If there isn't a causal link between seeing this in the media and this happening in real life, then I can't see the point of complaining about a 'desensitizing effect'.
We recognize all sorts of causal effects that are not a simple one-to-one relationship between event A and event B. For example, we know that racism and sexism has a pernicious effect on everyone who experiences it. We know that childhood experiences affect the psyche in all kinds of ways. We know that PTSD exists and it's not always something you can trace to a single incident. People who want proof that "This kid watched this movie and that made him commit this crime," and insist that absent any such proof, there can be no link between the environment one grows up in and the attitudes one develops, are being facile.
And saying that "books with unhealthy relationships can have an unhealthy effect on kids who read them and find them romantic" does assume that the 'unhealthy effect' results from the 'kids' reading it and being unable to determine that the relationship is unhealthy... that the 'kids' are the exact kind of unthinking sponges I described in my previous post.
No.
You can be exposed to unhealthy things, realize they are unhealthy, and still be affected by them.
Is there any danger that (for example) you, who read the book and recognised the unhealthy nature of the relationship, are going to be more predisposed to accepting an unhealthy relationship?
I would say yes, there is that danger.
By "any danger," I assume you mean that there is some non-zero probability that someone reading lots of books about unhealthy relationships, for example, might internalize them as normal and less objectionable than they would otherwise find them, and thus possibly be more likely to accept an unhealthy relationship.
As opposed to "Reading
Twilight means you will fall in love with stalker."
Because first argument is a nuanced one with many variables we can't define, while the second argument would be really stupid and only someone who is being disingenuous would claim I am making it.
If we were to procure the American records of out-of-wedlock pregnancies/abortions for the year(s) prior to Twilight's release, and for the year(s) after, do you think we'd be able to pick out a demonstrable "Twilight effect" (ie. reduction in the rates thereof) ?
Only if we could somehow control for
every other factor that could affect those numbers, which would be fairly impossible.
This is getting really interesting, as now we're back to the "ideas can be bad" thing, which I have to come down very strongly on the side that says "ideas are not bad."
Really? Really really? Like, for real?
Want me to offer a few bad ideas?
How about, "White people are smarter and morally superior to everyone else"?
How about "People who disagree with us are going to burn in hell and we should put them in prison"?
How about "Women shouldn't be allowed to vote"?
Let's not be silly. Of course ideas can be bad.
That doesn't mean they should be
censored. But ideas can certainly be bad, and harmful.
Would I encourage my 10-year-old to read The End of Alice?
Wait, why not? If there is nothing bad in any idea or media, why would you need to be concerned about anyone's readiness to be exposed to them?
