Free Speech Takes a hit

[DrummerDeanna]

Originally Posted by Lux

Is the body some hideous thing we're supposed to be ashamed of?

In America? Yes. well..yes and no---it seems perfectly acceptable for skank ass girls to walk around half-naked all the time

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Lux

I never saw the Janet Jackson incident and only heard what people posted here so I don't exactly have the details, but what's so offensive about a tit? Of course it's another case if for example they're covered in a substance of some sort, but what's so offensive if a child should accidentally happen to get a glimpse of a tit. We suck on them as soon as we exit the womb. I don't think that kind of incident should be associated with viewing glorified violence, however it seems it forever will be. Sex and violence, I don't get it. One is significantly worse and I don't understand why sex is such the taboo and the body for that matter. Is the body some hideous thing we're supposed to be ashamed of? Acutally I will say that your Robert Plants can be quite traumatising for little girls but seriously, how can anyone be traumatised by seeing a tit, one body part the little people are familiar with?

I think it was more her defiance of the law and then acting innocent of her clearly impure intent. As for the tit, it was the most Tivo's moment in history or something like that - thus the hypocrisy of religious outrage

[Miss Vicky]

I don't see anything wrong with allowing children to watch television. We watched it a lot in my house, and not just programs like Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers and cartoons - I don't remember any channels or programs that we weren't allowed to view. We actually watched quite a bit of MTV. I'm told that when I was a little girl I used to go around singing Madonna's "Material Girl." I, of course, would have had no idea what the song meant and probably likend "material" to "fabric."
As for movies, we weren't allowed to watch R rated movies unless my parents had already watched and approved them. Anything PG-13 and lower was fine.
Television, however, was not our primary source of entertainment. We had our toys - Legos, Hot Wheels, and stuffed animals being our favorites - board games, and the other neighborhood children to take up our time. Many days were spent playing kickball in the street, playing hide and seek or kick the can, swimming in the neighbor's pool, fishing for crawdads in the nearby creek (we used cut up pieces of hot dogs tied to fishing line - no hooks - put our catch in a bucket full of water, then released them before going home), or collecting insects and worms.
I think it's all about balance. We watched a lot of television in my house when I was growing up and we had a Nintendo system, but it wasn't like it was all the time. But then again, my favorite thing to watch when I was a child (being a lifetime animal lover) were nature shows.

[DrummerDeanna]

Originally Posted by Lux

Ok, I think I get it. So young girls can walk around as sex objects, but the functional body is taboo? For example, half-naked sex objects are fine but seeing a breast while a woman breastfeeds in public is more cause for complaint. Same here by the way, except we're not quite as scared of the body as America, still too much though. I hate seeing all those little girls walk around in hot pants nowdays, in preparation for their role as sex objects I guess. I mean, at those ages I was wearing baggy hand-me-downs. My friends and I often note that there has been a significant change in the last 10 years.

Yep - I think you've got it

I do seem to remember this huge controversy in my hometown about people offended by breastfeeding Yet - it's fine for girls to walk around in skin tight and barely there clothing....

What's worse is that if you don't have the body type to wear that stuff or if you're just a more conservative (in dress) person you're made to feel less of a woman - or less desirable ya know? It sucks this percieved notion of what is beautiful in our society....

[amber]

Originally Posted by Miss Vicky

I don't see anything wrong with allowing children to watch television. We watched it a lot in my house, and not just programs like Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers and cartoons - I don't remember any channels or programs that we weren't allowed to view. We actually watched quite a bit of MTV. I'm told that when I was a little girl I used to go around singing Madonna's "Material Girl." I, of course, would have had no idea what the song meant and probably likend "material" to "fabric."
As for movies, we weren't allowed to watch R rated movies unless my parents had already watched and approved them. Anything PG-13 and lower was fine.
Television, however, was not our primary source of entertainment. We had our toys - Legos, Hot Wheels, and stuffed animals being our favorites - board games, and the other neighborhood children to take up our time. Many days were spent playing kickball in the street, playing hide and seek or kick the can, swimming in the neighbor's pool, fishing for crawdads in the nearby creek (we used cut up pieces of hot dogs tied to fishing line - no hooks - put our catch in a bucket full of water, then released them before going home), or collecting insects and worms.
I think it's all about balance. We watched a lot of television in my house when I was growing up and we had a Nintendo system, but it wasn't like it was all the time. But then again, my favorite thing to watch when I was a child (being a lifetime animal lover) were nature shows.

I read some recent studies that strongly suggest that for a child under 3, especially, that watching television makes the child's attention span much, much shorter, ie, ADD like.

[DrummerDeanna]

Originally Posted by amber

I read some recent studies that strongly suggest that for a child under 3, especially, that watching television makes the child's attention span much, much shorter, ie, ADD like.

AND some shows further add to that with super short vignettes that change topics etc....al la Sesame Street - they've changed the format and it SUCKS now...and they say that it further promotes lack of attention span in children...

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by DrummerDeanna

There are still alternatives to television though. Tired parents aren't a valid excuse in my opinion.

When my mom got divorced she was left with two girls, a house, a car and she only made $9,000 a year (this was 1987 ish) - she had to start working full-time and she worked like mad...but still had rules she expected me to follow at age seven. I was not just left on my own to watch tv - there are after school programs and recreation programs for kids (many of them are free) - and there are books!

I realize that not everyone lives by Deanna's book of life - but haha - that's just the way I feel

No, you're right Deanna. But your mom sounds like she was exceptional! I had 2 parents and pretty much watched all the TV I wanted. It is their job to monitor their kids but many parents just don't unfortunately.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by Lux

I never saw the Janet Jackson incident and only heard what people posted here so I don't exactly have the details, but what's so offensive about a tit? Of course it's another case if for example they're covered in a substance of some sort, but what's so offensive if a child should accidentally happen to get a glimpse of a tit. We suck on them as soon as we exit the womb. I don't think that kind of incident should be associated with viewing glorified violence, however it seems it forever will be. Sex and violence, I don't get it. One is significantly worse and I don't understand why sex is such the taboo and the body for that matter. Is the body some hideous thing we're supposed to be ashamed of? Acutally I will say that your Robert Plants can be quite traumatising for little girls but seriously, how can anyone be traumatised by seeing a tit, one body part the little people are familiar with?

It was more amusing than offensive when we saw it. It was very brief. Shocking. Completely inappropriate. For some it was offensive because Justin was ripping off part of her top which is degrading and violent. The top had 2 layers, a leather outer layer and a red lace inner layer. I think the intent was just to get the leather but there's where the "wardrobe malfunction" came in and Justin got both layers. But it really wasn't as big a deal as it was made out to be. It's just that this kind of story sells papers and makes people tune in which is why it was covered to death. Same old same old.