[quote]doogie wrote:
FlawlessCowboy wrote:
Interesting. I’m going to throw out a question…
Must all elementary teachers have kids before they can teach in an elementary school?
I have friends that will be teaching in elementary schools next year, and none of them have kids of their own at this time. It seems to me that they will play a part in raising those children. Would none of their opinions/thoughts be valid on this thread because they do not have children of their own?
-FC
Teaching other people’s kids does not in any way compare to raising your own. Not even remotely close.
[/quote]
That’s right man.
I wanna see some of these loud mouths when they have their own 8 year old daughter sitting next to them.
Y’know, this is why I like T-Nation- regardless of what side I agree with, there have been some well-written posts. But, I have to add a little bit here after reading the following:
[quote]hardcore_balla wrote:
Zeb that article about seeing sex making someone younger want to have it is bullshit.
[/quote]
This brings me to the another reason why I enjoy this place- there are many on here who think similarily to me.
Now, gentlemen, that being said, take a minute to perform a little Gedankenexperiment…
Picture yourself seeing sex on the TV. What is one of the thoughts that invariably pops up in your minds? I know my answer; it’s likely similar to yours.
I am but a mere 21 years of age- not very far removed from those that are 16. I do not believe that some of those thoughts and desires that pop up in my mind upon witnessing these acts on TV vary that much from when I was 16.
Do others follow my line of logic, or am I really just that different from the majority of my brethren here?
Too bad negative consequences don`t get as much attention … (from the same link as above):
"Although televised sexual portrayals can theoretically inhibit sexual activity when they include depictions of sexual risks (such as the possibility of contracting an STD or becoming pregnant), abstinence, or the need for sexual safety, this type of depiction occurs in only 15% of shows with sexual content.
In other words, only 1 of every 7 TV shows that include sexual content includes any safe sex messages, and nearly two-thirds of these instances (63%) are minor or inconsequential in their degree of emphasis within the scene.10
As a result, sexual content on TV is far more likely to promote sexual activity among US adolescents than it is to discourage it. TV has already been shown to influence violent and aggressive behavior among youths13 and, although extension of the principles involved to the realm of sexual behavior is not a foregone conclusion, the hypothesis that TV promotes early sexual initiation logically follows from previous media effects theory and several existing studies."
Sex sells indeed. Not negative vibes. Must be the Superman (I am invicible) teen complex at work.
You are once again showing your youth and lack of experience. I never asked for a magic world. However, there was a time when you could switch on the TV and actually leave the room with your small child in it. Drive down the street and not have a concern about your 6 year old looking at a bill board. Turn the radio station without being assaulted with profanity with your 7 year old daughter sitting next to you.[/quote]
Uh, that’s what DVD’s and CD’s in the car are for. Transportable media is so affordable now, you can literally bring your entertainment center with you everywhere. I have two portable DVD players and I didn’t even buy both of them myself. Hell, I guess I have three if you count the DVD player on my notebook computer. That means if you want a kid to watch what you want them to, buy the damn DVD and move on. You don’t want to listen to the radio, turn it off and pop in a CD. I don’t even listen to the radio much anymore. I ahave tons of mix CD’s for that. Perhaps you simply need to step into the 21st century like the rest of us. Digital radio should make it even easier for you considering you could listen to nothing but 1960’s greatest hits with no commercials if you wanted to. I am sure your kids would love it.
[quote]
All things that you won’t understand until you have kids. And even then…[/quote]
Bullshit. Read above. Many of the soldiers I work around younger than me who are married have tv screens in their cars. You can almost control damn near anything your kid watches if you put the time and planning in. The Parental Controls on cable systems help as well. Why is it you know of none of this? Did you know you can block websites on your computer? Did you know you can check the computer’s history to see which sites your kids visited if you weren’t in the room? So tell me, what exactly is the big issue?
[quote]
You should try to answer the question:
“How would you feel if your little brother tried to tell you all about dating? He has never been on a date but hey, he read a lot of books and knows soooo much.”[/quote]
No, I shouldn’t answer the question because it does not relate. You assume that I have not helped raise any children. I refuse to give you enough personal info on my life to make you look largely stupid on this point so keep assuming.
whats the bid deal if a kid sees a naked person? over here there are naked people on television (not constantly but also during the day and during prime time) there are also posters and billboards with naked people on them. im pretty sure seein g these things isnt going to turn my daughter into a prostitute. do you hide like a little bitch after you get out of the shower too or are you able to walk through your house naked? i’d imagine youre the one with the naked people problem and not the kid…
"Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1464, prohibits the utterance of ?any obscene, indecent or profane language by means of radio communication.? Consistent with a subsequent statute and court case, the Commission’s rules prohibit the broadcast of indecent material during the period of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. FCC decisions also prohibit the broadcast of profane material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. Civil enforcement of these requirements rests with the FCC, and is an important part of the FCC’s overall responsibilities. At the same time, the FCC must be mindful of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 326 of the Communications Act, which prohibit the FCC from censoring program material, or interfering with broadcasters’ free speech rights. "
What defines obscene?
"bscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and broadcasters are prohibited, by statute and regulation, from airing obscene programming at any time. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, to be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test: (1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts); (2) the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and (3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The Supreme Court has indicated that this test is designed to cover hard-core pornography. "
What defines indecent?
"?? Indecent material contains sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity. For this reason, the courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. The FCC has determined, with the approval of the courts, that there is a reasonable risk that children will be in the audience from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., local time. Therefore, the FCC prohibits station licensees from broadcasting indecent material during that period.
Material is indecent if, in context, it depicts or describes sexual or excretory organs or activities in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium. In each case, the FCC must determine whether the material describes or depicts sexual or excretory organs or activities and, if so, whether the material is ?patently offensive.?
In our assessment of whether material is ?patently offensive,? context is critical. The FCC looks at three primary factors when analyzing broadcast material: (1) whether the description or depiction is explicit or graphic; (2) whether the material dwells on or repeats at length descriptions or depictions of sexual or excretory organs; and (3) whether the material appears to pander or is used to titillate or shock. No single factor is determinative. The FCC weighs and balances these factors because each case presents its own mix of these, and possibly other, factors. "
What defines Profane?
"Profane language? includes those words that are so highly offensive that their mere utterance in the context presented may, in legal terms, amount to a ?nuisance.? In its Golden Globe Awards Order <…/Orders/2004/FCC-04-43A1.html> the FCC warned broadcasters that, depending on the context, it would consider the ?F-Word? and those words (or variants thereof) that are as highly offensive as the ?F-Word? to be ?profane language? that cannot be broadcast between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. "
Sounds like if you have a problem with profane, indecent material before 10pm which basically includes popular shows such as: Everybody loves Raymond (lots of sex), King and Queens (once again, almost pornographic), Charmed (oh yeah baby), Wife Swap (do me baby), House, 2&1/2 men, CSI, E-ring, Biggest loser (oh sex me up), Nanny 911, Law & Order, Hope and Faith, Dateline (oh my god I think I saw someone without a suit on during a recent episode), Living with Fran, Reba etc, etc.
Yes all of these shows before 10pm are oh so laced full of sex. Almost so that I have blatant thoughts of banging. Give me a specific instance of what you find offensive on TV, radio etc. I’d like to know.
Also, according to the following chart from the FCC, it show details from 2000-Sept. 2005 of Complaints along with what was cited and how much money was collected. It would seem that yes, since 2000 shows have shown an increase in the number of complaints but… 2005 is sadly lacking. Did you forget to pay your phone bill? http://www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/ComplStatChart.pdf
Does this mean that over the course of 4 years we have become desensitized? Highly unlikely, according to you it has happened over the last 30 years. So why did complaints all of a sudden increase by 1000%? And then DECREASE (granted it is through September but you can roll an average out there).
So all I ask from you ZEB, Sir is to give me some specific examples of what you find so offensive for your kids to listen to, watch, etc. I’m very interested to know.
P.S. I advise that if things are indeed so sexually explicit as you imply that you invest in a direct dial line and a TIVO so you can have graphical proof for the FCC.
[quote]mastodon wrote:
whats the bid deal if a kid sees a naked person? over here there are naked people on television (not constantly but also during the day and during prime time) there are also posters and billboards with naked people on them. im pretty sure seein g these things isnt going to turn my daughter into a prostitute. do you hide like a little bitch after you get out of the shower too or are you able to walk through your house naked? i’d imagine youre the one with the naked people problem and not the kid…[/quote]
In America, you have many people who seem to act as if sex is a “dirty word” and the naked human body is so vile and disgusting that the mere image of it can warp the minds of children and turn them into criminals and sexual deviants. Mind you, the image that started this doesn’t even show any sexual organs so apparently it is just the fact that she is naked that causes an issue.
Well, I was exposed to a huge amount of sexual and violent content in that age bracket (and eariler) but I didn’t get laid in that age bracket.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
"A study of 1792 adolescents ages 12-17 showed that watching sex on TV influences teens to have sex. Youths who watched more sexual content where more likely to initiate intercourse and progress to more advanced noncoital sexual activities in the year following the beginning of the study.
Youths in the 90th percentile of TV sex viewing had a predicted probability of intercourse initiation that was approximately double that of youths in the 10th percentile. Basically, kids with higher exposure to sex on TV were almost twice as likely than kids with lower exposure to initiate sexual intercourse. - Study Conducted by RAND and published in the September 2004 issue of Pediatrics."
Now why don’t you post a study which demonstrates the opposite of this study. Something on the order of when kids watch sex on TV they are LESS likely to have sex.
Actually, considering obesity rates in America these days, this is most likely true.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
In America, you have many people who seem to act as if . . . the naked human body is so vile and disgusting that the mere image of it can warp the minds of children and turn them into criminals and sexual deviants. [/quote]
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
This thread has GOT to go down as “The Greatest Hi-Jacked Thread of the year; 2006”!
(I need to make a note of that!)
Mugsds [/quote]
I like the “digression”. In the words of Holden Caulfield in “Catcher in The Rye”, “lots of time you don’t know what interests you most till you start talking about something that doesn?t interest you most”.
[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
Actually, considering obesity rates in America these days, this is most likely true.
Professor X wrote:
In America, you have many people who seem to act as if . . . the naked human body is so vile and disgusting that the mere image of it can warp the minds of children and turn them into criminals and sexual deviants.
[/quote]
Yes, on some levels, I am very glad many choose to keep their clothes on. I have seen many more that I wanted to throw clothes at.
You are once again showing your youth and lack of experience. I never asked for a magic world. However, there was a time when you could switch on the TV and actually leave the room with your small child in it. Drive down the street and not have a concern about your 6 year old looking at a bill board. Turn the radio station without being assaulted with profanity with your 7 year old daughter sitting next to you.
Uh, that’s what DVD’s and CD’s in the car are for. Transportable media is so affordable now, you can literally bring your entertainment center with you everywhere. I have two portable DVD players and I didn’t even buy both of them myself. Hell, I guess I have three if you count the DVD player on my notebook computer. That means if you want a kid to watch what you want them to, buy the damn DVD and move on. You don’t want to listen to the radio, turn it off and pop in a CD. I don’t even listen to the radio much anymore. I ahave tons of mix CD’s for that. Perhaps you simply need to step into the 21st century like the rest of us. [/quote]
Yes, of course, that’s always your answer! Avoid it, no problem. Maybe you need to take another look at your own selfish outlook. All we need is just a tiny bit of reform and you can have your “R” rated world and children will not be as effected by it.
With freedom comes responsibility!
[quote]All things that you won’t understand until you have kids. And even then…
Bullshit. Read above. Many of the soldiers I work around younger than me who are married have tv screens in their cars. You can almost control damn near anything your kid watches if you put the time and planning in. [/quote]
You are once again showing your naivete. You are claiming that you can control damn near anything? How about what other kids parents allow when they are visiting friends (gee the parents seemed like decent people). How about what they see when riding a bus to school? How about what they hear when they are with friends? How about the 1000 other times that as a parent you just can’t be there?
In essence claiming that society has nothing to do with what seeps into your childs brain is just ridiculously funny!
I had to show your posts to my wife-She is getting as big a kick out of them as I am. Keep posting as she is copying your posts and emailing them to her “married with children friends” I don’t know about their reaction yet, but will post back to you when the comments start rolling in.
You should try to answer the question:
“How would you feel if your little brother tried to tell you all about dating? He has never been on a date but hey, he read a lot of books and knows soooo much.”
Oh my prof, I have already told you that “helping” to raise a child is not even close to the same thing as actually fathering a child and living in that same residence and raising them in a responsible manner.
And actually if and when you do get the chance to raise a child I know that you will do a good job at it. You will love that child with all your heart and do all that you can to protect him or her from being fed the constant storm of crap that comes out of Hollywood.
As I have said previously, I thought as you did at one time. It all changes my friend!
Holy crap. Has it been 6 months already? This thread pops up every six months in one form or an another. Zeb says titties are bad, the Prof says titties are good, Zeb asks if Prof has any kids (again), Prof says not that he knows of but that doesn’t matter…
Sounds like if you have a problem with profane, indecent material before 10pm which basically includes popular shows such as: Everybody loves Raymond (lots of sex), King and Queens (once again, almost pornographic), Charmed (oh yeah baby), Wife Swap (do me baby), House, 2&1/2 men, CSI, E-ring, Biggest loser (oh sex me up), Nanny 911, Law & Order, Hope and Faith, Dateline (oh my god I think I saw someone without a suit on during a recent episode), Living with Fran, Reba etc, etc.
Yes all of these shows before 10pm are oh so laced full of sex. Almost so that I have blatant thoughts of banging.[/quote]
If a show is “popular” does that mean that it is “appropriate”? Think again my friend!
"In a national survey by Public Agenda (“Parents feel they?re failing to teach values,” USA TODAY, 10/30/02), 'about 90% [of parents] say TV programs are getting worse every year because of bad language and adult themes in shows that air from 8 to 10 p.m."
That would be 8 to 10 p.m 90% of parents think that adult themes and bad language. How many parents are there in the USA? Millions! And 90% of them think that like I do…I wonder why we think one way and you (presumably without children since you would not answer my query) think another way.
I got it-IT’S BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT A PARENT
But I bet when you do have children of your own you will change your mind.
Thank you for proving my point for me. Even if you can’t agree at least you have shown my postition to be the correct one: People are fed up with the amount of sex and violence on television (and other media as well).
Honestly, we stopped watching commercial TV a while ago. My wife and I realized that we were far better off not having to sit there with our finger on the remote button. Even some of the commercials were not suitable for children. And this was mostly before 10pm!
However, I resent that priviledge being lost because the media cannot restrain itself.
Those who do allow their young children to watch TV any time they like are treating them to this:
“In a sample of programming from the 2001-2002 TV season, sexual content appeared in 64% of all TV programs.”
that would be ALL programs!
“Those programs with sexually related material had an average of 4.4 scenes per hour. Talk of sex is more frequent (61%) vs. overt portrayals (32%). 1 out of every 7 programs includes a portrayal of sexual intercourse.”
hardcore_balla, you stated the following two posts ago:
“Zeb that article about seeing sex making someone younger want to have it is bullshit. I can put together a study that says the exact opposite. That is just propoganda for parents.”
It seems that you have not come up with any surveys or studies which indicate that watching MORE sex (or violence) on TV causes teens to have LESS sex, as I challenged you to do!
It seems that the study performed by the RAND corporation for pediatric magazine was pretty good huh?
( It showed that 1,792 adolescents ages 12-17 showed that watching sex on TV influences teens to have sex).
You are taking a very foolish postion if you are actually stating that there is LESS sex and violence on TV today than there was 20 or 30 years ago. You further show a display of, not just naivete but out right ignorance (regarding this subject matter) if you even try to claim that behavior on television does not influence behavior of teens.
(Perhaps you should ask Proctor & Gamble why they spend over one billion dollars per year on marketing if they are not influencing anyone-how silly
You don’t really want to take that postion do you?
