My Apologies

Off Topic
241

[quote]ZEB wrote:

  1. The study was done by a very reputable company “RAND.” Here it is in it’s entirity, if there is something that is flawed about it please point it out. As far as I know RAND has no ax to grind one way or the other:

[/quote]

I have a sneaking suspicion that the trends seen in the research may have been due to intervening causal factors as much as the amount of television one watched. The intervening causal factor that most readily comes to mind is that the high- and low-TV exposure groups differed in many respects beyond their television consumption habits. It intuitively seems that adolescents who watched less TV may well have lived in households with more parental presence or involvement - which may well have translated into more contact and consultation with parents, as well as fewer hours spent in front of the boob tube. I would imagine that, I do not know if figures exist, there is a positive correlation between parental involvement in an adolescent’s life and later initiation of sexual activity by the adolescent. This oversight could probably be tied to the ‘lying with statistics’ discussed earlier, although this case would not be lying nor using statistics to do so, but rather methodoligical oversight. BUT, knowing the reputation of RAND, I am almost certain that in the complete text version of the research findings these things are addressed.

It is too easy for researchers to point out a single causal mechanism, in my opinion this is most often done to generate interest in a topic, a following or increased funding from interest groups that would like to criticize something identified as causal by the research data.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that the RAND Corporation has no ax to grind. It really is a flagship for other ‘think tanks’ - the institutional structure is set up so that researchers have no idea who is funding their particular research endeavor, thereby limiting bias. They also have set up a number of internal mechanisms to ensure a level of objectivity rarely seen from other such research institutions.

242

malonetd, good post.

243

[quote]malonetd wrote:
I don’t know how that slipped by everybody. I only hope that you were exaggerating when you said that.[/quote]

I don’t think anyone reads what he says anyway. That’s how he slipped it by. But of course, being beaten with a belt won’t scar a child as much as seeing a naked chick.

244

Has anyone told us yet what about nudity itself is harmful to kids? Why is nudity related directly to sex in reference to kids? Does anyone think a kid before puberty relates nudity directly to sex?

245

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Has anyone told us yet what about nudity itself is harmful to kids? Why is nudity related directly to sex in reference to kids? Does anyone think a kid before puberty relates nudity directly to sex?[/quote]

And I would add …

What is the impact of parent-child communications, if any, between the stimulus and the action?

I am not pointing fingers. I just wonder how many teens can say they have a, pardon the pun, lay it out all on the table discussion with their parents about the subject when it comes up? A teen probably will be too shy to talk about tough questions in sex ed class, he probably know his parents biases on the subject, maybe he doesn`t trust counselors, so who does he turn to? His buddies. In this fast-food-for-the-soul era, I wonder how many teens can deal with questions and issues as they present themselves with their parents as a support team (instead of the high-horse duo).

Like I said, not blaming any side.

246

[quote]MrChill wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Has anyone told us yet what about nudity itself is harmful to kids? Why is nudity related directly to sex in reference to kids? Does anyone think a kid before puberty relates nudity directly to sex?

And I would add …

What is the impact of parent-child communications, if any, between the stimulus and the action?

I am not pointing fingers. I just wonder how many teens can say they have a, pardon the pun, lay it out all on the table discussion with their parents about the subject when it comes up? A teen probably will be too shy to talk about tough questions in sex ed class, he probably know his parents biases on the subject, maybe he doesn`t trust counselors, so who does he turn to? His buddies. In this fast-food-for-the-soul era, I wonder how many teens can deal with questions and issues as they present themselves with their parents as a support team (instead of the high-horse duo).

Like I said, not blaming any side.[/quote]

There is no way a kid brought up in a “sex in wrong” household would feel like they could openly discuss sexual issues with their parents. No one can make me believe there is complete freedom of expression in a house where a picture of a nude woman causes their parents to shut everything down and act as if it doesn’t exist.

247

[quote]Massif wrote:
It cracks me up that this thread was originally about a poster apologizing for the way he had acted in other threads. He apologised for being crude, rude, obnoxious and juvenile.

You know, everything that terribleivan is being now.[/quote]

My feelings are hurt. I may have difficulty getting to sleep at night.

For anyone else who may have missed the point, I don’t like the lack of respect. Someone politely asked for a change in avatars because he didn’t want a nude woman paraded in front of his face, and a bunch of people threw it in his face.

Where is my belt - I think someone needs a spanking.

248

[quote]Professor X wrote:

There is no way a kid brought up in a “sex in wrong” household would feel like they could openly discuss sexual issues with their parents. No one can make me believe there is complete freedom of expression in a house where a picture of a nude woman causes their parents to shut everything down and act as if it doesn’t exist.[/quote]

Again you are thinking far to simplistically. No one (not me for sure) has ever said that “sex is wrong.” It’s not a “good vs bad” argument.

Of course sex is fantastic.

But there are plenty of things that are fantastic when used properly by people of an appropriate age: Guns, cars and alcohol are three examples of this. None of them bad or wrong. All of them can be dangerous if used by kids.

Can anyone imagine gun companies running commercials trying to get 13 year olds to use their products?
The country would be outraged and rightly so.

But the truth is sex can be harmful when the age group cited in the survey participates. I have shown you the STD rates for kids in that age group who participate in sex at a young age.

It becomes difficult for even the best of parents to communicate properly and often enough to combat the pictures that are constantly replaying in the mind of a child who is repeatedly subjected to material that is simply not suitable for him or her to veiw.

I am of course referring to the constant barrage of adult themed TV shows and images that are hitting our kids at a more rapid rate each successive year.

While talking to a child is absolutely paramount, the more a child (of any age) sees the more they want to DO what they have SEEN.

There are studies to support this. However, this is not rocket science and no one really should need a study to demonstrate to them that the more that someone is exposed to something (if it looks good) the more they want to do it.

And it always looks good on TV. They rarely show a teen becoming pregnant or catching an STD. They only show the part that sells!

As I have already stated this is the very premise of advertising and why companies spend billions each year showing people using their product.

I don’t think that there is any adult on this site who is so selfish that he or she is not willing to agree that showing adult themed programming should only be done after certain hours.

It’s not only a matter of how much you value our children and society, but how much you value the type of world that will end up affecting you and your loved ones sooner or later!

249

[quote]MrChill wrote:

I get the point … but would a bikini-clad babe have passed the test? I do get the point, but the line decent and indecent is rather fuzzy, too.
[/quote]

I would guess that if you had a bikini-clad babe this debate would have never occured.

The line between decent and indecent is only as fuzzy as the moral of the individual standing on the line.

250

[quote]malonetd wrote:

Oh, and on last thing, terribleivan, if I ever saw you “severely beat a child with a belt” I would beat the living shit out you. I don’t know how that slipped by everybody. I only hope that you were exaggerating when you said that.[/quote]

Malonetd - I am glad you care for children and would do that. I feel the same way. For the sake of reason and sanity, I’m going to elaborate on my view for disciple of a child.

I get no joy out of punishing my son. I do it because he needs correction so that he can grow and live a strong, disciplined, and fruitfull life. Will I spank his bottom with a belt - Yes. Will I spank his bottom hard - No. Why, you ask. It’s simple.

My son is young enough that the power put in the spanking is not as important as the association between the belt and bad behavior. So, when my boy is bad, I make sure he watches me as I go get my belt and I pull him over my lap. Then I give him one very light tap.

I try to make the process take about 1 minute or so, so my young son can anticpate the discipline. In his mind, the anticipation of the punishment is so built up that I don’t need to inflict harm. All I am doing is reinforcing that his behavior was bad.

To elaborate further, the swat I give him is so light that when he and I wrestle around when we are playing, he suffers more physical harm that he would from the belt swat.

After I swat him, I hug him, and I tell him I love him. I ask him why he got spanked, and he always tells me…he always knows. I ask him if he will stop doing whatever it was that got him in trouble, and he tells me yes.

Like I said, I get no joy out of punishing my son, but I do it because I love him and I care. I don’t do it out of anger. And, I think that the method that I use for discipline will help him grow into a strong man.

251

[quote]malonetd wrote:

I think the difference here is that this is, like some others have said, basically an R-rated website. That’s “website,” as in the whole thing, not just sections of it.

[/quote]

I, like many others, would still like to know the answer to this. Is T-Nation an R-rated website?

If the entire website is R-rated as you suggest, it would be good for someone to clarify that for us. That way the more morally minded individuals on this site can choose if they wish to spend their time on the site and their money on Biotest products.

Of course, morals will have no effect on ProfessorX’s choice (LOL - I love you Squirt, you know that!).

252

[quote]firemedichcfr14 wrote:
Vyskol wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
…
As a teen, I still had enough respect to realize that I have no right to act as a negative influence to other people’s young children.
…

Just to make sure I have this straight…
You’re saying that a naked woman is a negative influence on children?

what a simplistic take on my original post. come on man you are smarter than that.

Too much sex pushed at a kid at too young of an age can steer them in the direction of having sex at too young of an age. Which can lead to all sorts of problems for them and YOU.

No matter how much you talk to your kid and I talk to my kids all the freaking time.

Is that hard to understand?

[/quote]

My response was to TerribleIvan’s post, which was directed soley at the avatar in question. There was no mention of your “too much sex pushed at a kid…”.

You might want to go back and read the post I was responding to before you criticize my response.

253

[quote]ZEB wrote:
But the truth is sex can be harmful when the age group cited in the survey participates. I have shown you the STD rates for kids in that age group who participate in sex at a young age.
[/quote]

That is why it is your job to not let your kids walk around clueless about sex. I would say the age for “the talk” has decreased from where it used to be to possibly being needed before age 8. That is because as society becomes more and more aware, you can’t pretend it is still 1955 and assume that simply pushing it away at home will keep your kid on the right path. With that in mind, it isn’t about teaching them just how dangerous sex is but about teaching them a healthy philosophy about sex as well. “Sex is dangerous” will simply not do the job just like “drugs are bad” won’t do the job. All it takes is one discussion with friends who have sex and didn’t die to undo you apparent brainwashing technique.

[quote]
It becomes difficult for even the best of parents to communicate properly and often enough to combat the pictures that are constantly replaying in the mind of a child who is repeatedly subjected to material that is simply not suitable for him or her to veiw.[/quote]

I doubt anyone here is arguing that kids should watch porn. That isn’t even the issue. Suggested sex on tv is simply something that younger generations will have to deal with. I am sure your great great grandparents would have fainted when Daisy Duke walked on tv screens for the first time. Does that mean she was porn? Society changes. Only the ancient refuse to change with it.

[quote]
I am of course referring to the constant barrage of adult themed TV shows and images that are hitting our kids at a more rapid rate each successive year.[/quote]

You have yet to present specifics as far as what your kids are being hit with. If you bring up Janet Jackson again, I may have to kill you.

[quote]
While talking to a child is absolutely paramount, the more a child (of any age) sees the more they want to DO what they have SEEN. [/quote]

I hate to break this to you, but in the late 80’s when I was in junior high, the “cool kids” were already sexually active. Their parents probably didn’t know, but every kid at school did. Many of these were the “preps”, so they were the ones who supposedly came from the more financially well off households. If you think telling kids “sex is dangerous” will stop this, you need to open your eyes. My parents will never know everything I’ve done. Mind you, those were my experiences over 10 years ago. I have no doubt that kids today have taken it up a notch to unsuspecting parents. Do you blame it on 80’s tv? Please.

There are studies that prove we never landed on the moon as well.

[quote]
And it always looks good on TV. They rarely show a teen becoming pregnant or catching an STD. They only show the part that sells! [/quote]

Well, actually tv has become much more graphic in terms of showing the pregnancy and the diseases. Hell, you get all of that from 15 minutes of Nip/Tuck.

I think there is so much variety on cable tv that you can nearly watch whatever you want to watch whenever. I also know that if you are expecting your teenage kids to avoid wanting to see MTV, even at friend’s houses, you are paddling against the current when you could be teaching them what is acceptable using many of these shows as the lesson.

The world changes. I understand this. I also know it must be very difficult in 2006 to raise kids in a world where so many kids get abducted, there is so much around in terms of drug use and some of the most deprived in character are also the most famous (Paris Hilton anyone?). I think, however, there needs to be an understanding by parents that the goal shouldn’t be a censorship of all media but a different approach to teaching your kids what is wrong and what’s right. Sex is there. teach your kids safe sex and why marriage is important…however, don’t sit there acting like past decades were so wonderful when they each had their own major downfalls.

254

[quote]Vyskol wrote:
firemedichcfr14 wrote:
Vyskol wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
…
As a teen, I still had enough respect to realize that I have no right to act as a negative influence to other people’s young children.
…

Just to make sure I have this straight…
You’re saying that a naked woman is a negative influence on children?

what a simplistic take on my original post. come on man you are smarter than that.

Too much sex pushed at a kid at too young of an age can steer them in the direction of having sex at too young of an age. Which can lead to all sorts of problems for them and YOU.

No matter how much you talk to your kid and I talk to my kids all the freaking time.

Is that hard to understand?

My response was to TerribleIvan’s post, which was directed soley at the avatar in question. There was no mention of your “too much sex pushed at a kid…”.

You might want to go back and read the post I was responding to before you criticize my response.
[/quote]

The refuse to even acknowledge the avatar apparently because they lose their argument if this is just about nudity.

255

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
I would guess that if you had a bikini-clad babe this debate would have never occured.
[/quote]
Why is a bare butt offensive, but not one covered by a thin, skinny piece of cloth? What is so offensive about a bare butt?

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
The line between decent and indecent is only as fuzzy as the moral of the individual standing on the line.[/quote]

And if we disagree on where that line is? What you call moral superiority, I call ignorance. But I guess conservatism trumps liberalism?

256

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
malonetd wrote:

I think the difference here is that this is, like some others have said, basically an R-rated website. That’s “website,” as in the whole thing, not just sections of it.

I, like many others, would still like to know the answer to this. Is T-Nation an R-rated website?

If the entire website is R-rated as you suggest, it would be good for someone to clarify that for us. That way the more morally minded individuals on this site can choose if they wish to spend their time on the site and their money on Biotest products.

Of course, morals will have no effect on ProfessorX’s choice (LOL - I love you Squirt, you know that!).[/quote]

Why do you need some sort of general, subjective classification? You know the kind of material that is presented and allowed on this site. Make your judgement from there.

257

[quote]Vyskol wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
malonetd wrote:

I think the difference here is that this is, like some others have said, basically an R-rated website. That’s “website,” as in the whole thing, not just sections of it.

I, like many others, would still like to know the answer to this. Is T-Nation an R-rated website?

If the entire website is R-rated as you suggest, it would be good for someone to clarify that for us. That way the more morally minded individuals on this site can choose if they wish to spend their time on the site and their money on Biotest products.

Of course, morals will have no effect on ProfessorX’s choice (LOL - I love you Squirt, you know that!).

Why do you need some sort of general, subjective classification? You know the kind of material that is presented and allowed on this site. Make your judgement from there.
[/quote]

That is a very liberal answer. You were the one who said it was “basically an R-rated website” - I merely wanted clarification.

258

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Vyskol wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
malonetd wrote:

I think the difference here is that this is, like some others have said, basically an R-rated website. That’s “website,” as in the whole thing, not just sections of it.

I, like many others, would still like to know the answer to this. Is T-Nation an R-rated website?

If the entire website is R-rated as you suggest, it would be good for someone to clarify that for us. That way the more morally minded individuals on this site can choose if they wish to spend their time on the site and their money on Biotest products.

Why do you need some sort of general, subjective classification? You know the kind of material that is presented and allowed on this site. Make your judgement from there.

That is a very liberal answer. You were the one who said it was “basically an R-rated website” - I merely wanted clarification.[/quote]

No… I never said that.

But let me clarify my “very liberal answer”. If I was new to the site, perhaps a rating would be helpful, to give me some idea of its content. But I think we’re both very familiar with T-Nation’s content. What purpose would a rating serve to us?

This isn’t some anarchistic “down with ratings” sentiment. I simply don’t see the point. You already know the content. Why do you need a rating?

Though I suppose it could give you something else to rant and rail against. And provide you with your moral justification to boycott the site and products.

Perhaps you’d feel less silly saying, “I don’t go to that site because it’s rated R,” rather than, “I don’t go to that site because they show naked bums.”

259

[quote]Professor X wrote:

The refuse to even acknowledge the avatar apparently because they lose their argument if this is just about nudity.[/quote]

How do you figure the argument is lost?

I would be ignorant if I didn’t believe that a woman posing is a sexually provocative way was more than just nudity. If we lived in a remote African tribe where the men wore strings around their waists and the woman wore nothing but bands around their neck, perhaps our views would change.

But, this image is not of a nude tribal woman suckling her infant child as she weaves a bowl. If it were the nude tribal woman, it would still be nudity, but it would not likely begin such an intensive debate.

There is a difference. Have you figured that out yet?

260

ZEB wrote:
hardcore_balla wrote:
ZEB and others,

  1. The study was done by a very reputable company “RAND.” Here it is in it’s entirity, if there is something that is flawed about it please point it out. As far as I know RAND has no ax to grind one way or the other:

That was the research brief. This is the study in it’s entirety:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/114/3/e280

It includes the statistical data manipulation used to adjust the variables such that they fit a Gaussian Distribution so they could apply multivariate analysis. They acknowledge co-factors that have previously been shown to increase the liklihood of advancing sexual behavior among 12-17 year olds. In the full paper, but not the research brief, they give the following limitations to their analysis and conclusions:

“A limitation of this research was our inability to control for adolescent interest in sex or sexual readiness before TV viewing. Youths who are considering coital or noncoital activities that they have not yet enacted may watch more sex on TV (eg, to get information or to satisfy desires). They may subsequently engage in these sexual activities sooner but as a result of their higher levels of interest, not as a result of their TV exposure. It was not possible for us to test for this alternative interpretation of our results with only 2 waves of data.”

The researchers thought they were able to account for this with covariates involving factors such as: primarily older friends, poor grades, etc. But, they say, their dataset was insufficient to statistically conclude the exclusion of pre-interest in sex.

Another limitation cited in the full text:

“Other limitations appear to be based on the sensitive nature of our research topic. Although rates of intercourse were within the expected range at the follow-up evaluation, they were somewhat low at the baseline evaluation, which suggests that some participants were not initially honest about their sexual experience.”

Kids said they weren’t already sexually active when they were. Margaret Mead found the opposite during her research on primitive populations (with no TV or media)…teens said they had sex when they hadn’t. Additionally, the researches discuss potential issues with their conclusions due to selecting out youths who were, apparently, more unwilling to answer questions concerning sex.

They finish with:
“With these limitations in mind, our findings have clear implications. Reducing the amount of sexual talk and behavior on TV or the amount of time that adolescents are exposed to this content is likely to appreciably delay the initiation of both coital and noncoital sexual activities.[…]Our recommendation is in line with that of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which suggests that pediatricians encourage family discussions of the media and its effect on sexual behavior. Our research offers only limited insight into the best method for ameliorating the effects of TV sexual content on youth behavior but clearly indicates the need to do so.”