Which Laws Should be Abolished?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I would like to ask, if you have kids, how did you respond to Janet’s flopping tits and was this even an issue in your house at all?
[/quote]

Simple - no one saw it. My family consists of football freaks. The most insulting part of the halftime show was the halftime show itself. Was there a crime committed? Janet Jackson trying to sing. Justin Timberlake trying to be cool. Those are truly bad, bad things.

Two summers ago my wife, two kids, and I went down to Playa Del Carmen, Mexico. We stayed at one of those all-inclusive resorts where everything is paid for. We went in late May - I think we left the day after school let out.

Anyhow - we must have gone down there during the height of the European vacation season because about the only americans at the resort was us and some friends that went with us. Evidently, there is no Euro-translation for “No Nudity”. In fact I think that term actually is translated as,“All women must take off their tops before entering the pool or beach area”.

My son was 11 at the time. Do I need to explain further?

Did we freak? Mom certainly wasn’t happy with her baby being overloaded with boobage like that, but what are you gonna do in a situation like that? It’s not that boobs are bad, since evidently every female there was more than willing to go sans-a-top.

My friend and I made up some score cards and we got my son to start judging them - he would hold up a card with a number ranging from 1 - 10. It was pretty funny, and Skyler got to feel like he was a guy instead of a kid.

The point is, as a parent, if you obsess over something happening to your babies, no one learns anything. .

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Did we freak? Mom certainly wasn’t happy with her baby being overloaded with boobage like that, but what are you gonna do in a situation like that? It’s not that boobs are bad, since evidently every female there was more than willing to go sans-a-top.

My friend and I made up some score cards and we got my son to start judging them - he would hold up a card with a number ranging from 1 - 10. It was pretty funny, and Skyler got to feel like he was a guy instead of a kid.

The point is, as a parent, if you obsess over something happening to your babies, no one learns anything. .[/quote]

That was beautiful, man.

[quote]Chewman wrote:
What I find appalling is that there is no TRUE education pertaining safety going on in this country. We are teaching our elementary kids about AIDS and safe sex but we do not teach them firearm safety, knife safety and proper use, first aid, basic medical care, or even how to swim.
[/quote]

Great idea…this idea should be forwarded to our lawmakers…

[quote]
Professor X wrote:
I would like to ask, if you have kids, how did you respond to Janet’s flopping tits and was this even an issue in your house at all?[/quote]

I’m in the same boat as Rainjack, we never watch the halftime shows. Of course, my 7-year-old son has already seen breasts and probably wouldn’t have thought much of it. We have never had “a sex talk,” but he knows what breasts are and that every girls has them(some less developed than others) and that they are no big deal.

On the other hand, Jackson’s covered nipple is entirely different than some guy masturbating in the street. I don’t want to have to suddenly explain that to Andy. Then again, he lives in Las Vegas, so maybe he has already seen the “public jerk-off guy.”

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Honestly. If a kid is old enough to follow the complexity of football, they are old enough to see a nipple ring without world wide crackdowns on censorship.[/quote]

This is somewhat related, but football is truly a complicated sport. I refuse to let my son play until he is 9-10 years old. I don’t want him to play a sport he doesn’t really “get” and be turned off to it at an early age. Maybe I’m overanalyzing or “over-something” but that’s how I feel. I coached youth football for 4 years in California, and you would be amazed at how many 12-year-olds I coached that had problems grasping basic concepts.

The local flag football league has an age bracket of 6-8. I would occasionally see some of their games. The kids had no idea what was going on half the time. I know youth sports are supposed to be fun, but how can the kid be having fun if he doesn’t even know what is supposed to be happeneing.

Hell, I look back to playing high school football and realize I barely understood the game then. I also understand that being a coach, “understanding the game” means more to me than your average fan.

Sorry for the tangent, but The Prof’s comment reminded me of this.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
The point is, as a parent, if you obsess over something happening to your babies, no one learns anything. .[/quote]

I completely agree. Well said. Even if you disagree or are offended, obsessing or freaking out over the situation does nothing but leave bad images in the child’s head.

One last thing on gun control. When I was younger, I used to want to be against guns and have stricter gun control laws or even a ban of firearms. I just didn’t really like guns. I still don’t like guns. However, I can’t see a good reason for banning firearms.

The whole idea of firearm banning or restriction is prevent the wrong people from owning them, right? Well, stricter laws will not do that.

Hoestly, I don’t know much of the laws concerning purchasing and owning a firearm, since I’m not interesting in having one myself. I just think there should be strict safety and education requirements(maybe there is, I don’t know). And perhaps harsh punishment for the owners of guns used in “accidents;” where a child or unarmed person is wounded or killed.

These are just some quick thoughts off the top of my head on a subject I really do not think much about.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
It’s not the boob, it’s the time and place. Just because they have seen a statue in an art museum doesn’t mean that during half time at the super bowl they should be treated to some pop star (has been) flipping her boob around.

If you had kids you would realize that that is not the time and place to discuss such things. It was a time and place to enjoy a tradition (back to traditions again). The Superbowl tradition should not be laced with sexuality (have you noticed that most things are these days-does that help the children? No.). Especially the sort that Janet (the pig) Jackson brought!

It used to be that parents had the right to discuss sex with their children when they thought that the timing was right. Now the media has changed all of that and I resent it. It’s not good for families. rainjack hit it spot on when he stated, “Until you have kids of your own, you are like college grads looking for a job. You have no idea how much you don’t know.”

I knew everything regarding how I was going to raise my child. I have no problem admitting that I was wrong on about 90% of everything I thought to be true.

I know you think you have it all figured out, I did too. Then something odd happened: My wife and I had children and most things I thought I knew about raising kids, was wrong!

I think your position on that is ancient and useless. Honestly. If a kid is old enough to follow the complexity of football, they are old enough to see a nipple ring without world wide crackdowns on censorship. Could the issue have been discussed openly? Yes. Should it have resulted in the overhyped restrictions now in place? No, it shouldn’t have. I didn’t even see any cheerleaders at the last Superbowl coverage and I think this is the reason why. I’m a grown man and football isn’t a game of hopscotch. Big strong guys are slamming into each other aggressively for hours. Perhaps your kids are more developed than you think they are. Perhaps parents today use every opportunity to rant about how the world should raise their kids when the truth is, all you have to do is turn the tv off. Football was never that damn innocent.
[/quote]

My point has escaped you. The media should not dictate when and where I talk to my kids about sex. They have gone to far in that direction. I, and millions of parents throughout the country don’t like it. That’s why you are seeing a bit of a crack down.

People with no children see nothing wrong with it and simply don’t get it. And they won’t get it until they have children of their own.

End of story.

:slight_smile:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
My point has escaped you. The media should not dictate when and where I talk to my kids about sex. They have gone to far in that direction. I, and millions of parents throughout the country don’t like it. That’s why you are seeing a bit of a crack down.

People with no children see nothing wrong with it and simply don’t get it. And they won’t get it until they have children of their own.

End of story.
[/quote]

I agree 100%. That is why our kids don’t watch TV unattended. Especially Nick. The cartoons are not a problem, but when you have left-wing freaks like Linda Ellerbee trying to influence your kids - you are playing with fire.

They are my kids. I paid for them. I’m still paying for them. I know them better than any talking head, or ‘artist’ will ever know them. I will decide when to introduce adult themes into their lives - not the freaking program directors.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:

Did we freak? Mom certainly wasn’t happy with her baby being overloaded with boobage like that, but what are you gonna do in a situation like that? It’s not that boobs are bad, since evidently every female there was more than willing to go sans-a-top.

My friend and I made up some score cards and we got my son to start judging them - he would hold up a card with a number ranging from 1 - 10. It was pretty funny, and Skyler got to feel like he was a guy instead of a kid.

The point is, as a parent, if you obsess over something happening to your babies, no one learns anything. .

That was beautiful, man.
[/quote]

seconded.
Thanks, I needed that!

[quote]ZEB wrote:
My point has escaped you. The media should not dictate when and where I talk to my kids about sex. They have gone to far in that direction. I, and millions of parents throughout the country don’t like it. That’s why you are seeing a bit of a crack down.

People with no children see nothing wrong with it and simply don’t get it. And they won’t get it until they have children of their own.

End of story.

:slight_smile:

[/quote]

Your “point” hasn’t escaped me at all. In fact, I answered your response before you wrote it. You have the power to turn the freaking tv off, but you should not have the power to turn MY tv off. If you are SO worried for everything your kids see and do, then be a parent and control what they watch on tv. My parents did. Why do so many parents today feel as if I have to let go of every indulgence or freedom I want just so that public cable or television can raise their kids? There is a crackdown lately because way too many conservative parents think like you and expect everything and everyone to raise their kids. If I say, “Fuck You” outside, you shouldn’t have the right to call the police unless it is threatening you personally, not because your kid might hear it.

The “morals” this country is using to take away freedoms is ridiculous and is getting out of hand. Public censorship simply because you have kids should never be the goal. You being a good parent in your own home should be the goal. Thinking like this is why some people were actually about to boycott Spongebob Squarepants for a possible gay influence. They must be selling out of sticks for asses.

This kind of thinking is why baseball is in front of Congress now…for the children. Please, when will parents accept responsibility for their own kids and quit blaming everyone else?

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
LSD is very dangerous. We’re talking about a drug that makes you temporarily psychotic.
[/quote]

Alcohol can make you temporarily, or even chronically psychotic.

zeb, thanks for the kindness.

the comments have been made that those without children cannot understand what it is like to have children. these comments also make it seem like there is no hope for us childless ones until we have children. if you’d refer to one of my earlier posts i admitted i cannot speak from experience and will be blindsided by parenthood despite any preparation i make. that doesn’t mean i can’t still question parents and try and understand where they’re coming from.

what can be taught to someone who doesn’t have children about having children? can we even have this discussion, or will it just boil down to the parents knowing better simply because they’re parents? of course, profx has, and may again, make the point that many parents are clueless and shouldn’t have parental privilege.

zeb analogized breaking wind in front of women prospects. this is great because it represents that there is a time and place for certain things (perhaps a time and place for everything). as far as i can tell, zeb has no problem with teaching his children about “profane” or “immoral” things except he disagrees with the time and place being forced upon him by circumstances other than his childrens’ natural developement into adulthood. am i right? i can agree with this. it makes it much easier and is definately a civilized (progressive) way of doing things.

i have two qualms, though. profx brought up the first one and both he and rainjack hit the solution square on the head: when children are confronted with public profanity parents only make it worse by reacting inappropriately. they take the time to amateurishly wax philosophical (omg! this is terrible! our children are too young and impressionable!) instead of acting like adults and addressing the situation in the best interests of the children.

my second qualm: i fear if we delete too many uncontrollable disturbances (like public profanity) in our society then we may just become lazy and forget that there are things that our children must learn. ex: my father never gave me a sex talk. the only thing he ever said was when i was seventeen one morning while we were going over his Torah portion (my parents are relgiously jewish) we came upon a verse in Leviticus or Deuturonomy commenting on masturbation. my father then says he believes it’s okay to beat your pud. that is the one and only sex talk daddy and i have ever had. likewise, whenever happened a sex scene in a movie, without exception, my father was quick to change the channel (even on highly censored channels) and grumble about how wrong it is because they weren’t married or even if they were it’s wrong for others to witness. whenever my siblings or i would instigate a sexual discussion with my father, without exception, he would leave us so beweildered that we had to find out on our own that sex is, in fact, a natural thing. i was born and raised in church among good God fearing people, yet they never once told me thing one about sex besides “fornication’s wrong, adultery’s wrong, and we hope you indirectly believe that masturbation is wrong so your newly adolescent mind fucks with you.”

my father is a prime example of taking the immorality of public profanity way too far. somehow, he became so caught up in maintaining good traditions that he forgot that he learned the hard way when he was young, and the hard way just so happens to be the only way to learn.

dont misunderstand my two previous paragraphs, my father does have very good, very coherent beliefs concerning sex. he also happens to be an intellectual who likes to speak his mind. it’s just that, as i said, he let his moral bias become quite a bit too cloudy to realize the affects it was having on his children.

zeb, if society deleted so much of its publicness of sex, masturbation, nipples, etc. would you still remember to teach your children about them? mine didn’t.

P.S. as malone said, a masturbating man is different than a nipple. true. the masturbating man was a random example that kinda stuck. the original idea was public profanity, and for the purpose of not isolating different aspects of public profanity and abstractly changing them, i think both a nipple and masturbation can be discussed under the idea “public profanity.”

I consider “no child left behind”, as it is currently written and implemented, to be the ultimate example of a shitty, politically driven law. Liberals want highschools to be the bastion of Liberal indoctrination, and want teachers to be virtually untouchable regardless of performance. Conservatives want competition and giving private schools all of the benefits and none of the restrictions of public schools, and at the same time, created programs like NCLB (actually started by Clinton I think) that cost public schools money to implement, but do not directly produce anything that enhances education-other than putting kids into categories and penalizing schools for not reaching invented standards.

I don’t know if everyone is aware of this, but by 2016, a school in America will be considered a failing school under NCLB if it has 1 student who reads and writes more than a half a standard deviation below the mean.

Anyway, I think state laws can be whatever the people in the state want them to be. If the people of a state vote for seatbelt laws-fine. I also think the federal government should not be allowed to wave money around to get all the states to conform to things that should be up to the states in the first place.

George W Bush has admitted to doing drugs, and if caught at the time it would have landed him in prison. If he had gone to prison, would he be a better off today, would that have protected him from harm, made him a better person ?

To put someone in prison to protect them from potential harm that may occur from the voluntary use of their own property (the persons BODY) causes a greater harm.

It?s none of anyone business what I do with my own body, and none of my business what you do with yours, so long as what you do does not substantially infringe upon my property.

who the fuck are these bloated power-hungry pompous clowns to tell me or anyone what to do with their own bodies, and please show me where the DEA is even constitutional?

Some ninnies are so addicted to the idea that the government is your PIMP daddy, so used to sucking the government wang that they can?t remember what liberty smells like.

Wow, Professor, I guess you know everything about um…just about everything! Congrats man! You are one very smart guy…That’s why you can write things like this: “I answered your response before you wrote it.” With your almighty powers you are able to ascertain answers to questions which are not even asked. You have “Seer” like abilities.

Not only that, you also know exactly the right way to raise children, yet you have never done it. I wonder what other activity you feel expert at that you have never done? Serously, would you feel compelled to tell a Lion tamer how to do his job? Would you want to jump right in there and show him? You are a wonder my man! You are positive that we parents spend to much time “worrying about our kids.” If we only had your powers of understanding…well then the world would be a better place. Your right to watch, or listen to whatever you want is far more important than any sort of sane restrictions which might favor children…indeed.

You made some unbelievably foolish statements. I almost don’t know where to begin. I’ll just jump in with this beauty: “If you are SO worried for everything your kids see and do, then be a parent and control what they watch on tv. My parents did.” No kidding, did they really? Well they must have been great parents. Good for you and good for them!

Oh wait a second…I think somewhere on one of these posts you stated you were in your 30’s (I’ll guess 34). If I’m right about your age, or even close, that means when you were around 7 years old in 1977-78 your parents had to protect you from shows like “Little House on The Prarie” “CHiPs” and “The Mary Tyler Moore Show.” I could continue but you get the idea.

There were three networks to choose from, no cable, no satellite, no personal computers, no Internet and no hand held games. Gee Professor…I’m going to go out on a limb here, but do you think just maybe parents of the 1970’s and 1980’s (and before) had it quite a bit better than parents of today, when it came to protecting them from images that might be detrimental? Even a child expert (I’m smiling) like you will have to give me that one…huh?

You can hardly turn on any televison programs, especially during prime time without being treated to an array of sex. Hey…I don’t mind it one bit if I was only to think of myself, like you are. However, when you have young children it’s not all that much fun having to sit there with the remote in your hand. If the programs are even somewhat family oriented, the commercials will get you almost every time. Why do they advertise adult content programming during a televison show that is family oriented? Gee…are they trying to trick us…lol. Please, don’t play the fool by comparing what your parents had to contend with, with what todays parents deal with. You are a lot smarter than that.

Here is another one of your Gems:
“public censorship simply because you have kids should never be the goal.” No? Then what is the goal? Trying to see how many sexually graphic pictures that we can stick into adolescent minds? And do it in the name of “freedom?” Is that the goal?

Well…if that’s the goal Hollywood is doing a heck of a good job! Kudos to Hollywood for delivering immoral TV (and movies) on a regular basis! Let’s continue to pervert our childrens minds because childless liberals like the Professor have got to see Janet Jacksons tit flopping around (I thought it was sort of flabby myself…her singing… not much better).

It’s not a matter of anyone doing the job of the parent. All I ask for is a break from the constant barrage of sexual images that pervade our airwaves (and other forms of communication) in one form or another. If you want to watch “R” rated television I have no problem with that. Simply put it on after a certain hour. Then at least the only kids who will be watching are the ones who actually have parents who don’t care, or are to lazy to do their job. And if that’s the case they have more problems that this to contend with. Sad, but true.

If we don’t protect the children what sort of society are we becoming? When you have children you will most likely feel that same compassion. Does your right to see Janet Jacksons boob trump my right to raise my child the way I want? IT WAS THE FREAKING SUPER BOWL! No warning of “mature content” no special rating. Nada! Zip! It was a big fuck you to children and parents alike! Who is not doing their job? Where exactly do parents get a break from this crap if not when watching the Superbowl? This game has become a tradition for many families throughout the country.

You liberal childless “child experts” are a riot!

I would have hoped that your liberal philosophy extended to the weak, poor and unprotected? You seemed mighty worried about someone who is about to go bankrupt. However, when it comes to children you don’t have that same soft spot huh? Could be that experience with your grandmother gave you compasson for her plight. That’s understandable because you saw it, you experienced it. You lived it!

When you have children you will most likely feel that same compassion. When you have your 7 year old daughter sitting on your lap and a commercial begins to air showing two people swearing at each other, or trying to swallow each others faces, while groping each other (take your pick) you might just feel that same compassion you did for your grandmother. Your eyes just might be opened. You might just think that there has to be a better way to handle freedom and still protect our children. I wouldn’t bet against it!

[quote]wufwugy wrote:
zeb, thanks for the kindness.

the comments have been made that those without children cannot understand what it is like to have children. these comments also make it seem like there is no hope for us childless ones until we have children. if you’d refer to one of my earlier posts i admitted i cannot speak from experience and will be blindsided by parenthood despite any preparation i make. that doesn’t mean i can’t still question parents and try and understand where they’re coming from.

what can be taught to someone who doesn’t have children about having children? can we even have this discussion, or will it just boil down to the parents knowing better simply because they’re parents? of course, profx has, and may again, make the point that many parents are clueless and shouldn’t have parental privilege.

zeb analogized breaking wind in front of women prospects. this is great because it represents that there is a time and place for certain things (perhaps a time and place for everything). as far as i can tell, zeb has no problem with teaching his children about “profane” or “immoral” things except he disagrees with the time and place being forced upon him by circumstances other than his childrens’ natural developement into adulthood. am i right? i can agree with this. it makes it much easier and is definately a civilized (progressive) way of doing things.

i have two qualms, though. profx brought up the first one and both he and rainjack hit the solution square on the head: when children are confronted with public profanity parents only make it worse by reacting inappropriately. they take the time to amateurishly wax philosophical (omg! this is terrible! our children are too young and impressionable!) instead of acting like adults and addressing the situation in the best interests of the children.

my second qualm: i fear if we delete too many uncontrollable disturbances (like public profanity) in our society then we may just become lazy and forget that there are things that our children must learn. ex: my father never gave me a sex talk. the only thing he ever said was when i was seventeen one morning while we were going over his Torah portion (my parents are relgiously jewish) we came upon a verse in Leviticus or Deuturonomy commenting on masturbation. my father then says he believes it’s okay to beat your pud. that is the one and only sex talk daddy and i have ever had. likewise, whenever happened a sex scene in a movie, without exception, my father was quick to change the channel (even on highly censored channels) and grumble about how wrong it is because they weren’t married or even if they were it’s wrong for others to witness. whenever my siblings or i would instigate a sexual discussion with my father, without exception, he would leave us so beweildered that we had to find out on our own that sex is, in fact, a natural thing. i was born and raised in church among good God fearing people, yet they never once told me thing one about sex besides “fornication’s wrong, adultery’s wrong, and we hope you indirectly believe that masturbation is wrong so your newly adolescent mind fucks with you.”

my father is a prime example of taking the immorality of public profanity way too far. somehow, he became so caught up in maintaining good traditions that he forgot that he learned the hard way when he was young, and the hard way just so happens to be the only way to learn.

dont misunderstand my two previous paragraphs, my father does have very good, very coherent beliefs concerning sex. he also happens to be an intellectual who likes to speak his mind. it’s just that, as i said, he let his moral bias become quite a bit too cloudy to realize the affects it was having on his children.

zeb, if society deleted so much of its publicness of sex, masturbation, nipples, etc. would you still remember to teach your children about them? mine didn’t.

P.S. as malone said, a masturbating man is different than a nipple. true. the masturbating man was a random example that kinda stuck. the original idea was public profanity, and for the purpose of not isolating different aspects of public profanity and abstractly changing them, i think both a nipple and masturbation can be discussed under the idea “public profanity.”[/quote]

wufwugy:

I can understand your viewpoint coming from the background you did. I think a generation (or more) ago there were many fathers who were simply uncomfortable discussing sex with their children. I think that’s a shame, as at a certain age kids need to understand exactly what sex is all about. As I have stated, that time and place should be up to the parent not the media!

I think the idea that I, or any other parent needs Hollywood to air sexually expicit content in order to give us a reason to discuss sex with our children is simply wrong!

(Please review my post to professor)

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Oh wait a second…I think somewhere on one of these posts you stated you were in your 30’s (I’ll guess 34). If I’m right about your age, or even close, that means when you were around 7 years old in 1977-78 your parents had to protect you from shows like “Little House on The Prarie” “CHiPs” and “The Mary Tyler Moore Show.” I could continue but you get the idea. [/quote]

Like I thought, you not only missed the point, but you don’t even pay attention. I am not even 30 years old yet. Not only that, but I skipped a grade in school, just like my sister. I grew up in the 80’s, not the 70’s and cable tv had been out a long time as well as MTV. My parents wouldn’t even get cable because they thought it was a negative influence. My parents were PARENTS and monitored what we watched. In my opinion, they were overly strict. However, whenever I tell others this, they seem to only comment about where that got me. I can’t really complain then.

[quote]
Here is another one of your Gems:
“public censorship simply because you have kids should never be the goal.” No? Then what is the goal? Trying to see how many sexually graphic pictures that we can stick into adolescent minds? And do it in the name of “freedom?” Is that the goal?[/quote]

Gee, no, the goal should be for YOU to raise your kids and for me NOT to raise YOUR kids. I didn’t have your kids so making sure that I only think and speak like you want me to in front of your kids is an afront to my civil liberties. Wake the fuck up, please.

[quote]
If we don’t protect the children what sort of society are we becoming?[/quote]

Dear Lord, that was weak. It is not society’s job to raise your kids. You had them. You had sex and had kids. YOU did it. I didn’t do that. I want to see some cheerleaders during my football games, not have my balls cut off because YOU had kids.

[quote]
When you have children you will most likely feel that same compassion. Does your right to see Janet Jacksons boob trump my right to raise my child the way I want? [/quote]

No, it is your right to turn the fucking tv off. Again, football has never been that innocent and if a kid is old enough to comprehend what the game is truly about and old enough to see some Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders, they are old enough to experience 1/10th of a second of a nipple without the world ending and you having a parental meltdown in front of them. Please, refer to Rainjack’s post for clarification.

[quote]
You liberal childless “child experts” are a riot! [/quote]

Again, the only one using that label for me is you. I am not a liberal and it is not my job to make sure that society, baseball, or any other public event is sanitized for your children. This world is not that cute and innocent. Please make sure your kids don’t reach puberty believing that it is like Disney Land outside their front door. Quit acting as if you need the perfect time and place to teach your kids about life. Life is not predictable. Teach them that. Teach them that life changes and can get harder at a moment’s notice. The world you seem to want to have is not the real world. You want to show them some made up glossy facade and then send them out to the wolves upon high school graduation. Kids rebel because of thinking like that. They are often much smarter than you give them credit for.

zeb and rj,

i think the problem may be that men like you are a minority where it matters. you’re in the majority inasmuch as you want censorship (i think that’s the majority), but you’re in the minority for the reasons that you want said censorship.

how many parents are still like my father? if there are still many of them then i feel censorship can be detrimental. but if there are more parents like you guys it seems we dont have much to worry about. because you understand the necessity of both censorship and removing the veil at the appropriate time (it seems most others don’t even recognize that there is a veil needing removal).

but a question still remains. how important is the cencorship of boobies? i understand that you want the right to teach your children your traditions (as will i), but how important is the focus on boobies?

i hypothesize that the reason american men like tits so much is because we never get to see them and they’re equated with sexuality exclusively. then when we do get to experience them it’s overload.

i find it almost disgusting that a woman can improve her sexuality tremendously simply by increasing the size of her breasts. would this even be an issue if breasts were not the topic of tremendous censorship?

there’s a helluva lot more to sex than the media likes to recognize. in censoring it or aspects of it, children are indirectly learning that that which is censored are the important sexual things.

i imagine that in my efforts to teach my son about sex and how to treat a woman and how to love a woman properly i’ll ignore the sexually censored topics because that is not what sex is really about and i wouldn’t want to confuse my boy any more than he already is.

if this discussion reverts back to me not understanding because i haven’t children, remember, i get that. even so, i may have a point.

Professor 20 something:

Actually, You are even younger than I suspected. You are a 20 something childless child expert! LOL, I wonder why I waste my time? You are utterly clueless. Why don’t you begin a thread about another topic that you have absolutely no experience in and tell us exactly how to do it? Did you ever try to correct someones lifting, but they somehow knew more than you, even though they have never really lifted before? Yea…that’s the feeling that I get discussing child rearing with you.

That does not mean that 20 something childless guys can’t have an opinion on this topic. It just means that they don’t know what they hell their talking about most of the time. You continue to prove that everytime you post on this topic!

I also get the gist of your posts (unfortunately) it’s all about YOU! You are a selfish person at heart (I was too when I was in my 20’s). You want to make sure that nothing in YOUR life is changed. Matters not what children see on TV as long as YOU can sit in front of YOUR set and drool over some cheerleaders, or whatever turns your head. You don’t even seem willing to accept an idea such as having “mature programming” after a certain hour. I see your point, why should you be inconvenienced? Sad man…Personally, when you place your selfish desires ahead of the nations children, I think you should hang your head. I know that won’t happen because you have to actually think outside of your selfish desires in order to do that…again, maybe in time…

I never stated that it was societies job to raise my children. That would be your hero Hillary Clinton who said “it takes a villiage.”

All I want from society (mainly Hollyweird)is to get their stinking filth out of my childrens face. Not as easy as shutting off the TV, as I have already pointed out to you. It’s TV, movies, magazines, billboards etc. Then you have peer pressure which drives a child who has not seen the latest trash to actually want to view it. Do you think it’s a good thing that you have 10, 11 and 12 year old girls dressing like Brittany Spears? GET IT YET? No probably not…still afraid you might miss one of those cheerleaders bending over.

Culture has taken a turn for the worse relative to raising children. This makes the parents job far more difficult than even your parents had it in the eighties! I know, you fail to see it, I did too when I was a 20 something childless “expert.” I remember pointing out all of the flaws that my parents and my friends parents had. Man…they just didn’t get it…I wonder why they seem so much wiser to me today?

Finally, I am quite able to teach my children about reality. However, once again the point rises over your head like a steady cool breeze. Should a 7 year old be taught how to handle a gun? No! In the same vein a 7 year old has no business viewing sexual content while watching a televison program. As I have pointed out, they are bombarded by this, including peer pressure. You are not sensitive to this as a 20 something male, again neither was I. This relates back to one of my original points: You will not get it until you are older and have kids of your own!

Until that time all the posts that you can type screaming “me me me” are pretty freaking meaningless.

wufwugy"

You have many good points. In fact you are making your fellow 20 somethings (like professor child expert) look silly.

However, I can’t go any further until I point out this one line of yours: “but a question still remains. how important is the cencorship of boobies?” I thank you for that line…I laughed my butt off when I read it. Don’t ask me why. It was just hillarious!

I can see myself before a Judge “Your honor, I never meant to censor boobies, it was just something that…that happened…sorry” :frowning:

Okay, okay I got that out of my system. You make an interesting point about breasts. Would they have the same appeal if they were not protected and hidden as they are? My guess is yea they would, but who knows for sure? I suppose they are not that big a deal to a native culture where the women do not cloth their breasts.

This leads me back to one important point. We do have a culture where breasts are supposed to be covered. Hence, anything that disturbs that “tradition” and exposes that behavior UNANOUNCED to my child, such as a certain Superbowl game, has to be questioned. Shouldn’t it be my choice as a parent, when and where to expose my children to such things?

Those 20 somethings who continually cry “it was only a boob” don’t get it. I agree, it was only a boob, but it is when and where it was done. For the last time: I am not against boobs (hey something is wrong with that line, but I’m leaving it in). I think boobs are a great invention. They also serve a dual purpose which speaks to my desire for efficiency. I simply want to control the content as to what my 7 year old child is exposed to. Who in their right adult mind can argue with that? Parents used to be able to do that about 100% of the time. It’s now not a matter of “turning it off.” As a parent you have no idea what is coming next! Something is wrong with that…right?

The Superbowl incident (one of many) showed me that the media has lost it’s respect for the family. Why do we have to sit down as a family to watch what has become a tradition in this country and be treated to some has been slut swinging her naked boobs around? I didn’t overreact when it happened. I simply said “it’s just some over the hill singer trying to get attention. She thinks this will help her sell more CD’s.” What do you kids think?" The kids went “ewwwwww.”

Then what’s the big deal you might ask. Well, the big deal is that how many times do I have to say that? How many times does a kid get exposed to slime like Janet Jackson and walk away untainted? You don’t know, and neither do I, and I don’t want to find out. I don’t like the media “experimenting” with my children.

Look, this can be summed up in just a few words: Some people like nudity on TV, fine, let them have it. I am only asking for some restrictions. We have restrictions on many other forms of activity. There is a drinking age, a smoking age, a driving age, a voting age. I only ask that it is rated as being “mature” and it is televised only at certain hours after good parents have put their kids to bed. Is that asking so much? I don’t think it is.

There is more of a danger in exposing kids to sex to early, than parents not talking to them about it at all!

Okay, this is just a question, seriously. At what age is nudity or breasts innappropriate for a child? Toddlers sometimes take baths with their parents, or run around butt naked through the sprinkler. Breasts are the be-all and end-all for the first year are so. When does it become wrong for them to be seen by a child? Maybe not an age, but stage of development then. Seriously, just curious.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Wow, Professor, I guess you know everything about um…just about everything! Congrats man! You are one very smart guy…That’s why you can write things like this: “I answered your response before you wrote it.” With your almighty powers you are able to ascertain answers to questions which are not even asked. You have “Seer” like abilities.

[/quote]

Hey, I bet being able to devine stuff like this makes him a great doctor!