Children can be exposed to mild versions of both and be ok... it's the extremes that fucks kids up.
What would you rather have your children exposed to?
- Thread starter DJCowboy
- Start date
I put violence, but I wasn't sure to what degree the violence and nudity are gauged at?
PlasmaTwa2
The Second-Hottest Man in my Mother's Basement
Radiation. :thumbsup:
peterthebeater
Banned
"fucking and fighting its all the same"
Vlad The Impaler
Power Slave
Some of the posts are so contrary to the posters normal views that I'm inclined to think they read the question wrong.
Why is it so important to some of you that children be exposed to either? Why not just let them be children? I grew up with violence and I'm a violent person. I did not however grow up with a bunch of naked people running around whether it be in the living room or on tv, and for most of my life I was a male whore.
Why is it so important to some of you that children be exposed to either? Why not just let them be children? I grew up with violence and I'm a violent person. I did not however grow up with a bunch of naked people running around whether it be in the living room or on tv, and for most of my life I was a male whore.
I do think American TV does go overboard somewhat in their reactions to the two above states. When it comes to violence, it seems perfectly reasonable for television shows to be extremely graphic material on a television program whereas when said television program uses language some might find offensive or shows more human flesh (even when it's not of a sexual nature) the reaction by the viewer and the regulators who are working on the peoples behalf react to it in a ridiculous manner.
I've always put this down to the Christian morals the vast majority of the US populace are placing on their television programs and expecting them to uphold to, which to a certain extent is probably true. But I think the main goal of those on the other side of this issue is just to try to gain a happy medium where both nudity, bag language and violence can coexist without one being dominant over the others and without an almighty outpouring of disgust by the viewers. People are effected by what they watch on TV that is a fact - that's not the same as making the statement music or video games make people kill one another so don't make that mistake. But when you place so much emphasis on violence and to a certain extent celebrate it in such a way as a lot of TV seems to do, you do nothing more than glamorise it and desensitise people to its real effects in the real world. Knowing this it's little wonder why people react in the way they do when there's such an outcry when a breast is shown on TV or when someone says "Fuck" but not when Jack Bauer, for example is torturing people for fun (or it seems that way).
This is where the real confusion comes in.
I think the best way you could go about combating this would be to put into place a 'watershed' like they do in the UK where after a certain time when there's very little chance that you children will be watching - it's 9pm in the UK - public stations can show what they want (within reason) without fear of any repercussions from the regulators.
I've always put this down to the Christian morals the vast majority of the US populace are placing on their television programs and expecting them to uphold to, which to a certain extent is probably true. But I think the main goal of those on the other side of this issue is just to try to gain a happy medium where both nudity, bag language and violence can coexist without one being dominant over the others and without an almighty outpouring of disgust by the viewers. People are effected by what they watch on TV that is a fact - that's not the same as making the statement music or video games make people kill one another so don't make that mistake. But when you place so much emphasis on violence and to a certain extent celebrate it in such a way as a lot of TV seems to do, you do nothing more than glamorise it and desensitise people to its real effects in the real world. Knowing this it's little wonder why people react in the way they do when there's such an outcry when a breast is shown on TV or when someone says "Fuck" but not when Jack Bauer, for example is torturing people for fun (or it seems that way).
This is where the real confusion comes in.
I think the best way you could go about combating this would be to put into place a 'watershed' like they do in the UK where after a certain time when there's very little chance that you children will be watching - it's 9pm in the UK - public stations can show what they want (within reason) without fear of any repercussions from the regulators.
How old are these children?
When I was a kid, my dad would let me and my brother and sister watch all kinds of violent action movies. The earliest one that I remember well was "Commando", with Schwarzenegger. People die, people get shot, things blow up, Arnold breaks guys necks - he drops one guy off of a cliff. Maybe not THE most violent ever but nonetheless. 105 people die in that one. (I looked it up)
HOWEVER, he put up a big fit to my mother because the comedy movie "Airplane!" had about 5 seconds of female frontal nudity. He may as well have broken out some holy water for that one. My mom thought (rightfully) that he was so ridiculous for that backwards mindset - Violence is ok, but a bit of nudity was evil and horribly wrong. So we weren't allowed to watch it.
It was ok to watch The A-Team, where a thousand bullets go flying (but no one dies or even bleeds) and things get blown up (but the bad guy always survives unscathed because he jumps out of the boat in time). Gunfire galore, but with no consequence to show for it.
How responsible is that?
Those same people who fully supported (and still support) gratuitous violence will turn around and sick the wrath of the lord on any simple nudity.
Remember the big, overblown deal everyone made about Janet Jackson at the Superbowl halftime show, for the exposure of (gasp) a nipple. God save our children from the nipple but bring on the guns and fist fights.
That's how most of society wants to think. The same society that pushes alcohol at us in commercials, and pushes pill after pill at us as well, is completely intolerant about marijuana.
This is the world we live in.
Anyway, kids shouldn't be shielded from these things because they will find it eventually. It is better they see it with their mom or dad, who can explain things to them, such as reality and fiction, right and wrong. If they don't, then the kid sees it as some cool and mysterious thing because mom and dad are keeping them from it. You're not protecting them by hiding it. You're only making them less prepared and aware. Kind of like the sex talk (which I never got as well).
When I was a kid, my dad would let me and my brother and sister watch all kinds of violent action movies. The earliest one that I remember well was "Commando", with Schwarzenegger. People die, people get shot, things blow up, Arnold breaks guys necks - he drops one guy off of a cliff. Maybe not THE most violent ever but nonetheless. 105 people die in that one. (I looked it up)
HOWEVER, he put up a big fit to my mother because the comedy movie "Airplane!" had about 5 seconds of female frontal nudity. He may as well have broken out some holy water for that one. My mom thought (rightfully) that he was so ridiculous for that backwards mindset - Violence is ok, but a bit of nudity was evil and horribly wrong. So we weren't allowed to watch it.
It was ok to watch The A-Team, where a thousand bullets go flying (but no one dies or even bleeds) and things get blown up (but the bad guy always survives unscathed because he jumps out of the boat in time). Gunfire galore, but with no consequence to show for it.
How responsible is that?
Those same people who fully supported (and still support) gratuitous violence will turn around and sick the wrath of the lord on any simple nudity.
Remember the big, overblown deal everyone made about Janet Jackson at the Superbowl halftime show, for the exposure of (gasp) a nipple. God save our children from the nipple but bring on the guns and fist fights.
That's how most of society wants to think. The same society that pushes alcohol at us in commercials, and pushes pill after pill at us as well, is completely intolerant about marijuana.
This is the world we live in.
Anyway, kids shouldn't be shielded from these things because they will find it eventually. It is better they see it with their mom or dad, who can explain things to them, such as reality and fiction, right and wrong. If they don't, then the kid sees it as some cool and mysterious thing because mom and dad are keeping them from it. You're not protecting them by hiding it. You're only making them less prepared and aware. Kind of like the sex talk (which I never got as well).
