Poll: Protect the Children?

[Lightning Delight]

So I have been thinking a bunch about the recent Supreme Court decision. A lot of the argument against violent games rests heavily on the fact that we need to protect our children from violent and sex filled material, against their will if necessary. This got me thinking, though: is it really in their best interested to be constantly sheltered from material like this?

On one hand, I know that children are impressionable. Some may not understand that real life has consequences that movies, shows, and games may not, and need to be prevented from viewing such material until they are older. They just can't handle it. Also, they should be allowed to stay as kids for as long as they want, and facing some of the more taboo aspects of life may ruin that.

On the other hand, they are not being prepared for the real world. Sex and violence (and murder and death) are part of life. There is no avoiding that. Is it helpful to prevent kids from learning about this until the last possible moment, just to protect their childhood innocence? Or is it better to allow them to experience it at their own pace so they will be ready when the time comes to face these things?

I am not talking about games specifically, but media in general. Movies, TV shows, books, and music all raise the same question. They all have sex and violence in them somewhere. Do we shield children from an inescapable part of life because we find it inappropriate, or prepare them for what they are going to face?

Do you feel that we should expose or protect children from material with sex and violence? Or do you feel that is the parent's decision, regardless of how we and the child feel? And what if the parent is not able to either protect or teach their child correctly? Or do you just not care? Personally, I haven't decided yet. I was just wondering you all thought.

 

[thePyro_13]

Children should be protected, as that is the majority opinion.

Parents can circumvent the rating system for their children if they feel that their kids can handle it.

But the government should default to protecting them from possibly harmful content.

 

[Nezgul]

Depends on their age, really. You're obviously not going to consider exposing a six year old to that kind of stuff. As for ten year olds or older? Yes, they should be exposed to it -- at least to some degree. You can't protect kids from life forever, there's no point in postponing it.

 

[Snowy Rainbow]

You want to expose children to sex and violence before they even posses the brain necessarily to understand and comprehend their full impact?

Well, that's a terrible idea. Christ.

 

[Gaiseric]

Parents can circumvent the rating system for their children if they feel that their kids can handle it.

But the government should default to protecting them from possibly harmful content.

I like this, as long as the gov't doesn't go overboard.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

No. The government should not be allowed to make decisions on what's best for the people. It's up to the people to be responsible for themselves and decide what they think is best for themselves. This is my principle. Should the government intervene to protect children? No. If parents feel that the content is inappropriate then it is their decision and what they decide for their children is up to their discretion. The government should not intervene with personal matters such as these, and violent and sexual content in multimedia should be clearly marked as an "enter at own risk" zone. The government's decision will be biased and will not suit the varied individual situations, so really, the parents should be the responsible ones who make the decisions for their children. But as a rule, I don't think the government should intervene on this one. I like the idea of recommended age limits on movies and games, like the ratings system they have now, but they shouldn't have legal restrictions on these things

Children should be protected, as that is the majority opinion.

Parents can circumvent the rating system for their children if they feel that their kids can handle it.

But the government should default to protecting them from possibly harmful content.

I like this, as long as the gov't doesn't go overboard.

The poll says otherwise

 

[Lawnmooer]

I think that there should be stuff in place to try and keep violence and sex away from children (Stuff like age ratings and making sure that parents know what games/films/programmes actually include so that they can make a decision about what their child can handle)

But I don't like it when they do stupid things like ban things just because they are violent or involve sex... (The Manhunt games spring to mind, I played the first when I was younger... I'm not a homicidal maniac trying to kill all of my friends, I'm just a teenager who has yet one more game on the shelf that won't be getting played due to it not being a fun game)

I'd like to feel that people should have control over what they deem appropriate for themselves or their children (For example: Ear piercings. I think it's wrong to get a very young child's ears pierced, some people obviously don't) without someone else making the decision for them.

 

[BlazeRaider]

I shall make it my mission in life to expose children to sex and violence.

TBH though if a child wants to learn about the grown up world, let them.

 

[Snowy Rainbow]

You want to expose children to sex and violence before they even posses the brain necessarily to understand and comprehend their full impact?

Well, that's a terrible idea. Christ.

Every person is different, when is that barrier broken? I know 12 year olds that are better suited to dealing with trauma and other influences than people my age (22). What if the person has a mental condition like schizofrenia? does that mean that they aren't allowed to be exposed to any kind of violent or possibly offensive media.

What? If you wanna talk about mental disorders, that's an entirely different topic and has nothing at all to do with exposing children to violence and sex.

There's a reason movies and games have a rating; people much smarter than you or I have decided at what age most people can handle something. In some cases they are guides for parents to decide, in others they are strict rules. You wanna just drop all ratings and let kids buy tickets to the next torture porn flick like Hostel or Saw? Let's let kids watch some porn and read play the latest murder simulator too.

Sheesh.

 

[JoJo]

You want to expose children to sex and violence before they even posses the brain necessarily to understand and comprehend their full impact?

Well, that's a terrible idea. Christ.

This, no offence anyone but I'm guessing most of you don't have much experience with children (not talking about teenagers here). There's a big difference between teaching them that death and sex exist and showing them inappropriate media. Children have very little self-control, will usually copy what they believe to be adult and cool, and often don't understand the consequences of their actions. A child does not have the capacity to decide whether he or she is ready to experience certain things and so those things should be kept firmly out of reach.

 

[Gigano]

Well, they should be protected from having it forced upon them through appropriate restrictions on marketing, but they shouldn't be forced to keep away from it by being forbidden to buy it.

Otherwise, the parents need to man up and put down some boundaries themselves if they want to, rather than delegating their parental responsibility to the state. Else the child will never respect them for caring about it, and nor should it.

And it's not like legal regulation is going to be effective in the least anyway. All it'll do is drive kids onto the internet where - aside from being likely to get in the habit of violating copyright laws to obtain the forbidden goods - they will quickly trip over far more brutal and depraved things than will ever be commercially sold or shown, certainly in their neighbourhood.

 

[Hiname]

I know Im likely the last woman alive that should ever have children, so perhaps my oppinion issnt worth anything on that matter, but...

If my child would come up to me and ask me to get a game that clearly not suited for them.. lets say a Tenchu game or, should my child suffer from severe taste-malfunction, Duke Nukem... Fine, let my kid have it. Though Im not paying for it. I would gladly give my money for games Imc ertain they are suited for my kids age.

Want something else? Have fun getting it.. and when I find illegal torents on your computer, gods help you.

 

[Astoria]

They shouldn't have it forced upon them but neither should they be sheltered. It's a fine line to walk but most parents would know when their child is ready for it so it should be parents choice. The government should have a little say but just as long as they don't go overboard. All kids are different so just saying kids have to be so many years old before knowing about sex and violence is stupid.

 

[Snowy Rainbow]

You want to expose children to sex and violence before they even posses the brain necessarily to understand and comprehend their full impact?

Well, that's a terrible idea. Christ.

This, no offence anyone but I'm guessing most of you don't have much experience with children (not talking about teenagers here). There's a big difference between teaching them that death and sex exist and showing them inappropriate media. Children have very little self-control, will usually copy what they believe to be adult and cool, and often don't understand the consequences of their actions. A child does not have the capacity to decide whether he or she is ready to experience certain things and so those things should be kept firmly out of reach.

It's kind of terrifying how many people think... so grotesquely. Hell, there's a seven-year-old girl who the police are looking into charging with murder. She was in the bath with her little brother and he was crying. What did she do? Held him under the water. Her reasoning? "I wanted to make him stop crying." The detectives are trying to decide if she knew what she was doing would cause him to die or not. And people want kids to be exposed to sex and violence? This isn't some hippy "save the kids" crap. Children will end up hurt over something like this. You know how many dumbass adults copy shows like Jackass? Now imagine the number of children, so naive they literally can't foresee long term consequences would hurt themselves and others if movies didn't have ratings. Christ.

This thread combined with the number of paedophiles that came to light in the "controversial opinion" thread might be enough to drive me away from this site. I dunno if I can be around this place any more. Seems like every day there is someone defending some disgusting thing or asking for another.

 

[commasplice]

The problem with government intervention from where I stand is that I feel like there is so much gray area. How violent is too violent for a child? I mean, it's arguable that playing Kingdom Hearts could encourage "aggressive behavior." At what age should kids be allowed to be exposed to more violent material? Is a six-year-old mentally mature enough to see Sora hacking away at bad guys, even though there's no blood?

Like . . . If we had clinical studies to prove that playing violent video games before you are ready will warp you into a killing machine, then I would think maybe the gov't should step in, much like how it's the government's job to make sure that Mattel isn't making Barbies out of asbestos. But in the case of asbestos, we have irrefutable proof that the material is harmful to humans. You can't argue that it would be okay for a mother to let her kid chew on a loaf of it under any circumstances.

As it stands, it's not that clear-cut. Yeah, people say that violence and sex is bad for kiddies, but I think that's really more of a societal construct than it is plain fact. The influences of violence and sex are largely subjective and when you think about it . . . back in the olden days, when you had to kill what you ate, it wasn't like they shielded the kids from seeing that until they were 17, right? Do you think that people always shielded their kids from being exposed to sex the way we do now? I think it might be largely that we see sex and violence as inherently bad (or simply "sinful") things, so we feel like we have to make sure our children are never exposed.

 

[aba1]

Children should be protected, as that is the majority opinion.

Parents can circumvent the rating system for their children if they feel that their kids can handle it.

But the government should default to protecting them from possibly harmful content.

I agree ^

Some children even people can't handle violence as well as others. Some are more prone to violent tendencys if they watch movies or play games with much violence. While many are not those who can get around it if there parents feel they can handle it. As far as sex goes I really don't see the issue sex is how we make children the only reason I can see it not wanting to be shown is to not enourage kids from having sex at like 14 but really schools already teaching sex ed at such a young age it really doesnt matter anymore I just think children need to understand that sex is to get pregant and a if your pregnant you better have your own place with your own job. Obviously thats not a 100% true but showing it in that sence will certainly slow things down rather than sex for pleasure as we currently do

 

[Zeema]

I shall make it my mission in life to expose children to sex and violence.

TBH though if a child wants to learn about the grown up world, let them.

all you have to do is show every kid

Elfen lied and your mission is complete

and plus half of the kids ive met recently are all up the self and knobs