I think his point was that violence is innate in children, whereas sexuality is mostly absent. There's no point in sheltering little boys from violent media because they're quite violent on their own.
By contrast, sex isn't on the typical 8-year-old's mind, and probably shouldn't be.
I think his point was that violence is innate in children, whereas sexuality is mostly absent.
The kind of violence that you see on TV is no more innate in children than the kind of sexuality that you see there.
There's no point in sheltering little boys from violent media because they're quite violent on their own.
Invalid assertion. The abstract concepts of violence that are innate in us primates at early age have absolutely nothing to do with the message ("violence is okay and an accepted social tool") that you commonly get exposed to on mass media.
By contrast, sex isn't on the typical 8-year-old's mind, and probably shouldn't be.
So you're okay with exposing your 8-year old to violent media but not okay with exposing him to sexually explicit media?
Let's look at this using your own observations: Violence is innate in children, sexuality is mostly absent. This means the child will mostly ignore the sexual content (it can't relate, is simpy not interested) but will process the violence in one way or another (because even a child has concepts of "power", "superiority", "fear" etc.).
Maybe think again, maybe even pick up a book on the subject.
By contrast, sex isn't on the typical 8-year-old's mind, and probably shouldn't be.