Just wondering...

[Lil-Brandi]

In school the other day, this topic came up and was discussed in one of my classes.

If you had children (which some of you do), if you had to choose one of the two, which would you prefer for your child to see on television, sex or violence. You have to choose one and explain why you make that choice.

The topic started on the grounds of why there is so much violence shown on prime time (6:00pm) news stations, but sex is a big taboo.

I personally chose sex for the reason that it is easier to explain the meaning behind two people having sex, rather than being violent.

I just want to see other peoples view points on this subject. I thought it was quite interesting to hear all the different opinions of everyone in class!

 

[Never]

I'd turn off the television and teach them how to read.

There's always another choice.

 

[CreamyLady]

What Never said. The off button has always been an option.

However, if pushed to the wall, I'd say sex. Sex is positive, an affirmation of life, generally a tangible display of affection and respect. It is far more positive than violence, which is generally just the opposite.

I still like turning off the set, though. There are uncountable books yet to be read, adventures for the head, pictures in my mind, roads that wind . . .

 

[Gaucho]

As I read your post, Brandi, several things popped into my head as conditional aspects to the question. (Hi, btw. I don't think we've been formally introduced, even though I did give you a line in my poem.)

First, the age and sex of the child and second, the nature of the sex and violence. I think a 6 year old, for example, would respond differently than a 10 year old to either stimuli and likewise, I think a boy might have a different reaction than a girl.

At the same time, there's "real" sex and violence and there is "simulated" sex and violence. I think a child would have a different reaction to watching a replaying of the Rodney King tape on the news or a porn flick with people actually fucking (and a cum shot to prove it) then they would watching the simulated violence of Digimon or even Buffy and the sweaty, overheated teens on Dawson's Creek or Felicity.

Personally, at this stage of my daughter's life (she's 8), I'd take violence. The other night she walked into the living room while I was watching the tail end of an episode of The Avengers (God, I love Diana Rigg! Someone give me a time machine so that I can go back to the 60's and play John Steed) and, as it so happened, the ending of the show included some fighting and two people getting killed by a crossbow. Of course, this was in black and white and there was no blood but still I could tell that it bothered her. So we talked about it a bit and because she's had some experience with people being mean and even fighting, I was able to explain what happened in terms she could understand and deal with.

Sex, however, even simulated sex, would be a much more difficult discussion at this stage (I can scarcely imagine what she would think or how I would explain it if she walked in on a porn flick). It makes me think of Barbra Streisand in The Owl and The Pussycat.

"What's that thing?"

"What's that other thing?"

"Where are you gonna put that thing?"

All in all, though, Never is right. There's really no need for her to watch either one.

 

[Weird Harold]

If you had children (which some of you do), if you had to choose one of the two, which would you prefer for your child to see on television, sex or violence. You have to choose one and explain why you make that choice.

I do have children, and grandchildren. The choice I made was a combination of Never's solution (the off switch.channel selector) and making my distaste for gratuitious violence obvious.

Under the premise of this question, I would choose sex over violence any day. But the premise of this question doesn't allow for differing degrees of sex and violence, nor for the relevance of the sex and violence to the plot.

Neither sex nor violence is appropriate when it is included gratuitiously.

A news show about a drive-by shooting isn't news if they don't include the "violence" although it isn't always necessary to show actual footage of the shooting when they have it.

A movie that has to go to extremes to avoid showing "sex" to keep a PG rating usually isn't as good as it could be if the situation were a bit more true-to-life.

Conversely, a sports report about a hockey game doesn't need a blow-by-blow account of every fight that breaks out, it only needs to report the scores. Unless the fight had a direct bearing on the final score, then it's inclusion in the report is gratutitous.

Likewise, a movie about the search for some lost treasure doesn't need a sex scene, although a few violent pirates make it more interesting.

 

[Grrrn38]

My kids are 8 and 10. My TV is 23+. I don't even have to use the "off" button. After my kids realized that people aren't really green striped -- they just appear that way on OUR television -- they were too disgusted by our lack of the "basics" to watch much TV!

 

[Whispersecret]

Great points, Gaucho and WH.

I'd have to opt for violence too. Easier to explain to boys under 8. They understand that people can be mean to each other, which is what violence often boils down to.