Skip to comments.Children Are Being Exposed To Shocking Levels Of Sexual Content
Posted on 11/26/2011 7:58:50 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
This probably wont shock most people because we live in an age where the envelope has been pushed so far its disappeared over the horizon. According to the Daily Mail, pink and leopard-print thong panties with no crotches sized to fit a seven-year-old were being sold at Kids N Teen in Greeley, Colorado. The panties were yanked after a mortified mother complained. As one writer put it: Its a new kind of memory: A daughters first pair of crotchless panties.
Its also a sign of the times when a retailer decides theres nothing wrong with selling sleazy leopard-print thong panties with a split crotch alongside stuffed animal backpacks.
While Im on the subject of seven-year-olds, the Parents TV Council (PTC) reports that there are some disgusting childrens programs being aired on TV during the family hour. The PTC released a Special Report exposing the shocking levels of sexual content in animated programs on cable networks popular with children. One such program is Allen Gregory. According to the PTC The programs namesake, Allen Gregory, is a precocious seven-year-old who has sexual fantasies about his sixty-something-year-old school principal. The program includes Allen circulating rumors of a sex tape of him with the principal; and some of the most explicit language imaginable, including vulgar euphemisms for male anatomy and bleeped f-words.
Gone are the days when the producers of childrens cartoons would sooner have their hair set on fire than allow cartoon characters to use any sort of profanity. I mean, can you imagine Mickey Mouse and Crusader Rabbit using the f-word? The bad news is that R-rated material that includes gross profanity has wormed its way into many animated childrens shows.
(Excerpt) Read more at movieguide.org ...
Maybe we have a federal government that matches “the People”...
If so, Nov 2012 may turn out to be different than most think..
I agree. I don’t have kids, but I got rid of my TV back in 2004 and I do not miss it. When I’m at someone’s house and they have the tv on, I usually have to turn my back or try to lure them into the kitchen so we can have a normal conversation.
Back in the day, I’d always feel safe flipping to a cartoon so the kids woulodn’t see anything risque. Guess those days are gone.
For some reason, it seems that some people are incapable of controlling the TV in their homes.
I’m not sure if they do not know how to operate the remote or if network agents come into their homes and force them at gunpoint to watch certain distasteful shows.
“I cant believe what they call family entertainment these days. Have you seen the programing on the ABC family channel? I watched the program, TWO BROKE GIRLS and had to turn the channel. It was a endless amount of dirty jokes.
Society is broken. We let the elite liberal, homosexual,pedophile, black culture take over our media, and I dont think we can fix it. We are to far gone.”
Who is it that mandates that you watch these programs on the TV?
Right on the money.
Good lord!!! I know anonymity on the internet seems to have been taken by most people as license to be as nasty as they possibly can be, but this is over the top. I stated a simple biological fact. Sex is a bodily function -- like breathing, eating, sleeping, and all of the other things that are part of what distinguishes a living being from an inanimate object. Your mind made something weird of that simple fact, not mine.
Obviously, human beings are capable of enjoying sex for its own sake, beyond the biological imperative of procreation. We are also capable of perverting sex way beyond its basic purpose, which -- in case you missed it -- is the general point of the posted article. That's what I was commenting on. Where your mind went with what was a straightforward point...well, I'd be careful about throwing terms like psychopath about if I were you. Just sayin...
Judicious censorship by citizen-vigilantes is called for.
“Nice society we live in, ain’t it?”
I think that parents have always had to protect their kids unwelcome influence.
After I read your post again I kinda get the point you are trying to make.
But for those of us that describe sex as the most intimate, exciting, passionate, and personal way of expressing romantic love with a special person (and of course as a way of starting or enlarging a loving family), your “bodily function” phrase was kind of hard to take.
Saying sex has no real meaning and is just “like breathing” is kind of the problem.
My family has always been waaaay toooo open about sex, but they made sure all the children knew that it was a special gift that was positively wonderful when shared with someone you really love.
I don't think you are a psychopath though. You are just very analytical and not very romantic. haha!
Parents, you still have the say to tell yourkids what to wear. Liberals will let their kids in anything.
Exactly. Turn off cable, and use the TV for appropriate movies.
Only time we watch TV is for something like the Charlie Brown specials. And even then we get burned sometimes—like when we put on the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade for the kids and got treated to the first few seconds of a production number from some transvestite musical before we changed the channel. Way to go NBC.
Anyone check the schools lately? at least you have some control at home WITH PARENT RESPONSIBILITY
Yes. In fact, most folks feel positively uneasy if they don't have either the TV going in the background, or music playing. Silence apparently creeps a lot of people out. I grew up in a very quiet farmhouse, so I prefer it, but I've had people visiting who glanced around nervously and said they felt like they were in a library. I had to open up my laptop and put on some random racket so they could relax. It was very strange.
That's not what I said at all. My point was to reinforce what the posted article was about, which is that we are awash in sex to the point that even very young children are inundated with sexual messages. I said "sex is a wonderful thing, in its place." What part of that do you two not understand?
However, to reinforce the point of the posted article, I also said WHEN YOU GET RIGHT DOWN TO IT, sex is a bodily function, a totally factual statement. The meaning was that society shouldn't be so overly obsessed with sex to the point that little kids are expected to be sexual, because sex is just one part of life, not the be-all and end-all of life.
It's too bad I can't check with either of you in advance of when I express myself on this forum, so you could write or edit my posts for me. Then they would be expressed in terms you two could grasp.
Yet simply because I expressed myself in a way neither of you did grasp, and lacking any other information about me, one of you says I sound like a psychopath, and the other one says she doesn't "think" I'm a psychopath, but I'm just "very" analytical and "not very romantic." Way to go to form judgments about people on the flimsiest of information.
What I find more interesting is that both of you are way overly touchy about the subject of sex. Hmmmmm...
Friends don’t let Friends WATCH TV!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.