Have there been studies of children being psycologically scarred by watching R movies and their ilk? Is this one of those things we do because it was always done, or are there sound reasons for doing so?
Also, as a kinda-hijack, are there any studies correlating video games, and/or cartoons with behavior?
I think that as parents we try to protect our children from the unpleasant thinks in life, while we can’t keep it from them forever, we can try to keep them away from it until we think they are ready.
Violence, I wish I could keep it from them forever. I wish it simply did not exist, but that’s not likely to ever be. Right now, I don’t want my kids to see gun shot wounds, people killing others and tremendous amounts of harm being done to people, so I choose not to let them watch those things on the media. But that even depends on the situation, I did let them watch parts of the 9/11 coverage because I felt that they should be aware of what was happening in the world.
I do tell my kids about sex, answering their questions according to what I feel is appropriate for their ages and maturity level. Seeing sex on television can send out messages that I don’t want them to see, but sometimes there is so much out there, it is difficult to monitor them all of the time.
Profanity is something that I simply cannot keep from them, they ride the busses with high school kids and the language those kids use are unbelieveable, but I tell my kids that I feel it is wrong for them to use words and phrases that they do not understand. I nearly went crazy when my son called someone a faggot.
I don’t believe that we always kept these things from our children. Years ago, families shared small houses and I imagine it was impossible to hide sex from the kids.
There have been studies (sorry, no cite) showing that exposure to violent media desensitizes people, especially children, to violence. I believe this is widely accepted by the psychological community. The jury is still out on whether or not this actually makes children more violent, but I don’t think there’s a lot of room for doubt as to whether or not it has some psychological affect on them.
Well we haven’t always had movies, so of course “we” haven’t always had to screen what sorts of movies children watch. Early cinema was not regulated the way it is today, but the Hays Code came in around 1930 and the current MPAA certificate system has been around (with some alterations) since 1967.
Not to hijack this thread, but why do people shield their children from nudity in non-sexual contexts? This is one thing I really don’t understand.
sorry, i can’t (too lazy) cite either, but i do have a degree in psych, emphasis on developmental and abnormal, I’m a therapist and have been working with kids for about 15 years.
so here goes at least an educated opinion (i’m quite sure i’ve seen studies though)
viewing violence (tv, movies) does desensitize people to it, and traumatize some children, and yes, people who view violence are more likely to be afraid, and therefore act violently.
In terms of sound reasoning for shielding children from violence, Lemmie do my best to shoot from the hip:
Maslow outlined the hierarchy of needs in the most digestible format,
children (let’s say pre-pubescent) don’t have the social power, nor the cognitive capacity to create their own safety (in a healthy way), they have to depend on others for it. Much of their locus of control is external. They need to be protected.
Adults (ostensibly) know how to find safety, create safety, routines, have enough experience/cognitive capacity to know that feelings are momentary, and don’t control them completely.
sorry for the length, but stay with me, here comes the big finish:
children are strongly affected my momentary emotional experience (piaget) and therefore if they are feeling scared, they are going to be controlled by that fear, you have only to watch the behavior of any scared animal to know that such conditions lead to violence.
as far as being emotionally scarred from watching a rated “R” movie, I personally have treated (as a therapist) children who suffered anxiety (clinically significant, meaning it got in the way of them doing ok in school or sleeping or whatever) that they attributed to movies like the “chucky” ones, or even “beloved”
but you asked for studies, sorry.
p.s.
we shield children from non-sexual nudity to make ourselves feel more comfortable (ie: we think of all nudity as sexual whether we like it or not), it’s a puritan thing (IMO)
Kids have much more vivid imaginations than adults, and for young children, the line between reality and fantasy can be thin. (Think of all the children with imaginary friends.) This can make movies/TV/etc. a lot more intense for them. Things that might be enjoyably creepy for adults can be terrifying for young children. When I was young, I saw a TV show about alien abductions. For years, I was incredibly terrified of aliens. A friend of mine had recurring nightmares for years after seeing Watership Down. Another friend was deeply scared by a Doctor Who episode. Given that such relatively tame things can produce such strong reactions, it makes sense to me to shield young kids from more violent fare.
Because, deep down, parents don’t want to prepare their children for the real world. They want them to be little Precious Moments [TM] figurines for as long as possible.
I don’t entirely understand it, either. Violence was a frequent phenomenon in the lives of western children until relatively recently. Types of violence range from schoolyard beatings and English prep school authoritarianism to fallout from war, oppression, and corporal punishment.
Childrens’ lives now appear to be relatively violence-free. To my mind, a little awareness and inurement to violence, a fact of human existence, is probably a good thing.
This is my take on it, a completely uneducated opinion. Parents want children to be shielded from adult stuff so that they have more time to be children. You don’t want your kid having nightmares about an R movie they just watched, you want them dreaming about candyland. Knowing about that kind of stuff puts undue stress on the child, and may make it hard for them to just be a kid.
Ha. Maybe I’ll tell you about my childhood sometime – and mine was much better than some people’s. Children still experience ordinary real-life violence, just as they always have.
My thoughts, in no particular - or at least no coherent - order:
Children are less able to deal with things in a rational way than adults are. Yes, there are children who are very mature for their age, and adults who are irrational emotional messes, but generally speaking, this holds true. As such, they should be sheltered from certain aspects of reality until such a time as they are able to deal with it. Do you want to explain to your 2-year old why some men like to rape little girls? Could they even grasp it?
The issue of sex is a little different. While sex isn’t, in and of itself, a bad thing, it’s something that needs to be handled with maturity and responsibility. If it’s dealt with frivalously, it can result in nasty diseases, potential death, or unwanted pregancies. We don’t trust little kids to drive or vote, why should we trust them with this?
As far as non-sexual nudity, I don’t think there is such a thing to a 12-year-old boy. Exposure to nudity of any kind will only provoke more curiosity, which will increase the likelihood of early sexuality.
As far as violence being desensitizing, yes and no. Violence of a particular type will desensitize you to more violence of that type. If you play a bunch of videogames that show cartoony blood and guts, then cartoony blood and guts won’t bother you, but seeing a violent movie probably still will. If you watch Friday the 13th 50 times, movie violence probably won’t bug you, but seeing someone get stabbed in front of your eyes probably will. I play video games all the time (kinda have to, in my job), and I’m not bothered much by the violence in those games, but when I turn on the news and hear about a murder, I still cringe.
Studies trying to link videogames with increased aggression and violent tendencies in those who play them are pretty inconclusive at this point. Typically, those who claim such a link discovered that when people play violent games, their adreneline rises. No duh, Einstein. Adreneline rises when you play soccer, too, but nobody’s trying to get that banned.
The issue of profanity is kind of odd. Personally, there are only two forms of profanity that make any sense to me. First are those related to religions: hell, damn, goddamn, etc. These are all references to evil, and in the case of “goddamn” the taking of the lord’s name in vain, so it seems more or less logical. Second are terms designed to be hateful and derogatory: nigger, faggot, and the like. I see pretty much little excuse to use words like this (though “faggot” as used to refer to a bundle of sticks is fine, obviously). The bulk of so-called “bad words”, though, I just don’t get. We can say “poop” or “feces”, but “shit” is bad? Why? Because… uh… because it is. Sorry, I don’t buy it. “Fuck” is bad, “boff” is fine; “Bitch” is bad, “mean, awful woman” is kosher. Uh huh. Sure.
That being said, for whatever reason, people think these words are bad, and it’s generally in poor form to use them in mixed company. Children probably aren’t mature enough to grasp that you can say “shit” in front of this person, but not in front of this person over here, and blah blah blah. It’s easier to just say, “The following words are off-limits”, and then ease off the restrictions as they get older.
And then there’s this reason, which is a simplistic and derogatory way of saying that parents want to give their kids the gift of innocence as long as possible. Life is much simpler when you don’t have to know about death, sex, violence, hate, and the like. It’s an admirable position to take, but agreeably some parents take it too far. It’s a matter of balancing the happiness of the child with their ability to cope with life when they grow up, and I don’t think it’s an easy balance to achieve for most.
Jeff
Well, yeah, but the question is how are their attitudes towards violence being shaped by what they see in the movies? If a person dies in a movie, they’re still alive the next time you turn the movie on. The child might later see that actor/actress in other roles or at the Oscars or what have you. In the olden days, when people were dead, they stayed dead. In addition, many times the protagonists are the ones randomly killing (re: The Matrix). Without the larger frame of reference or developed moral code that could be expected of an adult, this sort of random violence presumably teaches the child that it is acceptable, or even good, to kill those who get in their way. And this is never a good thing.
Tracer, give me a break.
I can answer this one for myself. I shield my son (now 8) from material that I think would give him nightmares (horror films), extreme anxiety (stories about parents being horribly killed or children tortured), or questions that have answers he’s too immature to understand (American Pie-type masturbation gags).
I do not shield him from anything I think he can handle. For example, I have told him that he can watch movies with profanity in them as soon as he is old enough to hear those words without repeating them. He is able to do this, and so I don’t worry about the “f” word and so on.
I do not shield him from nudity, except my own. I think a boy shouldn’t see his mama in the buff, or a girl see her dad. It’s my own baggage–I know nudists don’t care and the kids seem fine–but I think it’s uncool. However, if the boy sees a boobie, he’ll giggle and that will be the end of it.
I do not shield him from “adult themes” in films, but he tends to shield himself. In “Attack of the Clones”, he requested that I poke him when the “gross kissy scenes” were over.
I do not shield him from “spooky” things, like “Nightmare before Christmas” or Halloweeny stuff. Ghost stories never bothered him, even when he was very small.
Bottom line–depends on the parent, and on the kid. “precious moments,” sheesh.
ElJeffe, please expand on this:
Are you telling me that if a six year old is aware how babies are made, or sees some sex in a movie, they’re somehow going to want to go doing it themselves and contract STDs? Or they’ll want to do it more in ten years time and become the school slut?
Or are we talking about teenagers here? A fourteen year old watches American Pie and decides it would be fun to go get pregnant? I’m a bit lost as to exactly what fearful thoughts are boiling over inside your mind.
I agree with this, Super Gnat, and have a slight expansion: the movies don’t usually do a good job of showing the consequences and permanence of violent death. You see the car explosions and the falling bodies a lot more than you see the funerals, the widows and orphans and jail terms. My kids (under 10), fortunately, don’t have much experience with any of these things, and seeing the first set only will not yet make them think about consequences which don’t get set out in the movie itself.
When they have enough experience to know what real death is, then fake deaths will not be so problematic.
Also, I’d be more willing to expose them to movie violence which results in realistic consequences–if you’re a movie critic, you can translate this as a demand that the violence not be “gratuitous.”
Finally, age is big deal. You don’t take kids under 3 to the movies because the loud noises upset them and they have no attention span anyway. Kids 3-8 do have nightmares about things adults brush-off (the flying monkeys in the Wizard of Oz haunted me for years). 8-maybe 13, and kids still look to their parents to explain things in movies that they don’t get, maybe; much over 13 and they’re going to be trying, more or less successfully, to figure it out for themselves and with their friends. Based on my personal experience, of course.
Profanity is like bad grammar–it’s okay to know what “ain’t” means, but you also want your kids to be able to talk without using such a word because this is a sign of education that is still required in many parts of society.
Umm… not quite. I doubt a six year old will watch American Pie and think, “Wow, when I grow up, I wanna be a slut!” Further, I doubt that anyone wants to get pregnant when they’re still in school.
But do you disagree that the average freshman in high school lacks the level of emotional maturity and responsibility to handle an active sex life? It’s important to ensure that when kids get to that age, they’re not going to go around boffing everything in sight, just because it’s fun. Reasonable people can disagree about how to do this, but not that it needs to be done. Unless you like the idea of rampant teen pregnancies, I suppose.
So, how do we go about doing this? Well, for one thing, we don’t introduce them to the concept until they’re old enough to at least grasp what sex really means. First-graders can’t do this. Little kids, even moreso than older kids, try to emulate adults. If we train them from birth that sex is just a fact of life, at a time when they don’t really grasp things like responsibility and consequences, I think it’s reasonable to expect that they will develop a very cavalier attitude towards it. If, instead, we treat it was something taboo when kids are young, they’ll develop more of a reverence towards it. We then introduce it gradually, reinforcing the idea that it’s something for adults who love each other, something not to be taken lightly, something that requires responsibility, something empahtically NOT for kids.
Like I said, sex is a touchy issue. The fact that it’s something with such far-reaching consequences, and something that’s not always easy for parents to watch over, means that it has to be handled carefully.
Jeff
Please remember that there is a world outside of Sacramento, California, and as the term is not widely used in my country, I am not too sure exactly how old a high school freshman is.
I am guessing from my limited knowledge of the US school system that a freshman is 13-14 years old. So…
Partially agreed, although it has little to do with what we’re discussing. Essentially, given that the age of consent is in many places 16, I think it would be ridiculous to suspect that a preparedness for sex is something that can be switched on when one turns 16. It’s very likely that some people can cope with sex before the age of 16.
And you’re still making the giant assumption that understanding the concept of sex, or seeing it portrayed will result in kids “boffing everything in sight”. And that this will automatically lead to teenage pregnancies. Maybe you should divert some of your energy into promoting safe sex rather than hiding your kid’s eyes.
Do you have any basis for this belief, that early introduction to the concept of sex will promote promiscuity later in life? Or is it just your enlightened opinion?
So, if Johnny and Jane understand the concept of sex, they’re going to want to try it out themselves? Despite Jane’s girl-germs?
Well, I’m going to need a better reason than “you think so”. When I was very young, I had no attitude towards it, cavalier or otherwise. Do you imagine six year olds to be having dirty thoughts that only ignorance can prevent?
Well, I’m still lost as to why you think that kids think that sex is something for them. Unless you are talking about high schoolers, in which case a number of them are ready for sex. Even ones under the age of consent. And more importantly, they aren’t as dumb as you seem to think.
And since you can enjoy groundless suppostions, I’m going to hypothesise that your approach, by stigmatitising sex, will make it more desirable to teenagers, as it will be seen as a ‘rite of passage.’ After all, if it is something NOT for kids, then one who engages in it can NOT be a kid.
In short, do you have any arguments that aren’t based on hysteria, myth or assumption?
“early sexuality” I’m not familiar with such a phrase, can you explain what you mean by it? Do you mean an active sex life?
Humans are sexual creatures, sexuality is part of our being from the point of conception. Heightened awareness of and expressing that sexuality comes out in puberty. Puberty happens to co-incide, for many people, with their time in school. You seem to argue that exposure to nudity would bring on this awareness before the natural process of puberty would make them realize it. I grant this as a possibility. I’m not certain it’s a problem.
In your reply to gex gex it seems you also believe this awarness would, necessarially, lead to expressing their sexuality. If the awareness of their ability to behave in a sexual manner comes before they have comprehension of the consequences of such expression then the expression could have societally-damaging consequences(teenage pregnancy, high dropout rates, etc).
I posit this is not a clear inference. If such an inference is proven I’d suppose we could move towards a dicussion of how to deal with it. Hold off stimulus which could awaken their sexuality before the consequences are fully understood, or begin finding other ways of educating our youth on the issue so they can handle it when they encounter it in life.
Enjoy,
Steven
As to the OP, I think trying(I don’t believe anyone is ever completely successful) to keep sex/violence/profanity from children only causes them to be more curious. I’ve seen this in my own children and it’s the reason my wife and I have head-on conversations with them about such things. One of my six-year-old daughter’s favorite books is my ancient copy of A Child is Born. She is aware of sex, aware of it’s purpose from a biological standpoint and is learning its place in a societal framework.
Enjoy,
Steven
gex gex:
I never suggested that children would magically shift from completely unprepared to completely prepared at 16, or any other age. It’s a gradual process, that starts when they’re young, and culminates at some indeterminant point in (likely) their teen years. But given that kids, alas, don’t have a little button that pops out, a la turkey, to say, “I’m prepared for sexual relationships”, we should err on the side of caution, and try to urge them to not have sex until they’re older - preferably until at least after high-school.
Common sense and anecdotal experience. Do you have any evidence that I’m wrong, or is this just your enlightened opinion?
I don’t believe that little kids are going to want to have sex, or have dirty thoughts. I think it has to do with a view that sex is no big deal. Once this attitude sets in, I believe that children will be much more likely to have sex before they’re ready.
Do you not view a 13-yr-old as a “kid”? Are you aware that 13-yr-olds do have sex, with alarming frequency? Apparently, these 13-yr-old kids believe sex is something for them. And yes, I’m sure that some of these 13-yr-olds are emotionally prepared for sex, and as responsible as most adults are. First of all, how do you identify them? Are you telling me that you have devised a system to determine when someone is ready for sex? Please tell me, because I’d love to have that info for when my kids are growing up. Or is your system that they are ready when they believe they’re ready? In which case:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Second, do you doubt that sometimes, accidents happen, even among responsible adults? No form of birth control is fool proof. I opine that part of being a “responsible adult” is being capable of dealing with your mistakes. No 13-yr-old is in a position to raise a child.
And further, this has nothing to do with being “dumb”. Intelligence has little to do with maturity.
My arguments are based on personal experience and common sense. Do you have anything better to offer? Like, maybe an argument that doesn’t consist of, “Nuh-uuhhhhh”?
Mtgman:
Sorry. Yes, “early sexuality” was my clumsy, poorly phrased way of referring an active sex life.
It’s not a given, but it seems plausible, and seems to be backed up by anecdotal evidence. If any hard evidence to the contrary could be brought up, I would be happy to see it.
Jeff