Viewing of Nudity by Youth

[falsechristians]

Why is nudity on TV, Internet or magazines viewed as harmful to children or youth under 18?

- In most of the rest of the world outside the US, it is quite common both on television and at nude beaches.

- If a child of any age had seen Janet Jackson's breast on TV about a year ago, exactly what would the harmful effects have been. Would they turn into a rapist?

- Are there any adults today that did not sneak Penthouse magazines from their parents and look at them as kids? Did this harm any of you in any way?

- In most states, you have to be 21 to enter an adult bookstore, however, you can be in an adult movie at 18. So you can be in a movie at 18, but you just can't go rent it until you are 21.

- I would argue that this Victorian attitude is causing our youth to view sex and nudity as something filthy. How can this be psychologically healthy for our kids?


This should be up to the parents and NOT the states.

[Chris]

to an extent.

Janet Jackson boob flash = not harmful. Hardcore Porn = shouldn't be shown to 5th graders. Maybe highschoolers. but moderation should be taught. Porn should be explained as a real entity that generates billions in revenue each year. It should not be explained as a bad thing. But we should also explain that porn can cross the line sometimes (i.e. kiddie pron and snuff, disgusting porn etc) Ordinary guy on girl porn is harmless imo.

The christian right got all bent out of shape cause of a tit, and that's shameful. The daytime soaps show exactly the same thing if not more. Dry humping, make out sessions, and nakedness. They have been doing so for years. shots where the woman's nips poke through - this is well documented.

You are right about the tit shots in other countries. There used to be a show called "Wild On" on E! tv here in the US. I found myself in Hamilton, ON -Canada for work, watching tv before bed. They showed the same show except there was no blurred out or Mosaic Tit blocking technologies in place. The show "Wild On" was shown at 12-1 AM in the US. And they still implemented tit blocking technology. [prudish American censors]. You are right about porn with kids sneaking it too. If young pre teen boys aren't fortunate enough to have parents with Penthouse, they will be sneaking Victoria's Secret Catalogues. If not those, its Sears Catalogues.

Some people need to get the fuk over it.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Every body "knows" nudity is evil, but dont you dare speak out against war.

[grandpa]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Every body "knows" nudity is evil, but dont you dare speak out against war.

The People Versus Larry Flynt has a classic scene on this subject. I highly recommend this movie for people interested in both this dichotomy and in censorship issues in general.

Grandpa h.

[falsechristians]

Thanks for all of the comments back. Finally people with reason. This is a subject that you can't even speak about normally without being accused of being a pedophile or something.

Another good point was raised, it is okay for kids to be exposed to slasher movies where there are unnatural acts of cutting people up but by God don't show them a breast!!!

[Clarence]

Another good point was raised, it is okay for kids to be exposed to slasher movies where there are unnatural acts of cutting people up but by God don't show them a breast!!!

I assume this is a question. I believe there is a deliberate attempt to desensitize youth to violence. Whenever the sexual content gets ratched up, violent content is somehow more tolerated at the same time. It's like violence rides sex and profanity's coattail as far as tolerance goes.

[uBeR]

Quote by: falsechristians Another good point was raised, it is okay for kids to be exposed to slasher movies where there are unnatural acts of cutting people up but by God don't show them a breast!!!

By this same argument, then, you would also be against nudity in movies. If you're opposed to "slasher movies" because you feel children then imitate it with violent actions, surely you should be against nudity/sex for the same reasons.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: uBeR If you're opposed to "slasher movies" because you feel children then imitate it with violent actions, surely you should be against nudity/sex for the same reasons.

Why would anyone be opposed to children imitating nudity?

[kubedawg]

Nudity is natural. Clothes are not. Therefore, it is natural for kids to see people nude. It is not natural for kids to have sex, and the parents should let the kids know of these things once they ask about it. Teaching kids about sex, love, std's, etc is a good thing. If a kid is sheltered from nudity say until he/she is no longer a minor, that will either cause the person to be exposed extremely in a way that can cause harm to them in the future. Knowledge isn't evil.

[Fonceai]

Education is key.

Teach your kids to be familiar with the human body from a more "scientific" perspective and explain to them the sexual nature of visual association.

[Zhavric]

A few thoughts on the subject...

I really wish Americans weren't descended from prudish puritans who villified all things sexual.

I wish I lived in a country where people didn't go apesh** at the sight of a nipple, penis, vagina or butt.

We really need to have a healthier attitude towards sex and sexuality.

[samsara15]

Because Americans are prudes. Of course, all the teenagers know this stuff. After all, they're filled with raging hormones, even at age 12, and have rapidly maturing bodies. This business ol over-protecting them is outright silly.

[Athena]

- If a child of any age had seen Janet Jackson's breast on TV about a year ago, exactly what would the harmful effects have been. Would they turn into a rapist

?

Interesting the focus is on the exposure of flesh, instead of the implied domination and violence. Are we in denial or what?

[Fonceai]

What domination and violence?

Of the act of showing her breast?

[Athena]

Quote by: falsechristians Thanks for all of the comments back. Finally people with reason. This is a subject that you can't even speak about normally without being accused of being a pedophile or something. Another good point was raised, it is okay for kids to be exposed to slasher movies where there are unnatural acts of cutting people up but by God don't show them a breast!!!

I am very opposed to slasher movies for anyone, especially children. I am concerned about what we accept as good entertainment, but also realize I am a party pooper. My idea of a great date is doing research at the U of O library, and it is hard to find someone who matches this interest.

However, when it comes to nudity, does anyone object to National Geographic pictures of natives? I think giving up the Christian concept of sin is an excellent idea. I think accepting nudity is an excellent idea. May be we could become more honest and tolerant and less deceitful and vain?

[Athena]

Quote by: Fonceai What domination and violence? Of the act of showing her breast?

Are you serious? If so it is futile to continue this discussion with you. The exposure of her breast, was nothing like a mother exposing her breast to suckle her child. The scene was as close to rape as we can get without it being rape.

[Fonceai]

It was hardly rape.

It was planned and it was completely in context with the song they were singing.

Right before he pulled off her covering thing he sang the final lyric, something like "I'll have you naked by the end of this song"

I'd hardly call it rape.

[abub]

Quote by: Athena Are you serious? The exposure of her breast, was nothing like a mother exposing her breast to suckle her child.

right, because she didn't even expose her nipple.

[uBeR]

The main difference between National Geographic's nudity and "Old School's" nudity is their purpose. I don't think many parents or people in the United States are against nudity, per se. Context is everything.

[Osborn F Enready]

I think parents now have more control than ever to censor what their child takes in through television and internet usage.

There is no excuse to me, for not having more programming freedom.

Parents are the problem, not the system.

Too many parents aim to "childproof" the nationvia laws, as opposed to taking responsibility for raising their kids as good parents should.

What do you expect in a system where we dump off our kids for 6 hours a day on the state, so we can make money for food with both parents working?(assuming it is two parents of course, if not, you can factor in the costs of child care on top of that.)

This system is being eroded from within by bad legislation, proposed and passed by bad politicians, resulting in a dis-empowering of the working class to comfort the corporations.