Too Sexy, Too Soon: Combating the Sexualization of Childhood
Reader Comments
Mom, what's a $%#@&?
In response to an earlier comment: of course you should answer the questions kids ask. If they want to know what this word means or why they shouldn't do something, tell them. They're going to find out at some point...Tell them straight up and in plain English. The fact that they are coming to you for information and not their friends or online buddies should be a comfort.
My mother was a master of this concept. At five or six she gave me and each of my siblings 'the talk'. We learned about the husbands and wives and babies, etc. We also learned about bad people (all of this in simple but clear terms). All our lives, if we have had any similar questions, she has answered in the same way. I've grown up with a full understanding of what the dangers are and how to avoid them.
Yes--tell your children about sex. Tell them about the bad people. At the same time, however, be very clear that sex is a good thing, too. Don't be all squeamish and hint at things that, fifty years ago, a six-year-old didn't need to know. Tell your kids. The good, the bad, and the ugly--the straight-up.
To "Just another Mom of CA"
That was a perfect response to the previous post. If we used all of the time and energy that adults spend on themselves and placed it on making our children kind, moral individuals the next generation would be better equipped to handle life and its temptations.
Just a Kid
What this comes down to, is that being a parent has no qualifications. Most boomer parents were far less media savvy than their children, an experience I can relate to. I've seen parents start to get a grip as Gen-Y has been having kids. Not to say there aren't still the lazy ones who use the television to distract the kids, but they are generally much more sensitive about what their kids watch. Many shun traditional TV content entirely, something they've already done for themselves. It's ironic that the generation that was raised on television has no tolerance for it's rigidity and shortcomings.
Honestly, the whole idea of sex and violence on television is going to be antiquated soon. We should be focused on how we're going to provide children access to information in the digital age. Sure, we should work to provide a buffer between kids and porn, but we also have to determine where the line is drawn. Pornographic pop-up ads are one thing, blocking a legitimate question, like, "What is a blow job?" is another thing entirely. Kids are ignorant, not stupid. You can't tell them, "You're not old enough to learn this" and expect them to take you seriously. You only increase the value of the knowledge. Seriously, tell them what it is bluntly and without reservation, or another kid who DOES know is going to want to "demonstrate".
Let me run this one through for you...
Scenario 1:
Skeevy Guy: Hey, do you know what a BJ is?
Your Educated Kid: Yeah, it's when you [content edited :)]. My parents told me all about it, and that I should watch out for skeevy guys who try to "teach" me about this subject.
Skeevy Guy: Oh, heh heh... good. Just making sure.
Scenario 2:
Skeevy Guy: Hey, do you know what a BJ is?
Your Ignorant Kid: My parents told me I'm not old enough to learn and freaked out.
Skeevy Guy: Really? Wow. I could tell you, but you might get in trouble.
Your Ignorant Kid: I want to know!
Skeevy Guy: Okay, I'll show you, but you have to keep it secret.
Your Ignroant Kid: Absolutely
[Molestation Ensues, which takes years to overcome. Awesome!]
Trust me, because that's how it happened to me. Knowledge is power, ignorance is weakness. If you deprive your kids knowledge when they seek it, you might as well be hitting them in the knees.
Choosing by Channel
In answer to Daniel David, I'm skeptical that the ability to buy your cable/satellite TV channel by channel would cut down kids' exposure to unwanted images (whether sexual or violent). When push came to shove, would families really give up the programs the adults like on HBO or FX; would they renounce the children's channels? Moreover, if the concerns of the book author are about sexualization of all media and merchandise, blocking TV channels is at best putting a finger in a dike while the flood washes over the top.
Any sense of thrift would also likely be elusive. Aside from those families that truly limited themselves to one or two channels, many families would find themselves spending more to get less. Moreover, at present the prix fixe menu helps to support niche channels that likely wouldn't survive in an a la carte world.
Nancy Shute on why adults allow this stuff
Thanks for the provocative and thoughtful comments! When I talked with Diane Levin, she pointed out that adults see so much sexualized and violent content (have you seen this summer's movie trailers? Yikes!) that we often don't realize how much ill effect this will have on children, who don't have the mental or emotional maturity to understand that this is marketing, not real life. They really do need to be both protected and gently taught how to cope with this stuff. A real challenge for us parents, that's for sure.
Nancy
Stick to the subject
Folks, this story is about children, not about which political party is morally superior to each other. The whole reason that the kids are being exposed to this trash is that adults are so self-absorbed that they have to direct the discussion back to themselves instead of working on the real problem. Grow up and be civil to each other instead of using this article as a soapbox to rant about your personal political views.
Liberals for thrift, you say?
"Liberals for thrift" ?? --- oh, give me a break!!!
Please don't be surprised when I tell you that I'm very liberal and I don't think children should be exposed to adult content of s sexual or violent nature. It is a false impression which divisive right-wing Repub think tanks have unfortunately succeeded in placing on liberals. Believe me, liberals are just as concerned about what our kids are exposed to in the media -- very likely we're MORE concerned.
I see greed as the reason for so much sex on television, in magazines, in movies, and in children's video games. I avoid it, but it certainly must sell or they'd stop. Ya can't even watch a nice show without seeing commercials that I categorize as soft porn. And I find myself thinking "those people making big bucks off sexual content must have children... how can they in good conscience produce this stuff and sell it to children? Especially the video games which are over the top!"
I'm concerned that you would imply liberals are ones that would allow this content (unless eliminating it is 'thrifty' for them). I guess 'conservatives' are never the greedy corporatist types who are fine with exploiting children as long as they can make a buck doing so?
Several thoughts here
1) If TV was deregulated in the 1980s and started a chain of events as postulated above, I guess we should remember that the (supposedly) great Ronald Reagan and his side-kick, GHW Bush, and their FCC(s) presided over that. Party of God, those Republicans? Or maybe, not so much?
2) Parents who cannot or will not candidly answer ANY question from a child of ANY age are destined to extreme risk of the kids going completely wild. If parents are too squeamish to do "the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth", then prepare for kids to get the racy half-truth and no-truth elsewhere.
3) For whatever reasons we now live in the most pornified WORLD (not just USA) ever seen or imagined. Sodom was a local thing. Cell-phone porn is not.
4) The one issue that both liberals and social conservatives would find complete agreement on would be forcing cable and satellite TV to sell programming by the channel. Liberals for thrift. Conservatives for thrift AND limitation of what comes into the home on TV. Why is no one pushing this?
