boomerang wrote:Quote:Thanks for going to so much trouble to conduct your research on as many as 1 participants.
And so you are now speaking for a group of people?
Your research was conducted where?
Forget research. The point I'm making is that it isn't enough to look at your own guilt-free sexual experiences and assume on that basis alone that we don't live in a culture where there are unecessary sexual taboos and various pressures to feel ashamed of our bodies and our sexual activity or lack thereof. I'm not literally asking you to do research, I just want you to be aware that the fact that you are quite sexually well-adjusted might be sheer luck. It's not out of the question that the rest of us would have been better off with a bit more ******* on Sesame Street.
PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:05 am Post subject:
Quote:
Specifically, I don't think there's any need to deliberately place certain programs late in the TV schedule purely because of their sexual content
Quote:So save up your money and get digital cable. There are probably twenty channels devoted to sex that run 24 hours a day.
No. This isn't about me, it's about all people. We are wasting time censoring things that don't need to be censored, and in doing so we may also be depriving children of things which may benefit them.
boomerang wrote:Quote:What does sex and/or nudity have to do with crossing the street or understanding Dora The Explorer?
It has to do with emotional maturity and intelligence...
That's a very vague response. What are you worried about, exactly? If children are too dumb to understand sex on TV, then what harm can it do to them?
And don't forget
mere nudity. I'm not convinced that you need any level of intelligence or maturity to look at a nipple or a penis without harming yourself. You don't need emotional maturity or intelligence to look at an elbow or a toenail on TV, so why other body parts? What lies have we told our children about vaginas that are going to make them so terrified to see one on the TV?
I'm really making four claims, and you don't have to accept all of them:
1) There is no need to censor non-sexually-explicit nudity on TV, or to place it late in the schedule to prevent children from watching it.
2) There is no need to censor ordinary, non-violent sex acts on TV, or to place them late in the schedule to prevent children from watching them.
3) Children may benefit from seeing more non-sexually-explicit nudity on TV, and it might be worth incorporating it into programming aimed at children.
4) Children may benefit from seeing ordinary, non-violent sex acts on TV, and it might be worth incorporating them into programming aimed at children.