The position itself is so convinced it's right that it avoids any intellectual rigor in understanding why there's a cultural difference between the presentation of sex versus violence.
The understanding is that sex has been considered taboo for the last few hundred years thanks to religion and politics. Yet violence has never been subjected to such views (And has instead been continually reinforced by numerous wars as well as violence as a past time, with things like public executions).
Society has not yet managed to evolve beyond this need to "Protect" against some magical evil that is caused by sex and nudity. Which continues to make modern society lag behind ancient societies (Heck, we've only relatively recently accepted homosexuality again...).
I'm well aware of the reasoning behind the sex vs violence dichotomy. Just because I don't jump at the chance to divulge the reasoning doesn't mean I lack the "Intellectual rigor" to understand it. It simply means that I believe it to be blindingly obvious to anyone who cares to look into it for 2 seconds that I don't feel the need to.
You've literally just outlined the position I consider to be myopic. The "blindingly obvious" position that fails to consider the subject more deeply because it's already considered to be a foregone conclusion.
Religion says sex is a private thing to be shared in marriage. Okay. Dig deeper. Why does religion say that? What does open sexuality do to society? Is there any way to look at what happens? How does such impact families and what happens to the children in those families?
