NEWS: Whats on TV? Alot More Sex

So ... don't be suprised at higher teen pregnancies, more STD's futher breakdown in the family structure, a loss of the innocence of childhood, and more attacks on women. (CSI crap shows always feature dead pretty women)

TV is your god, and shapes your society, what you feed into it gets pumped into the brains of the populace.

You can't complain about the state of western / american society when you allow and promote the crap which is primarliy designed to keep people watching TV to see the adverts.

Sex / violence / human degredation, TV is hitting the base level of humanity to keep viewers to sell goods.

[edit on 11-11-2005 by Netchicken]

Netchicken, are they really that bad?

Are teen pregnancies higher now than 200 years ago? What about 500? In fact, they seem to be going down.

Why is it wrong for a 16 year old to have a child?

In fact, in the United Kingdom you are able to have a child legally for four of your eight teenage years. So there will be a level of teenage pregnancies.

If people didn't enjoy watching the shows, they would not be on. It is the same with the internet. If you didn't like ATS you'd not come here and the same is said with T.V.

It is only 'wrong' in your 'eyes' and it has never been linked to causing any harm. If it isn't linked to causing any harm people shouldn't be punished for it. Offending someone, isn't harm.

I am sure that gay people offend a fair few people, however I don't wish to see them punished unless they cause some form of direct harm and the same goes for television.

Originally posted by Odium
As with most people you use the age old arguement of "We'll pay in time". Which is a joke...

Children, were able to go to war, could be married and have children of their own, have killed someone legally by 12 and in many parts of the World they still can. Sorry but the majority of people were not rampant sociopaths back then and I highly doubt that they will become them in the long run.

Do you really think that because we allowed stupid things to happen in the past that it makes it ok to allow them to happen in the future and you actually think that allowing these kids to kill hasnt had a negative effect.Do you think our society is in prime shape today.I dont see kids outside playing street hockey or throwing a football,they are all getting fat in front of the tv,playing video games that teach them to kill and doing drugs ive never heard of but lets not try and help them to read to national levels so that they can compete in a marketplace with the kids who's Countries dont force porn down their kids throats.

Wait...

Whose fault is it if your child isn't learning to read? In fact, they should know how to read at a good level prior to going into the education system.

If your child gets fat, it is because of the food he is eating and isn't because he is watching television. Seeing violence doesn't mean you become violent. Seeing drugs doesn't mean you will take drugs. Unless you can display evidence to back up that computer games make you violent [which is off topic] than do so otherwise do not make such claims.

Also, if a child doesn't wish to play football, why should he? Maybe instead of shifting the blame we should look at why children would rather not play those sports? In fact, I hated school based sports and never did any of them. I used to watch a lot of television as a child and yet I am not fat...

However, I found sports I liked because my parents didn't expect the education system and state to do everything for me. Instead of worrying about someone elses child take care of your own. If others become fat, ugly and stupid, your child should be the attractive, intelligent one. So why worry?

As long as your child does well in life, what is there to worry about? The idea that people become violent because of seeing it on television is a joke. The idea people wil take drugs because they see it on T.V. is a joke. The idea they will have sex because they see it on T.V. is a joke.

Sorry to say it, but was there much sex on television in the 1950's? Because last I checked the 1960's was a highly sexually active decade for teenagers...

Or maybe, just maybe...

Teenagers will have sex.
Will take drugs.
Will get into fights.

I do believe, this has happened prior to television existing and will exist long after today. Will all teens? No. Will all who watch T.V? No.

Odium, it is indeed a dangerous line to cross to start asking parents to actually take responsiblity for thier childrens actions... but neccessary...

I am NOT opposed to the occassional use of t&a in TV... or anything else that is considered mainstream (including homosecual references)... or for that matter, anything that kids will be exposed to while in public...
it helps them to understand better...

my opposition is to a very limited amount of shows that specialize in "gross" and do not get censored by their own parents... that, to me is sexual predation...
not by the show... they do have a disclaimer... but against the parents for allowing these influences...

and again... I am not a prude and I have no problem with any of this, until my neighbors kid craps on my doorstep...
then, I would like the right to a legal recompense... towards the parents as well as the youth...

I see it like the ruling that said that parents must force kids to go to school, or be sentenced to escort them there themselves...
it is unfortunate that parents dont need a license...
it is very fortunate that they can still be held accountable for the lack of responsibility in the awesome job of parenting...

it helps to prevent it from becoming "my problem"
and before you defend the right of kids to watch drawn together, watch it first... you might find that you also have limits to what you accept of your neighbors kids TV influences.
Mookie stinks... and golden showers... shown as fun and exciting (and a way of showing affection) it is at this level, that i say "it should be criminal to allow kids to watch this intentionally" (kids 1-10yrs old)

Dr. strangecraft

Also, Wyrdeone, how does telling my own kid about tossed salads somehow innoculate her from the stuff she will "inevitably" hear at school, etc.? If I don't wan't someone ELSE sexualizing my child, maybe I don't want to do it myself, either.

Putting the sexual material in context, and redirecting the child's imagination to more wholesome topics was simply my suggestion. If you absolutely can't talk about that facet of reality with your child, and don't want your kid learning about sex, period, I think you're in for a huge shock when they leave for college.

They WILL make up for any lost time in that first semester, I practically guarantee it.

I haven't yet suggested "controlling" anyone else's tv yet, either.

We're having a discussion about censorship of television programming. I know what side I'm on, and I was pretty sure I knew what side you were on, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

You were talking about how it bothered you that no matter what steps you take with your own home, other parents' mistakes will effect your child. You didn't make an explicit argument for censorship, but I think you're leaning in that direction, certainly.

And again, we're just having a conversation, I'm not judging you or resorting to name-calling or anything like that. You are entitled to your opinion, whatever it may be.

Funny though, how "education is the answer," even when ignorance is not the problem.

I disagree, Ignorance is the problem in my opinion. Only an ignoramus could become obsessed over something as base as sex, given the wonderful variety of information available in this day and age. Also, these parents who are letting their children run wild are ignorant of the damage they're causing. Those same children are ignorant themselves, because their parents are taking a hands-off approach to calibrating the 'ole moral compass.

Ignorance all around.

It's part of the moral vacuum we live in. We can't say anything is bad or wrong, unless someone is being deprived of their right to talk about disgusting things.

So it's wrong to deprive Chris Rock of his constitutional rights. But it ISN'T wrong to immerse a generation of children in sexual deviance.

There are no secret word police, there are no gullags for thought criminals, not yet. You're being melodramatic. Stop it. That's my job.

You're entitled to your opinion on Chris Rock, Adult Swim, or any other aspect of our culture.

In my opinion, it IS wrong to immerse a generation of kids in hyper-sexualized music video, seizure-inducing, pseudo-reality. See, it's fine. There is no boot on my neck as a result of the statement I just made.

I do think it's wrong, but I have no illusions about whose fault it is, as you seem to. I don't blame the networks for selling crap, I blame consumers for buying it, and for allowing their children to be raised by advertising slogans.

It is wrong to deprive Chris of his right to speak. And since the parents are the ones making the decisions to immerse their children in this cesspool, I don't see why we even bother talking about the networks.

Do you own Comedy Central? Do I? Of course not. You do, however, own the television, and you have control over it. So turn the damn thing off, problem solved. Every other parent can make the same decision.

If they don't, it's not Comedy Central's fault. Screwed up kids are everyone's problem, I agree. But the process of screwing them up rests squarely in the hands of their respective parents.

Why would I even want to be a member of this society?

Hell if I know, I certainly am not part of society in any meaningful way. I'm basically a hermit, so I don't begrudge you your negative opinion of society. I've been disgusted with this so-called culture for some time now.

The thing is, I don't waste time blaming the problem on scapegoats like the the media, or the corporations, or the government. I go straight to the source and blame the people who make up the fabric of society. You should do the same.

Originally posted by Odium
Unless you can display evidence to back up that computer games make you violent [which is off topic] than do so otherwise do not make such claims.

Sorry if i was off topic i was trying to show a decline in values that you choose not to see and maybe these video games dont directly make you violent but they introduce a level of violence that i think is negative for kids.

Im sure Countries that teach their kids to be suicide bombers will see no decline in their societies either.Its cause and effect be it on tv sex and violence to video games and so on.If you breed hate,hate flourishes.

LazarusTheLong, you would need to display it is because of the show he did that and not because the child wanted too.

It is likely such things were done prior to T.V. existing by children, so it is likely it'd happen again even if those children didn't watch T.V. It's the old "Cause and effect". You have to show that it was caused because of them being allowed to watch it.

jimstradamus, we allowed minors to go off to war. We allowed teens to taek up arms and invade Nation's during the crusades. Violence and children is nothing new. I'd rather live now, where they play games [which a vast majority understand are just that] then back when we allowed them to go butcher people.

yeah, gosh darn these tv people showing our kids about sex. why can't they just go out and learn it in the street like all we older people had to.

Of course, as we read some of these articles, we would be lead to beleive that these shows are just non stop scenes of people boning each other.

Wait, I know what the parents can, how about you actually talk to your kid about things instead of sitting on your ever increasing backside and bitching about how far down the tubes society has gone. wait, i have a better one, tell your kids 'no' every once in a while. Oh wait, that would mean that parents lately would actually have to parent their kids. you know, that whole take some responsibility thing.. we just can't have that. you work hard for a living so sit back, crack open another MGD, light up a virginia slim and drown in another big mac while forgetting the rest of the day, you earned it baby!

Thats always a great idea from the religious right... lets not give kids any education on sex, not just as a physical function but as a part of society, then turn them loose on a society that does know about this. i'm sure they'll thank you later for it.

Theres far more important things to worry about, and if you find the entire concept of the hint of a breast on tv that shocking, well, i feel sorry for you when you finally come out to see the rest of the world.

People have sex, period, end of story. How do you think you got here?

edit:
personally, i use filtering technology on my tv for the kids here.. i filter out all the really horrendous trash that is guarenteed to scar most kids mentally. mostly it entails the religious programs and channels. Thre so many worries that the hint of a boob will turn my kids into killers, im more concerned about so called priests on TV using what borders on phychological warfare tactics to make people beleive in their personal invisible man.

[edit on 11-11-2005 by CoffinFeeder]

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
If you absolutely can't talk about that facet of reality with your child, and don't want your kid learning about sex, period, I think you're in for a huge shock when they leave for college.

First, you're misrepresenting me. I think I've been pretty clear about the fact that we do spend quality time with our kids, and are open and honest with our kids about biology. You are painting false black/white picture: you imply that if I don't want my kids hearing about sex from other children, that I don't want them ever to learn anything. Again that's not the case.

I want my family to teach them, and not strangers who are trying to sell them things.

Second, my Nine year old is not leaving for college tomorrow. I am trying to teach her about sexuality, but the dominant culture is beating me to the punch, regardless of what I want. Frankly, I was hoping to wait to discuss fisting and rimjobs until she was in the 5th or 6th grade.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

So turn the damn thing off, problem solved. . .

Again, my complaint is not that I don't control my own TV. Here you go again, painting a black/white picture of absolutes. If I am complaining, I must be a hypocrite of some kind, apparently.

My post was about how actively parenting my own children is simply not enough because other people don't seem to do a good job.

You're also pretty certain the Network is not responsible for the stuff it broadcasts. Why is that?

To paraphrase an old SNL routine, If I sold rat poison in a brightly colored bottle, with cute cartoon pictures on it, and the capsules were brightly colored and made in the shapes of famous cartoon characters, would you be surprised if some kids ate some? If they did, could I say that it was "parents' fault" for not watching what their kids eat???

Or howabout another example. Handguns. I believe that most people should be allowed to own them. But only after they've had a background check, and registered with the police, and promised to use the gun responsibly. Many states are going in the direction of mandatory gun ownership classes. For instance, in Texas, you must pass a gun safety class before you can even buy a hunting license.

So what would you say about someone selling pistols at a convenience store, with out ID's or background checks. Sure, a lot of the purchasers are probably responsible adults.

But some may be kids.

Cirgarettes are a similar example. You have to show ID . . .

Now, naughty TV shows are not pistols and cigarettes. I know that. But the reasons for are gun/tabacco laws show a certain logic:

Someone who wants to sell a product that could be harmful ought to take at least basic steps to see that the product doesn't fall into the wrong hands. Certainly, any product can be intentionally misused. But the producers have an obligation to see that it isn't misused by someone who doesn't really even understand the product or how it could be harmful.

With guns, parents have been charged with a criminal negligence when they leave guns where children can be hurt by them.

Hmmm. If you are so sure the problem is not the corporations, that it's the parents, then what do you suggest we do to help parents be more responsible?

Or do you think when parents suck at their job, that there's nothing can be done and it's just a regrettable cost of being able to watch cartoon characters poop on pizza?
.

edited to fix quotes.

[edit on 11-11-2005 by dr_strangecraft]

For all those that are in favor of censoring what they consider to be "immoral" television programming, what's so hard about doing it yourself? I don't know what type of television service everyone else gets, but with digital or satellite cable you can lock or unlock whatever channels you want. It's not difficult to do and those people who don't want their child to watch smut on TV should get digital cable and block out whatever channels they deem morally unfit for their children.

If you're part of the so-called moral "majority" and you're that hardcore about protecting your kids, either get cable that allows you to choose which channels are available, or forgo television altogether.

Originally posted by Netchicken
So ... don't be suprised at higher teen pregnancies, more STD's futher breakdown in the family structure, a loss of the innocence of childhood, and more attacks on women. (CSI crap shows always feature dead pretty women)

The states that have abstinence only sex education also happen to have the highest teen pregnancy rates.

[edit on 11-11-2005 by ShakyaHeir]

I just want to say that if a parent wants to keep certain information from their child, then they need to be responsible for keeping their child away from an environment where that information exists. If they send their child into that environment, even if it's his school, it's nonsense to expect that he's not going to pick something up.

And they need to teach their children that if they want to know something that the child needs to go to the parent for information instead of taking what other people say as truth.

When I was young, some kid told me to eat a bowl of ... crap (he used another word) I went home that night and asked my mother what it meant. She told me. We discussed it for 30 seconds and it was over.

What I was saying in my post is that the TV meduim shapes the values of tomorrows citizens.

So what you allow today, you pay for tomorrow.

But what people tend to forget is that TV ISN"T there for the education of the masses, its there primarily to push advertising.

As a result "good" television, with good plots, with great acting, with pro social messages bombs in the ratings, and isn't supported by the tv companies. You notice that where programs that recieve critical acclaim are often not the most popular.

As a result TV always slides to the lowest common denominator to attract more viewers, to make more money.

The lower you go the more viewers and the more money you make, therefore TV producers are generally aiming for the more shocking, more graphical, or more obsene, besides it means less work to have a graphic sex scene than a well shaped plot.

TV pulls society to the worst possible direction in creating shows that display murder, rape, random sex, mindless violence, etc. In of itself the Television media is toxic to society, its the heroin of the masses.

Those who support its continual slide are just the biggest junkies who have lost discernment of the effect it has on society, just as heroin addict can't see the effect it has on their lives and are only interested in the high they get from it. Its really the same thing.

You get highs from watching TV as well, and like heroin you need it in stronger doses to get the same buzz.

I want to further my previous point on this thread. I said that sex on TV isn't a bad thing, as many nations, whose citizenry experiences far less underage pregnancy or sexually related disease than us in the US do. I'd like to further on that point by saying that these same nations also have a LOT less violence on TV.

I've long been of the mind that less violence and more sex on TV (and even in our general culture) is the key. Human sexuality is a natural impulse shared by every human that still has a heartbeat. Violence on the other hand, while still a natural impulse, is one that is naturally rather minor, and can be easilly escalated by glorification of violence through world events, television programming, and films. The glorification of violence is what makes it seem so appealing to people (you know, the typical, "I'm hard, I killed someone, so now I get respect" mindset).

It's been said that humans have lost all instinct. I don't feel this is true. We still have natural biological urges (those for food, shelter, and procreation), but we also place certain values on these urges that make them seem less instinctual, and more consious choices.

Sex and violence often go hand in hand. To quote an old Jane's Addiction lyric, "sex is violent." Because of this, if you promote violence, it's often seen as sexy, and also plays into our natural desire for procreation.

I think that, based on what I've said, American TV is more a projenitor of violence, and the resultant sexuality, moreso than a projenitor of sexuality itself. Teens have ssex to be rebellious. They see it as part of the rebellious nature of violence. The same teenagers that are having sex, getting pregnant, and spreading disease are often the same ones spreading violence.

Eliminate violence on TV, eliminate the taboo of human sexuality, and you'll likely have a citizenry that is less violent, and more responsible when it comes to their sexuality.

I think you're onto something, obsidian.

As much as there is a culture of violence on (US) TV, I believe that there is also what I'd call a culture of sexual conquest as well.

This culture basically believes that your primary identity is your sexual identity, and that you can measure your success in life by how recently you have "scored." This attitude downplays emotional fulfillment in favor of "racking up a high score."

A lot of US TV is immersed in that culture even while it pretends to criticize it. The constellation of "Law and Order" shows, where the victims are all pretty women, and the police face a jubilant killer who celebrates his "takings" is the norm.

In some ways, TV is really reactionary; it perpetuates old stereotypes about how men and women behave in regards to sex.

"The Apprentice is another example. The women are about to lose, until they unleash their sexuality as a marketing tool, or to manipulate the men into letting them win. Trump rewards the women, and castigates the men for "not taking charge" of the women. The theme seems to be that women should use sex to get the richest man possible. I guess I'm just to hetero to understand what is so sexually compelling about Donald Trump.

While I don't find either of those shows particularly offensive, they both illustrate the pervasive TV culture of sexual conquest, and how TV perpetuates negative views about sex and the relations between genders.

The shows that are offensive to me are the one which are focused primarily on sexual conquest and 'scoring,' or focused on the humor of someone being degraded sexually, or that are explicit purely for the "oggle" value.

I think the "why" of this kind of TV programming is fairly obvious. With hundreds of channels, and an audience of millions, many of whom are only watching TV while they wait for the microwave to finish cooking dinner, TV has to find something that will make the audience keep watching, even if only for another minute.

The easiest way to do that is sex. Watching TV is a bit like walking down Bourbon Street in New Orleans. A lot of hucksters screaming for your attention, and using your interest in sex to reel you in and then separate you from your money.

Dr. Strangecraft

First, you're misrepresenting me.

I'm not representing you at all, how could I possibly misrepresent you? You're representing yourself, and you stated that since you don't want other people sexualizing your child, maybe you don't want to do it yourself either. My reply was based on your own words, which explains why they're quoted in my previous response.

I think I've been pretty clear about the fact that we do spend quality time with our kids, and are open and honest with our kids about biology.

The discussion really isn't about you. It's about the children of America. You chose to bring yourself into it, and I responded based off what you had said. You talked about how your kids, though well supervised, come into contact with other, less well-supervised children, and are exposed to the same objectionable material regardless.

You are painting false black/white picture: you imply that if I don't want my kids hearing about sex from other children, that I don't want them ever to learn anything. Again that's not the case.

I didn't imply anything. You explicitly said just that in your earlier post, which, again, was quoted in my previous post. Try to pay attention.

I want my family to teach them, and not strangers who are trying to sell them things.

Right. I don't blame you. Point being? Remember that removing objectionable material from television is the point of this discussion.

Second, my Nine year old is not leaving for college tomorrow. I am trying to teach her about sexuality, but the dominant culture is beating me to the punch, regardless of what I want.

K, what do you suggest be done about that? Do you belong to any parent/teacher groups, or community action organizations? Maybe you should take it upon yourself to educate some parents about what their kids are watching.

Other than that (and homeschooling), I can't really see anything to be done. The programming probably isn't going to change anytime soon.

Frankly, I was hoping to wait to discuss fisting and rimjobs until she was in the 5th or 6th grade.

Again, my complaint is not that I don't control my own TV.

That comment was not directed at you in particular. Most of my post was not, in fact, directed at you in particular. Look at the context.

My post was about how actively parenting my own children is simply not enough because other people don't seem to do a good job.

I'm aware of that fact. Maybe you could print out my post and deliver it to the homes of those parents who let their children gorge their little brains on televised smut.

You're also pretty certain the Network is not responsible for the stuff it broadcasts. Why is that?

They are responsible, but not to you. They're responsible to their shareholders, their corporate backers, and their board members. That aint you, and that aint me.

This is the reality of our system. Can't get away from it. You have to find a way to work within it. And that means first policing your own environment, and then policing your child's contact with others, and finally putting into context those nasty bits that slip through.

To paraphrase an old SNL routine, If I sold rat poison in a brightly colored bottle, with cute cartoon pictures on it, and the capsules were brightly colored and made in the shapes of famous cartoon characters, would you be surprised if some kids ate some? If they did, could I say that it was "parents' fault" for not watching what their kids eat???

No, I wouldn't be surprised. And yes, you could say it was the parents' fault. They bought it, they left it out, they didn't watch the kids. The same EXACT thing is true of television. The parents buy it, the parents leave it out, and the parents don't watch the kids.

So what would you say about someone selling pistols at a convenience store, with out ID's or background checks. Sure, a lot of the purchasers are probably responsible adults.

Someone who wants to sell a product that could be harmful ought to take at least basic steps to see that the product doesn't fall into the wrong hands.

We've been over this already. Parental controls come standard on modern televisions.

Hmmm. If you are so sure the problem is not the corporations, that it's the parents, then what do you suggest we do to help parents be more responsible?

I don't like the corporations. I think they're evidence of our corruption in action. Their purpose is to make money, and that's it. It should come as no surprise if they hurt some people, children included, in the process. We don't mandate business accountability, we mandate business profit margins.

Or do you think when parents suck at their job, that there's nothing can be done and it's just a regrettable cost of being able to watch cartoon characters poop on pizza?

Being able to watch cartoon characters poop on pizza is not the point, and I hope you know that. The point is that once you start regulating freedom of expression, you start chipping away at the fundamental freedoms; it's a process of continuous erosion.

If you want to introduce a bill that says no cartoon character can poop on pizza, go for it. But that wouldn't be enough would it? You'd have to include a clause about urine. And then vomit. And on, and on, and on. Unless you prohibit depictions of every possible obscene act, which is practically impossible, you have to use lame-ass generic language banning obscene material, or some open-ended nonsense about not offending viewers.

Don't you see how problematic such laws are?

As I've said, the means exist for parents to control their child's environment (software censors and supervision), and the means exist in the local communities to control the influence children have on each other, but most parents don't go out of their way to do what's right.

I don't think it makes sense to regulate broadcasters and not regulate parents, and since regulating parents is a fascist nightmare, we're back to square one: parental involvement, and creative solutions to the problems of a decaying culture.

In the end, it's probably best to talk to the parents in your community to insure that they all know what their kids are watching. If they know, and still don't do anything about it, maybe you can lead charge in a landmark case charging child endangerment against those parents who let their kids watch this crap. I wouldn't begrudge you that lawsuit.

Sorry but TV Do not shape anybody into anything

TV is a luxury, and a choice, Something you have the right to turn on or off.

Nobody is forcing anybody into sitting in front of the TV set to watch.

Nobody is forcing anybody to get a TV set.

Its a choice, get it, is a choice.

They are like anything else in modern society a technology that we all have the right to have it or not.

Now stop making excuses and stop blaming the TV programing for something that you are not force into torture to watch.

And start taking resposibility for you own life is so easy to blame somebody or something else for our own weakness people need to start taking resposiblilities.

You are treating the TVs and it's programing like the devil incarnated in the box, a entity that is controling you and society.

It is not.

It doesn't control me or my family, so stop making excuses.

Originally posted by marg6043


And start taking resposibility for you own life is so easy to blame somebody or something else for our own weakness people need to start taking resposiblilities.

Marge, your weakness becomes all the more evident everytime you post.

* *

Mod Edit:



[edit on 11/12/05 by FredT]

Originally posted by jimstradamus

Marge, your weakness becomes all the more evident everytime you post.

sounding like a crack addict that lost their pipe.

I am very insulted from this post and I think that your are attacking me personally.

I am very oppose that in a show of bravado you don't have anything more intelligent to say than that.

I will like you to prove my addiction to crack and and I am challenging you here in ATS.

So I will be waiting for your prof.

Very nice to attack people when is nothing else to add I bet it makes you feel big and important instead of using your intellect to challenge me.

Pity.

I didnt say you actually smoke crack Marge and the proof of your addiction seems clear to me from your post..It sounds similiar to the defences of an addict who's had their drug of choice taken away.