TCM sometimes runs them on Cartoon Alley 11:30-Noon on Saturdays.
Has anybody ever done a study to see if hard core porn has any effect at all on kids? I mean, seriously, how would we know?
I want to see how they get volunteers for that study.
:rolleyes: The kids are watching Spongebob and you are worried about the commercials. That show is all homosexual innuendo made for stoned college students.
During the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, my boss was driving his 9-year-old son to a soccer game. From the back seat, he hears, “Dad, do you and Mom do oral sex?”
He didn’t drive off the road, but he said it was a close call.
(His answer was, “no comment.”)
Am I the only one that thinks that Bratz and Barbie are worse for kids than Mistress Mandy? Toys that glorify being a whore are marketed to kids with impunity and have been for a couple of generations now.
I basically agree with you, but just to play Devil’s Advocate, how do Bratz dolls glorify being a whore? Do you mean the revealing outfits?
The revealing outfits, the materialistic attitude, and the encouragement of arrogance. It’s Paris Hilton JROTC.
You see the problem.
Barbie is whorish? Say what?
The Guide to Getting It On actually has an intriguing Barbie chapter that makes a good case for Barbie being a feminist icon.
However, if you equate feminists with whores, this information will be of no use to you.
There is only one kind of nurse I know of that dresses like this:
An English nurse?
Actually that’s based on the uniform for American nurse in WW2.
See this past thread (“How much should we parents worry about our kids seeing internet porn?”) for a discussion of that question. The short version is that the Nixon administration did do a study that, much to their chagrin, essentially found no evidence of harm. There is no good evidence to support a belief that exposure to few naughty images causes any harm. OTOH ambushed’s post #52 was highly cogent:
Of course that thread was more focused on repetitive exposure and concerned over the easy access to hard-core deviant (and often misogynistic) pornography courtesy of the internet. Something that this goofy spot was not.
DSeid’s post makes a lot of sense. To the uninitiated, sex looks violent - even plain ol’ vanilla missionary sex. Soooooo…I can either try in vain to shield my child from sexual images, become a shrieking harpy and make everyone “enjoy” vapid G-rated entertainment lest my child become corrupted…or I can watch things with my kids and explain things when they look concerned. “He’s not squishing her, baby, it’s okay. It’s how grown ups like to play sometimes.”
People still watch TV?!?!
Well, the present system of having some media that are accessible to children and others that are not seems to work. The lady in a leather suit hardly constitutes “explicit” porn, or porn of any kind, no matter how much some people say so.
Anybody watch Catwoman or that Batman movie with Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman? Lady in a leather suit all over the place there. Verrrrry sexy. Maybe a lady in a leather suit isn’t the same as hardcore porn. Maybe the people that think so should watch some actual hardcore porn so they’d know the difference.
I don’t think we’re disagreeing, are we?
The only way media is not accessible to children is with parental involvement. Any V-chips, parental controls, blocking, nannyware, whatever, can be worked around. The only way I can be sure (if that’s my goal, which it isn’t) that my kids don’t see sex is to watch what they’re watching AND to know ahead of time for sure, that there won’t be sex in the program I’m watching with them or the ads associated with it.
Frankly, keeping my hand on the remote for every single second is just too much work - especially since, by definition, if I see something inappropriate, it’s too late - the kids have seen it too. I’d rather talk to my kids about sex and not make it such a big deal. I’m weird like that.
I have a lot more uneasiness about violence than sex - my only problem with depictions of sex, like I said, is that they can appear violent - even if we’re not talking about hardcore or BDSM (does anyone else have a hard time remembering what order those letters go in since frequenting the SDMB?). Just plain boring Catholic church approved sex - full of grabbing and gasping and thrusting and eyes rolled back in the head - can *look *like someone’s getting hurt.
So I don’t particularly care about sex until is crosses the perceived violence line. Since there is plenty of evidence that images of violence *do *adversely affect our kids I don’t feel like I’m basing that on a knee-jerk bias I personally have against seeing violence, but on very documentable harm to my child. I don’t personally care much about Mistress Mandy - she looks like the threat of violence, but not in a terribly serious way - I just find it ironic that the cable company is telling us she’s inappropriate for children by showing her during children’s programming!
*and does anyone else find it bizarre that plenty of people are willing to fund and offer their kids up for studies on media violence, but no one will for studies on media sex?
The reason they dropped silent might have nothing to do with sex.
The visuals are simply very attention-grabbing. A living room similar to what they are familiar with at home, but in a surprising, unusual, all-white color, plus a shiny, black-suited character jumping around and hitting things. That would make any kid pay attention, because it’s something she’s never seen before.
It definitely shouldn’t be on the air on Nicklodeon-- but not because 6 year old kid is going to be harmed by the sexual innuendo. The problem is that her 12 yr old brother might happen to be in the room, too.
Damn, I almost wish I were young during WWII now! Sure I would have my leg blown off by a Nazi but I’d get cared for by someone who looks like that!