Nude youth gangs

[Gary Naturist]

I would like to see some competent body address the topic of protecting children from harm, both physical and psychological.

The first question should be: What is harmful to kids? Sexual exploitation of kids would be at the top of the list. Violent behavior towards kids would be at the top as well.

Consider two other topics:

I suggest that exposure to the non-sexual nudity of others should not be on the list

Consider two other items:

1. Viewing the non-sexual nudity of others.
2. Viewing the violent behavior of others.

By viewing, I mean both real life and depictions -- e.g. TV, video games, etc.

Currently, things seem to be reversed: lots of protection against viewing nude people, and very little protection against viewing violence.

If we reversed the attention, maybe we would have gangs of nude youths rather than gangs of violent youths.

Gary

[Gary Naturist]

I would like to see some competent body address the topic of protecting children from harm, both physical and psychological.

The first question should be: What is harmful to kids? Sexual exploitation of kids would be at the top of the list. Violent behavior towards kids would be at the top as well.

Consider two other topics:

I suggest that exposure to the non-sexual nudity of others should not be on the list

Consider two other items:

1. Viewing the non-sexual nudity of others.
2. Viewing the violent behavior of others.

By viewing, I mean both real life and depictions -- e.g. TV, video games, etc.

Currently, things seem to be reversed: lots of protection against viewing nude people, and very little protection against viewing violence.

If we reversed the attention, maybe we would have gangs of nude youths rather than gangs of violent youths.

Gary

[Snoboy]

I would think keeping Michael Jackson away from children would be a great start. I have no clue if any of the charges are valid, but he certainly should learn to steer clear of young boys, if he wants to avoid the allegations of child abuse. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif[/img] If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc., I would highly suspect its a duck. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/img]

[florida-david]

thank you for bringing up a very important topic - the viewing of violence. american culture seems obsessed with it to the point that viewing violent acts in video games, tv, videos, etc. becomes normal even for young kids. this is far more damaging than nudity. seeing non-sexual nudity does absolutely no harm (well, except to stu apparently) but violence is clearly wrong. it is very difficult to shield my children from violence when it is so openly accepted in the american culture....

[David77]

I most heartily agree with Gary Naturist and florida-david regarding the viewing of violence that is so prevelent, for "entertainment". It's "sick" and caters to the worst side of people.

[Ren]

It's kind of like what the mother in the great "South Park" movie's message: "remember what the MPAA says: 'Horrific, deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words.'" The entertainment "protects" us from the wrong things, but don't think it is necessarily of its own volition. Consider that the Hayes Code was meant to cut off anything deemed offensive in the 50s. It is more the politicians cowing to one group or another that causes this to happen.

One thing young impressionable children should not view is violence on TV and in videos. When the Power Rangers were first created, young boys were imitating them by going around and kicking one another. This was causing injuries. Young children don't know the difference between real and make-believe. They see someone get shot and killed in one show and see them very much alive in another and get the idea that guns are toys and don't hurt anyone. Brother finds daddy's handgun and shoots and kills his little sister, brother or a friend.

Children should not view violence until they're old enough to understand that while what they see on TV isn't real, real violence can hurt or kill. Too often the TV is a babysitter, and the parents have no idea what the children are watching and don't care as long as they're not in the parents' hair.

[Rik]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snoboy:
[qb] I would think keeping Michael Jackson away from children would be a great start. I have no clue if any of the charges are valid, but he certainly should learn to steer clear of young boys, if he wants to avoid the allegations of child abuse. [/qb]

---

Given that you admit that you "have no clue if any of the charges are valid" on what basis does "keeping Michael Jackson away from children" protect children from harm, both physical and psychological (the subject of this topic)?

[img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/img] Rik

[Nude in the North]

Wouldn't it be great if we could replace all the violence and sex on tv with simple WHOLESOME nudity.

It's ridiculousto think we are "protecting" children by overdubbing swearwords or blurring body parts on tv, while showing someone being murdered or raped.

Steve

[NudeAl]

I agree about the violence in the media bit. We here in America are systematicly becoming desensitized to it. This is one of the reasons for the increasing amount of violence perpetrated by our youngsters, but we must also realize that there are those among us who are geneticaly predisposed to using violence.

Some interesting studies have been done concerning soldiers on the battle field. The ones faced with the ultimate decision wether or not to take another human life. In WWII roughly 30% of the soldiers faced with this problem admitted to attempting to kill the enemy. In Vietnam that percentage went up to over 90%. We're talking about the ones who were in a fire fight, being shot at and had to shoot back. It was mostly due to conditioning or training but guess what? Some of the same techniques the military uses to condition soldiers can be found in the things that kids enjoy doing for fun these days.

Another interesting thought, one of the veterans interveiwed summed this up by comparing it to a bunch of virgins discussing sex after looking at porn. In other words, yes they could grasp the mechanics but they really had no idea about the human emotional reaction to the event.