This should come as no shock, but teens who listen to songs with sexual lyrics start having sex earlier than teens who listen to other music.
From the AP:
Teens who said they listened to lots of music with degrading sexual messages were almost twice as likely to start having intercourse or other sexual activities within the following two years as were teens who listened to little or no sexually degrading music.
Among heavy listeners, 51 percent started having sex within two years, versus 29 percent of those who said they listened to little or no sexually degrading music.
Exposure to lots of sexually degrading music “gives them a specific message about sex,” said lead author Steven Martino, a researcher for Rand Corp. in Pittsburgh. Boys learn they should be relentless in pursuit of women and girls learn to view themselves as sex objects, he said.
“We think that really lowers kids’ inhibitions and makes them less thoughtful” about sexual decisions and may influence them to make decisions they regret, he said.
The study, based on telephone interviews with 1,461 participants aged 12 to 17, appears in the August issue of Pediatrics, being released Monday.
Most participants were virgins when they were first questioned in 2001. Follow-up interviews were done in 2002 and 2004 to see if music choice had influenced subsequent behavior.
The media consumption of an individual matters. It influences the way the person thinks and reacts. There’s a reason company’s pay millions of dollars on adverstising – it works. If you advertise sex, people buy it. Unfortunately, unlike the pair of jeans a teenager bought impulsively, they can’t take that back.
Oh Aaron, how wonderful. You're reading exactly like your father was when he was cautioning you against whatever music was popular when you were a child.
Anyway, what's your proposed solution?
For parents to teach their children to avoid this type of media. You will not find me calling for a government ban, if that is what you are fishing for.
It is a complicated issues that in all honesty needs to be addressed from virtually every side. Unfortunately, as the article points out, the music industry downplays the connections.
If I sound like my dad, thanks. He is a good man and great father. I appreciate the compliment.
Aaron,
You're missing the point. Parents go hysterical about music because they don't feel like doing the teaching necessary to help kids make good decisions. And they also have a hard time accepting that their children have made bad decisions.
Look at Christian parents who insist on abstinence and refuse their children dating or any conversation about sex. Then they act shocked when their children pursue sexual exploration without them knowing, and then they blame music. Raise your kids right and the music wouldn't be a problem.
Or, to put this another way, I've listened to a lot of violent music in my day, and I don't get into fights, or shoot people, or kill people. How can we possibly explain that? I'd argue good parenting.
Finally, teaching children to stay away from something sounds ridiculous. Be open and honest with your children, and explain to them the realities of whats being discussed. That goes a lot farther than, "Alice Cooper is bad for you kids! He's bad! He ate a chicken on stage!"
Parents go hysterical about music because they don't feel like doing the teaching necessary to help kids make good decisions.
I agree that parents should have already trained their children to have internalized strong morals and virtue, but we still need to help shape and regulate culture, esp. when it becomes as crass and vulgar as it is today.
You also seem to intimate that being alarmed at the grossly sexualized and violent nature of music that our teens listen to is really just the same old parental fuddy-duddy syndrome. But I don't think this logic alone can be applied.
Historically, music has been not only liberating, but destructive in the same manner that this study indicates. For example, many hippies who bought into the lie of free sex and drugs paid a heavy personal price, and the music they listened to was part of the problem.
Today's sexualized music most certainly *is* part of the problem, and to ignore that by saying "aww, you're just being a square parent – it never hurt you, and it's just innocent teenage rebellion" is really lacking discernment. Today's culture is a minefield of pornography, misogyny, promiscuity, and violence. To ignore that behind a "pshaw" is foolishness. I mean "Teens who said they listened to lots of music with degrading sexual messages were almost twice as likely to start having intercourse or other sexual activities" is a shocking stat, and we should take notice rather than being irresponsibly dismissive.
Sure, a lot of stuff is just innocent rebellion and interest in the opposite sex. While songs like "I like big butts" might be funny and not too harmful, would you want your 12 year old singing stuff like Yung Joc's "1st time"?
Not if you are a responsible and intelligent parent.
And this report that Aaron brings to our awareness is a great example of how we need to instill our kids with values that promote virtue, and teach them that "just because everyone else jumps off the (sexual, violence, drugs) bridge, even music stars, doesn't mean you have to also." Sound advice.
Sam, this is not meant to be an excuse for lazy parenting or a cop-out for parents to be involved in their kids lives. It just points out that if your media diet is saturated with sex you are more likely, as a teenager, to engage in the behaviors you hear about.
Of course, it does impact everyone, but it was a significant jump for those who did listen to this type of music.
I think insisting on abstinence and helping children avoid bad music is part of responsible parenting. Giving kids high standards to shoot for is not a bad thing.
Besides, this has nothing to do with popular music. I don't care if my kid likes a song that is popular. I do care if my kid has a song on his iPod that deals with adult subject matter. It's not about style – I still like the style of music today (I'm not that old). But I refuse to condone my children or the youth that I work with listening to music that glorifies harmful behavior. That is irresponsible.
Let me ask you this: do you genuinely believe that this study took equal children, in all respects OTHER than the music they listened to, and let them listen to this music? And that as a result SOLELY of the music they listened to, they had sex? Or do you think that world is, perhaps, slightly more complicated than "Oh my God, my child saw Elvis shaking his hips, and now he wants to have sex!" or whatever ridiculous argument you're making. Music now is the same that it has always been: offensive to parents and attractive to children. Nothing has changed, including the responses of people like you, who genuinely believe that the most serious problem facing our children is the crass culture.
And you know what? I agree with you. Culture is crass, and disgusting. But the solutions aren't "regulation" which sounds like using the heavy hand of government to monitor what American citizens are enjoying. The solution is better parenting and involvement with teenagers that goes farther than, "Don't LISTEN TO THAT!" Which is, in essence, what you seem to be proposing.
Not sure if this matters, but the comments are no longer updating on the site’s front page. In other words, it keeps saying that this post has 3 comments, when in fact it has more. Again, I’m not sure if this matters.
Um..you seem to found some stereotypical strawman to bash in my response and initial post that was not there.
Do I think this is the sole factor in children having sex ealier? Of course not. Is this even the main factor? I don't think so. Is this a factor? The study and common knowledge seems to indicate it is.
I think crass culture is a serious problem facing children, but not the serious problem. I think we are arguing around the central point.
Correct me if I am wrong. You think that we think it is the major problem. We think that you think that it is not a problem at all. In reality both sides agree that it is a problem, we simply disagree on how big a problem it is. Neither side (at least here at Two or Three) wants the government to get involved. Both sides think that parents play the central and most important role in the positive development of their children.
So why are we so far apart on this issue? Is it simply stereotypes that we read into each others comments. Because when I read your responses I am wondering what in the world you read to make you think that I said something like that.
I object to the notion of prohibition, which is what concerned parents on both sides of the aisle almost always argue for when it comes to some alleged danger to children. I'm simply arguing two points:
1. That prohibition is an idiotic, at best, solution. Go back and read what Seeker said: "but we still need to help shape and regulate culture." What does that mean exactly? Because I can assure you that I'd love the opportunity to "regulate" our culture, because I'd be sure to get rid of all of the crap that I hate (never again would I have hear about Toby Keith's boot-in-ass-bloodlust). But I doubt that you would be very happy is I was allowed to regulate our culture. So you can understand why I'm not particularly interested in having your side regulate the culture.
2. We agree that parental responsibility is of the utmost importance. Where we might disagree is what parental responsibility means. Too often we see parents of all types trying to be responsible through the means of prohibition. We still see books being banned in libraries because some idiotic Christian or liberal or whomever can't handle the idea that a book of ideas differing from theirs would be made available to children. And instead of simply discussing with their children any of the issues pretaining to that book, those parents insist on making decisions for every other child by simply having the book eliminated from the library.
We probably are on the same page, but the tactics involved I find horrific and stupid. We're smarter than banning idiotic music, or movies, or books, or whatever.
but we still need to help shape and regulate culture.” What does that mean exactly?
As I’ve said previously, regulate does not mean prohibit. Things like alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and pornographic or violent media should all be regulated, through things that range from mandatory ratings to limiting point of sale options (like no minors). This is a perfectly reasonable compromise.
I think we can also do things like disallow Adult stores within X miles of places where impressionable kids hang out or live (i.e. relegate them to the outskirts of town ;).
I love the incredibly anti-capitalist idea of disallowing the sale of legal pornography if children are nearby. As if children are somehow incapable of handling pornography existing near their homes, or as if the stores would simply let an 8-year-old in to wander the aisles.
These are precisely the sorts of prohibitions that I'm talking about. "It isn't that we want to make pornography illegal, we just don't want it sold near that school…or in our town…or in this county…or anywhere." The issue ought to be individual and parental responsibility, not the elimination of available goods.
I love the incredibly anti-capitalist idea of disallowing the sale of legal pornography if children are nearby.
Only if you view capitalism as "unrestricted trade." Neither capitalism or democracy work if they are implmented in some extreme, unbalanced way. Controls and balances are necessary to keep the fallen nature of man in check.
As it is said, the less 'internal self-government' (read "virtue") people have, the more external government will be needed to protect society from the selfish acts of men. We will always need some external government, but how much is really the question. Even in a free and capitalistic society, we need regulations and structures that prevent the selfishness of people in power from corrrupting and taking advantage of the weak. Hence regulation of dangerous materials such as porno.
The issue ought to be individual and parental responsibility, not the elimination of available goods.
That's a nice libertarian sentiment, but it needs to be balanced with reality. What happens when Porn-R-Us comes into your town and opens up a teen shop next to your high school? As a parent, you are not there during your child's breaks in school. What you do is, you organize and take action in local civil government to get the porno vultures away from your kids.
To use another example, it is the parents' responsibility to feed and clothe their children. By your argument, we should not have programs that take my money to feed them because you are restricting my freedom – actually taking my hard-earned money to help society. That's not my job, that's the parents' job.
In both cases, you are limiting one person to help protect the children (from porn or malnutrition). I know they are not exactly the same, but I think the way in which you are applying your principle amounts to the same sort of illogic. I hope you agree ;)
The conservative answer to poverty, of course, is not to give away money, but to loan it to people (ok, you CAN give grants) to help them get back on their feet and take responsibility for themselves (see my excellent article on workfare ;), rather than turning them into permanent wards of the state. But I digress.
Regulation is not fascist control. It's sensical controls of dangerous items, that allow for people to "sin" if they want, but also protect the children. Common sense, if you ask me.
What I like about you Seeker is your total disconnection from your own logic. You're horrified by the availability of a dangerous good like pornography, and yet I'll assume that, since you're conservative, you deeply believe in the availability of guns. I'll assume that you're horrified by those who believe that gun sales should be regulated, because heaven forbid you limit the freedoms of a citizen who simply wants to own a gun! This is America! We don't do that sort of thing in America!
And your point about virtue – that those who enjoy pornography somehow lack virtue – is precisely the sort of lie that you and your religion like to spread about people. You simply cannot fathom that it is possible to be both charitable and enjoy blowjobs. It is impossible that a man could be both a good father and gay. There is no way that a person could be upstanding and NOT Christian. It is as if there are two sorts of people in the world: you (and by extension, people like you) and everyone else.
Let's ignore for a minute how irritating it is to have it suggested that the enjoyment of pornography leads to a lack of virtue; millions of Americans enjoy pornography and go to church, donate to charity, volunteer, and do the sorts of things that we expect from the virtuous.
Instead, I want to revisit this issue of guns (since you think that the malnutrition argument is so convincing). Guns are OBVIOUSLY dangerous, and they OBVIOUSLY hurt people. Since pornography OBVIOUSLY isn't dangerous (seeing a naked woman won't kill you), and since it OBVIOUSLY doesn't hurt people (whereas bullets pierce your skin, the worst you're going to get as a result of pornography are papercuts and skin irritation), then you must then support the regulation of firearms. Right? I mean, if you're so concerned about that which is dangerous for people, then you clearly believe that we have to keep guns out of the hands of people, because chances are that they're going to hurt somebody, accidentally or otherwise. Right?
Finally, "porno vultures?" Are you serious? Have you ever known the operator of a porn store to go to a school offering pornography? Or is it more realistic to say that kids developing sexually have an interest in seeing naked people and, potentially, seek out those with pornography? Of course, if sex was dealt with more openly and honestly, perhaps the desire for pornography would dissipate. But that doesn't happen.
Seeker is your total disconnection from your own logic. You're horrified by the availability of a dangerous good like pornography, and yet I'll assume that, since you're conservative, you deeply believe in the availability of guns.
I've made it quite clear on many occasiions that I am for gun control. Maybe you missed that. So my logic stands. In fact, it is implicit in these arguments that I included guns, alcohol, and tobacco on that list of things that need regulation and control. So the rest of your argument about my illogic can be dismissed.
Since you ask seeker about his supposed disconnect from logic, Sam what is it you argue against gas prices and Wal-mart wages? Or do you have certain times you think the market (capitalism) should be regulated?
Aaron,
I’m not sure I’ve ever argued anything about gas prices, other than I find it annoying that they’re so high. I’m not entirely sure that the oil industry is being honest with consumers about the prices we’re paying at the pump, but hey, we’re still paying. So how can we complain?
And yes, I think there is a difference between pornography being available in your town and WalMart refusing to offer health care to their employees. I’m not entirely sure what the comparrison is. Obviously, the market allows WalMart to screw its own employees, and I’ve never proposed legally forcing WalMart to do anything. That said, Seeker is propsing using the law to legally force those who enjoy pornography to do so elsewhere, meaning away from kids, or away from him, or whatever. Aaron, I’m not sure what your point is.
If you don't want the government to do anything with gas prices and Walmart then I misunderstood you, so I apologize for that. But I know there is one area where you want government involvement in the market – minimum wage.
That was really my only point. You talk about anti-capitalist in regards to pornography, but not in terms of market wages.
You want the government to regulate things, just not the same things.
And regulation is not anti-capitalist or anti-freedom. It is a practical and necessesary part of safeguarding the system from selfish abuse of freedom. Even in a free society, rights and freedoms are limited in the web of balanced rights and freedoms. As I said, pure libertarianism does not work, that's why we have mechanisms to balance power, because ultimate power…
It isn't anti-capitalist to guarantee a wage – if anything, putting money in people's pockets (although not too much money) spurs the economy by creating consumers with power. And although I understand your point to a degree, I still maintain that there is a difference between restricting something that is sold and requiring that the person behind the counter make a minimum amount of money. I guess you don't.
And Seeker, I will always love the idea of a "selfish abuse of freedom." You think that a "selfish abuse of freedom" are people who do things with their freedom that you wouldn't: looking at pictures of naked people, for example. It isn't selfish to enjoy freedom differently than you do. And besides, do you really want me suggesting that your religion is a "selfish abuse of your freedom." Because if you're going to insist that the lonely businessman who gets off in a hotel room with a Penthouse is abusing his freedom, then I'm going to have to suggest the same thing about you going to church when you could be doing something valuable with your time.
(And how do you know that libertarianism doesn't work? Where on Earth has it been tried?)
As we discussed on the other thread, the person behind the counter will in all likelihood make more than the minimum wage. Just as prices reflect the markets movements, so do wages. Even without the minimum wage, no one would pay someone the same thing today as they did 30 years ago. The labor market changes just as the commericial market does.
My point really wasn’t that this is bad, this is good. It was simply that you disagree with seeker and charge him with anti-capitalism because he supports regulation. You support regulation of the market in a different sort, but don’t recognize that as anti-capitalist. I don’t think either are actually anti-capitalist.
The only problem with your analogy Sam with porn and religion is the Constitution. There is a specific right to a freedom of religion. Now you can argue that press or speech should cover porn, that is the accepted view point now. But it is still debateable that porn should be covered. It is not debateable that religion is a guaranteed freedom.
On what basis is porn not covered in the Constitution?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. That makes it quite clear that consensual pornography is legal for publication. Quite. Clear. There’s no debate about this, unless you’re a prohibitionist who believes that pornography is damaging. But even if it is damaging, it still isn’t illegal.
So are you arguing that anything can be published? What about slander? What about pictures I took of you in the buff while you were in the shower? What about if I incite violence in the press? Are there no limits on this freedom?
And if there are, how do you define them?
Everything you're talking about Seeker damages an individual. (As opposed to pornography, which most certainly does not, assuming that it is consensual.)
1. Slander are lies, published in an attempt to defame an individual.
2. Those pictures you took of me were taken without my permission.
3. Inciting violence in the press – something that Ann Coulter regularly does without regard for the safety of judges that she suggests should be poisoned to death – similarly can lead to harm. However, this one is strange, because we routinely see the threat of violence via the religious and nobody opposes that…somebody I once knew suggested that "gays were lucky that they weren't killed." Nobody suggested you lose your right to free expression.
And again, the point is that consensual pornography harms isn't actual harmful, although it can be abused. But so can religion.
somebody I once knew suggested that “gays were lucky that they weren’t killed.”
Yeah, that was Sam the atheist, who took something someone else said out of context.
consensual pornography harms isn’t actual harmful
So it’s OK for your kid to buy porno at the 7-11 next to his school?
I don't think it is even legal for kids to purchase pornography, and I'm not suggesting that it should be. But kids aren't allowed to purchase cigarettes at the 7-11 next to their school, but nobody's saying that 7-11's shouldn't be allowed to stock cigarettes. Same goes for pornography.
And Seeker, don't lie: you once wrote that gays are lucky they aren't killed in this country.
I don’t think it is even legal for kids to purchase pornography, and I’m not suggesting that it should be. But kids aren’t allowed to purchase cigarettes at the 7-11 next to their school, but nobody’s saying that 7-11’s shouldn’t be allowed to stock cigarettes. Same goes for pornography.
Then we agree, but you are contradicting yourself. I thought you were against such regulations? Have I not made it clear that I am for regulation, not prohibition? What is your beef with that stand if you are for the regulation of the sale of such items?
Because I don't honestly believe that you believe only in regulation. We can both agree that a certain amount of regulation is required when it comes to pornography – however, we disagree significantly on the levels of regulation. You have suggested that pornography not be sold near schools; I have suggested that pornography not be sold to minors, but can be available anywhere if vendors choose to…well…vend it.
And that's the difference. Those who favor regulation tend to favor regulation to a degree that it becomes de facto prohibition. "We won't tell you you can't drink alcohol," says the regulators, "You just can't buy any in this county." That's, in essence, prohibition.
Because I don’t honestly believe that you believe only in regulation.
Wow. So even though I’ve clearly said that, you don’t believe me? That’s why you are willing to contradict yourself and accuse me/us? Yikes.
we disagree significantly on the levels of regulation. You have suggested that pornography not be sold near schools;
That’s one valid way to regulate, esp. if kids can go off campus unsupervised. Did you know that some schools no longer allow soda machines in schools? Do you think that’s going too far also? I think you want to make me out to be some kind of radical on this regulation thing, but it’s ALL IN YOUR MIND (waving my hands in a circle and making large-eyed spooky face).
Those who favor regulation tend to favor regulation to a degree that it becomes de facto prohibition.
I can see that, and your example amounts to prohibition. But whatever demons you are seeing in the conservative approach to regulation, you aren’t seeing it here.
I also think you make the mistake of thinking that, since we are mostly for prohibition of abortion (killing of children), then we MUST want to take the same approach to every other issue. But that fear tactic, while it may have some truth if you look hard enough for hard-core right wingers, is really not close to the truth when it comes to myself or many (most?) christian conservatives.
However, as I’ve said, I *am* a little more center than most. I mean, I am NOT a tea totaler by any means, though I avoid drunkenness. But a nice comfortable blood-alcohol level while listening to live music w/ my wife, no problem. However, I avoid porno like the plague I think it is (though not nakedness – I enjoyed very much my time at a weekend spa that had clothing optional areas, because the whole focus, unlike porno, was not sex at all – other married couples were there (not swingers either) just enjoying the freedom of nakedness under the sun. But I digress.)
Seeker,
Let’s again revisit the issue, because we’re discussing more than you here. Aaron, for his part, doesn’t object to blue laws if they exist on some small scale. You don’t necessarily object to bans on the sale of pornography near children. People on your side of the fence routinely insist that while they believe in free speech, this book or that book shouldn’t be available in the library. I’m sorry, but your side of the fence is constantly insisting on de facto prohibition. And that’s regardless of whatever you think about.
If you honestly don’t object to the sale of pornography, congratulations. However, your willingness to agree to a ban on sales “near children” almost certainly means that convenience stores, grocery stores, book stores and other institutions won’t be able to carry the product, because after all, what is the definition of “near.” The obvious solution is enforcement of age laws.
The fact of the matter is that (Some) (Most?) Christians tend to insist upon de facto prohibition of whatever it is that they find offensive, to the point that our access as adults is limited. See: the situation wherein HBO is the only channel with decent television on (which I have to pay for) because Christians are scared that an F-Bomb might make it to network television. (Or the entire stupidity of the Janet Jackson fiasco. Talk about Christians going totally overboard.) If this isn’t you, fair enough, but you lend your support to those who do want to prohibit the pleasures of some.
People on your side of the fence routinely insist that while they believe in free speech, this book or that book shouldn't be available in the library.
Again, that is usually in the context of protecting children. And what you like to call a "ban" of selling an item can also be called "regulation" because it can be sold elsewhere. Not much difference, except the spin.
but your side of the fence is constantly insisting on de facto prohibition.
Yeah, well I call it defacto regulation. You just call it prohibition when you are against it. When you are for it, it's not prohibition. Again, spin.
If you honestly don't object to the sale of pornography, congratulations. However, your willingness to agree to a ban on sales "near children"
I said that was one possible example of how a community could validly regulate the sale of pornography. If you want to turn that into a scary slippery slope fear-fest, go ahead. The rest of us spend time being practical.
to the point that our access as adults is limited.
If you have to go out of your way to register a gun, I guess that's just what responsible societies have to do. My access to guns is limited. That's the price you pay for wanting to possess what is unsafe, but legal.
the situation wherein HBO is the only channel with decent television on (which I have to pay for) because Christians are scared that an F-Bomb might make it to network television.
Again, if you want to live in the libertarian, Ayn Rand universe where children and others who can't protect or fend for themselves MUST, that's fine. If you think society has no responsibility to protect it's children, which is what you are advocating, so that selfish, unthinking adults can ruin their children and their neighbors', that's nice. But it's not reality.
Again, you only complain about the regulation that affects you, but you agree to other regulation. Sounds like you are JUST like the people you criticize, only you dislike them because of your vices. Legislation that only affects others is convenient, but not practical.
I have no idea why you are arguing here, you only differ in what you choose to approve or regulate. Mystifying.
What regulation am I tolerating Seeker? I hate guns, but I don’t propose regulating them. I hate religion, but I don’t propose regulating it. I hate social conservatives, but I don’t propose regulating them. There is nothing that I’m proposing regulating.
Whereas, you are proposing – under the ludicrous claim that you care about children – regulation of everybody else’s pleasures. You propose regulating pornography…to protect children. You propose media…to protect children. You propose regulating everything that you don’t like…to protect children. It isn’t by accident that everything you want to regulate away happens to be that which you don’t enjoy. You insist that your rights extend to the point that you can infringe upon my rights, and you do so under the claim that you care about children.
But here’s the strange thing: if you’d do your job as a parent, these negative forces in society could be handled appropriately. That doesn’t mean that your child would always take your position (which is what you want of them), and that doesn’t mean that your child would always make the best decision. But raised correctly, your child would be more prepared than any to deal with society’s “evils.” But you’d rather “regulate” away that which might affect your child. In other words, it seems like you want the government to do parents jobs for them. I don’t.
I believe in a small limited government that doesn’t tell me how to raise my child. You believe that the government should raise children for parents. How strange that you’re the “conservative.”
Do you genuinely believe that I’m advocating a world in which children are forced to fend for themselves? I’d advocating for a world in which parents help their children to learn how to fend for themselves. You’re advocating for a government that does your job for you.
There is nothing that I'm proposing regulating.
So you are against gun control, against the regulations that limit the sale of cigarettes, porn and alcohol to minors, and you are against movie, music, and television ratings?
All of these are forms of regulation. If you are for any of these, I'd say you must be limiting the freedom to enjoy automatic weapons, and the freedom to sell alcohol, cigs and porn to whomever wants them, even if it is your kids.
You propose regulating everything that you don't like…to protect children.
Your claims are ludicrous, and they make your arguments equally dopey. I like a drink or a cigar once in a while. I like rated R movies. I enjoy violent video games. But I am ok with the regulations that affect these items in order to protect children.
if you'd do your job as a parent, these negative forces in society could be handled appropriately.
That's where we differ. While I agree with you in principle, and we should encourage parents to be responsible (absentee fathers are the real cause of ongoing black poverty, as I've documented), to practice government as if public commerce and media can be as unsafe for children as we want, that is an idealistic fantasy.
We need both positive programs to help children, and negative regulations to protect them from unscrupulous merchants and careless parenting. If someone's need for porno is inhibited, that's hardly a price compared to the welfare of children.
But raised correctly, your child would be more prepared than any to deal with society's "evils." But you'd rather "regulate" away that which might affect your child.
Although I am concerned for my children, these proposed regulations are more for children who don't have good parents. Society needs to be safe for kids, including mine, not a playground for every irresponsible adult who could care less if his porn problem affects others.
A little discomfort for the porn addict is the least of my worries – kids are the future, and we need to treat them as more important than the redneck baseball fan who needs a case of Bud on Sunday.
You're advocating for a government that does your job for you.
Again, I am advocating a balanced, realistic approach. You are applying one principle to an extreme, and you are being unrealistic. Not only that, if you are for any regulations at all, like on the sale of cigs or alcohol, then you are also being hypocritical, because then we are in agreement, and you are just arguing to make some point about your demonized conservative enemies.
Seeker,
I'd like to understand how the following is confusing for you, but I'll try yet again.
Here's what you propose: don't sell pornography anywhere children are going to be.
Here's what I propose: don't sell pornography to children.
Does that mean that I'm against the regulation of alcohol or cigarettes? No. It means that I don't think that their sale should be curtailed simply if children are going to be nearby. You do. And again, alcohol and cigarettes (or cigars) are far more dangerous for children than pornpgrahy.
I'm suggesting enforcing the current law. You're proposing increasing the scope of the law, and implicitly, the size of the government, to do your job for you. How any of this is confusing for you, I don't know. I'm simply saying that the laws we currently have to an adequate job, and any proposal to expand those laws is bad for Americans; I'm also suggesting that blue laws, or any laws similar to blue laws, be rolled back. Again, as individuals and as parents, we're capable of doing the work of raising children ourselves. I don't need a politician or a Christian in my house doing my job for me. You do, apparently, which is awfully sad.
I’m suggesting enforcing the current law.
How convenient for you. Now you can claim to be the good guy becuase you “don’t support” regulation, and “don’t support” any more, so anyone who has the forethought and virtue to think through issues and offer legislation is now some fascist compared to you. You’re so noble.
Too bad you’ve made my point. As I said previously, you are JUST like me in your agreement that we need some regulation. Of course, that is the reasonable position. We can discuss the limits, but all this time, you were FOR the existing regulations, while you made out like you were against it because you were not asking for MORE? Man, did you misrepresent yourself.
All this time, while you criticized people who support regulation as actually pushing for de-facto prohibition, you were FOR the existing regulations? What does that make you? Liar, hypocrite, prohibitionist, or dolt (pick two).
You are conveniently “for” the current regulations, hence, you are FOR regulation. Your attacks on me, therefore, are hypocritical, and not only that, you were LYING previously when you said you were against regulation, and I was some sort of fascist for supporting regulation. You have been wasting my time.
I agree that regulation isn’t the answer to all of our society’s ills, any more than government programs are the answer for poverty.
I was using the regulation of porn near schools as one possible *example* of how citizens might want to protect their children. You seem to believe that proximity to children doesn’t matter. I disagree, but that’s another argument altogether.
The point is, you are FOR regulation, just like the rest of us sane adults. So why are we arguing?
Because you are looking for evil demons under every conservative effort. You’re again parroting some irrational, slippery slope liberal argument that the fascist right is taking away rights.
How any of this is confusing for you, I don’t know.
I’ll explain it to you. The answer to your inability to understand the situation here is simple – YOU ARE NOT LISTENING. You are hearing what you want to hear, not what I am saying. You want to find fault, so you twist whatever you hear to do so. That’s why you think I am confused. But it is you who is confused, and missing the point.
Seeker,
Are you absolutely insane? I mean, completely off your rocker? I am advocating that the regulation that we have is enough. Nowhere have I argued that the world needs no regulation. I’m simply arguing that we don’t need any more regulation, and that a certain amount of our current regulation should be rolled back. You seem to think that unless I support zero regulation, then I must support what you’re advocating. Which is gonzo.
We’re arguing because you’re insisting on arguing with somebody else when I’m the person posting here. And obviously I am listening, because I keep responding to your suggestions that, “I’m not for prohibition, I just don’t want anything to be available anywhere near children.”
And finally, I’ve never said “Fascist Right,” and if I had, then it was deserved. But guess what? Liberals do the same stupid regulatory behavior. What I object to is regulation for the sake of regulation, for the sake of replacing parental responsibility. Both sides are guilty of it. But our world isn’t so simplified that it has to be us versus them Seeker, as it is for you. I’m simply saying that your position on regulation is wrong, and that it needs to be rolled back as far as possible.
Nowhere have I argued that the world needs no regulation.
You certainly did NOT make that clear.
“I’m not for prohibition, I just don’t want anything to be available anywhere near children.”
You see, I never said that. It was an example.
I’m simply saying that your position on regulation is wrong, and that it needs to be rolled back as far as possible.
Fine, I agree.
With regard to this posting, I have argued that content needs to be labeled, and THAT’S IT. Are you ok with a rating system so that parents can “do their job?” Or do they have to monitor every second of what their kids listen to?
I tend to believe that music doesn't hurt children. Nor do movies, nor art, nor any other form of media, particularly when viewed in context. Furthermore, I don't think it's very difficult to figure out what movies do and don't contain. Beyond that, I always saw and heard whatever I wanted to. But if a rating system helps, I guess that's acceptable. Although I don't like it, because those who run the rating systems always apply the rules totally capriciously and without reason. Some movies are NR, and some are R, and there's no difference between the two.
I don't think it's very difficult to figure out what movies do and don't contain.
Dreamland. Are you telling me that you can look at every new CD and tell if the content is explicit or misogynistic? Totally impractical.
because those who run the rating systems always apply the rules totally capriciously and without reason.
I agree that ratings are really only relative. There is good data showing that what today passes for PG-13 was R in the recent past, and all categories have gotten more permissive over time.
Seeker,
What's strange here is that you can look at hiphop and know exactly what it contains, but I claim the same magical power and you call it "Dreamland." Which is it? I think I'm smart enough to know if a show is going to be shocking, or tantalizing, or full of swear words. I'm also smart enough to change the channel.
you can look at hiphop and know exactly what it contains
Now you are just being stupid and spiteful. While much contemporary rap music contains smut and misogynistic content, not all of it does. Some of it is quite good. But yes, your claim that content is obvious from the packaging is silly.
And while you are so smart, your kids friends parents may not be, and those parents deserve all the help they can get in protecting their kids and yours, even if you are miffed by it.
If parents aren’t smart, that their fault. Good lord Seeker, you’re not smart, but I don’t go proposing that the government fix it for you. Aren’t you the one preaching personal responsibility?
These are all good comments. The web site Focus Adolescent Services is one who has profoundly research the effects.