jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (8 posts)

Do you think children are being exposed to more "mature content" earlier?

  1. breathe2travel profile image80
    breathe2travelposted 5 years ago

    Do you think children are being exposed to more "mature content" earlier?

    My daughter's middle school yearbook reflects the for both the 7th and 8th grade the favorite movie title for the year: The Hangover II.  I was literally surprised - surprised parent let 7th graders view the movie for one.  I am trying to remember the movies I watched in middle school - the John Hughes films were most popular. Do you think children are being exposed at earlier ages to adult content than they were 20 years ago?

  2. peeples profile image94
    peeplesposted 5 years ago

    No, but I do think that the mature content is different than it was back when I was a kid. I know I remember watching Nightmare on Elm street, which most of my friends had also seen. That was scary back then. Music talked about sex but didn't say it the way it does now. I think when we were younger things were just as mature, but it was done in a more of "beating around the bush" way than it is now. Now they just say sex (or worse) instead of back when the r and b was first coming out and they said making love.

  3. profile image71
    win-winresourcesposted 5 years ago

    Hi Breathe-

    I believe that, yes, perhaps mature material is more prevalent and available than even 15 or 20 years ago.   Further, such material should be controlled to be age appropriate.

    But this should not be confused with censorship or pornography.  In the former case, censorship is a direct threat to free speech, the arts and human expression.  In the latter case, even the harshest material, when restricted to adults, is a personal choice and falls within the freedoms ensured under our society.

    Our duty is to protect our children, as necessary, but not to substitute our judgements for other adults.


  4. lovelife08 profile image60
    lovelife08posted 5 years ago

    Oh most definitely. The original Nightmare On Elm Street is rated R. Today, it would be PG-13. There's a lot of other movies like that too.

  5. Pamela99 profile image87
    Pamela99posted 5 years ago

    Without a doubt! The language, sexual innuendos or scenes and the horror movies are much more common today, as compared to when my children were growing up, let alone when I grew up. Scantily clad women, size 0, have put tremendous pressure on girl teens as they try to achieve that look. There are more cases of anorexia and teen suicides today also. I guess it is up to parents to regulate what there children watch, but that is very difficult once they are teens.

  6. profile image0
    Debbie Dallasposted 5 years ago

    Yes ! Absolutely! I fear for the youngin's growing up today!  My little neice will date a guy who MAY go home and watch pirn, skanky YouTube videos, etc.. Can u even watch a movie today without sex
    Or a naked woman in it?

    I'm disgusted!

  7. Seafarer Mama profile image89
    Seafarer Mamaposted 5 years ago

    Yes, I believe that children who watch tv and listen to their parents' popular music with them (especially rap) are undoubtedly exposed to more mature content than those who do not, and it is more explicit now than it used to be.

    Since there seems to be no monitoring of content on TV, we do without it in our household (it is better for her to be playing outside more, anyway). Though we  home-school, it seems that my daughter encounters the pressure to conform to values that her peers are exposed to through media. It starts with consumerism and then gets worse.

    We choose the movies that she watches carefully, and watch them with her. She's seen Tim Burton's "The Corpse Bride, " but did not like "Coraline," so stopped the movie for her and read more kid-friendly content to her. We've also watched the most recent version of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and "Alice in Wonderland."

    Because of the violence factor, I debate my 7-and-a-half-year-old daughter's readiness to watch "Star Wars" (from the 1970's and 80s, not the most recent prequilogy) He said that when he was 15, he watched it with his 4-year-old brother. Whatever his parents' motives for letting his younger brother go to that move (which I am sure was NOT rated G), I don't think should inform our reasons for exposing our daughter to it. I think that 10 should be the minimum age...and that the timing of the film's release for us (he 15 and myself 13) was the best.

    We have had to prepare her for watching the movie sooner than we'd like because our neighbors let their 4-year-old son watch YouTube videos that dilute that "villain" status of Darth Vader and the Storm Troopers. Whenever my daughter wants to play a Jedi Knight, he insists she should be a Storm Trooper. She doesn't really know that real nature of those "characters" in the movie because she has not seen it, but this child's parents have shown it to her because their son watches it. :0(    I've mentioned to them how we feel about it, but she has continued to be exposed to the Storm Trooper videos, so I am going to request that they not expose it to her any more. I believe that at her age, she needs to be exposed to content that has clear heros/heroines and clear villains, and the "villainous" nature of the villains should not be diluted.

  8. erinshelby profile image74
    erinshelbyposted 4 years ago

    Certainly. Just consider how programming on the "family" channel has evolved in the last 10 - 15 years. The subject matter isn't as innocent. On other stations, the threshold of profanity is lower- it may take extreme profanity to be censored on some stations. Some celebrity antics and wardrobe choices intentionally cross the line of decency, sending unhealthy messages about sex to kids.