Should children be shielded from TV/movies with sexual content?

Great Debates
1

In this thread in Café Society, there became a discussion about what is healthy for a kid to be exposed to. In this particular case, the discussion is regarding the suitability of a television show like Sex and The City for an 8-year-old girl. It’s not been dealt with to my satisfaction in that forum, nor is it likely the best place for it to be discussed anyway.

Let’s first note that my experience with children is very limited. I have none of my own. I’ve not had any serious involvement with the raising of any of my 10 nieces and nephews. The close friends of mine who have had children, have over time become less close friends. So, no significant involvement.

With that said, I am of the opinion that entertainment with significant sexual content is not something children, and perhaps even young adolescents, should be watching. As choie said in the other thread, “whatever happened to letting kids be KIDS?” As children age and progress through adolescence, the “line” becomes fuzzier and fuzzier as to what they are mature enough to handle and what should still be limited. Taking even the license to operate a motor vehicle as an example, I think that some 14-year-olds might be mature and responsible enough to drive, while other who are 20 are still not.

But in my mind, too young is too young. I propose that permitting your eight-year-old child (or six, or ten, or whatever) to watch heavily adult oriented shows is akin to allowing them to drink a few beers at that age, the argument being, “well, they’re going to do it anyway, may as well be at home where I can be sure they’re safe”. I also propose that permitting such behaviour is irresponsible and neglectful. AHunter3 and others in the other thread seem to indicate that it is somehow irresponsible to exert any control over what your children read or watch or do. I am reading into that opinion, as it has not been fully explained, but that’s my take.

But herein lies a problem. I’m not sure why I think it’s unhealthy. I have no evidence that being permitted to consume alcohol or watch sexually graphic television shows or movies will actually cause a child any harm. I’m hoping that you good folks in GD will forgive this transgression of not providing evidence. Truly, this is a knowledge-seeking mission, as I hope that I can learn more from those who are better qualified to assess what is/is not good for children.

2

Some background reading: Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex.

3

There’s one thing that lies in fault with that line of thinking, and that is this – drinking a beer is putting a foreign substance into your body which affects your internal chemistry. I’m not sure you’d find many people who’d agree that watching a sexually-explicit film or television program is tantamount.

I think it is important to differentiate, and by extension teach your child to differentiate, the gaps between life as it’s portrayed on television and the way the world really works. I don’t think this lesson should be conveyed during a marathon *Friday the 13th * session between you and Junior, but I still think it should be had. Simply taking as read that your child knows the differences at a young age is irresponsible.

FWIW, I do have a child. I don’t plan on exposing her to anything that is inappropriate too soon, because (let’s face it) kids do seem to grow up far too quickly. But there’s really little that can be done about it, either – unless you plan on locking your kid in their room for 16 hours a day, and homeschooling them, they’ll be exposed to the temptations of the world soon enough. But that’s the road we all walk.

And I don’t believe that it’s immoral or whatever to set down ground rules about what your kid(s) watch, take, or do. I knew kids whose parents were like that growing up. To put it mildly – they’ve had trouble adjusting to how the world actually works, have an overblown sense of entitlement, and are generally not the kinds of people you’d choose to spend time around. You do your kids no great favors by letting them do whatever they please.

4

I dunno. The last thing I’d want to do is to harm a kid. On the other hand, I’m not convinced that listening to frank sexual discussion will harm a kid.

Sure, it’s a matter that concerns adults more than it concerns kids. But so is land purchasing; and if my kid really wanted to watch Glen Garry, Glen Ross, I’m not sure I’d stop them based on the movie’s adult content. Nor would I stop them from watching A Brief History of Time, though it certainly concerns adult topics.

Violence seems a lot more harmful to kids than sex, I’d think. I’d be a lot more worried if my eight-year-old, for example, started exhibiting an unhealthy fascination with that most adult of all topics, war. If my kid started wanting to play with soldiers, started watching Top Gun, started discussing weaponry–THAT’s when I’d start to worry.

Daniel

5

I’ll just point out that there are lots of other cultures where kids have free and unfettered access to seeing half-nekked and totally nekked adults, whether those adults are voiding their bladders, working the fields, or perpetuating the species. And I haven’t heard any reports that show a higher level of “disturbance” among those kids than among others.

While I’m not advocating putting hard-core pornography on prime-time TV (it’s too soon after dinner, y’know? :wink: ), I think treating human nudity and genitals as one big “Eh, it’s no big deal” would be better overall than this system of going through hoops to keep them secret – sooner or later, the kids wig out that there’s Some Big Secret The Adults Don’t Want Them To Know™, which just drives them further to find out what it is.

And I agree with LHoD, I’d be more concerned about exposing kids to violence than sex. Violence and hostility can be emulated at any age, whereas younger kids won’t even have the interest in sex, much less the capability for it.

6

Not only is every child different, but every parent and every family is, too. I sometimes think it’s more important to *have *boundaries than it is exactly what those boundaries are. Face it, most of our boundaries are pretty arbitrary, but simply the fact that we have them lets our kids know we care.

For me, those boundaries are more around realistic violence than sex. I’ve never seen Sex and the City, so I can’t remark on that one specifically, but I’d rather my son see a sweet sex scene like that in Shakespeare in Love (boobbies!) than a gangster blowing someone’s face off. Sweet, tender, romantic and caring love is exactly what I *want *him to think of when he thinks of sex.

Frankly, I don’t think he’s all that bothered by the occasional realistic violence he sees - but I am. And, deep down underneath the eye-rolling, I know he takes my craziness as what it is - love for him.

Cartoonish violence, or violence perpetrated by otherworldly creatures, on the other hand, we’ve both always been OK with. He’s a big fan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer from when he was about 7. We’d watch it together, and we talk about it together, and had some really good conversations as a result. He’s keenly interested in fight choreography, special effects and prosthetic makeup techniques. He completely and utterly “gets” that it’s not real. I had no problems with the sex scenes for most of that show. But in Season 6, when the relationship between Buffy and Spike becomes violent as well as sexual, I started taping and prescreening them. The combination of sex and violence really tweaked me out, and I didn’t want him to associate the two. I told him what happened so he could keep up with the story, but to have him see it was too much.

What won’t I let him watch that I never thought I’d censor? Emotional trauma. He can’t take it. WhyDad rented Empire of the Sun, which I’d never seen. WhyKid, at 10 years old, couldn’t take it. He was in tears the whole time, until I finally sent him to bed. He just asked me about it again yesterday - 2 years later he still worries about it. The scene in AI where they’re demolishing robots? Tore him up. He spent two days crying about that one, and asks me to fast forward it whenever he watches the DVD. He loves the rest of the movie, but can’t handle that part. For similar reasons, *Powder * and Stand By Me are on his no watching list, at least until he’s older. The *Blade *movies, on the other hand, are some of his favorites, although they’re about the bloodiest things I’ve seen in years. Go figure.

7

I’m going to be frank here. I had a robust solo-sexual life when I was eight. I’m one of those kids that never had a gap between masterbating as a toddler and as a teen. This is true of many girls, and girls are capable of reaching a full orgasm at any age. I was never abused and I never exposed to more explicit material than the average kid (things like trying to watch the fuzzed-out playboy channel). I’m going to speak for women, because it’s what I know…

I think this has helped me become a sexually confident adult. I lost my virginity on the day I chose with the person I chose, and I worked very hard to make it a positive experience- and it was. I was able to plan for safe sex (and demand it) without a hint of embarrassment. I’m not one of the increadable ten percent of women that has never never experienced an orgasm ever nor the fifty percent who rarely experience them. I have always been happy with my sexual experiences and each of my partners has said I’ve taught them a thing or two. I attribute a lot of this to the fact that I aquired a working knowledge of my sexual responses without shame or fear.

I think a lot of problems that teen girls have- from teen pregnancy to getting taking advantage of to having sexual experiences they regret- stems from the fact that girls are not well-versed in their sexual responses and the whole subject is wrapped up in negative emotions. When they start feeling sexual feelings, as teenagers will, they don’t know what the heck is going on or how to rationally deal with. They have trouble keeping a level head. The get embarrased. Most importantly, they don’t know how to ask for what they want and don’t want because they are not familier enough with their sexuality to know what they want. I was always able to clearly define bounderies and never ended up doing something I didn’t want to, but it would of been a heck of a lot harder if I was being flooded with unfamilier feelings and everything was tinged in shame.

I think that having a positive understanding of your own sexual response and a decent understanding of sex in general is something that people should have when entering their teens- where sex will come up. This doesn’t mean that I think adults should have sex with kids. But it does mean that kids should know well how sex works, what masterbation is, and that sexuality can be a positive but powerful thing. They should never be made to feel ashamed that they have sexual feeling, they should never be scolded for masterbating unless it’s an inappropriate venue and they should never be afraid or embarrased to ask questions.

In any case, I don’t think graphic television really ought to be a part of that, but if a child wants to watch it I think the parent would be better to make it a teachable moment than freak out and ban it. I think as long as watching it is the result of the childs’ own curiousity and the child is well-guided, it shouldn’t really hurt thing.

Children ARE sexual beings, wether we like it or not. They have sexual responses and a great deal of sexual curiousity. They also hit physical puberty pretty young these days- I started menstrating at ten. Not so long ago- and on many parts of the globe- eleven and twelve are perfectly marriagable ages. The “latancy” period is a myth and the idea that children cannot feel sexual feelings without it being the result or cause of some trauma is a myth.

8

I think that this, perhaps, eludes to what I suppose is my reasoning. I don’t know that we find ourselves with very many sweet, loving, tender sex scenes. In both movies and television, I think that they tend to be associated with violence, or sponteneity, or simply “illicit” sex. I would guess (though it’s just a guess) that most “tender” love scenes have the couple climbing into bed, they start kissing, and then the camera pans away. Frankly, loving sexual contact just doesn’t seem to be as interesting as rough illict sex (not that I personally have any problem with rough illicit sex).

I have only seen Sex and the City once or twice. It doesn’t strike my fancy. Of course, it is the subject of many a conversation between friends and colleagues so I think I get the general idea of what the show is about and how it presents its topics. I don’t think (by all means, correct me if I’m wrong) SatC tends to portray loving sexual contact, as much as it does dysfunction and the like. Of course, who can blame them; dysfunction is funnier.

9

What Standup Karmic said. (If I’d seen this thread just five minutes earlier…!)

even sven, I don’t quite agree with you that the latency period is a myth. When I was roughly 7-9 years old, I remember being mortally embarrassed by kissing scenes in movies, and wanting to curl up and die when my older sister talked “mushy” with her SO. Maybe I’m not textbook, but it was like that for me.

10

I’ve read that counselors encourage parents to have “the talk” with their kids when they turn 8. I know that would freak out some parents, but that’s what’s recommended.

The importance here is the active role of the parent, with frank and open discussions that remain serious and dignified. The ages of 4-9 are such critical years of development that parents take too glibly (usually for lack of time to spend with their kids). These are the years which set a child’s values and morals for life. As I’ve heard on several occasions, once they reach 12, that job is over for the parent, and the troublesome teen years reflect the success of the rearing in the childhood years.

11

That’s a cute phrase, but what does it really mean? Kids are curious. If you hide this stuff from them, does that mean you aren’t letting them be kids?

IMO all this talk about letting kids be kids, hiding things from them to protect their innocent little minds, lying to them to foster a sense of wonder (e.g. various holiday myths), etc. is based in the desire to prolong childhood and fantasies about children’s innocence - making kids be kids, Donna Reed style.

12

I don’t have kids, so I can’t really know what I would do in this situation, but I think that family watching of a show with sexual or violent images followed by a discussion about the program is a lot more healthy than just banning the thing outright. When I was in elementary school, I was friends with a girl whose parents were hardcore Christian fundamentalists. They never taught her about sex, or birth control, or even how a baby was made. She wasn’t allowed to watch cable TV and they yelled at her if she saw a movie that was rated higher than PG. Today, she’s twenty-three and has three kids, by three different fathers.

Yeah, that doesn’t happen in all cases. But it seems to me at least anecdotally that most kids who have a healthy sexual education (which could include family watchings of and discussions about Sex and the City) grow up to be more responsible about family planning. And I don’t think eight is too young to start with that education. (Though I agree, she probably shouldn’t be watching SatC unsupervised.)

13

I’m going to repeat most of my points from the other thread:

Why does it seem that those in favor of letting the kids watch the show seem to think that if we don’t, they’ll be frigid, sexual morons who will never be fulfilled sexually? No one has come out and said it, but that’s the feeling I’m getting.

Why is it all or nothing? Kids need facts, yes. They don’t need necessarily to watch a tv show (that’s meant to be entertainment, NOT educational!) which mentions golden showers, female ejaculation, etc.
And I would have NO problem letting an 8 year old see a sex scene that was tasteful and romantic, even if it involved nudity, or whatever. I was 8 when I saw Dirty Dancing. I liked the costumes and thought Patrick Swayze was cute.
And even sven, some kids ARE completely uninterested in sex. I found out just what “sex” involved at age 10, and swore I’d never do it, that it was gross. (I changed my mind, of course, but that’s not the point).
I think if I had seen SATC at 8, my head would’ve exploded and I would’ve been grossed out beyond belief.
It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. What’s wrong with moderation? It seems to be something lost in today’s society. We either let it all hang out, or cover it all up. Nothing in between. No middle ground. No happy medium. And frankly, that attitude disturbs me.

14

Of course they don’t need to watch it, but neither do adults! The question is whether there’s a good reason to prevent them from watching it.

Assuming the exploding head is hyperbole, what’s so bad about that? You see something you don’t like, and you move on. No harm done.

15

I came across some interesting information here. Now, this is a website for the Parents Television Council, which actively lobbies in favour of more “family-oriented” programming, so the information they offer may not have the full story. I’m planning on looking further into the reports they quote, but this is not a good time of year for me to be going on a fact-finding mission for my own edification (that’s what the rest of the year is for…this is the time of year for shopping!).

Interestingly (though by no means uniformly, I’m sure):

16

Exactly. I’m an adult, and I don’t like SatC. Nobody said it should be required viewing, just that since the kid already likes it, it shouldn’t be yanked away from them. A discussion about the characters’ various morals (or lack thereof) would be much more effective than a ban.

17

It really does depend on the kid and the circumstances. It’s not a matter of my daughter being more hip or more mature because she watches SATC (with mum and dad, or her cousins). She’s very curious, mature for her age (her teachers and her grandparents always remark on this), and she just enjoys SATC. I could also add that she pretty much enjoys it for the pap it is, just as she enjoys Queer Eye for the pap it is, and also The Amazing Race. But it is interesting that these three pappy, blockbustery, “fictional”, unrealistic, vicarious shows are the ones she watches that generate the most discussion. Discussion about relationships mostly, as well as about the difference between humans in terms of personality, character and values. The sex fits in there quite organically, I think, for her. She seems to appreciate that it’s part of being human, one part of the whole broader business of living and hopefully loving. I think she has learned from these various shows (especially TAR and SATC) that you have to work hard at relationships, and be tolerant and patient.

I hope I’ve explained that my wife and I don’t see it as all or nothing. The golden showers, fellatio, ejaculation, “lesbianism”, etc. are not the aspects that interest my daughter the most. She’s intrigued by some of the sex, which is fine by me, while some of the kinkier stuff passes over her head, which is also fine by me.

I think we both agree that moderation is a good thing; it’s just that we draw the line differently. Bottom line is that we don’t force her to watch SATC; she loves it.

18

There’s another interesting take on all this. It is a parent’s duty to put limits on behavior for children, and on what age-specific material they are exposed to. Putting down “the law” in your home forces the child to learn respect - what they eat, what they snack on, what they read, watch and play, and acceptible language and behavior. Children will test the limits - and they WANT and NEED to be told “no.” There’s more in that word than simple denial of wants. At the very least, a child learns that the parents care about the child’s well being.

Parents cannot control all the exposure subjected to their children because they are not with them 24/7. Because they will be exposed to sex, drugs, bad language, violence and disrespectful behavior of all sorts, all without the parents’ knowledge, it is ever incumbant on the parent to be extra vigilant at home. The home, therefore then becomes a protected haven - a place of nurturing and respectful behavior.

This does not mean Barney and Friends until they turn 13, but you get the idea.

Again, with “the talk” at age 8 and parents being involved in that aspect of their growth, watching more adult-themed shows can be done without harm, with frank and open discussion, as has been suggested in other posts.

19

I was pretty disturbed by that thread and by how many adults don’t feel it’s necessary or beneficial to let children live in a simple world without too much moral ambiguity or depressing realism. Do little kids need that? I don’t think it’s the nudity or sexuality you shield kids from, it’s the complex and dark adult relationships. Especially around age 8, you are still developing your reasoning skills and you’re supposed to be learning to incorporate a wider reality into your realm of experience. That means starting to understand that the world isn’t as safe and secure as your family has made it out to be, and you know, I think a little information goes a long way at that stage. Maybe it’s okay to start finding out that mommy and daddy look different with their clothes off and that babies come from sex, and so on, but that Carrie slept with a married man and Miranda doesn’t like the taste of her own crotch? Why add a bunch of stupid nonsense into the mix?

To be really honest, I think it’s mainly that a kid only has so many emotional resources and that undue anxiety about what really amounts to nonsense that amuses their parents is a waste of their growing up time. I wouldn’t let a kid watch it for the same reason I wouldn’t sit them down and tell them about the whole bad side of humanity for an hour every day before they were allowed to go out and play. It’s their time to be relatively carefree so they can develop their love of life. As far as I know, even when you try to protect them, they have plenty to worry about and figure out. Adding to their stress for no reason other than that you want to be a cool parent, or you want to experiment, or that you don’t have the imagination to come up with a good reason why you shouldn’t let them watch something like that, is a bit worrisome.

It’s good to challenge conventional wisdom, and it’s nice to think about whether you’re overprotecting your kids, but there’s a reason people “don’t talk about it in front of the kids,” and I’m surprised so many people don’t know what it is. I think if age 7 is the age of reason, maybe there are some more important things to use it on before you tackle TV shows about bullshit.

20

Anyone else think that 1792 adolescents is a ridculously small sample size? How can you get away with a “study” that samples less than 1% of the demographic in question?