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

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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.

Sure. And they were also taking medication and were being bullied. So you're treating the incident like a buffet bar to suit your argument.

Now, how do you account for the millions of other children that saw NBK and played Doom that didn't and never will shoot people? Are you actually arguing that the rare exception defines the whole?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Now, how do you account for the millions of other children that saw NBK and played Doom that didn't and never will shoot people? Are you actually arguing that the rare exception defines the whole?

Please read the long, long list of school violence incidents. You just don't know what you are talking about.

They were saying the same thing about Madonna in the 80's as they are about Lady Gaga now. Sex sells, it's that simple.

As a parent you have the power and ability to control what your children are exposed to. Keep it out of your home if you are offended.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Now, how do you account for the millions of other children that saw NBK and played Doom that didn't and never will shoot people? Are you actually arguing that the rare exception defines the whole?

Please read the long, long list of school violence incidents. You just don't know what you are talking about.

So you ARE arguing that the rare exceptions define the whole. I suspect that with this mentality you will fail to see the irony in telling other that they don't know what they're talking about.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Now, how do you account for the millions of other children that saw NBK and played Doom that didn't and never will shoot people? Are you actually arguing that the rare exception defines the whole?

Please read the long, long list of school violence incidents. You just don't know what you are talking about.

Oh, I forgot.

How then do you make the correlation that the school shootings were due solely to the violence they saw on TV? How do you assert that this was most certainly the factor and cause?

Oh nevermind anyway. I'm expecting logic from someone who has provided none so far. I shouldn't expect it now.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
So you ARE arguing that the rare exceptions define the whole. I suspect that with this mentality you will fail to see the irony in telling other that they don't know what they're talking about.

I don't need to see a war zone in every school in my neighborhood to conclude that something is deeply wring with the picture. And back to the OP,

The teenage birth rate in the United States is the highest in the developed world, and the teenage abortion rate is also high.

Teen sexuality is influenced by the mass media today more than any other time in history. Internet, television, music video and sexually explicit lyrics all contribute to adolescents’ attitudes and behavior concerning sexual activity. Only 9% of the sex scenes on 1,300 of cable network programming discusses and deals with the negative consequences of sexual behavior

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I don't need to see a war zone in every school in my neighborhood to conclude that something is deeply wring with the picture. And back to the OP,

The teenage birth rate in the United States is the highest in the developed world, and the teenage abortion rate is also high.

Teen sexuality is influenced by the mass media today more than any other time in history. Internet, television, music video and sexually explicit lyrics all contribute to adolescents’ attitudes and behavior concerning sexual activity. Only 9% of the sex scenes on 1,300 of cable network programming discusses and deals with the negative consequences of sexual behavior

And here is an assumptive argument with no studies referenced whatsoever. There's no demonstrated link in any of those statements connecting pregnancy or abortion rates to media influence.

Just like you established no demonstrable link between school shootings and media violence. Nor do you account for the millions of kids who are exposed to the same media yet neither act out sexuality or violence. At what point will you support your assertions?

[edit on 13-8-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Oh my how illogical your statements are...

Give me a second and I'll find some studies for ya to at least point you in the right direction.

Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link


...so OBVIOUSLY, what we put into our minds influences how we perceive the world, and how we interact with it. Now, true, some people are more strong minded and can generate a higher moral standard than what's around them, .. but most people aren't like this for whatever reason, be it genetics, IQ, will power, or whatever.


[edit on 13-8-2010 by unityemissions]

Originally posted by unityemissions
Oh my how illogical your statements are...

Give me a second and I'll find some studies for ya to at least point you in the right direction.

Sure. Thanks.

I can also reference some studies that place the blame for negative sociological issues in areas far different from media.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Well obviously the media is only one source.. that's besides the point, man. It's actually a cop-out, because there are multiple studies done, and most of them are of high quality, it seems. They control for other factors. When this is the only variable that changes to a large degree, and there is a clear correlation ... well, that tells ya something.. right?

Originally posted by Erasurehead
As a parent you have the power and ability to control what your children are exposed to. Keep it out of your home if you are offended.

If you are a parent, I'm all eyes and ears. Apparently, you can teach me a thing or two.

When your kid is spending time with other kids, which is normal, you certainly don't have control of what they are exposed to, and having MSM streaming racy videos doesn't help a bit. You can be sure I'll be careful to set filters in my WiFi router when my girls start using the net unsupervised. I might block some TV channels. But media is pervasive, and there is YouTube. I think you are greatly exaggerating the power of the parent, even when it's real and is exercised. There is now a crisis in one of my relatives' family, where a kid got under bad influence -- and that's a good family.



[edit on 13-8-2010 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Well obviously the media is only one source.. that's besides the point, man.

No, actually that IS the point.

It's actually a cop-out, because there are multiple studies done, and most of them are of high quality, it seems. They control for other factors. When this is the only variable that changes to a large degree, and there is a clear correlation ... well, that tells ya something.. right?

Firstly, you didn't reference any of these "high quality studies". [You edited a prior post. My bad.] Secondly, media output is not the only variable that changes to a large degree and such a flawed premise has lead you to a flawed conclusion. Your argument is essentially "because I said so".

[edit on 13-8-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

I agree with him. At my friends house they'd always put on MTV and most videos looked like softcore porn.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Secondly, media output is not the only variable that changes to a large degree and such a flawed premise has lead you to a flawed conclusion. Your argument is essentially "because I said so".

What ???

You're not thinking rationally. Like ... not in the least. How do you know this isn't the only variable to change to a large degree?

DID YOU READ ANY OF THE STUDIES ?!?

I didn't think so.

You're not being scientific, or rational, you're just spewing out nonsense. Anyone with half a brain can see that.

I'm done here.

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Oh my how illogical your statements are...

Give me a second and I'll find some studies for ya to at least point you in the right direction.

Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link


...so OBVIOUSLY, what we put into our minds influences how we perceive the world, and how we interact with it. Now, true, some people are more strong minded and can generate a higher moral standard than what's around them, .. but most people aren't like this for whatever reason, be it genetics, IQ, will power, or whatever.


[edit on 13-8-2010 by unityemissions]

Obviously you've singled out a few studies that claim a correlative link although you seem to have excluded a fair number that fail to find a correlation.

From Wikipedia

Critics argue that about half find some link between media and subsequent aggression (but not violent crime), whereas the other half do not find a link between consuming violent media and subsequent aggression of any kind.

Research in this area is widely criticized for among other reasons:

Failure to employ Standardized, reliable and valid measures of aggression and media violence exposure.

Failure to report negative findings.

Failure to account for "third" variables.

Failure to adequately define "aggression."

Small "effects" sizes.

And more. Details are provided in the Wikipedia link. The results of said studies are dubious at best. Note also that while some studies may indicate a link between media and aggression they fail to link media and violent crime.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Erasurehead
As a parent you have the power and ability to control what your children are exposed to. Keep it out of your home if you are offended.

If you are a parent, I'm all eyes and ears. Apparently, you can teach me a thing or two.

When your kid is spending time with other kids, which is normal, you certainly don't have control of what they are exposed to, and having MSM streaming racy videos doesn't help a bit. You can be sure I'll be careful to set filters in my WiFi router when my girls start using the net unsupervised. I might block some TV channels. But media is pervasive, and there is YouTube. I think you are greatly exaggerating the power of the parent, even when it's real and is exercised. There is now a crisis in one of my relatives' family, where a kid got under bad influence -- and that's a good family.



[edit on 13-8-2010 by buddhasystem]

Yes I am a parent of a 10 year old girl. I use the parental control feature on her computer, Youtube can be blocked. We monitor what she likes to watch on TV. The show iCarly seems to be her favorite right now, seems harmless enough. She prefers reading over watching TV so I am happy about that.

I agree that the toughest thing to control is outside influences, you have to allow them a certain amount of freedom to go and hangout with friends. It is important to find out what type of parents her friends have and hope they are paying attention to what the kids are doing. It takes work, but that's what parenting is all about.

You can't keep them completely sheltered from it all but you can limit it so they are not constantly bombarded with sex and violence. My kid is aware of what is out there and actually tries to avoid it herself. I try to educate her about it as much as I can.

Originally posted by unityemissions

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Secondly, media output is not the only variable that changes to a large degree and such a flawed premise has lead you to a flawed conclusion. Your argument is essentially "because I said so".

What ???

You're not thinking rationally. Like ... not in the least. How do you know this isn't the only variable to change to a large degree?

DID YOU READ ANY OF THE STUDIES ?!?

I didn't think so.

You're not being scientific, or rational, you're just spewing out nonsense. Anyone with half a brain can see that.

I'm done here.

Wow, you crack quickly under criticism. Okay, so on what do you base your claim that "media is the only variable to change to a large degree"? You have referenced nothing and simply made a blanket assertion.

Here's another variable that has changed to a very large degree: pharmaceutical use in children. I can support it. Let's take Ritalin, a speed-like stimulant. In 1970 around 150,000 children were taking Ritalin. By 1998 over 11 million Ritalin prescriptions were written. source

There, I've refuted your argument. Media is not the only variable to change to a large degree. The number of kids taking speed has changed too. And I suppose you would find it unreasonable to imagine that children on speed may express more aggressive, violent behavior? To you it must be simply the TV and video games, there can be no other factors.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

Your entire argument rests on the premise that children cannot discern appropriate behavior if a child sees or hears something society finds objectionable.

No, my concern, and premise, is that what society should find objectionable is now becoming acceptable, and that children are caught in the crossfire because there are less responsible adults to turn to for guidance.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
What... is this 1985 again? Didn't we already go through this nonsense with the PMRC hearings? You know, the committee that made such a big deal positing that rock music is pornography. The one that made such a stink over it that we ended up with acts operating solely in rebellion against their nonsense like 2 Live Crew. And their success helped to make swearing in music not only the norm but practically a requirement in order to sell a CD.

Is anyone sick to death of the "think of the children" mongoloids who feel it their duty to rescue society from itself? Did it ever occur to this nincompoop that there are other forms of music that you can enjoy with your two year old? Did it ever occur to him that if he finds it unacceptable for his infant child that he could simply ohhh.... not watch or listen to them?

I hated the PMRC.

But i agree that pop culture, in general, is over sexualized today.

I don't want laws to change it. I would rather society change it. since that won't happen, i will just be the 37 year old that screams, "Damn kids, get off my lawn!!!"

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Your entire argument rests on the premise that children cannot discern appropriate behavior if a child sees or hears something society finds objectionable.

No, my concern, and premise, is that what society should find objectionable is now becoming acceptable,

Who decides what society should find objectionable? What standards are you using?

and that children are caught in the crossfire because there are less responsible adults to turn to for guidance.

How so? It seems to me that every parent posting on this thread is quite responsible, almost to a fault.

Children know full well what society thinks is acceptable behavior regardless of what gimmick appears in music or the media. I simply don't see how irreparable damage and corruption will come about by a child seeing provocative dancing, hearing "curse words" or god forbid, even seeing some boobs.