12 ms·

I often feel like sentiment such as this assumes that these kinds of notices, movie ratings, "clean" / radio versions of media, etc are solely meant for teenage

by ajosh 9y ago

I often feel like sentiment such as this assumes that these kinds of notices, movie ratings, "clean" / radio versions of media, etc are solely meant for teenagers. Maybe that's how they relate to it - as some kind of restriction as a teen. Keep in mind that while you will learn this stuff in your life, for very young children, there is definitely a lot that is inappropriate whether it is sex, language or violence. A 2 year old is unable to fully understand what is appropriate when. They are not ready to handle many of these concepts. Beyond that, if an adult doesn't want to listen to something or watch something, this helps them. If they've don't want to see or hear something, why should anyone else care?

hashkb 9y ago
The definition of "dirty" is arbitrary. Your "right" to not hear something abridges some else's right to publish it. You have to pick a side, and live with the consequences.
- IanCal 9y ago
  A parental advisory sticker does not stop someone publishing the music.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - AndrewUnmuted 9y ago
    Having your artistic creation 'scarlet lettered' like this is something we condemn when applied to other forms of media. Think of the outrage surrounding Facebook and Google implementing labels for news they deem fake or unreliable. Though such companies are within their rights to do such a thing, many consumers recognize the chilling effect this can have on distributing information and also adds a layer of needless obscurity to the process of reading the news. The music industry does not employ a 'rating system' like the film, TV, and video game industries. Rather, it's a catch-all for any and all content that arbitrarily may be viewed as offensive to a broad demographic of potential customers. This takes the label from a mere rating system to more of a form of soft censorship. I've seen albums that are largely instrumental labeled with the parental advisory sticker, because the sounds are intense and experimental. I've seen the sticker on albums whose only crime was being critical towards a religious institution. The label does a lot of harm, while I am not so sure how helpful it truly is for parents.
    - nsxwolf 9y ago
      It's a silly label and it shouldn't be there, but come on, you sound like you're speaking directly from 1990. It's been done and over for almost 30 years. Whatever damage it did to the music industry and the culture, we've fully realized by now. Laws that force fast food restaurants to put calories on fast food menus are annoying too, but we'll survive and I'll still get my burgers and fries.
      - hashkb 9y ago
        The caloric content of food isn't arbitrary, it's measured by a process that can be independently performed by anyone with the right equipment and get the same result. There's no similar process for deciding if artistic content is appropriate.
  - dclowd9901 9y ago
    Actually, it does. Wal-Mart won't sell music that has a parental advisory sticker, so at the very least, an artist has to compromise their music in order to be put in the largest retail chain in the world.
    - IanCal 9y ago
      > Actually, it does. Wal-Mart won't sell music that has a parental advisory sticker, They certainly sell them online. https://www.walmart.com/ip/D12-World/32061444 https://www.walmart.com/ip/D12-World/32061444 Related items show a bunch more.
TelmoMenezes 9y ago
> there is definitely a lot that is inappropriate whether it is sex, language or violence I always had a problem with this (very American, in my view) concept of "appropriate". What does it mean exactly? It seems to be hiding stuff that is either ill-defined or unlikely to withstand deep scrutiny. I have no problem believing that depictions of sex and violence might be bad for young children in some way, but I would argue that there is a burden on people who claim this to spell out out the bad consequences could be. Is it that it affects children psychologically? If that is the claim, in what way? And is there any research that shows this to be the case? Or is it that they could say something that would create social embarrassment for the parents? If that is the case, one has to ask: does it make sense to place such a burden on free culture for this rather minor reason? And doesn't it just perpetuate useless social norms? In the end, I suspect this is (at least partially) good old-fashioned puritanism. I am willing to accept that I am wrong, but I think I am right in reacting with scepticism towards vague moral proclamations such as "it is inappropriate!"
- yequalsx 9y ago
  clearly there are things that are inappropriate for a 5 year old to watch. Your points about Puritanism would be much more amenable without your second paragraph. Do you really doubt that subjecting a chikd to nonstop violent porn would result in some psychological adverse effects? To take extreme example. I overall agree with your sentiment on Puritanism. But let's not go to the other extreme.
  - TelmoMenezes 9y ago
    > Your points about Puritanism would be much more amenable without your second paragraph. Do you really doubt that subjecting a chikd to nonstop violent porn would result in some psychological adverse effects? Please read again. The second paragraph is precisely where I say that I have no problem believing that there might be ill effects. Our intuitions, however, are no replacement for scientific rigour. The history of science if full of cases where common sense turned out to be wrong. More importantly: I am not proposing that a child should be subjected to "nonstop violent porn". That sound like a terrible idea and it is a straw man. Like most things in life, this is not a binary choice. It's not like we have to choose between puritanism and nonstop violence and porn. What I am saying is this: is catching a glimpse of violence or sex so damaging that our entire culture should be subjected to severe restrictions? Or is it something best left for parents to decide? Maybe some parents are more worried than others, and maybe it doesn't make sense to burden everyone with a certain standard -- unless it is supported by rigorous scientific research.
echlebek 9y ago
Do you have some evidence that any of that can harm children?
- nsxwolf 9y ago
  It's a social norm that we don't sit 5 year olds down in front of a YouPorn stream. Nobody waits for some peer reviewed study before making that decision - it's simply just not done. It's considered weird, perverse, crass, inappropriate. If you feel that norm needs to change, and that children should in fact watch hardcore pornography without anyone batting an eye, you may certainly work towards those changes. But you should expect resistance because that norm is powerful.
  - sverige 9y ago
    >Nobody waits for some peer reviewed study before making that decision - it's simply just not done. Actually, Alfred Kinsey did some stuff as bad or worse with children, and yet his work has become the basis for an entire field of study. (It was so bad that a movie had to be made defending him.)
- gr3yh47 9y ago
  Well right now the average age of virginity loss is ~17 now compared to ~21 in 1950[0]. it is not particularly uncommon for middle schoolers to be having sex these days. There's also a lot more readily available sexual content for all ages now than in 1950. (yes correlation not causation, but there's clearly some connection here) there are plenty of full grown adults who are irresponsible with sexual activity (spreading stds, unwanted pregnancies) so can we just agree that MAYBE middle schoolers shouldnt be exposed to so much sexuality? that maybe a 14 year old has no chance of grasping the consequences and responsibility of sex? [0] http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/how-early-you-lose-your-7783274 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/how-early-you-lose-your...
  - olavk 9y ago
    I think you are missing the point of the case. The obscene lyrics did not actually exist in the song. The various versions of obscene lyrics were most likely created by kids themselves for fun. This was at a time when obscenity was scrubbed from public media, but this didn't mean the kids didn't know about dirty words and sex. You are assuming exposure to sexuality in media is what causes young people to have sex? I think sex have existed longer than mass media.
coldtea 9y ago
>Keep in mind that while you will learn this stuff in your life, for very young children, there is definitely a lot that is inappropriate whether it is sex, language or violence. A 2 year old is unable to fully understand what is appropriate when. They are not ready to handle many of these concepts. In Germany everyday people can go to the park with their 2-5 year old kids and have no issues with nudists enjoying the sun nearby. And while you wouldn't want your kid to become a potty mouth (for social reasons), them casually hearing some swear word now and then is no big deal at all anywhere in the world. As for violence, depends on whether it's something that will frighten the kid. >Beyond that, if an adult doesn't want to listen to something or watch something, this helps them. If they've don't want to see or hear something, why should anyone else care? Because some people don't want a society of puritans, even if the latter appear to keep it to themselves.
- lallysingh 9y ago
  > And while you wouldn't want your kid to become a potty mouth (for social reasons), them casually hearing some swear word now and then is no big deal at all anywhere in the world. Yeah but that's not the same thing as them listening to a song repeatedly, then singing it, and having parts of that song enter their lexicon. Music is sticky, especially with young children. I agree with your points on nudity (it's not a big deal) and violence (it's a very big deal).
- munificent 9y ago
  > In Germany everyday people can go to the park with their 2-5 year old kids and have no issues with nudists enjoying the sun nearby. The parent comment mentioned sex, not nudity. Children are generally comfortable with nudity since it's something they experience themselves. Most don't know that sex even exists, so they have zero association between nudity and sex. I think part of the reason some parents are leery of nudity around their kids is not because the kids can't handle it, but because we adults are so used to nudity being associated with sex that it's hard for us to understand that kids don't think that way. > As for violence, depends on whether it's something that will frighten the kid. Young children do not have a clear separation between reality and imagination. Their brains simply don't partition the two as distinctly as we do. This is why playing pretend and imaginary friends come so naturally to them, and why they are natural inveterate liars. I absolutely don't want my young kids exposed to violent media because they aren't yet able to understand it's not real. It would be almost as if they were experiencing the violence first-hand. I also don't get why American culture is so gung-ho about violence in the first place. My hope is that my children will never see someone get shot, stabbed, raped, kidnapped, burned, or assaulted. But, judging by TV and movies, these are everyday occurrences. I'm not super keen on normalizing that.
mseebach 9y ago
> are solely meant for teenagers Perhaps that's because the people campaigning for them are explicitly referencing protection of children as their motivation. The label on CDs says "parental advisory" and the MPAA film ratings system is explicitly indexed on age and parental guidance. > Beyond that, if an adult doesn't want to listen to something or watch something, this helps them So does the "stop" or "off" button. That's how I deal with most modern music which is indeed in many cases grossly inappropriate for my tastes -- but I guess actually I should lobby for a labelling scheme so I can be "helped".
- 6stringmerc 9y ago
  If you get down to the root of it, those labels are there so Parents don't actually have to watch / listen to / referee the material before allowing their children to see it. Or, they don't watch / listen to the material with their children to be there to provide context and guidance like an Adult. They're a way to shift responsibility. "Oh this should be okay, it's PG!" is what happened with "Gremlins" and then it scared the shit out of kids. Now we have PG-13 because of that movie. True story.
6stringmerc 9y ago
I worked at an Indie Film Theater, and we had the Gaspar Noe film "Irreversible" - it was Unrated. As in, the Distribution company didn't even bother submitting it to the MPAA, knowing it would get the dreaded X Rating in the US. So we got a copy and it was Unrated. We had at least 3 signs posted in the window at the box office with the same text on all of them: Unrated is not "open for all ages" - we will not sell tickets to this film to anyone under age of 18. Unrated is because the material is extremely disturbing by even artistic standards. No refunds. I watched "Irreversible" in the theater, and it completely ranks up with "Stevie" as one of the most visceral and deep and dark things I've ever seen in a cinema. So I was completely equipped to tell people "Do not buy tickets to this movie. You will not like it." One couple was on a date. Late-20s, white, good mood. No other films were showing / starting in a time they liked, so they picked "Irreversible" and I warned them. Then warned them again. They got defensive, telling me off basically that they were adults and would watch whatever they wanted. When they came back to the box office about 30 minutes later, I knew which scene they'd just witnessed, and they were scarred for life, but like zombies, came back to try and get a refund. I let my manager take care of it. Point being, sometimes adults think they're mature, but it's a lot more complicated than that. I'm not advocating showing a 5 year old "Saving Private Ryan" intro on a loop for a weekend, but some of these "protections" have mission creep of responsibility - who is really accountable in family development when it comes to Art (rationally speaking), Free Individuals or Federal Regulations?

by ajosh 9y ago

hashkb 9y ago

The definition of "dirty" is arbitrary. Your "right" to not hear something abridges some else's right to publish it. You have to pick a side, and live with the consequences.

IanCal 9y ago
A parental advisory sticker does not stop someone publishing the music.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- AndrewUnmuted 9y ago
  Having your artistic creation 'scarlet lettered' like this is something we condemn when applied to other forms of media. Think of the outrage surrounding Facebook and Google implementing labels for news they deem fake or unreliable. Though such companies are within their rights to do such a thing, many consumers recognize the chilling effect this can have on distributing information and also adds a layer of needless obscurity to the process of reading the news. The music industry does not employ a 'rating system' like the film, TV, and video game industries. Rather, it's a catch-all for any and all content that arbitrarily may be viewed as offensive to a broad demographic of potential customers. This takes the label from a mere rating system to more of a form of soft censorship. I've seen albums that are largely instrumental labeled with the parental advisory sticker, because the sounds are intense and experimental. I've seen the sticker on albums whose only crime was being critical towards a religious institution. The label does a lot of harm, while I am not so sure how helpful it truly is for parents.
  - nsxwolf 9y ago
    It's a silly label and it shouldn't be there, but come on, you sound like you're speaking directly from 1990. It's been done and over for almost 30 years. Whatever damage it did to the music industry and the culture, we've fully realized by now. Laws that force fast food restaurants to put calories on fast food menus are annoying too, but we'll survive and I'll still get my burgers and fries.
    - hashkb 9y ago
      The caloric content of food isn't arbitrary, it's measured by a process that can be independently performed by anyone with the right equipment and get the same result. There's no similar process for deciding if artistic content is appropriate.
- dclowd9901 9y ago
  Actually, it does. Wal-Mart won't sell music that has a parental advisory sticker, so at the very least, an artist has to compromise their music in order to be put in the largest retail chain in the world.
  - IanCal 9y ago
    > Actually, it does. Wal-Mart won't sell music that has a parental advisory sticker, They certainly sell them online. https://www.walmart.com/ip/D12-World/32061444 https://www.walmart.com/ip/D12-World/32061444 Related items show a bunch more.

TelmoMenezes 9y ago

> there is definitely a lot that is inappropriate whether it is sex, language or violence I always had a problem with this (very American, in my view) concept of "appropriate". What does it mean exactly? It seems to be hiding stuff that is either ill-defined or unlikely to withstand deep scrutiny. I have no problem believing that depictions of sex and violence might be bad for young children in some way, but I would argue that there is a burden on people who claim this to spell out out the bad consequences could be. Is it that it affects children psychologically? If that is the claim, in what way? And is there any research that shows this to be the case? Or is it that they could say something that would create social embarrassment for the parents? If that is the case, one has to ask: does it make sense to place such a burden on free culture for this rather minor reason? And doesn't it just perpetuate useless social norms? In the end, I suspect this is (at least partially) good old-fashioned puritanism. I am willing to accept that I am wrong, but I think I am right in reacting with scepticism towards vague moral proclamations such as "it is inappropriate!"

yequalsx 9y ago
clearly there are things that are inappropriate for a 5 year old to watch. Your points about Puritanism would be much more amenable without your second paragraph. Do you really doubt that subjecting a chikd to nonstop violent porn would result in some psychological adverse effects? To take extreme example. I overall agree with your sentiment on Puritanism. But let's not go to the other extreme.
- TelmoMenezes 9y ago
  > Your points about Puritanism would be much more amenable without your second paragraph. Do you really doubt that subjecting a chikd to nonstop violent porn would result in some psychological adverse effects? Please read again. The second paragraph is precisely where I say that I have no problem believing that there might be ill effects. Our intuitions, however, are no replacement for scientific rigour. The history of science if full of cases where common sense turned out to be wrong. More importantly: I am not proposing that a child should be subjected to "nonstop violent porn". That sound like a terrible idea and it is a straw man. Like most things in life, this is not a binary choice. It's not like we have to choose between puritanism and nonstop violence and porn. What I am saying is this: is catching a glimpse of violence or sex so damaging that our entire culture should be subjected to severe restrictions? Or is it something best left for parents to decide? Maybe some parents are more worried than others, and maybe it doesn't make sense to burden everyone with a certain standard -- unless it is supported by rigorous scientific research.

echlebek 9y ago

Do you have some evidence that any of that can harm children?

nsxwolf 9y ago
It's a social norm that we don't sit 5 year olds down in front of a YouPorn stream. Nobody waits for some peer reviewed study before making that decision - it's simply just not done. It's considered weird, perverse, crass, inappropriate. If you feel that norm needs to change, and that children should in fact watch hardcore pornography without anyone batting an eye, you may certainly work towards those changes. But you should expect resistance because that norm is powerful.
- sverige 9y ago
  >Nobody waits for some peer reviewed study before making that decision - it's simply just not done. Actually, Alfred Kinsey did some stuff as bad or worse with children, and yet his work has become the basis for an entire field of study. (It was so bad that a movie had to be made defending him.)
gr3yh47 9y ago
Well right now the average age of virginity loss is ~17 now compared to ~21 in 1950[0]. it is not particularly uncommon for middle schoolers to be having sex these days. There's also a lot more readily available sexual content for all ages now than in 1950. (yes correlation not causation, but there's clearly some connection here) there are plenty of full grown adults who are irresponsible with sexual activity (spreading stds, unwanted pregnancies) so can we just agree that MAYBE middle schoolers shouldnt be exposed to so much sexuality? that maybe a 14 year old has no chance of grasping the consequences and responsibility of sex? [0] http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/how-early-you-lose-your-7783274 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/how-early-you-lose-your...
- olavk 9y ago
  I think you are missing the point of the case. The obscene lyrics did not actually exist in the song. The various versions of obscene lyrics were most likely created by kids themselves for fun. This was at a time when obscenity was scrubbed from public media, but this didn't mean the kids didn't know about dirty words and sex. You are assuming exposure to sexuality in media is what causes young people to have sex? I think sex have existed longer than mass media.

coldtea 9y ago

>Keep in mind that while you will learn this stuff in your life, for very young children, there is definitely a lot that is inappropriate whether it is sex, language or violence. A 2 year old is unable to fully understand what is appropriate when. They are not ready to handle many of these concepts. In Germany everyday people can go to the park with their 2-5 year old kids and have no issues with nudists enjoying the sun nearby. And while you wouldn't want your kid to become a potty mouth (for social reasons), them casually hearing some swear word now and then is no big deal at all anywhere in the world. As for violence, depends on whether it's something that will frighten the kid. >Beyond that, if an adult doesn't want to listen to something or watch something, this helps them. If they've don't want to see or hear something, why should anyone else care? Because some people don't want a society of puritans, even if the latter appear to keep it to themselves.

lallysingh 9y ago
> And while you wouldn't want your kid to become a potty mouth (for social reasons), them casually hearing some swear word now and then is no big deal at all anywhere in the world. Yeah but that's not the same thing as them listening to a song repeatedly, then singing it, and having parts of that song enter their lexicon. Music is sticky, especially with young children. I agree with your points on nudity (it's not a big deal) and violence (it's a very big deal).
munificent 9y ago
> In Germany everyday people can go to the park with their 2-5 year old kids and have no issues with nudists enjoying the sun nearby. The parent comment mentioned sex, not nudity. Children are generally comfortable with nudity since it's something they experience themselves. Most don't know that sex even exists, so they have zero association between nudity and sex. I think part of the reason some parents are leery of nudity around their kids is not because the kids can't handle it, but because we adults are so used to nudity being associated with sex that it's hard for us to understand that kids don't think that way. > As for violence, depends on whether it's something that will frighten the kid. Young children do not have a clear separation between reality and imagination. Their brains simply don't partition the two as distinctly as we do. This is why playing pretend and imaginary friends come so naturally to them, and why they are natural inveterate liars. I absolutely don't want my young kids exposed to violent media because they aren't yet able to understand it's not real. It would be almost as if they were experiencing the violence first-hand. I also don't get why American culture is so gung-ho about violence in the first place. My hope is that my children will never see someone get shot, stabbed, raped, kidnapped, burned, or assaulted. But, judging by TV and movies, these are everyday occurrences. I'm not super keen on normalizing that.

mseebach 9y ago

> are solely meant for teenagers Perhaps that's because the people campaigning for them are explicitly referencing protection of children as their motivation. The label on CDs says "parental advisory" and the MPAA film ratings system is explicitly indexed on age and parental guidance. > Beyond that, if an adult doesn't want to listen to something or watch something, this helps them So does the "stop" or "off" button. That's how I deal with most modern music which is indeed in many cases grossly inappropriate for my tastes -- but I guess actually I should lobby for a labelling scheme so I can be "helped".

6stringmerc 9y ago
If you get down to the root of it, those labels are there so Parents don't actually have to watch / listen to / referee the material before allowing their children to see it. Or, they don't watch / listen to the material with their children to be there to provide context and guidance like an Adult. They're a way to shift responsibility. "Oh this should be okay, it's PG!" is what happened with "Gremlins" and then it scared the shit out of kids. Now we have PG-13 because of that movie. True story.

6stringmerc 9y ago

I worked at an Indie Film Theater, and we had the Gaspar Noe film "Irreversible" - it was Unrated. As in, the Distribution company didn't even bother submitting it to the MPAA, knowing it would get the dreaded X Rating in the US. So we got a copy and it was Unrated. We had at least 3 signs posted in the window at the box office with the same text on all of them: Unrated is not "open for all ages" - we will not sell tickets to this film to anyone under age of 18. Unrated is because the material is extremely disturbing by even artistic standards. No refunds. I watched "Irreversible" in the theater, and it completely ranks up with "Stevie" as one of the most visceral and deep and dark things I've ever seen in a cinema. So I was completely equipped to tell people "Do not buy tickets to this movie. You will not like it." One couple was on a date. Late-20s, white, good mood. No other films were showing / starting in a time they liked, so they picked "Irreversible" and I warned them. Then warned them again. They got defensive, telling me off basically that they were adults and would watch whatever they wanted. When they came back to the box office about 30 minutes later, I knew which scene they'd just witnessed, and they were scarred for life, but like zombies, came back to try and get a refund. I let my manager take care of it. Point being, sometimes adults think they're mature, but it's a lot more complicated than that. I'm not advocating showing a 5 year old "Saving Private Ryan" intro on a loop for a weekend, but some of these "protections" have mission creep of responsibility - who is really accountable in family development when it comes to Art (rationally speaking), Free Individuals or Federal Regulations?