-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What's Worse For Kids To See: Nudity, Sex, or Violence?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Kungfuzed
Student Nurse
I was raised on Tom & Jerry, Road Runner & Wiely Cyote, Buggs Bunny & Daffy Duck, GI Joe, and Kung Fu Action Theater. I've never been in a fight in my life or every physically injured anyone. I think violence on TV is fine. It's domestic violence in the family that ruins kids.
Kungfuzed
Student Nurse
tlcmel said:Do you mind explaining why you think it's fine for tv violence?
Because it's harmless and entertaining. This world was a much more violent place before TV was invented. Instead of going out and picking a fight with someone we can sit in front of the TV and have all our violent feelings lashed out vicariously through our favorite characters.
eudaimonia
Fellowship of Reason
Sunstone said:
Honestly, I don't think that any of those are harmful after puberty sets in.
Before puberty, I'd consider sex "harmful" (perhaps more confusing than harmful), because I don't think they are ready for sexual feelings and experiences at that time, and may get some strange ideas of what sex is about.
I'd also consider very graphic, scary violence (such as Texas Chainsaw Massacre) harmful, or at least disturbing and unsettling, mainly because kids need to develop a sense that the world can be a good place to be.
I don't think that sex is any more harmful for kids than violence. They are both about the same.
Nudity for prepubescents is fine. I suppose there might be some concerns about little girls developing body issues, but it's probably better to talk about those with them rather than trying to shelter them, which is futile.
I've seen Americans and Europeans bicker back and forth, with one side wanted to censor nudity/sex, and the other violence. I say censor neither, and parents should keep an eye on prepubescents.
eudaimonia,
Mark
eudaimonia
Fellowship of Reason
Kungfuzed said:
Yeah, seriously. I'm one of the most peaceful people out there. I was never encourage to violence by cartoons, television, movies, videogames, Dungeons & Dragons, etc. The idea that these cause violence in society is a scapegoat.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Hema
Sweet n Spicy
I say sex because at a young age they are not fully able to understand the meaning behind sex, for eg it should be between a man and woman in love and who are able to take responsibility for the consequences eg. a pregnancy. When they get the wrong interpretation about sex, thay start to experiment at an early age, I'm talking below the age of ten even. When they start having sex at a young age they can misinterpret it as an exchange of sex for love. Imagine how messed up that will be for them in terms of their self image and feelings of self worth. In addition, they can grow up seeing the opposite sex as objects of lust who can be used and then left behind. I chose sex over violence because I think most parents do not encourage violence, for eg. little children sometimes like to hit people, then the parents step in and say, "That's not nice." As for the nudity, generally when there is nudity on TV it is within a sexual context.
methylatedghosts
Can't brain. Has dumb.
What I find strange is that it is ok for kids to see naked violence on tv, but we do all that we (general population) can, to prevent them seeing naked love.
What is so wrong with a child seeing the parent walk across the hall to the bedroom from the shower and seeing him/her naked. This tells kids that parents are asexual, and is therefore no wonder that even grown people can't bear to imagine their parents "doing it"
What is so wrong with a child seeing the parent walk across the hall to the bedroom from the shower and seeing him/her naked. This tells kids that parents are asexual, and is therefore no wonder that even grown people can't bear to imagine their parents "doing it"
Violence is shown more often in America. I think overall some should be allowed, but I do think it's a bit much. On a balance scale Violence is smack down on the table and nudity/sex are in the air.
The other problem is... all are glorified in these rather unrealistic manners. Along with that there's this popular dislike of violence, sex, nudity when used intelligently. A pop star talking about sex is fine, but some underground artist using it to make people think is a violation of civil codes...... That's what I call rather screwed up.
The other problem is... all are glorified in these rather unrealistic manners. Along with that there's this popular dislike of violence, sex, nudity when used intelligently. A pop star talking about sex is fine, but some underground artist using it to make people think is a violation of civil codes...... That's what I call rather screwed up.
Simon Gnosis
Active Member
Violence by far....
Sex is hardly a problem..teenagers think of little else anyway.
Sex is hardly a problem..teenagers think of little else anyway.
Mercy Not Sacrifice
Well-Known Member
I said "other." Nudity and sex--two totally different things, BTW--are bar-none the two most overrated ills on television, and it's not going to scar kids for life to see rational, normal human behavior. What concerns me far more is:
Fear-mongering. Most American news stations, particularly FOXNews, are notorious for this; but we see it in movies and TV as well. People's fears of getting robbed, mugged, raped, shot, abducted, or especially having any of this happen to their child, are exploited constantly. Side note: Bowling for Columbine displayed this effect beautifully, and once you're acutely aware of it, it's very hard to deny.
Dangerous concept of consent. The current romance paradigm of Hollywood movies is: man pursues, women acts like a b***h, man tries again, woman starts to give in, man keeps going, woman gives in. In other words, if a man keeps wearing away at a woman's psyche, "no" eventually becomes "yes." This is not a message that men, especially young men, need to hear.
Heroification of violent people. This is in relation to real-world violence, particularly war, not violence in movies that is done purely for fictitious reasons. Although movies such as Saving Private Ryan finally capped the bleeding on those silly war movies that glorified people who killed other people in real combats and minimized the destruction, we still see a lot of it. I'm sorry, folks, but war is hell, no matter how FOXNews or the History Channel would present it.
Stereotypical gender roles. By continually men lead, women follow, men save the world, women love men, men pursue women, women fall for men, men are cold and calculated, women are emotional, etc., one wonders how much of a role modern movies have played in keeping present-day sexism alive. That, and it's just a bad story line to continue doing this over and over.
Then there's the whole list of poor character development, overdose of sadistic humor, overuse of foreshadowing, etc., but that just inhibits the quality of the movie.
Fear-mongering. Most American news stations, particularly FOXNews, are notorious for this; but we see it in movies and TV as well. People's fears of getting robbed, mugged, raped, shot, abducted, or especially having any of this happen to their child, are exploited constantly. Side note: Bowling for Columbine displayed this effect beautifully, and once you're acutely aware of it, it's very hard to deny.
Dangerous concept of consent. The current romance paradigm of Hollywood movies is: man pursues, women acts like a b***h, man tries again, woman starts to give in, man keeps going, woman gives in. In other words, if a man keeps wearing away at a woman's psyche, "no" eventually becomes "yes." This is not a message that men, especially young men, need to hear.
Heroification of violent people. This is in relation to real-world violence, particularly war, not violence in movies that is done purely for fictitious reasons. Although movies such as Saving Private Ryan finally capped the bleeding on those silly war movies that glorified people who killed other people in real combats and minimized the destruction, we still see a lot of it. I'm sorry, folks, but war is hell, no matter how FOXNews or the History Channel would present it.
Stereotypical gender roles. By continually men lead, women follow, men save the world, women love men, men pursue women, women fall for men, men are cold and calculated, women are emotional, etc., one wonders how much of a role modern movies have played in keeping present-day sexism alive. That, and it's just a bad story line to continue doing this over and over.
Then there's the whole list of poor character development, overdose of sadistic humor, overuse of foreshadowing, etc., but that just inhibits the quality of the movie.
Mercy Not Sacrifice said:
I think I understand what you're saying, and I think we're in substantial agreement about it, but I'd like to note that there is nevertheless a kernel of truth even in the Hollywood depiction of courtship. Many courtships do involve initial rejection followed by acceptance.
Mercy Not Sacrifice
Well-Known Member
Sometimes this is true. But to sell the message over and over that a woman will eventually give in after enough wooing and courting is just plain wrong.
Fear-mongering. You can deny it, just do what alot of people do, *places fingers in ears* LA! LA! LA! LA! LA!
Dangerous concept of consent. If it works, it works.
Heroification of violent people. Don't get me started.
Stereotypical gender roles. Both Art imitating Life and Vice Versa, it's a circular thing.
Dangerous concept of consent. If it works, it works.
Heroification of violent people. Don't get me started.
Stereotypical gender roles. Both Art imitating Life and Vice Versa, it's a circular thing.
Very_Irreverand_Bill
New Member
Religions, especially absolutist faiths.
~shudders~, someone please think of the children!:help:
In Reason:
Irreverand Bill
~shudders~, someone please think of the children!:help:
In Reason:
Irreverand Bill
krashlocke
Member
I would say that nudity is absolutely a null issue. It's the body - once you make it taboo and over-sexualize it, it becomes a problem.
Sex and violence are each important to development in regulated and guided doses. The important thing is to work with the child to help them to understand the things that they're seeing, reading, hearing, &c, and why they are positive or negative in the given context. A child will be exposed to these things - I'd prefer to be a part of it so that I can parent them.
As far as the Acme Latex Love Doll 2010, I was fine with children being exposed to models 2002-2006 and 2008-2009 (2007 had safety issues) but the flaring nostrils on the 2010 is where I draw the line. Completely repugnant.
Sex and violence are each important to development in regulated and guided doses. The important thing is to work with the child to help them to understand the things that they're seeing, reading, hearing, &c, and why they are positive or negative in the given context. A child will be exposed to these things - I'd prefer to be a part of it so that I can parent them.
As far as the Acme Latex Love Doll 2010, I was fine with children being exposed to models 2002-2006 and 2008-2009 (2007 had safety issues) but the flaring nostrils on the 2010 is where I draw the line. Completely repugnant.