybe once a week…then twice a week…every two days…and then to about 2-3 times in a day. It’s hard to come out of it
IDK, teenagers masturbating a lot isn’t only new since porn access has become ubiquitous… Humans can obviously get addicted to all kinds of things and might need help controlling that addiction.
The unrealistic expectations induced by porn have the capacity to negatively impact sex and relationships for generations. Nobody explains to kids that this is acting, that you should have mutual consent on what goes, and choking isn’t required. To me that part is the even bigger danger.
If you’re talking about masterbating, then that’s not unusual or a bad thing necessarily. I didn’t encounter porn until late high school yet I would do that frequency as a younger kid. That’s normal for boys. What’s not normal is that you seem to have pathologized it.
Porn or sex addiction isn’t a thing. In general, people who struggle with porn or sex are living in social environments that have pathologized them, and the struggle is in trying to conform to social expectations that make normal human experiences taboo.
I hate these coomer groomers silently downvoting your comment. Parents do need to be in control until the age of 15-16, in addition to teaching them openly proper stuff about various kinds of addictions and psychological harms.
There’s a difference between passive blocking and surveillance. The former is a safety measure that’s perfectly sufficient to keep bad stuff away. The latter is an invasion of privacy that has no benefit, and many unsavory consequences on a child’s sense of trust and autonomy. Blockers are enough.
It is a safe assumption that every human, at the age of puberty, will search for porn or sonething similar. If not, your kid is asexual.
A blocker will prevent that search. You know that search will take place. Heck, you did it and at some point in time got away with it.
What possible purpose would you as a parent have for knowing the details of that search? That is just a gross invasion of a very private phase in development. You might as well add cameras to the bedroom to see if your kid, who is obviously past puberty, is masturbating (of course they are - checking on it is just disgusting and creepy).
You want kids at the age of 12 (or when puberty hits) to fall into porn addiction in the name of freedom and privacy? That is very fucked up. And I say that as a privacy advocate. Privacy does not need to be the same for vulnerable children and matured adults who are mentally strong enough to make their decisions.
An interesting tangent is that this could entail the extinction of several human-designed strains of animal which are not well equipped to live in the wild.
So mote it be I guess.
Base genetics are still around for the chicken, pig, and sheep, but the Aurochs’s extinction means we irrevocably altered the cow. I’m sure a few varieties of cow would adapt to the wild though.
Buffalo may need to keep their vestigial wings too.
More broadly, the answer is that it doesn’t really matter that much. Species go extinct all the time, and with humans around the rate has been astronomically higher. Replacing animal products with plant based or cell based products might even have a net benefit in extinctions, since land that would otherwise go towards feeding and raising livestock could instead be let back to nature.
Simple: If the animals were freed they would destroy the ecosystems they were freed in (all ecosystems). They could all be killed so they don’t cause any impact. The animals would be suffering from pain, illnesses and slow deaths just as nature intended. Animals would not turn vegans. The world would probably suffer a supply issue. Everyone would be weak, unhealthy and have a lower lifetime cause of their horrible diet. Everyone would be hypocrite as they kill plants and don’t feel remorse just because they’re killing something that can’t walk and doesn’t have eyes and mouth.
lemmy.ml
Newest