that depends on your definition of "sex"

3/16/2006 12:10:04 PM

^? You've never fucked with your clothes on?

3/16/2006 12:11:17 PM

and as far as your "high school seniors" comment

Quote :

"Based on the 1997 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance (YRBS) data, over half (51.6%) of all students in grades 9 to 12 indicated that they had not yet had sex."

(i suppose i should edit it to 48.4)

3/16/2006 12:11:42 PM

im just saying, when we're screaming "think of the children!" it aint generally the 14-18 year olds. generally.

[Edited on March 16, 2006 at 12:13 PM. Reason : welcome decade old stats, though im sure they are similar.]

3/16/2006 12:13:23 PM

And, again, they would argue that we're not talking about 14-18 year-olds. And even if we were, how would half of them fucking change the circumstances?

3/16/2006 12:14:32 PM

REPOST FOR PAGE TWO:

So I pretty much won this thread so far. I pointed out the irony of the bloody fetus first. I owned bgmims on the lame grocery store comparison. He already conceded he's down for the sex on TV if it's marked so, and I found where it was marked TV-14. I brought up the Time Zone issue for those who care.

But let's get into this:

Quote :

"Sex I don't think is appropriate to show on TV. But, maybe someone here can give a compelling argument in favor of it."

For real, jlphipps, we don't have to give you an argument. You have to explain to us why you think sex is inappropriate for television. And I suspect it's because your point of view may go something like this:

Quote :

"Sex I don't think is appropriate"

And, jlphipps, Woodfoot pointed out how your activism argument for showing certain things on TV actually supports this show's airing:

Quote :

"The program, which aired in the last hour of prime time and carried a 'TV 14' V-chip parental guideline, featured an important and socially relevant storyline warning parents to exercise greater supervision of their teenage children."

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/eo/20060315/114249270000.html

[Edited on March 16, 2006 at 12:19 PM. Reason : sss]

3/16/2006 12:16:13 PM

ok, i'll concede that perhaps the complaints are not about 14-18 year olds

but really, how much work does it take to keep an 8 year old from watching a program?

well - - - none at all thanks to mommy fcc and daddy v-chip

3/16/2006 12:25:42 PM

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO OWN A TV MORE THAN TEN YEARS OLD?

THEY MIGHT ACTUALLY HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION TO THEIR CHILDREN!!!

3/16/2006 12:28:17 PM

One thing everyone needs to realize in this thread. There is no way, no way you can prevent your kids from seeing material that you deem inappropriate 24/7. The imagery is everywhere. TV, radio, billboards, magazines, etc., etc. We've pretty much gone from a society where filth had to be sought out to a society where filth seeks you out (smirnov).

The only thing you can really do as a parent is protect your kids from things you deem harmful as best you can and teach them what to do when they are confronted with those things in times when you are not there to protect them.

3/16/2006 1:20:12 PM

nope

the best thing you can do is complain

trust me

its really all you can do

bitch and moan

3/16/2006 1:30:39 PM

we the people of the united states in order to form a more perfect union shall bitch and moan about every little thing that doesnt sit with us well.

3/16/2006 3:32:24 PM

Quote :

"One thing everyone needs to realize in this thread. There is no way, no way you can prevent your kids from seeing material that you deem inappropriate 24/7. The imagery is everywhere. TV, radio, billboards, magazines, etc., etc. We've pretty much gone from a society where filth had to be sought out to a society where filth seeks you out (smirnov). The only thing you can really do as a parent is protect your kids from things you deem harmful as best you can and teach them what to do when they are confronted with those things in times when you are not there to protect them."

3/16/2006 3:41:20 PM

Quote :

" So I pretty much won this thread so far. I pointed out the irony of the bloody fetus first."

Well, technically Woodfoot did. See, you asked me how I felt about it. Had I said prior to your comment that I was in favor of the CBS fine, THEN you would have pointed out irony. As it was, I guess you were fishing for irony, although my original impression was that you mentioned my gallery because you felt that my feelings on this issue would somehow tie in with my feelings on abortion.

Anyway, Woodfoot, I think, pointed out the ‘irony,’ although I don’t know that it’s quite the same thing since this show was one of at maximum like 100 other shows on broadcast television at the time, whereas my gallery is one of a bazillion web pages on the internet. Maybe dilution counts for something, or at least having to put more effort into finding the offending material than just flipping through the channels. I might be wrong about this too, though.

Quote :

"For real, jlphipps, we don't have to give you an argument. You have to explain to us why you think sex is inappropriate for television. "

I didn’t ask for one. I was merely saying that one might be brought up. I certainly don’t have a compelling argument against sex on TV (I honestly haven’t thought about it until now) except that most parents are probably against it being there. I might be wrong about this too, though. But as I’ve said over and over and over again, I don’t have any real well formed opinions on this whole issue. I have bits and pieces of things that I feel to be true, but no real arguments; I’m just speculating aloud, I guess you might say. But, if you want to declare yourself winnar of the thread because you have supposedly defeated someone without any real opinion, the title is all yours.

Quote :

" ps, only 51% of high school students report not having had sex"

This may or may not be true—it’s probably based on self-reports, which are notorious for being exaggerated, especially by HS students.

Quote :

" root canal pics are gross, ban dentistry."

I don’t get your point here.

Quote :

" And, jlphipps, Woodfoot pointed out how your activism argument for showing certain things on TV actually supports this show's airing"

My activism statement (I won’t call it an argument, since it’s only speculation) is based on ACTUAL footage being broadcast, and, as far as I’ve thought about it, only applies to violence. Again, this isn’t an argument since it’s all just my own speculation, but feel free to declare yourself winnar of it.

I’d just like to point out that I have heard things on the radio (not seen things on TV though, since I don’t have one) that seriously offended me and I have seriously considered filling out the FCC complaint form (http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cib/fcc475B.cfm) over them. So, this isn’t necessarily restricted to kids having seen/heard something offensive.

[Edited on March 16, 2006 at 4:16 PM. Reason : i]

3/16/2006 4:16:02 PM

i was referring more to the fact that whats offensive to some people (such as a bloody fetus displayed in a public location, like say outside a high school parking lot) may not be offensive to others

i was not trying to draw a parallel to your gallery

sorry i wasn't clear on that

i just equate anyone with that kind of pic displayed anywhere with the kind of folks who routinely set up 10 foot tall posters with chopped up little fetuses and stuff like that

ps, HOW DO WE STILL NOT HAVE A YOUTUBE OR GOOGLE VIDEO OF THIS YET?

3/16/2006 4:24:25 PM

^ Ah, gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up

3/16/2006 4:26:42 PM

LOL, JUST SAW YOUR BULLSHIT. GET THE FUCK OUT OF THIS THREAD IF YOU HAVE NO OPINIONS.

[Edited on March 16, 2006 at 4:31 PM. Reason : aaaa]

3/16/2006 4:27:30 PM

So you would prefer seeing video of a real life rape, a violent event, to, say, a real life naked woman?


And I'm sure some people disagree, but I really don't think there is an American right to not be offended. Furthermore, the FCC was created to dole out and license the frequencies on which broadcasters broadcast. I'm not saying federal agencies can't change their scope over time, but, personally, I think the FCC has no business telling people what they can and can not show on TV.

As for parents, as has been mentioned in this thread, any TV manufactured since Clinton was around has had the ability for parents to block out unwanted programming. And, even if that weren't the case, if somebody thinks their child will somehow be damaged by seeing a vajayjay, maybe they should be a parent and actually watch them. This doesn't work for freak accidents (or, should I say, incidents) like Janet Jackson's flash, but that happens so rarely that it isn't really a problem. Live TV is all on a delay now, anyway, so it won't happen as often from now on.

One more thing. If a damn nipple is enough to mess up your kid, your kid is already messed up.

3/16/2006 4:31:53 PM

[Edited on March 16, 2006 at 4:32 PM. Reason : the fcc has banned double posting]

3/16/2006 4:32:15 PM

Quote :

"So you would prefer seeing video of a real life rape, a violent event, to, say, a real life naked woman?"

That's also sexual. And I never said that I WANTED to see these things.

3/16/2006 4:34:23 PM

Quote :

"LOL, JUST SAW YOUR BULLSHIT. GET THE FUCK OUT OF THIS THREAD IF YOU HAVE NO OPINIONS."

Dude, you asked me what I thought in the first place. I had no intention of saying anything until you asked that. It's not like I just randomly decided to start spewing shit. I was asked what I thought and I did my best to form up my thoughts. At least I've admitted that I haven't given it a lot of consideration.

"oh, what do you think? WHAT??? OMG SHE DOESN'T HAVE AN OPINION!!!!!1 GTFO!!!!!1"

You're a bitch.

3/16/2006 4:38:49 PM

So you would prefer a murder or torture to sex? Not to say that would would WANT either shown, but that if you had to choose you would take the murder?

I honestly can't understand how sex, which most humans would agree is more fun than unicorns and rainbows and giggles, is more harmful for a child or teenager to see than murder, which most humans would agree is bad?

p.s. you can't send porn to people in the military.

3/16/2006 4:39:12 PM

[Edited on March 16, 2006 at 4:41 PM. Reason : sss]

3/16/2006 4:41:21 PM

Quote :

"jlphipps: Sex I don't think is appropriate to show on TV. But, maybe someone here can give a compelling argument in favor of it."

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: For real, jlphipps, we don't have to give you an argument. You have to explain to us why you think sex is inappropriate for television."

Quote :

"jlphipps: I didn’t ask for one. I was merely saying that one might be brought up. I certainly don’t have a compelling argument against sex on TV (I honestly haven’t thought about it until now) except that most parents are probably against it being there. I might be wrong about this too, though. But as I’ve said over and over and over again, I don’t have any real well formed opinions on this whole issue. I have bits and pieces of things that I feel to be true, but no real arguments; I’m just speculating aloud, I guess you might say. But, if you want to declare yourself winnar of the thread because you have supposedly defeated someone without any real opinion, the title is all yours."

I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION, BUT I CAN STILL SAY THINGS LIKE, "SEX I DON'T THINK IS APPROPRIATE TO SHOW ON TV." THAT'S BULLSHIT.

AND SO IS THIS:

Quote :

"jlphipps: My activism statement (I won’t call it an argument, since it’s only speculation) is based on ACTUAL footage being broadcast, and, as far as I’ve thought about it, only applies to violence."

That's right, folks, showing actual footage of a woman getting raped is okay as long as it's in the name encouraging women to learn self-defense or some other "activist" issue. But, say, showing two teens pretending to have sex on a TV show to make a statement about the importance of protected sex is not okay because it's not ACTUAL/REAL footage.

[Edited on March 16, 2006 at 4:46 PM. Reason : sss]

3/16/2006 4:41:21 PM

Why is t3h gubment even involved in this sort of thing?

3/16/2006 4:59:14 PM

i like where spookyjon is going with this

there was a murder and an orgy on the show

the murder has not generated any complaints

thats similar to how i feel about the brokeback controversy

not one article i read mentioned the adultery committed when these men cheat on their wives, only that they have sex with each other

3/16/2006 5:03:02 PM

Quote :

"I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION, BUT I CAN STILL SAY THINGS LIKE, "SEX I DON'T THINK IS APPROPRIATE TO SHOW ON TV." THAT'S BULLSHIT."

I said I don't have any "well formed opinions." Yes, the "no sex on broadcast TV" thing is an opinion, but I am here again saying that it is not a well-formed one, meaning that's it's only an opinion based on a feeling, not on any sort of evidence. And, again, I never would have said what I thought had you not asked in the first place.

Quote :

"That's right, folks, showing actual footage of a woman getting raped is okay as long as it's in the name encouraging women to learn self-defense or some other "activist" issue. But showing two teens pretending to have sex on a TV show to make a statement about the importance of protected sex is not okay because it's not ACTUAL/REAL footage."

Again, the whole activism thing is part of my considerations about how I feel about this whole issue. It’s by no means a complete thought, let alone theory. I'm surprised that you'd continue to take my speculative thoughts on the matter and try to extend them as though they are my die-hard opinions. They aren't. They're just bits and pieces and I may decide that it's a stupid thought in the end.

I'm glad that there's a conversation going on here b/c it makes me think about this and helps me form solid opinions on it. But if you want to come into my thread and ask me what I think and then get pissed that I don’t have any well-formed thoughts on it and insist that I leave, so be it.

Just remember that you're a bitch for it.

3/16/2006 5:03:59 PM

Eh, but seeing a murder on TV doesn't make you want to murder someone... or so they say...

3/16/2006 5:05:37 PM

i agreed with bridget until she started grabbing on to this like it was her chance to finally best someone. i mean jesus christ she isnt even arguing with you about it.

either way:

Quote :

"" root canal pics are gross, ban dentistry." I don’t get your point here."

while it is unrelated to this thread, i was commenting on abortion pics in general. you were talking about using them to sway ppl to your side and how showing war pics was an equally appropriate or useful tactic.

my point is that displaying these photos as an argument or persuasive tool is dumb. there are plenty of nasty things i wouldnt want to look at but would be in complete favor of (such as dentistry). gross pictures are just a goto for people without a real argument. many pics also falsely classify the opposition (such as late term abortion pics trying to show how all abortion is wrong).

3/16/2006 7:57:22 PM

Quote :

"i agreed with bridget until she started grabbing on to this like it was her chance to finally best someone. i mean jesus christ she isnt even arguing with you about it."

I'm particularly bothered by the fact that someone would honestly say sex isn't appropriate for TV but "real footage" is A-OK.

cyrion, it's SPK, not Bridget.

3/17/2006 1:10:47 AM

It seems today that all you see
is violence in movies and sex on TV...

3/17/2006 7:45:16 AM

^^my bad... im all down for some real sex...but thats already on hbo

3/17/2006 8:57:57 AM

Quote :

"how about this how about you come up with some scenario that is in any way related to what we're talking about"

Woodfoot, first off, now that the rating and time issue was verified, I believe the fine was unfair and should be abolished.

But to say the magazine example was related in no way is ridiculous. The magazine example only pertained to a situation in which the rating wasn't TV 14 or it happened before 10 pm. In that case, the example is the same. The children can turn on a television (without cable) and see it. (again, only if the rating wasn't properly identified so it could be v-chipped). In the grocery store, the child could see obscene material without much effort. That was the scenario and it is 100% related to the television scenario where the rating wasn't sufficient to cover the orgy scene.

Since it was, and thus the v-chip argument is agreed, THEN the scenario is irrelevant, but it was relevant without the rating/time verification.

3/17/2006 12:40:35 PM

I thought this might belong in here given the discussion rather than making a new thread about it:

Quote :

"Mass Media May Prompt Kids to Try Sex: Study 04.03.06, 12:00 AM ET MONDAY, April 3 (HealthDay News) -- Exposure to sexual content not only in movies and TV but also in music and magazines speeds up the sexual activity of white teens, increasing their chances of early intercourse, a new study contends. The link between sex-filled media and early intercourse was not as apparent for black teens, who were found to be more influenced by parents and peers, said Jane D. Brown, the lead author of the study, which appears in the April issue of the journal Pediatrics. "The unique part of this study is, we're finding this effect not only for television but for all four media content -- TV, movies, music and magazines," said Brown, the James L. Knight professor in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. While other studies have found similar links between watching adult content and early sexual activity, "We're the first to study them all together," Brown said. "Kids who have a heavier sexual media diet when they are 12 to 14 years old are twice as likely as kids who have a lighter sexual media diet to have had sexual intercourse by the time they are 16," she said. "It seems to be pushing kids towards earlier sexual activity." For the research, Brown and her colleagues conducted in-home surveys of 1,017 white and black teens from 14 middle schools in central North Carolina. Each teen was interviewed between the ages of 12 to 14, and again two years later. The researchers weighed the frequency of exposure to adult-themed movies, TV shows, music CDs and magazines. White teens in the top fifth of the "sexual media" diet when 12 to 14 years of age were more than twice as likely to have had intercourse by age 14 to 16, compared to those ranking in the lowest fifth. The same finding did not hold true black teens. Brown's team found other factors were more likely to predict whether they would have early intercourse, such as parental disapproval of teen sex. By age 16, according to the study, 55 percent of the white teens who had the most exposure to sexual content had started having sexual intercourse, compared to 6 percent of those in the lowest segment. Why do some kids watch much more sexually driven content than others? "We think it is related to puberty," Brown said. "As kids are maturing, they are looking for information. And we think the media become a kind of a sexual 'super peer.' The other place they might be learning about sex are often reticent [to supply information] -- parents, schools, churches, are just saying 'Just say no,'" she said, explaining why some teens turn to the media for sex education. Another expert, Freya Sonenstein, a professor and director of the Center for Adolescent Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said the study was "carefully executed" but "doesn't settle the question of whether sexy media produces, causes early sexual behavior. Is it the fact that they look at these shows that gets them active, or are they more curious about everything to begin with? Or are there other factors?" Brown agreed, saying the new study did not reveal a direct cause and effect. "It's very hard to establish causality," she said. But, "it's as strong a linkage as we have seen. It's a very strong association." Brown and Sonenstein agreed the study has some practical implications for parents. "'Parents should be alert," Sonenstein said. "This [frequent use of adult media] can be a signal to parents that these kids might start sexual behavior earlier." Parents must be aware not only of what their teens are watching on TV but "what they are listening to with their earplugs in," Sonenstein added. Brown agreed. Her team evaluated about 270 songs, many of which were filled with sexually charged lines. "More than 40 percent of the lyric lines involved sexuality," she said. Parents "need to start talking to their kids early," Brown said. "As soon as kids want to know what those parts of their bodies are. You need to be expressing your values about sexuality early and often. Be what we call an 'askable' parent, so your child can come to you, instead of the media, to learn about sex. If the teen perceives that their parents disapprove of early sexual intercourse, the teen is less likely to do it.""

http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2006/04/03/hscout531862.html

Of course, the question is... are the kids simply lying about their level of sexual activity based on how much "sex" they see in the media... You know, they see it happen and want to look cool by saying they've done it or simple exposure to it leads them to lie about it. Or maybe they aren't lying.

And, as the story says, correlation != causation.

Interesting nonetheless.

4/3/2006 8:00:26 PM