It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mike Stock - 'Children being sexualised by pop music porn'

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 




I'm assuming it's not just Australia that sells bras and matching panties for very small kids in department stores.


You would be correct. And then there's stuff like this:




posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by darkelf
 


It's pretty old - I remember it fondly from my teen years, although I hated the music.

This was aired regularly, I think it made number one.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by darkelf
 


It's pretty old - I remember it fondly from my teen years, although I hated the music.

This was aired regularly, I think it made number one.

I no longer bother with mainstream music etc, too dull.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   


Also, is it wrong for them to ever reference genitalia? Are we all supposed to pretend they don't exist simply because they're children?


How often do you talk about genitals with your kids?
Is it done tastefully? Because what I was referring to wasn't.

I don't need to see little girls acting that way... maybe it's awesome for you.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
How often do you talk about genitals with your kids?
Is it done tastefully? Because what I was referring to wasn't.

I don't need to see little girls acting that way... maybe it's awesome for you.



If you don't want to see little girls acting that way you can leave the movie theater or turn the DVD off.

So why exactly is it wrong for kids to reference genitalia with words you personally dislike? It seems you have no problem with the concepts expressed, just the words employed to express the concepts.

I'm still curious what "sexualizing children" means.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I'm just curious, but why is it that we believe that if children see anything having to do with sex it's somehow a bad thing?


You really got it backward, pal. "Anything having with sex" and outwardly sexual behavior are two completely different things.

I am fairly open-minded myself. Please trust me on this one. I am also a father of two little girls. One of them is in a ballet class, and we went to the big graduation show of her entire studio. There was plenty of jazz dance routines there, and I was pretty shocked at the moves these 5-year olds did, and the way they dressed them up and put makeup. Pelvic thrusts have their place in dance routines, just not in these ones. Let me say it again, I've seen a lot of things in my life but I was shocked by that.

It's really just perplexing -- does it need to have "s3x" in it to be ART these days?

I can certainly see the point in the OP and I support it 100%. Everything is good in moderation, and setting behavior models for children via these trends in pop-music is way too much imho.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
All of you people who are claiming this isn't a big deal are obviously delusional. I'm only 22 and I am just appalled at what I see today, and I was raised by the television and MTV.

Here's every 7 year old girls idol at her finest:
www.usatoday.com...

Not to mention the pole dancing incident at the Nickelodeon KIDS awards.

And then you got 10 year old girls saying they want to "do" Justin Beiber.

Not even 15 years ago when I was a youngster were things this bad. At least my childhood idols had a sense of dignity and innocence. Of course I was exposed to sexuality on MTV, but that was meant for a much older audience, not specifically directed at children like it is today. And even the mature stuff back then was tamer than the stuff meant for children these days.

Honestly if you think this is no big deal then you are either dumb or blind, or are completely corrupted yourself. I can see an obvious agenda here, and I think when events like the link above happen, they are distraction for something more sinister.

WAKE UP PEOPLE! THIS IS NOT NORMAL!



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I'm just curious, but why is it that we believe that if children see anything having to do with sex it's somehow a bad thing?


You really got it backward, pal. "Anything having with sex" and outwardly sexual behavior are two completely different things.

I am fairly open-minded myself. Please trust me on this one. I am also a father of two little girls. One of them is in a ballet class, and we went to the big graduation show of her entire studio. There was plenty of jazz dance routines there, and I was pretty shocked at the moves these 5-year olds did, and the way they dressed them up and put makeup. Pelvic thrusts have their place in dance routines, just not in these ones. Let me say it again, I've seen a lot of things in my life but I was shocked by that.

It's really just perplexing -- does it need to have "s3x" in it to be ART these days?

I can certainly see the point in the OP and I support it 100%. Everything is good in moderation, and setting behavior models for children via these trends in pop-music is way too much imho.


Your answer really had nothing to do with my question actually - the one where you assumed I had something backwards. But I'll entertain your response anyway.

So what was so shocking about a child doing something Elvis did 50 years ago? Personally I don't find it appealing when anyone of any age does it but I also don't find it shocking when anyone of any age does it. Did it shock you because somehow it aroused you sexually? Be honest, if you can.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by havenvideo
Of course I was exposed to sexuality on MTV, but that was meant for a much older audience, not specifically directed at children like it is today.


So let's get this straight. You were exposed to sexuality through the TV yet you still discerned a sense of right and wrong about sexuality and seemed to end up with a moral compass. But now that a younger generation is exposed to the same stuff, everyone is just plain dumb and blind to the obvious agenda to market sex to kids and things are much worse now and blah blah blah...

If it wasn't a problem for you why is it a problem for everyone else now that you've reached adulthood?



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I'm just curious, but why is it that we believe that if children see anything having to do with sex it's somehow a bad thing? People actively thwart their children from witnessing anything sexual, yet will plant them in front of a television where you can watch an entire variety of murders and violence. Death and violence: okay for children! Love and sex: BAD for children!


Jesus, take some psychology classes, man. It's all bad. Your points are invalid. If I had kids, I wouldn't let them watch anything sexual, or violent until they were at least 15 years of age. This stuff should be common sense.

People go through life stages. Until you're going through puberty, you shouldn't be exposed to sexual material. Your brain hasn't developed enough to proper process what's going on, and it can cause trauma.

[edit on 13-8-2010 by unityemissions]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Good god man. You want it broken down for you?

Elvis wasn't targeted for 7 year olds like Miley Cyrus. Look at what she does. Elvis was not MEANT for the kids. Miley was CREATED FOR CHILDREN. SHE POLE DANCES AND MAKES OUT WITH OTHER GIRLS ON STAGE SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENTERTAINING YOUNG CHILDREN.

Are you that daft not to see the difference there?



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 





If you don't want to see little girls acting that way you can leave the movie theater or turn the DVD off. So why exactly is it wrong for kids to reference genitalia with words you personally dislike? It seems you have no problem with the concepts expressed, just the words employed to express the concepts.


Here's the problem... it's not what I'M seeing or hearing, it's the fact this movie features a little girl dressed as a superhero, which will automatically appeal to kids - who should not be watching this movie because of her behavior. It sets a horrible example, and horrible examples are exactly why we have continued to accumulate so much brain-dead youth in our society.

Many of the twenty-somethings who are raising kids these days have little in the way of a moral compass. I knew a girl who let her 3 and 5 year olds watch House of 1,000 Corpses, for example. Therefore, I know that a LOT of kids are going to see Kick-Ass and try to emulate what they see on the screen. Hollywood is perpetually stretching our moral boundaries.




I'm still curious what "sexualizing children" means.


It means making kids (and parents) think that sexually-based behavior, including explicit sexual language, should be a normal routine for prepubescent children.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
So what was so shocking about a child doing something Elvis did 50 years ago? Personally I don't find it appealing when anyone of any age does it but I also don't find it shocking when anyone of any age does it. Did it shock you because somehow it aroused you sexually? Be honest, if you can.


Of course I'll be honest with you! I find your question asinine, given the context of the discussion.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
Jesus, take some psychology classes, man. It's all bad. Your points are invalid. If I had kids, I wouldn't let them watch anything sexual, or violent until they were at least 15 years of age. This stuff should be common sense.


It's impossible to prevent children from seeing anything sexual or violent. I suspect that even you saw things that were sexual and/or violent when you were growing up. Did you or were you somehow spared it until your mid teens?

What's wrong with my point about people shielding children's eyes from sex yet allowing tons of violent imagery coming from the TV?


People go through life stages. Until you're going through puberty, you shouldn't be exposed to sexual material. Your brain hasn't developed enough to proper process what's going on, and it can cause trauma.


Answer honestly: at what age did you see your first magazine with naked people in it? For me it was before I had reached puberty. My brain processed exactly what was going on and it didn't traumatize or corrupt me.

Keep in mind I'm not arguing in favor of somehow oversexing children or actively marketing sex to children. I am only arguing against the notion that it's inherently wrong, evil, dangerous, etc. that if a child sees anything sexual it's going to cause some kind of irreparable damage.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by havenvideo
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Good god man. You want it broken down for you?

Elvis wasn't targeted for 7 year olds like Miley Cyrus. Look at what she does. Elvis was not MEANT for the kids. Miley was CREATED FOR CHILDREN. SHE POLE DANCES AND MAKES OUT WITH OTHER GIRLS ON STAGE SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENTERTAINING YOUNG CHILDREN.

Are you that daft not to see the difference there?


Fair enough. What's the difference between what Miley Cyrus does and anything else the child can see on standard cable television? Also, I'm not convinced in any way that Elvis wasn't meant for the kids.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy

Here's the problem... it's not what I'M seeing or hearing, it's the fact this movie features a little girl dressed as a superhero, which will automatically appeal to kids - who should not be watching this movie because of her behavior. It sets a horrible example, and horrible examples are exactly why we have continued to accumulate so much brain-dead youth in our society.

Many of the twenty-somethings who are raising kids these days have little in the way of a moral compass. I knew a girl who let her 3 and 5 year olds watch House of 1,000 Corpses, for example. Therefore, I know that a LOT of kids are going to see Kick-Ass and try to emulate what they see on the screen. Hollywood is perpetually stretching our moral boundaries.

It means making kids (and parents) think that sexually-based behavior, including explicit sexual language, should be a normal routine for prepubescent children.


Your entire argument rests on the premise that children cannot discern appropriate behavior if a child sees or hears something society finds objectionable. Children do see murder and violence daily on television, yet they know not to murder and commit violence.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Children do see murder and violence daily on television, yet they know not to murder and commit violence.


Did you ever hear about Columbine? Other school shootings?
What rock have you been under?



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Of course I'll be honest with you! I find your question asinine, given the context of the discussion.


Well, you brought it up. Why shouldn't I ask a question about what you brought up, and how is that out of context?



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Children do see murder and violence daily on television, yet they know not to murder and commit violence.


Did you ever hear about Columbine? Other school shootings?
What rock have you been under?


So what are you saying? That the rare exception defines the whole? Or are you saying that the primary factor involved in that incident was the imagery those kids saw on television?



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
So what are you saying? That the rare exception defines the whole? Or are you saying that the primary factor involved in that incident was the imagery those kids saw on television?


It was not a primary factor but one can't ignore that contribution.


Harris and Klebold were fans of the movie Natural Born Killers and used the film's acronym NBK as a code in their home videos and journals


And they were fans of Doom etc. Look at the whole picture.




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join