»Why does TV allow showing violence but censor nudity/sex?«
|
|||
 volonteshiva: Many kids today are having sex at 13 and younger! Ahem, 13 is AVERAGE. Many kids have sex at 9. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgEntertainment & SportsEntertainment & Art (Assorted topics)Why does TV allow showing violence but censor nudity/sex? |
|
|||
|
mymla: Whereas sex is something men boast less of and maybe can be even ashamed of it, because sex often is like subdueing to a weaker being=a woman. Sex is more women world What? Sex/Porn is more women world? Did I miss something? Knitting is women's world, breast-feeding and make-up. But sex and porn? posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
 knn: volonteshiva: Many kids today are having sex at 13 and younger! Ahem, 13 is AVERAGE. Many kids have sex at 9. agreed, however I don't think the quantitative measure of "many" for age nine is that large, def not as large as it is for 13. Although real numbers for this would be a serious challenge. posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Okay I've been away for a while but you may have noticed that, at first glance, my post about anti-porn feminism is quite offtopic. However, what we are dealing with here is why there is censorship of nudity when it is a perfectly natural thing. What I was suggesting is that porn can affect attitudes and has been proven to do so, so even if we disagree with anti-porn feminists we can still accept that it would not be a good thing to expose to children who are impressionable. The stripping of those girls at the wrestling match I mentioned was a kind of soft pornography which I was suggesting children should not be exposed to. I am, of course, completely against anti-porn feminism. Pat Califia is quick to point out that anti-porn laws are often used to discriminate against homosexuals. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 fatpie42: we can still accept that it would not be a good thing to expose to children who are impressionable. Why should that be acceptable that it's a bad thing? Denmark did exactly that as sex education in the 60ies or 70ies. Teachers showing kids porn. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: fatpie42: we can still accept that it would not be a good thing to expose to children who are impressionable. Why should that be acceptable that it's a bad thing? Denmark did exactly that as sex education in the 60ies or 70ies. Teachers showing kids porn. *fatpie is worried* posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 fatpie42: *fatpie is worried* Worried because the kids nowadays know more than the teachers? posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Worried because Danes show porn to little children. Hope it wasn't too perverted - there's some sick stuff out there! posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 fatpie42: Hope it wasn't too perverted I don't think so. The seventies were not too perverted. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 knn: The seventies were not too perverted. they even had sideburns in their pubic hair 
posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4
Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4
 Register Log in |
The time now is 9 January 2009, 20:42 php B.B. |