So we're all probably aware of this new report apparently demonstrating a "clear link" between sexual imagery within society (in the form of lads mags, music videos, adverts, etc) and violence to woman, or at the very least, a perversion of young minds. Apparently we're teaching the children of society that women are objects designed for the consumption of men. The report makes several proposals including that lads mags be given top shelf status and age ratings, and that music videos featuring any sign of sexuality be kept until after the watershed. This all seems rather drastic, if not absurd. This apparent "clear link" has never been shown to exist, and although there are very real concerns, particularly the use of overtly skinny models and an overuse of airbrushing, societies ills regarding gender stereotypes cannot be reduced to pop videos and magazines containing some topless women. Incidentally, are we to give tabloid newspapers top shelf status too, after all, they include photographs (Page 3) akin to those found in the magazines in question! The solution regarding lads mags is a particularly interesting one. Putting lads mags on the top shelf (next to the porn) will only divert the attention of teenagers away from the middle shelf and up to the porn rack! There's often some embarrassment for teenage boys in looking up at the top shelf, after all, it's clear what you're looking at. Putting these lads mags there will only give them a reason to go there and will over time remove that inherent embarrassment/fear. Either way, what use would this do anyway? They can just use the internet to get far more extreme/explicit material; they probably already do! Is this not really just part of growing up? If sexual imagery does have such a negative effect of young people then clearly all those exposed to it (which would be everyone) would exhibit those negative effects, yet this is clearly false. If there is a problem within society vis-a-vis how we perceive the roles of women and men, then magazines and videos are more likely a symptom, not a cause. This reminds me of those who put the blame on violence in society on the so called 'video nasties', and more recently, video games. Thoughts? BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8537734.stm Two critical reviews: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/t...ualisation-is-a-100-page-cosmopolitan-article www.lexferenda.com/26022010/thinking-of-the-children
http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/3aw-generic-blog/pushup-bra-for-sixyearolds/20100203-nbyd.html http://melindatankardreist.com.au/2...e-illusion-of-breasts-for-the-youngest-girls/
My post: "They can just use the internet to get far more extreme/explicit material; they probably already do!"
It's nowt to do with teens and everything to do with the much younger children that are very carefully targeted with imagery and products that are sexually charged. Lads mags on the top shelf to stop teens buying them is sooo wide of the mark. MItch
Ok I'm one fo these people being "corrupted" and I'm actually in two midns thinking about it. I think some aspects are true such as the clothing I've seen thongs and stuff marketed at 12 year olds (on shelves! Not personally) and it is disturbing. What I object to with a passion is the stuff about how nowadays teenagers and kids see women as objects and we all condone violence against them and are basically going back to the dark ages. Balls.To.That. That could well be true in some cases but I have serious doubts that that study is reflective of youths as a whole and ONCE AGAIN we are being treated like complete idiots. Is it really that hard for professers to accept that teenagers actually do have a decent level of intelligence? It takes more than looking at porn or listening to a song to cause people to be in abusive relationships and treating women like crap because they buy a bra younger? Noooo I could go onto a veeeery long spiel about the bit in the report asking for bans on games and tv and music but I'll save you'll reading the longest post in MAP's history. I do think its interesting though that kids are becoming sexually active earlier. Somehow I got missed out but its still an interesting fact but I dont see it as a bad thing neccasarily, I think thats more to do with society evolving and not seeing sex as a holy grail. Are children being sexualised earlier? Yeah I reckon so. Is it a bad thing? No. Running out a personal example I knew about sex from a very young age according to my mum but I'm not out screwing everything that has a pulse and I'm definately not treating women like second rate citizens. Maybe abusive relationships are on the rise but you can not pin it down on us having a more free opinion on sex.
"They can just use the internet to get far more extreme/explicit material; they probably already do!" :whistle:
Going back to my early teen years magazines, video games and movies had little to do my corruption; I just hit the internet. I don't remember any of my friends not being the same. Although, I do think there is some sort of bombardment targetting childred specifically. An example would be children being constantly shown McDonald's commercials every 15 minutes on cartoon channels. Another one for early teens would be the Axe or Lynx commercials. Seriously would any one past their teen years believe in that? Here's another one that's real life, and I'm going off White Panda's sarcasm. A month ago I was walking back from the bus stop. I usually take a short cut through an empty parking lot on the way home. I noticed this pick up truck that had about 3-4 children yelling and crying. When I got closer I saw this lady screwing some guy in the front seat RIGHT INFRONT OF THE CHILDREN. She turns out to be there mother because one of the children was crying at her. Now I don't know what I should have done, but I just walked away. No amount of porn on the internet could be as bad as this.
I do think there is a barrage of marketing directed towards young children, and there is little doubt in my mind that much of it is harmful. For example, according to wikipedia, thongs have been made for children as young as 7 years old! There is no reason a young child needs a piece of clothing that obviously has erotic tones. You mention music videos; I'll admit that some of the songs I like have some racy stuff in the videos, however, at my age, I really don't think it does me any harm. Consider though that a few weeks ago at the library, I noticed a couple of children, perhaps 8 years old, looking up Lady Gaga's songs/videos. Sex itself is nothing to be ashamed of. But unfortunately, the media today will saturate young children with sexually suggestive material, unless the parents are vigilant. And unfortunately, many parents today are nowhere near vigilant.
Difference between vigiliance and control. That bit in your post about thongs for 7 year olds is just plain disturbing but admittedly with a girlfriend as short as mine it does have advantages With how much "sexually suggestive" stuff is pretty much everywhere for a parent to completely protect a child from it would involve basically locking them in a room with no access to any media of any kind they wouldn't even be allowed to go outside because of the billboards. Parents don't need to "protect" their kids from a few songs they need to get off their **** and actually sit their kids down and explain this stuff to them properly. I seriously think a lack of decent education from parents is more to blame than whats in the top 40. This is just another "decline in society" that someones trying to find a quick fix solution to instead of admitting that it goes deeper than just banning something.
Although I think there is definitely some truth in the concept that kids are more exposed to sexually suggestive material and that the commodification of sex is a bad thing for children and society as a whole, I'm still dubious about the quality of research coming from television pop-psychologists. I think you're overstating the case there. If it's a factor rather than a cause in itself, you wouldn't expect it to manifest if other influences aren't in place. e.g. perhaps in children without good adult role models, sexualised imagery influences their choices of behaviour? Perhaps it interacts with parenting styles, socioeconomics, education, any of the range of things that usually contribute to kids' behaviour?
Sounds a lot like like Fredric Wertham's Seduction of the Innocent. A published 'study' of how comic books in the 1950s were influencing children to be violent and exposed to sexually charged images. Including Batman and Robin being shown as homosexual partners, Wonder Woman being a lesbian and Superman as a form of facist. Thus leading to children to crime and prostitution. One devout follower of Wertham's study, once stated over a caricature drawing of zoo animals being transported in cages, there was a Giraffe, although in a cage, had his head stuck out via a circular hole in the cage roof. This he stated was a clear sign of a sexual nature, depicting intercourse. Other people saw a Giraffe's head sticking out of a hole. Censorship is always on the agenda and many debates over the years have always included "_____ is harmful to children". In the 1950s it was comics, in the 80s it was video games. Mortal Kombat (which ok is quite violent) was banned in some countries and Nintendo took out the fatalities. Parents apparently feared that their children wanted to be just like Sub Zero and decapitate people. In the 90s it was films and music videos. Notoriously in the UK the Jamie Bulger child murder by 2 other children, some claiming it was the viewing of the horror movie Child's Play 2 which led to their violent state. In the end its all about perception, you can make the most innocent programme and someone somewhere would somehow see sexual imagery. http://litmed.med.nyu.edu/Annotation?action=view&annid=1526
Oh I agree that just banning things is hardly ever a good solution, and isolating a child from the world is (obviously) bound to have negative effects. And yes, I also agree that parents need to explain such things properly to their children, rather than it being a "no no" subject that the schools are supposed to teach about. However, I don't think it's quite as simple as "media ok, parents lazy". Children as young as those mentioned in my previous post don't need to learn about sex just yet, they need to be allowed an innocent childhood. Introducing sex to them at that age would take away their innocence, and color the way they perceive things, especially the opposite gender. We've even seen examples of adults with an unhealthy focus on sex, who rather than seeing it as an expression of love/a pleasurable activity/whatever, and leaving it at that, they sexualize everything. As martial artists for example, how often have we seen men and women uncomfortable working together in grappling situations? Quite often, and usually because one is worried the other will try to cop a feel. This shouldn't be an issue, people are here to train... but it is, because of the emphasis society puts on sex. Think about how this perspective would be intensified by introducing children to sex at a young age. So yes, sex is a part of life, and parents do need to discuss it with their children. BUT there is no reason it should have to be at an age when they're better off playing with dolls and legos than thinking about boyfriends/girlfriends.
Completely agree. No doubt there are very real and very serious issues to be dealt with here (e.g. thongs for children, anorexia websites, etc), but interpreting anything that has any potential sexual connotation, or even something that is just glamorous, in society as detrimental just reduces the strength of any valid point they have. And presenting teenagers as having no intelligence or self control is verging on insulting. No doubt the traditionalists are having a field day with this, viewing everything they disapprove of as tantamount to pornography. "Can young girls tell the difference between dressing up for a video, a performance, and real life? Can young boys, particularly, differentiate between girls in a group and those who live in their street, or will they grow up with a warped view of how women should look and behave?" Even if it were true that teenagers develop such ideas, do they really keep them as they grow up? "Spend a Friday night watching women parade in town centres the length and breadth of Britain and you will be able to see for yourself that they take the drag queen make-up and hooker uniform they see on screen literally." And this is a sample of women in society, how? What sort of clothes qualifies as a 'hooker uniform'?
This still negates the argument they are making. Their proposals/recommendations seem to imply that these things are such an issue that we need to legislate and control access to them. Surely this would only be necessary if they where problematic in of themselves. For instance, giving lads mags an age certificate is to suggest that anyone below that age is susceptible to any alleged corruption that those magazines can cause. I doubt that's even true. At the very least it has not been demonstrated. I agree with you that sexualised images combined with other factors is likely an issue, but this is not what is being suggested. What is happening here is more than likely due to a whole host of complex social issues, of which sexual content may be a factor. We typically like simplistic solutions so movies, video games or music are often a convenient scapegoats.
