Well, I was reading the “no nudes is good news” thread, and it brought me back to an issue that I have thought about many times. Is it really a good thing to keep nudity and sex a secret to children? I was taught that children should not see that sort of thing, and wasn’t allowed to watch a rated R movie until I went to college (not that I didn’t see them - just not with my parent saround ). Now, years later, I am left wondering why those rules exist at all.
Most European countries have a much more liberal view of what can be shown on TV, and they don’t seem to have any more problems with youngsters and sex than we do. So, why don’t people want young kids to see a woman’s breasts? What’s the big deal about a 2 minute sex scene in a movie? Will it really harm the child to see these things? Anyone have any reasoning behind this?
Mind you, I’m not talking about any wild, kinky sex (not that I have a problem with that), just your average rated R type stuff.
Well,you’ve got to protect children from bad things, and since sex is evil(not to mention anything that might lead to it, like nudity, dancing, or drive-ins) then you’ve got to protect children from them.
It’s all very simple…
/* personal opinion to follow–include all appropriate disclaimers */
It’s another sign of severely messed-up sexual attitudes and mores in this country (and, to be fair, in most of the rest of the world). We have such a bizarre take on sexuality in the US it’s no wonder our daughters are obsessed with looking like Barbie, that Britney Spears is an idol, that homosexuals (actual and suspected) are killed out of fear, that college boys think date rape is a reasonable action, that high school kids think the same of rohypnol, that more money is spent on cosmetic plastic surgery than on AIDS research, that kids have babies because they are scared to grab a freakin condom or think that they can’t get knocked up their first time . . . I could rant on, but you get the point.
Sure, sex should be an adult (well, mature) decision–it does have a load of possible repercussions. But it’s still a normal act, and sexuality is an integral part of being human. Stigmatizing it only breeds unhealthy expressions of rebellion.
According to Roger Ebert, the movie version of American Psycho (which I just finished reading) was given an NC-17 rating–not for violent content, but for a three-way sex scene. That scene is being trimmed, and the film will receive an “R”.
Those who have read the novel will agree that this means one of two things:
1.) They must have left out about 90% of the violence from the book.
2.) They’ve got to be kidding.
I don’t even want to describe some of the things that happen in this book. Apparently, it’s bad to show Patrick Bateman having sex with two women, but it’s fine to show him methodically torturing and killing them afterward.
I support Ebert’s idea that there should be a new rating (“A”) to indicate movies that are not appropriate for kids, but doesn’t carry the hard-core porn stigma of NC-17.
To answer the OP–I think that if we didn’t make a glimpse of a breast or an ass such a big deal, it wouldn’t be such a big deal. Maybe if you don’t spend the first thirteen years of your son’s life preventing him from seeing breasts, he won’t make it the main thrust of the next ten years or so. I do know that I would much rather my kids see sex or nudity than explicit, gratuitous violence.
It depends on the age of the child, I suppose. My son sometimes sits in the bathroom with me when I bathe.
He doesn’t mind,although he says he doesn’t want to see my “ugly butt!”
When he was 2, he caught me with a tampon, and decided to grab one and “try” to use it, but there was no where to put it.My parents cracked up.
I know;you’re glad I shared! :o
WRT Roger Ebert, weren’t he and Siskel in favor of the NC-17 years back??
I think the reason that that NC-17 fails (and the reason he now wants an A) is that it replaced the X rather than taking a spot between R and X. If a new adult rating is to work, I think they’ll need to keep the NC-17 and place the A between R and NC-17.
A big difference between violence and sex is that children have a context which they can put violence into, but they can’t do that for sex. What I mean is that for better or for worse, teenagers and even gradeschool kids can understand that violence is wrong, that people get hurt, that they shouldn’t do it. Now, I’m not claiming that every kid gets that message (we certainly have too many violent kids around) but at least it is possible.
In contrast, when they see non-violent, pleasurable sex, presented in a positive light — which makes sense to those adults who do not consider sex as evil — what do you expect the kids to do? They are going to want to share in the fun, even though they don’t have the maturity to handle the complex emotions which accompany it. And their hormones just worsen their frustration.
Originally posted by andros:
Do you see the tricky balancing act described here? We’ve got to find ways of giving the kids the information they need, but without teasing them.
My belief is that nudity should be kept tabboo, and that this includes stimulating states of partial nudity, such as on beer commercials, et al. But the reasons should be clearly stressed that it is not that sex is evil, but rather that sex is private. There is a world of difference between these two. The first makes sex into an enticing forbidden fruit. The second is a healthy, positive attitude which even kids can understand, and which they can carry into adulthood.
Tinker–yeah, Ebert is talking about a new A rating between R and NC-17. NC-17 was supposed to replace X as the rating for adults-only material, hopefully removing the stigma attached to X. Unfortunately, the stigma remained, and many theatres (including most chain multiplexes) will not show an NC-17 film, whether it’s “Eyes Wide Shut” or “Buttman and Throbbin’”.
I think this is not so much because of how kids actually react to bare gazongas*, as because of how adults react to them. It may be that parents are uncomfortable feeling sexually aroused when they’re looking at the same thing their kids are. I don’t know for sure; I’m not a parent.
*) I realize that “gazongas” is a terribly sexist term for a woman’s doorknobs. I should have said “bare melons” instead.
That’s ironic, since the original motivation for the NC-17 was to have a new rating to indicate movies that weren’t appropriate for kids, but didn’t carry the hard-core porn stigma of X, XXX, etc.
The further idea was that movies with serious content but that, for whatever reason, couldn’t get an R, could be seen somewhere besides a few art-house cinemas.
I hadn’t been aware that NC-17 had picked up the porn stigma. I had been aware that the major theatre chains had decided they weren’t going to show films with the NC-17 rating, which defeated the purpose of the NC-17. I’m not sure why anyone thinks an ‘A’ would work where the NC-17 didn’t.
Other than that, I second everything andros and DoctorJ said. And when are we going to get some nude beaches on the east coast, anyway?
Count me in the ‘nude isn’t lewd’ school of thought. The women on a nude beach are a lot less sexual than the ones on a ‘normal’ beach with bathing suits that are barely more than dental floss.
Nudity isn’t the problem - it’s our bizarre, contradictory attitudes toward sex and nudity that get confusing, IMO. On one hand, we use sex to sell everything under the sun, and on the other, we have all sorts of taboos about it. No wonder our kids grow up with screwed-up (no pun intended) attitudes toward sex.
[quote]
When he was 2, he caught me with a tampon, and decided to grab one and “try” to use it, but there was no
where to put it.My parents cracked up. [\quote]
Another side track…
When my oldest son was 18 mos or so, he saw my wife getting out of the shower, pointed up at her crotch and went “Owwie!”
Obviously, we are not puritans in my household. Sex is something that is private; nudity happens out in the open from time to time. My kids know the basic body parts; they know that a baby grows in Mama’s stomach. When it’s time, they’ll learn how the baby gets there, and, God willing, will understand the ramifications of the acts involved.
“The large print givith, and the small print taketh away.”
Tom Waites, “Step Right Up”
If nothing else, it would help separate mainstream movies with adult content from porno. “American Psycho”, which just missed the “R” rating, would get an “A”. “Totally Anal III”, on the other hand, would get an NC-17 (although I would recommend a return to good old fashioned “X”).
Multiplexes don’t want to look like they’re willing to show hard-core porn, so they ban NC-17 movies altogether. With the “A” rating, they could still show “Eyes Wide Shut” and still keep out the blatant porn as a matter of policy.
I don’t know that it would work–the theatres might refuse to show “A” movies anyway. It’s a good idea, though.
When my little buddy Jordan, now 3, was just shy of two, his parents were teaching him body parts. “Where’s your nose?” and he’d point to his nose; “where’s your hand” and he’d point with one hand to his other one; and so on.
Now, Jordan is a precisionist about these things. If they asked him, “where’s your toes,” he would not gesture vaguely at the front of his feet; he’d take off his socks (and shoes if he happened to be wearing them in the house) and show them exactly what and where his toes were. So we should have seen it coming…
His mother ran through all these things with his father, me, my wife, his grandmother, and his uncle looking on, and Jordan beaming at having that much of an audience. Then she asked him, “where’s your butt?” And he showed everyone exactly where it was. Not just by pointing…remember what he did with the toes?
Possible, but very uunlikely. Watch Power Rangers some time. Do you get the impression that the program is showing that “people get hurt”? The bad guys fall down a lot, but the don’t seem to be really hurt. And the good guys always come through everything unscathed. Does this program show that “violence is wrong”? Virtually every conflict is resolved through violence.
So if sex is presented in a negative light, is that okay? Is The Wall acceptable child entertainment? What about movies in which none of the sex is consensual? And if children have “no context” in which to place sex, I don’t see how they’ll see it as pleasurable. I don’t think that people would consider two naked people moaning and groaning to be two people having fun unless they already know what sex is, realize that that is what the two people are doing, and already think of sex as pleasurable.
I think your analogy fits better than you think. If kids can realize violence is wrong, I don’t see why they can’t realize sex before maturity isn’t. A nine year old might see his hero action guy shoot some guys with his uzi, and come out as the hero of the city. Why can he realize that is wrong, but not that the same hero guy having sex with his mistress is wrong? He has no frame of reference for either action.
Also, sex aside, what could be wrong with letting the kid see a nude person once in a while, or even just breasts?
The thing that worries me most as a parent with regard to a child’s perception of the human body is getting them to realize that their bodies are their own – or as a previous poster put it “private”.
I don’t think it’s necessarily bad for children to view nudity (in a proper context and without salaciousness – after all, no one is more comfortable with their nakedness than a young child). But along with cultivating a sense of “this is not evil” in children, we need also to stress that certain things are appropriate and inappropriate (such as public nudity and allowing someone to touch certain places on their bodies).
It’s a tricky balancing act: trying to raise kids who aren’t hung up about their bodies, but who are also protective of that same body of theirs.
And tracer, please, the correct term is “sweater meat”.
The Dave-Guy
“Since my daughter’s only half-Jewish, can she go in up to her knees?” J.H. Marx
Keeves, can you define “stimulating” for me? What’s stimulating? To whom?
Example: Why should a man be able to walk around without a shirt on and not a woman? Are breasts special? Well, sure, they’re important organs. But just because they’re inflated and men’s aren’t they’re supposed to be taboo? I have a very good friend whose breasts are very small. She could wear an A-cup if she didn’t mind all the extra fabric. I’ve seen many men with larger pecs than her breasts. So why is she not allowed to go shirtless? Sure, I may find it sexy, personally very appealing, but only because I find her sexy. Not because of her SHFB’s*.
If I find a woman attractive, I’m just as aroused by her voice, her neck, her eyes, her ankles, as by her breasts or bare rear. All you could do is take a page from the Taliban and keep women shrouded in dresses made by Omar the tentmaker with veils made from denim.
What’s stimulating? We’re sexual animals–we’ll find something. A Victorian lady showing a flash of ankle was enough to send her beaus into paroxysms. Should we demand ALL flesh be covered?
Maybe, just maybe, if we worked to get rid of some aspects of our nudity taboos we might be able to raise kids with a healthy sense of physical beauty. It sure would be nice if little Judy didn’t think she had to blow chunks after lunch so she could look like Nicole Kidman. Or if little Billy didn’t treat his girlfriend like dirt because they were “overweight.” Or because he felt like he was worthless for having a penis that was smaller than he thought it should be.
And perhaps we could raise kids with a healthy idea of sex, so a few of them might realize that it’s not all it’s cracked up to be. Maybe we could shake the “if the adults say we shouldn’t it must be good” mentality. Maybe we would have kids using birth control and STD protection because we’re willing to actually talk to them about it.
). Now, years later, I am left wondering why those rules exist at all.