[quote]mertdawg wrote:
And America was born with puritan psychosexual problems. People tend to get fixated on the wrong “problems” such as believing drugs alcohol and pornography are the roots of the problems, when I think they are the outward signs.[/quote]
Um…no they are problems. Because each can carry with it a negative side effect. You know what they are…
[quote]ToShinDo wrote:
Here is your answer: It is appropriate at the time the parent thinks it is, not MTV!
Fair enough. As a parent then, what age do you think it is appropriate?
[/quote]
It wasn’t addressed to me, but the current psychological model says that you should have an in depth talk with your kids about sex when somewhere in sixth grade or very early seventh, and continue talking to them about it as they grow up. I think a lot of parents are like-well, I got the sex talk out of the way, I can now mark that off of my list.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
My gosh your right! I should have known that Janet Jackson was going to drop her top and display a gyrating boob. If I was a “seer” like the professor I would have known that. Even though no one knew (except perhaps Jackson and company) you make a good point. I should have avoided that dang half time show…[/quote]
Maybe you didn’t know she would expose a covered nipple, but you should’ve known the show would’ve been MTV-esque with that line-up. Jackson’s breast was no different than Lil Kim’s on some MTV award show a few years back.
[quote]
…Hey, wait a second…here’s a good question: Since when did Superbowl half time shows turn into something that are not suitable for children? They slipped that one right in huh? Thank you for making my point about the downward spiral of the media, amd culture in general![/quote]
I don’t know. It probably started with half-naked cheerleaders somewhere.
Yeah, I see the difference, but I think I said wasn’t pointing the finger at you. I don’t agree with everything you say or believe, but it seems like your kids will turn out fine.
As far as the media hampering your efforts, do you let your children watch the news? The kids are going to get exposed one way or another. True, Hollywood and the entertainment industry shove a lot of stuff down our throats, but it’s still out there in real life too.
Maybe the news isn’t the best example as far as sex, but there a lot of other things I’m sure parents would like to avoid explaining to their children.
[quote]
Oh, and glad you handled the Brittany Spears clothing dilemma appropriately with your niece. Many parents fail to clear that most basic hurdle. Parents (or uncles) didn’t have to deal with those types of things before Hollywood, the recording industry and a host of other media began to disrespect the family. That made it easier on parnents didn’t it?[/quote]
Umm…thanks, but that was my daughter. I don’t know where you got “neice” from.
ToShinDo:
First of all I think every child is differerent. Some are more mature than others. I have two nephews who are about the same age as my son and all three are miles apart in terms of maturity, both emotional and physical. How can one say that any specific age is better than any other specific age, without knowing the players?
Whatever age the parent decides to have that talk, it should be done appropriately. I think raising a child to respect his or her sexuality is only going to improve the quality of his life, relative to his/her future mate and how they intereact in general with the opposite sex. Things like “respect” are important.
Invariably some parents will be better at this task than others. However, either way it’s still their job, not the medias!
Billboards: I’ve never seen a billboard with nudity or profanity on it. Not saying it couldn’t or doesn’t happen, just that I’ve not personally seen it.
Movies: They have a rating system in place that works fairly well. And there are several websites that review movies specifically for families.
Magazines: What magazines do children read that have anything obscene in them?
TV: This is harder to monitor than the others, I’ll agree. That’s why I thought the V-Chip (The V-Chip: Options to Restrict What Your Children Watch on TV | Federal Communications Commission) was created and those ratings placed on TV shows. It blocks any shows with the ratings that you input. So you can block anythign PG and worse or any show that has S, L, V, or D ratings. One can also call the cable company to block an entire channel for their lineup, like MTV, Spike, Cinemax, Oxygen or other objectionable ones.
Internet: Certainly the most difficult to monitor. You can literally find almost anything at all here. However, to make this easier there are several companies with net filtering software: AOL, Net Nanny, Cyberpatrol, Content Purity, Lycos, McAfee, Safe Kids, Control Kids and many others. There are also timers to prevent your children from surfing too long. You can also get spyware to monitor where their children have been and what they’ve seen or who they’ve chatted with.
Doesn’t almost everyone agree this blacklash after “Tittygate” is ridiculous? $500,000 fine for “indecency” on TV is retarded. I could be negligent in the death of someone in a nursing home (several times over) or I could allow employees to be exposed to infectious material and then not provide medical examinations for them or illegally raise money for a candidate or I could tamper with products intending to cause injury to someone, and the list could go on and on. Ridiculous.
Sorry about the slip, you did say it was your daughter.
I agree the news can get nasty and is not appropriate for 7 year olds in my opinion. However, as a child grows and matures I think the news is a great place to give him or her a healthy dose of reality.
I’ll summarize before I leave for the day:
Things of a mature nature should be moved to a later time slot. Children are bombarded with sexual images at an earlier an earlier age. It takes away from parental control. This is never a good thing.
Kids should be talked to about sex when the parent feels he or she is ready, not influenced by the media, or a peer who was in turn influenced by a runaway media.
To all 20 somethings who think I’m wrong, I agree, I am wrong right now! However in 10 or 15 years I will be right. At least you will see it that way when you have your own children. 
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Sorry about the slip, you did say it was your daughter.
I agree the news can get nasty and is not appropriate for 7 year olds in my opinion. However, as a child grows and matures I think the news is a great place to give him or her a healthy dose of reality.
I’ll summarize before I leave for the day:
Things of a mature nature should be moved to a later time slot. Children are bombarded with sexual images at an earlier an earlier age. It takes away from parental control. This is never a good thing.
Kids should be talked to about sex when the parent feels he or she is ready, not influenced by the media, or a peer who was in turn influenced by a runaway media.
To all 20 somethings who think I’m wrong, I agree, I am wrong right now! However in 10 or 15 years I will be right. At least you will see it that way when you have your own children.
[/quote]
I think several people have shown you (and well, I might add) just how off base you were with some of your opinions. “it is time when the parent thinks it is time”…uh, so why do I have to change how I think and act based on your kids if your notion on when it is “time” for them is completely based on your individual opinion? Who gave you the upper hand in what is moral against what is amoral? Why does your opinion trump anyone else’s opinion? Why are you better than anyone else in that regard?
ToShinDo did a great job of telling you how to monitor just about every media outlet in your own home. So, please, Zeb, tell me why that is not the course of action. Tell me why you would rather control what we ALL watch instead of controlling the tv in your own home?
I also caught how you suddenly grabbed “niece” out of thin air even though the poster clearly stated it was his daughter. That clearly points to you feeling as if everyone who doesn’t agree with you either simply has no experience or is less informed than you are.
You agree with the dollar amount that was given as a fine for less than a second of a nipple ring on tv? It wasn’t even sexual. No one was on top of anyone else, and goodness, if your kids made it all of the way through Nelly, Timberlake, and Janet on stage to even see the end, then I truly question why your “better than most parental skills” allowed them to watch that long. At least two of those artists sell CD’s with the warning label on the package for content…yet you were surprised and so deeply injured by this?
Were your kids as hurt as you seem to be. My guess is, NO.
You and your morals live deep somewhere in the last century. I don’t think your even grasp that not all parents think like you nor do they need to. Let me guess, though. You didn’t learn a thing from anyone else’s experiences in this thread…and you still believe you are the one who is right on every issue. Is this the mind of a conservative? I would guess not. Even Rainjack didn’t go that far with you.
Patrick Bateman
That’s silly seems sooo obvious
Saying ?its obvious? is a logical fallacy
I’ve seen Cocaine completely destroy lives and families in such a short amount of time it’s truly tragic.
Its tragic, but that was a decision someone made, the cocaine didn?t crawl up the nose while they were sleeping, stop blaming it on a substance and put the responsibility on the person, you are only re-enforcing the type of thinking that creates the problem, taking no responsibility for it.
I DECIDE not to do crack just as YOU DECIDE not to do crack, as for me, its not because its illegal, its because its ignorant behavior to do crack.
If crack were decriminalized would you become a crackhead? are YOU THAT WEAK that you need the threat of incarceration to stop you from this?
The debbil made me do it don’t play
have you looked at what a prison record and incarceration does to lives, are their lives better then?
Would George W B or Bill C be better persons today if he were incarcerated for his ‘indiscretions’, no they would be axing you if you would like to supersize it.
Sure, doing a couple of bumps at the Xmas party may be ok?
Why is that ok?
But for a lot of people it doesn’t stop there
Some people REFUSE to control themselves and so should be imprisoned to help them?
It turns people into liars and thieves who make up their own reality and take no responsibility for their actions.
No, it doesn’t, this is a conscious decision by the person, like you said they take no responsibility, this includes the responsibility for being honest.
Of us would joke if it was our sister, nephew or mother giving $5 blowjobs so they cop some base/crack.
They do that because it?s expensive -because its illegal-, do you see this behavior happening to buy a just as addictive pack of smokes?
Sorry, can’t see it…
So you’re saying your blind?
no as far as the sticky green goes…
So your saying its ok to decriminalise drugs YOU might do, but its ok to imprison people that do things you wouldnt do, Why not imprison and destroy lives with a criminal record for that behavior as well?
This is a medical issue, if we want to HELP people, prison and a record isn’t the way to help them, prison and criminal records destroy lives.
zeb,
i entered this discussion so i could better understand your views on censorship. i understood the anti-censorship views and i felt they were still lacking something. even now, im nowhere near a conclusion, just another step closer. thank you for your cordial responses!
Professor:
There were three or four (including you) who disagree with me on this thread. There could be 30 or even 300, that wouldn?t change the overall picture one bit. I would expect most 20 something?s without kids (some with) would agree with you. I have no problem with that. As I have already stated, I thought that way too before I had children of my own. The reality of it is more "Parents ?agree with me, than do you! Is that a shock to you? It shouldn’t be
Unfortunately for you, there is a huge majority that sees the issue my way! In every major poll taken over the past few years the parents of American families agree with me! How does that fit your idealistic liberal fantasy of America? (A few guys agreed with you on a T-Nation thread and you got all excited…that’s sort of naive huh?)
Let?s look at Television and exactly how American parents feel about it.
“In a recent national survey conducted by Nielsen (4/29/04), 78% of American families who had recently been part of the Nielsen ‘People Meter’ panel wanted more shows 'without profanity or swear words.”
Can you imagine that? Then again, they have kids, you don’t.
Next:
“In a national opinion poll conducted for TV Guide (8/2/03), 57% of TV viewers said they 'noticed an increase in offensive material on television lately.”
Hey, I think I mentioned that in a previous post.
Next:
“In a national opinion poll conducted for Common Sense Media (“New Attempt to Monitor Media Content,” NY Times, 5/21/03), 64% of parents with at least one child between the ages of 2 and 17 believed media products in general were inappropriate for their families. Only one in five parents ‘fully trusted’ the industry-controlled rating systems.”
Hmm…parents don’t trust the rating system. Gee…I can’t imagine why.
Next:
“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.”
I bet those 90% would be in favor of pushing the “mature” programs into a later hour. That would be a perfectly good compromise and one that I have already mentioned as you know.
The following is related to our little Super Bowl discussion:
“2004 Super Bowl: Nielsen estimates that 6.6 million kids 2-11 were watching at about the time that CBS’s little halftime fiasco developed when Justin Timberlake ripped off a piece of Jackson’s bodice, exposing her right breast to the nationwide audience. Another 7.3 million teens 12-17 were tuned in at that time as well.”
How about that 6.6 million 2 to 11 year olds were treated to the boob “fiasco.” Hey…what do you care? You enjoyed it, right? After all, you don’t have kids so I guess it’s none of your concern. After all, it was the stupid parents who let their kids watch a Football game…a Football game? Oh, that’s right according to certain 20 something?s those things are off limits to young children. Funny stuff!
Next:
"On December 10th, 2003, Fox failed to bleep the f-word and the s-word during the Billboard Music Awards.
(conservative FOX..oh my) Hey, what the heck, a few swear words won’t corrupt little Tommy, right? After all, he’s 5 years old now and has to learn about the world at some point. What the heck might as well be treated to the F word before he can reach the peddles of his bike.
Also, before you say it, kids are not supposed to watch the Billboard Music Awards. That has become more of a mature program…
HOLD ON! Who is buying all of that music if it’s not the kids? Hmm…I guess they can buy the music but should be restricted to the awards program…Hold on what’s the music all about? Who can keep track? Certainly you won?t keep track, you don’t have kids and you don?t care! Do you care?
Next:
“In a sample of programming from the 2001-2002 TV season, sexual content appeared in 64% of all TV 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.”
Those stupid, lazy parents! All they have to do is be more careful…right? Ha ha..if some nut planted enough landmines around some poor guys house they would eventually step on one..that would be their fault right?
This is fun, but because of the length of this post I only have time for one more:
“Portrayals that included sexual risks (stds or becoming pregnant), abstinence or need for sexual safety was depicted in 15% of the shows with sexual content. Hence, sexual content on TV is more likely to promote sexual activity among US adolescents that it is to discourage it.”
“Promote sexual activity among US adolescents!”
Now how could that happen? Professor do you think it’s appropriate to promote sexual activity between adolescents? We have already seen that the huge majority of parents don’t like it much. They are also telling you that they want the scum off of their TV sets (among other places). Do you think Hollyweird will react appropriately before they are made to?
I have one final comment: As you can see by the numbers, the overwhelming sentiment is on my side, not yours! You are in the minority. I, like most parents feel that the media has gone too far. If they can’t do it on their own, and soon, many organizations across the country will rein them in. In fact, I think it’s already begun 
Don’t like it?
All that I am suggesting is that mature programming be placed on a later time slot. Is that really so bad?
Hope you learned a little something here?but somehow I doubt it. Write back soon.
Your educator
Zeb
The citizens of a state or nation have a right to protect kids under the age of 18 from whatever the citizens deem to be obscene in the public sector. This includes the public airways, billboards etc. Outside of the public sector, parents have an obligation to protect kids under 18 from obscenity. This includes cable TV, and in my opinion internet at this point etc. Parents should have the right to know that their kids won’t be exposed to profanity or pornography at school, but clearly this is not a question of natural laws as the definition of profanity and pornography is very plastic. Because of this plasticity, it must be determined by majority opinion. This only leaves the need for a valid mechanism of protecting kids under 18 from their parents if the need exists. Just three examples I’d be interested in all parties considering. Living close to Boulder Colorado, two of these examples occured in my own back yard:
Boulder courts determined that a particular old lady had the right to mow her lawn in the backyard while totally naked even though she had no privacy fence, although she could not mow the front lawn naked because it was in the public sector. Please consider the “shrivel factor” before responding.
A public Boulder art museum had a 1 month long display of Dildos strung from the ceiling down a particular hallway. It was a main hallway which anyone going to the museum would walk through as they perused the museum.
A 6th grade girl (not in Boulder believe it or not) came to school one day wearing a necklace of rainbow beads and with a Tee-Shirt stating Barbie is a lesbian, and the girl herself proclaiming that she was a lesbian. The court held that a teacher or school had the right to prohibit this on the spot if they felt that it was at all disruptive to other students concentration. Last I heard, she and her two moms were taking the case to a higher court arguing that it was discrimination.
I won’t give my personal feelings at this time, but I’d be interested in what people think of these.
[quote]wufwugy wrote:
zeb,
i entered this discussion so i could better understand your views on censorship. i understood the anti-censorship views and i felt they were still lacking something. even now, im nowhere near a conclusion, just another step closer. thank you for your cordial responses![/quote]
wufwugy:
I thank you for opening my eyes to at least one very important point. That is, some parents never actually get around to speaking frankly about sex with their children.
I agree with you, this is wrong.
Take care my friend,
Zeb
[quote]ToShinDo wrote:
Billboards: I’ve never seen a billboard with nudity or profanity on it. Not saying it couldn’t or doesn’t happen, just that I’ve not personally seen it.
Movies: They have a rating system in place that works fairly well. And there are several websites that review movies specifically for families.
Magazines: What magazines do children read that have anything obscene in them?
TV: This is harder to monitor than the others, I’ll agree. That’s why I thought the V-Chip (The V-Chip: Options to Restrict What Your Children Watch on TV | Federal Communications Commission) was created and those ratings placed on TV shows. It blocks any shows with the ratings that you input. So you can block anythign PG and worse or any show that has S, L, V, or D ratings. One can also call the cable company to block an entire channel for their lineup, like MTV, Spike, Cinemax, Oxygen or other objectionable ones.
Internet: Certainly the most difficult to monitor. You can literally find almost anything at all here. However, to make this easier there are several companies with net filtering software: AOL, Net Nanny, Cyberpatrol, Content Purity, Lycos, McAfee, Safe Kids, Control Kids and many others. There are also timers to prevent your children from surfing too long. You can also get spyware to monitor where their children have been and what they’ve seen or who they’ve chatted with.
Doesn’t almost everyone agree this blacklash after “Tittygate” is ridiculous? $500,000 fine for “indecency” on TV is retarded. I could be negligent in the death of someone in a nursing home (several times over) or I could allow employees to be exposed to infectious material and then not provide medical examinations for them or illegally raise money for a candidate or I could tamper with products intending to cause injury to someone, and the list could go on and on. Ridiculous.[/quote]
Let’s take your points one by one:
Movies-We agree they have ratings. Um…what does that mean? It means that we can (my family and I) can refuse to watch more movies now than ever before. You see the selection that was once there, (several years ago) is no longer. Most producers try to go for the “R” rating as they feel it attracts more viewers. Hence, selection is very limited. I wonder, do you think those who like “R” rated, or “X” rated movies would mind if they made more PG’s as well?
Magazines-Forgive me, not trying to be insulting however, you have got to be kidding? You stated: “What magazines do children read that have anything obscene in them?” It’s not a matter of childrens mags having inappropriate material in them, it’s a matter of taking your child to the bookstore walking past the mag stand and being treated to certain covers with phrases like “teach your man to be hot in bed.” “Show him how to stay hard all night long.” “75 great sex positions you can try tonight” LOL-Yea…I like it when I take my 9 year old daughter to the bookstore and she reads those covers. Typical 20 something answer: “Don’t take her to the book store.” Yea…okay.
TV- See my response to the professor in a previous post. It’s all there.
Internet- You have some good ideas. I have implemented a few of those and they do work rather well. One problem, what happens when they visit a friends house? Oh oh…see it’s just not that cut and dry is it? Never is…messy, very messy.
Is the $500,000 fine to high for Titigate? Maybe so, but I look at it this way. If you speed down the road 50 times and never get a ticket, don’t complain if you get nailed with a big fine on your 51st attempt!
There is so much sewage being pumped into the minds of young children by Television that I’m not going to lose any sleep over the fact that they got nailed with a big fine. Besides, according to the professor major corporations have plenty of money and need to get rid of some it. Half a million bucks is chump change to those guys…right professor?
Hey…I have an idea! Next time some sleaze bag network gets nailed with a stiff fine, give the money to the poor and those who have recently gone bankrupt…okay, just a thought
Zeb, I hate to reduce the apparent effort you put forth to look up all of this, but most of it was useless…and I will tell you why. While even I will admit that television has gotten more mature since I was a kid, I didn’t see one poll where it was suggested that the majority were trying to prevent programing like this across the board simply because their kids exist. What is implied is more wanting to be warned of a shows content…not its elimination completely. Of those millions of kids who you say were watching the Superbowl…again, why do you feel your role as a parent ends because it is Superbowl night? One other poster brought up the fact that they wouldn’t even let their kids watch MTV. Why then would it be Janet’s fault or the Superbowl’s fault when artists who are known to be graphic during performances turn out to be…gasp…graphic during performances?
The simple solution is to quit letting your kids watch so much tv. I’m a grown man and I don’t just sit in front of the tube. There isn’t much on, and any shows worth watching can now be easily found on DVD. It is the only reason I follow Smallville or Alias. I would never catch it on tv.
With a choice that simple…why is the goal to reduce my options for viewing?
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Just three examples I’d be interested in all parties considering. Living close to Boulder Colorado, two of these examples occured in my own back yard:
I think she should have the right. It is her backyard and if it isn’t public, that means someone has to LOOK for her to be naked. Quit looking and mind your business. I wouldn’t be looking at her old ass so I wouldn’t be complaining.
[quote]
2) A public Boulder art museum had a 1 month long display of Dildos strung from the ceiling down a particular hallway. It was a main hallway which anyone going to the museum would walk through as they perused the museum. [/quote]
This has always gotten me, while I could go my entire life without seeing anyone else’s penis, you do have to wonder why a vagina can be flashed on screen at a movie yet an X-rating is applied if the opposing male genetalia is present. My personal opinion is that this display was distasteful. That doesn’t mean I should protest it being there. If it actually falls under “art” and not “porn”, there is no problem. The one problem I do see is the description of it. I wonder if the museum would have described it as a “display of Dildos strung from the ceiling”. Maybe they were just penises.
[quote]
3) A 6th grade girl (not in Boulder believe it or not) came to school one day wearing a necklace of rainbow beads and with a Tee-Shirt stating Barbie is a lesbian, and the girl herself proclaiming that she was a lesbian. The court held that a teacher or school had the right to prohibit this on the spot if they felt that it was at all disruptive to other students concentration. Last I heard, she and her two moms were taking the case to a higher court arguing that it was discrimination.[/quote]
Any shirts that are disruptive are not allowed in most schools. I agree with this decision and think it was out of bounds. The statement “Barbie is a lesbian” could even be argued as an insult to any girl who owned a Barbie. Everyone knows that Barbie is asexual. I know…I checked my sister’s…several times… just in case any of the newer models had been updated.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
lothario:
I fail to see how government could abuse this. Pass the test, get the license. Pretty cut and dry, if you ask me.
The driver’s license system is not an ineffectual system. Neither would the “Department of Firearm Safety” or whatever it would be called. This is a simple thing, and would eliminate waiting periods while raising firearm awareness. How is this a bad thing? This is not “infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, is it? I would imagine that this would be encouraging us to have firearms.[/quote]
Here in the great state of Michigan we had a law passed a few years back liberalizing concealed weapons permits (CCW). The law was plainly written but local governments decided to add things to the list of needed items before you would be considered. One of these things was a written letter from your family doctor stating that you had no mental illness that would otherwise be a reason to deny you a CCW. Most family doctors refused to write said letter because if one person went wacko they would then be included in the lawsuit. Others decided to charge high fees past what the law allowed for finger printing and running the State and FBI background checks. The lawsuits have followed and the local governing bodies have had to omit this letter and a new bill was voted in that stated what the fees allowed were.
In England back when firearms were allowed, people owning firearms were told that they had to be stored in a appropriate way. At first a simple gun cabinet was ok, then a closet with a lockable door was approved and the gun cabinet was out. Later it became a gun safe was the only approved storage area for a firearm. Those who couldn’t afford a gun safe had to get rid of their firearms.
A good gun safe, even a small one, will set you back $800 US for one that will survive 30 minutes in a fire. It will also weigh in at 500 lbs plus. Mine weighs in at 1200 lbs unloaded and retails for over $3500 US. I didn’t pay retail being it was at Sam’s and a close out item. I drooled at it for about 5 years sitting on their floor. I wouldn’t have been able to get one had my father not gone in 50% for it so he could store his firearms while in Florida for the winter.
Gun owners have seen the creeping legislation issue attack their rights of ownership over and over again. In California the original law was that owners of assault style rifles had to register them. Even though there wasn’t a problem with assault style weapons, soon it became a ban and they had their weapons confiscated. Now we hear that the anti gun groups are going after the 50 caliber rifles. This rifle is just under 5 foot long and weighs over 30 pounds. It costs about $5 US per round to fire it. They also cost just under $8000 to purchase.
Barrett .50 Caliber Rifles ? Barrett Rifles is the leading manufacturer of .50 Caliber Rifles in the world, located in Murfre…
Lately we have heard of the ballistic finger print. This idea was written into law so that every firearm in Massachusetts had to be sold with this “finger printed” bullet and brass sent to the state police. The latest studies show that ballistic data bases don’t work. The reasons it doesn’t work is that the finger print changes slightly with each shot as the parts wear on each other. It is also very easy to change the finger print by polishing the parts or taking a file to them and changing their surface slightly. To change how a barrel imprints on a bullet lapping compound or simple tartar control tooth past can be used. The minty fresh barrel makes it a little more PC.
Do you want to get a license to read or go to church? Why should a RIGHT be restricted anymore than it already is?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Zeb, I hate to reduce the apparent effort you put forth to look up all of this, but most of it was useless…and I will tell you why. While even I will admit that television has gotten more mature since I was a kid, I didn’t see one poll where it was suggested that the majority were trying to prevent programing like this across the board simply because their kids exist. What is implied is more wanting to be warned of a shows content…not its elimination completely. Of those millions of kids who you say were watching the Superbowl…again, why do you feel your role as a parent ends because it is Superbowl night? One other poster brought up the fact that they wouldn’t even let their kids watch MTV. Why then would it be Janet’s fault or the Superbowl’s fault when artists who are known to be graphic during performances turn out to be…gasp…graphic during performances?
The simple solution is to quit letting your kids watch so much tv. I’m a grown man and I don’t just sit in front of the tube. There isn’t much on, and any shows worth watching can now be easily found on DVD. It is the only reason I follow Smallville or Alias. I would never catch it on tv.
With a choice that simple…why is the goal to reduce my options for viewing?
[/quote]
Wrong again my friend! My kids watch very little TV because of the scum that is currently programmed! That is my very point! Options that used to be available to children are drying up faster than Janet Jacksons career.
Most of the parents (if not all) would love to see an elimination of the type of programs that we are discussing. I think one or maybe two surveys spoke to that very issue. You think someone who claims that there is to much adult oriented themed shows on TV would opt to have them remain on TV, if they had a choice? Come on get real.
Also, everytime a questionable issue arises your answer is “be a parent and make the kids do something else.” Yes…a good parent can do that many times. It becomes more difficult for some parents as both work etc. However, what you fail to respect is the fact that fewer and fewer options are becoming available. When you constantly say no, you start reduce choices. Is that fair to the families? What you are saying is “Watch this filth, or turn it off and shut up.” I think there are better options. One is to change the system and that’s what we are doing!
Don’t like the Super Bowl? (it used to be family oriented…not now) turn it off!
Don’t like prime time TV? (it used to be family oriented…not now) turn it off!
You are in essence saying, “it’s not the artists fault you know they are scum bags, simply turn it off.” How many times per day, week etc. do we have to do this?
Not a matter of to much TV it’s a matter of to few options by the time you get through the selection process. Why should a parent have to have eyes behind his back (remember when little Tommy is over to his pals house?) when all there need be is a simple program switch for mature themed shows to a later time slot.
Read the results of the polls once more and you will see that there is a real movement going on. You may not like it but it’s badly needed. There used to be a time when networks had censors of their own. They did their job. They policed themselves. Apparently, that is not happening now.
I’m the last guy to look to government involvement regarding almost anything. However, if these scum bags can’t get their act together, there is going to be some serious legislation coming down the pike that is going to shock you!
Sad day when networks and cable companies can’t police themselves, but as you can see by the many polls that I posted, the people are fed up!
The issue of TV to me seems to be one of just plain laziness. It would be nice if us parents didn’t have to think about what our kids might see on TV, or research it at all, but we can spend plenty on time researching the proported harms of tuna fish, or which doctor to take our kids to. Parents have to be willing to spend the time to research and monitor what our kids are doing. We need to meet the parents of our kids friends and make sure that they have similar standards.
As for the bookstore, thats free market plain and simple. If a bookstore displays books with objectionable covers, go somewhere else. If you don’t, your supporting them. bookstores are private property. Outside of violating civil rights, they do what is accapted by their customers.
Billboards are regularly censored by local governing authorities. Again, its not an absolute.
I will mention that there’s a lot of hidden sexual innuendo in saturday morning cartoons now, (though I remember my dad being upset because bugs bunny dressed up like a woman and kissed Yosimite Sam). I remember the cartoon The Tick from a few years back which regularly made reference to “domination” and basically painted colors over muscular gay naked superheroes. Fortunately, few “got it”
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Wrong again my friend! My kids watch very little TV because of the scum that is currently programmed! That is my very point! Options that used to be available to children are drying up faster than Janet Jacksons career.
[/quote]
There are ten to twenty times more quality educational shows on TV today compared to 10 years ago. The science and History channels are now truly producing high quality, informative and entertaining programs.
Or we can all go back to the late 70s and watch WKRP, Three’s Company and the Benny Hill show!
ZEB, I would be interested in having you mention 5-6 quality TV shows from the late 70s or early 80s that you wish your kids had the “choice” to watch something like today.