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?
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!"
It depends on society's definition of appropriateness. For example, in your society would it be "appropriate" for you to go out right now and defecate in public in a hygienic manner? Or have sex in public? Or walk up to a store employee and expose your genitals?
Do you think it's "inappropriate" ? Can you define and spell out the bad consequences of doing so? Any research into that? Is it just because it can cause social embarrassment? Is it exclusively American?
But that is not my point. What I am arguing is that using the catch-all label of "inappropriate" seems like an American phenomenon. I don't notice people talking like this in other cultures -- but maybe that's just my own ignorance.
Anyone who has had young children will tell you that they can definitely get very freaked out by violent or "scary" movies and most parents do not want to expose their young children to explicit sexual content either.
I have no problem with mandatory labeling of violent or sexual content in movies or music. It helps me make decisions and it doesn't deprive adult consumers of anything.
Not really true -- it affects funding and distribution of cultural artefacts, and this becomes very evident if you go to a modern cinema complex. It can be a very alienating experience if you are not a child or a parent.
I understand that rating helps you make choices, but it is not for the people who like these restrictions to decide if the burden they are placing on everyone else is justifiable or not.
Living in SoCal, everyone has an opinion on Hollywood, and the consensus I've heard is that they are targeting the 8-13 segment really hard, and a G rating is a negative signal to tweeners.
Can you elaborate?
Yes, there are allergens but there are other things that people just want to avoid due to personal preference.
Proper labeling can be helpful in lots of areas.
Take swears for instance. Until they know better, there's more risk of them using swears at the wrong time.
The concept of appropriate is locally culturally bound. I suggest to people pondering the matter to read anthropology texts. They are extremely illuminating and suggest that it's better to exercise a certain cultural relativism.
I overall agree with your sentiment on Puritanism. But let's not go to the other extreme.
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.
They are not just out of the blue intuitions though, they are based on millennia of observations.
Empiricism is not just found in scientific labs.
I am no expert in the history of social norms, but I don't think it's clear at all the protecting children from witnessing violence and sex is a human universal. I know of several cultures (e.g. Roman Empire) where it was normal to let children witness public executions or violent fights. Again -- I am not arguing that this is good, I am arguing that one should not make laws based on vague intuitions.
Most people didn't make laws and force social norms either though. The "educated" classes that did had theater and other kinds of public shows (music, etc) since at least the time of Ancient Greece, and those did have certain codes about what is to be said and what shouldn't be said.
They also had special "adult" shows.
None of these cultural norms are that new either. Even back in ancient Greece and Rome there were rules about what constitutes public or on stage obscenity.
You can argue that the internet solves this, but it's not really the case: for example consider the current YouTube "demonetization crisis" or the arbitrary rules imposed in walled gardens such as app stores. The bigger danger -- and there are many examples of this -- is that "think of the children" can be used by politicians to advance more nefarious censorship agendas. For example, trying to rate content that presents non-conventional ideas.
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.
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.
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).
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?
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".
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.
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.
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.)
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...
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.
One also might say that the pill had something to do with the change.
About 2-3% of Adults in England get an STD [0], so 97% are at least responsible / lucky enough to avoid them.
Educating the 14 year olds is the only way - you can't stop the rest.
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/aug/25/stds-e...
They certainly sell them online.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/D12-World/32061444
Related items show a bunch more.
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.
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.
I wonder how the process of gathering information in such hearings has changed since the 80s.
I guess they make it easier for parents to control some of the circumstances where their children listen to music but I don't see how it affects others.
Worse than government laws about little notifications are things like Walmart demanding watered down versions of the music.
Hasn't really worked out that way.
One problem is that the interpretation of lyrics is subjective, as this FBI investigation so well illustrates. Albums that sound sufficiently pop/clean/bubblegum go without the sticker when there are clearly songs explicitly about sex/drugs/etc.
For an example, look at Third Eye Blind's self-titled, debut album. Semi-Charmed Life is clearly about meth and sex, but it is sufficiently clean sounding that it gets by without a sticker.
Meanwhile, albums that sounds a little edgier, but are actually about clean, mundane subject matter have the sticker forced upon them.
IMO, the movies and games industries have much better, more objective rating systems.
Honestly, the music industry is way better than the movie industry. The MPAA rating system is a literal censorship board, complete with an actual member of the clergy serving in an advisory role on all appeals. But if you don't get your film rated, it's almost impossible to distribute it to anyone but the very small independent movie theaters.
The MPAA results in an immensely chilling effect, which influences the movies people produce in the first place.
Contrast that with music, where the distribution mechanisms are much more varied than for film, and there's nothing preventing people from releasing music with incredibly explicit lyrics, as long as they don't expect the uncensored versions to be played on the radio - a medium which, while still popular, is by no means thr primary distribution channel anymore.
If you believe that, I recommend you watch This Movie Is Not Yet Rated[0].
It's just as bad in movies :-). I don't know anything about game ratings to dispute that part, though.
The original use case was "Darling Nikki" by Prince which, I have to say, isn't a song I'm going to be playing to my daughter anytime soon. (And believe me, I think the whole of Purple Rain is genius.) But the tone? That's hugely damaging. It's all "these musicians are corrupting our kids" and not enough "some people make art for adults and that's OK".
Of course, if the debate had been more reasonable, Eminem would have had to come up with a different marketing angle.
The state forces you to acknowledge its authority before you are allowed to observe and ponder an artistic message - additionally, compromising the display of said artistic message with a big nasty horribly designed stamp of disapproval covering a significant portion of the work.
Its is parents' responsibility to police content their children are exposed to. Its parents' responsibility to read the lyrics of "Louie Louie" and determine if that is safe for their children or not. Requiring the state to burden itself with this role is not only no route to security in such a situation, but tremendously irresponsible of this so-called league of concerned parents.
What do you think I'm talking about with the statement about Walmart?
Should every trailer be the Red Band version so you can get a good look instead of wondering if PG or PG-13 or R is really just right? There's not a lot of real critical thinking that can come from "Brief Nudity. Light Drug Use. Violence." hashtags to go with MPAA or videogame ratings I think...
Moreover, especially at a young, impressionable age, the real problem is not whether they learn about swearing or immorality, but whether they learn to participate in it. I know about murder, rape, slavery, etc., but I don't participate in them. Now, I'm not equating dropping the f-bomb with murder, I'm merely pointing out that when participation is purely mental, it's very rare that children (and many adults) have the maturity to know about vulgar thoughts without participating in them. Given that background knowledge, I exercise discretion regarding what concepts I allow my children to take in, to the extent that I'm able.
To keep an eye on my son, we just mirrored the TV and stereo signals from the living room to the kitchen. We actually see and hear everything he does. THAT'S how you stay informed!
This seems overly skeptical to me. Not having the list memorized doesn't translate to me not gaining any information from reading the label. I imagine there are additional terms I'd probably want to see on the advisory list, and possibly terms I don't think merit parental advisory. Still, the label does inform me that reasonably responsible people believe other reasonably responsible people may find the content inappropriate for young children. Surely that counts as at least some information!
> To keep an eye on my son, we just mirrored the TV and stereo signals from the living room to the kitchen. We actually see and hear everything he does. THAT'S how you stay informed!
I think you inferred that I was saying a parental advisory label was the only way to stay informed, and that's certainly not my view. For example, in my house, nobody turns on the TV (not even me) except for on Saturday mornings to watch cartoons. I have 5 kids; I can't possibly monitor everything they watch all the time -- so we turn it off, they play during the week, and we watch 1-2 hours of TV a week as a family.
Dee Snyder is also there. The "Filthy Fifteen" list sure brings back a lot of memories!
Tipper Gore is responsible for the "Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics" stickers, because, as everybody knows, the only way kids ever learn swear words or dirty concepts is from music, and never, ever from their Parents, Siblings, Neighbors, Friends, Classmates...
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/10/09/oral-history-tipper-gores...
To me, the most "obscene" concept in the whole "Louie Louie" and PMRC crusades is how willingly some people want to bury their head in the sand and force everybody else to do the same. Ugh. Puritans.