I agree with this. Most parents choose to withhold some content from young children not because they are afraid of the sexual arousal that might result but because they don't wish to frighten the children or present them with images that they do not understand. Violence may not cause sexual arousal, but it can cause nightmares, confusion, and frightened feelings just as well as sexual images. Again, there's no general rule, but it's my opinion that in most cases, nudity is less of an issue for young children than violent gore. After all, most children have seen naked people before - parents, siblings- (granted, probably not while having sex), but most children have not seen a beheaded body covered in blood and bruises, for example. So, we can't really make general rules; each child is different in his experiences, maturity, and comprehension.
Sex vs. Violence in entertainment
- Thread starter freeman801
- Start date
- Status
I agree with this. Most parents choose to withhold some content from young children not because they are afraid of the sexual arousal that might result but because they don't wish to frighten the children or present them with images that they do not understand. Violence may not cause sexual arousal, but it can cause nightmares, confusion, and frightened feelings just as well as sexual images. Again, there's no general rule, but it's my opinion that in most cases, nudity is less of an issue for young children than violent gore. After all, most children have seen naked people before - parents, siblings- (granted, probably not while having sex), but most children have not seen a beheaded body covered in blood and bruises, for example. So, we can't really make general rules; each child is different in his experiences, maturity, and comprehension.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2009
- Messages
- 11,732
- Reaction score
- 4,650
@ Mgraybosch: You don't strike me as egotistical. You might be self-confident and know what you think, but you have yet to strike me as egotistical. What I meant was more along the lines of egomaniacal personality disorder. Geez I'm so tired at this point I don't remember if I got that name right. I do know, however, that I had a class in grad school where a professor called this basically the disorder of our generation. The idea is that, similar to sociopaths, a person will basically only think in terms of themselves, what they want, and how to get it with little or no regard for others and little or or no empathy. I think every one of us can think of at least one (and probably more) person we've met that fits that description.
I like the "by any means necessary" comment. I agree that it's a bad attitude. I think if anything we need to be willing to say "Even if I don't get what I want, I'm not going to do this because it might hurt someone else."
I like the "by any means necessary" comment. I agree that it's a bad attitude. I think if anything we need to be willing to say "Even if I don't get what I want, I'm not going to do this because it might hurt someone else."
Okay.
According to this article, which references studies you can read for yourself, YES, the average American teen is more likely to get pregnant or contract a sexual infection than teens in all European countries, including Poland (which has virtually no sex education in public schools) and the UK (which has the next-highest rates of teen pregnancy, STI infection, and abortion in the developed world.)
I must say, ages when people choose to have sex don't matter to me personally and I don't see why they're considered significant to determining the sexual health of a country. What's important is how many unwanted pregnancies result, and the spread of disease. If a thirteen-year-old decides to become sexually active and is educated enough to use protection every time, I don't care. If a nineteen-year-old decides to have sex for the first time and never bothers with protection, that concerns me a lot more.
But since you asked, according to the Kinsey Institute, a 2002 study places average age of first intercourse for U.S. teens at 16.9 years for males and 17.4 years for females. Studies for European countries vary widely, because there are so many countries, but here are some: In 2000, a French study puts ages at 17.2 years for males, 17.6 for females. This article suggests that U.K. teens were having sex around the age of 15, on average, in 2008. But the U.K.'s rate of teen pregnancy, abortion, and STI spread is still smaller than those of the U.S.
It can be viewed that way by some people. By others, not. You're putting your own personal value judgments on this particular statistic, but because you requested it, here it is: In 2000, 14.5 abortions per 1000 teen pregnancies in the U.S. A 1999 Reuter's Health report made the claim that U.S. teen abortion rates, though declining since the 1980s, are still significantly above European (Netherlands, France, Germany) rates.
Depends on the psychologist. Opinions vary from lots of harm to potential for some harm, if not monitored, to really no significant or obvious harm. Why aren't you wondering whether exposure to graphic violence might have a psychological impact on children?
I think it's funny, though, that you just assumed we hold this opinion of American sexuality for no good reason, and that we haven't taken the time to educate ourselves.
By the way, I don't believe that violence in the media can be shown to actually cause violence in children or adults. At least, current studies haven't yet convinced me that there is a significant link between violent media and an increase in violent behavior. There isn't even a correlation, in fact. But I still would choose to shield a child from violence in the media until they were teen-aged; not because I think it will turn them into a violent person, but because I'd hope that I'd raised an empathic enough child that seeing violence would upset them.
And were I raising children, I wouldn't mind if they saw consensual sex in the media. The science is sound enough to assure me that it won't affect their decision about when to become sexually active, and I don't see a problem with their understanding that adult sex can be a good thing that two people who love each other can enjoy together. I would WANT my children to have a healthy, mature, confident attitude about sex. But then, according to the way I vote and where I send my charity money, I'm not your average American.
Last edited:
Actually, as a zoo keeper, I'm of the opinion that man is definitely not Earth's ultimate predator. The Humboldt squid gets my vote for ultimate predator.
Which is why God invented masturbation.
Wanking.
Pity the poor bishop, victim of my flogging...
I think -- and I'm just referring to this post, it's not personal, because I do read this as an observation -- that this just underscores a fundamental dis-ease with sexuality. Children, young adults are, and should be, curious about sex. It's natural. And healthy. And... well, fun.
I think this also explains the far higher number of amusement parks in the United States compared to the rest of the world. Why, when I was a teen, I didn't need a rollercoaster -- give me a box of early 70s Penthouse and I made my own fun. The success of Disneyland and Six Flags is commensurate with the discouragement of kids from making their own fun...
I know that you were talking about the comics -- I think -- but I immediately went to the recent movie versions of those titles.
My wife and I went to a preview of the first Spiderman movie, and were seated down the aisle from a four-year-old. As a parent, especially in the company of children, I can't help but view a movie with a child in mind -- that movie was BRUTALLY violent. Oh sure, it's all fun and webs and kissing upside down in alleys, but watch the final fight scene with the Goblin with a child in mind -- the crunch of bones, the flying blood, the lingering closeups on wounds...
The little boy down the aisle was beyond traumatized -- he screamed. And shrieked. And his parents? Didn't give a shit.
(shrugs)
My son, at age ten, still hasn't seen any of the Spiderman movies. Or Lord of the Rings. I'm not letting him watch Henry & June or The Lover either, but I have a lot less problem with occasional nudity or adult situations than I do with the fetishization of violence, and the acceptance of that obsession.
I think it should be based on a child to child basis. We always watch new movies before our kids see them. Sometimes our kids aren't that obedient in not watching them too. For example. We got Ghost Rider. We didn't know if it would be too scary or not. We explained to the kids what we were doing and why.
Almost to the end of the movie, we caught our little boy watching from the doorway, completely enraptured by it, he's 6. We allowed him to come in and finish it, there was only 10 minutes left. It's one of his favorite movies.
He also is crazy about the comic book movies, Ironman and so forth. He loved the first batman but we haven't showed him the second one. We feel it's too much too soon. And that's how we call it. If our kids are okay with it and it isn't causing them nightmares or anything like that, then we try and let them make decisions on what they want to watch and read while balancing it as best we can.
It goes for reading material as well. We'll pre-screen anything new that we're not familiar with and if we feel our kids can and want to handle it, we let them. If something is terrifying them, like some children's movies really scared them, we turn them off immediately. Some of the most surprising choices can scare the heck out our children that are supposidely for their age group while other things above their age group they're just fine with.
I guess it just comes down to being a responsible parent IMO.
Almost to the end of the movie, we caught our little boy watching from the doorway, completely enraptured by it, he's 6. We allowed him to come in and finish it, there was only 10 minutes left. It's one of his favorite movies.
He also is crazy about the comic book movies, Ironman and so forth. He loved the first batman but we haven't showed him the second one. We feel it's too much too soon. And that's how we call it. If our kids are okay with it and it isn't causing them nightmares or anything like that, then we try and let them make decisions on what they want to watch and read while balancing it as best we can.
It goes for reading material as well. We'll pre-screen anything new that we're not familiar with and if we feel our kids can and want to handle it, we let them. If something is terrifying them, like some children's movies really scared them, we turn them off immediately. Some of the most surprising choices can scare the heck out our children that are supposidely for their age group while other things above their age group they're just fine with.
I guess it just comes down to being a responsible parent IMO.
Libbie, for one, the squid isn't the ultimate predator. If we wanted, we could blow it of the face of the earth. We could blow any animal off the face of the earth. No other animal has that claim. Speaking as a horse trainer and former vet tech--if you must put forwards credentials (and I'm betting neither of us have ever worked on, or even seen a live giant squid before).
But two, it is easy for you to pick and choose any article off the internet leaning to your political viewpoint. I could do likewise. I am very skeptical about what you have brought forward. Starting with Wikipedia, which should always be regarded with a grain of salt, since any one can edit it. And many of the institutions you have chosen are regarded as highly liberal. If you had neutrally put forward various opposing studies--which, believe me, there are--then your argument might get my attention.
BTW, I'm all for educating teens about sex. However, I think younger kids can't understand it, and are best left in the dark about it. Let their brains develop some common sense. My mom sat my sister and I down for the talk about sex at a very young age. What we did with that knowledge was, well, very childish. I am afraid to say in public what we did! It involved the neighbor boys--I'll leave it at that!
But two, it is easy for you to pick and choose any article off the internet leaning to your political viewpoint. I could do likewise. I am very skeptical about what you have brought forward. Starting with Wikipedia, which should always be regarded with a grain of salt, since any one can edit it. And many of the institutions you have chosen are regarded as highly liberal. If you had neutrally put forward various opposing studies--which, believe me, there are--then your argument might get my attention.
BTW, I'm all for educating teens about sex. However, I think younger kids can't understand it, and are best left in the dark about it. Let their brains develop some common sense. My mom sat my sister and I down for the talk about sex at a very young age. What we did with that knowledge was, well, very childish. I am afraid to say in public what we did! It involved the neighbor boys--I'll leave it at that!
Last edited:
I have to disagree Mustang. I don't think you should give them both barrels when it comes to sex, but gradually introducing to them on a level they can understand I believe is far more helpful then having them try to muddle through it on their own. Children become curious about sex and their bodies far younger than most people thing and it's better imo to have some understanding.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 2,877
- Reaction score
- 404
- Location
- United States
- Website
- www.matthewgraybosch.com
Actually, he invented masturbation because the sight of Adam and Eve yiffing in the Garden of Eden really creeped him out. (Link is NSFW, by the way.)
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 2,877
- Reaction score
- 404
- Location
- United States
- Website
- www.matthewgraybosch.com
I prefer the following: "I'm not going to take the easy way out and get what I want by screwing somebody else. I'm better than that."
You see, I might be amoral, lack a conscience, and possess only a rudimentary sense of empathy, but I've figured out how to use pride, reason, and a keen sense of long-term self-interest to emulate a sense of ethics.
Oh my god
oh my god Oh my god oh my god Oh my god oh my god Oh my god oh my god Oh my god oh my god Oh my god oh my god Oh my god oh my god Oh my god oh my god Oh my god oh my god Oh my god oh my god Oh my god oh my god Oh my god oh my god ahem. That was horribly wrong and you should put an adult materials waring on that.
snigger. My little sister uses this site. (ETA AW)
ETA an obvious warning. I didn't quite get that one till after the matter.
Last edited:
I dunno... I thought NSFW was pretty obvious.
Besides, there'd be something pretty... strange, if not outright ironic... about a flashing "ADULT CONTENT, DON'T LET YOUR LITTLE SISTER CLICK!" message in THIS thread, of all places...
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 2,877
- Reaction score
- 404
- Location
- United States
- Website
- www.matthewgraybosch.com
Sorry, but "ETA" means "estimated time of arrival" to me. NSFW means "not safe for work", which is the standard tag for anything naughty.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 3
Why does it have to be sex VS violence.
I like them both. Preferable simultaneously.
So do kids, I'd say.
I like them both. Preferable simultaneously.
So do kids, I'd say.
- Status