Are Sexy Cartoons OK for Kids?

Trippy discussions of moral issues, conspiracy theories, the paranormal and other otherworldly phenomenon.

Moderator: Dracofrost

Are Sexy Cartoons OK for Kids?

Postby Nyufrost » Tue Jun 24, 2003 8:56 am

First of all ... before the anime crowd attacks me ... I am not referrng to anime so peace! *makes peace sign* :MIB

Earlier tonight, I read about a new male-oriented cartoon starring Pamela Anderson that is scheduled to premiere this week on TNN.

You can read the story HERE

Anderson's character, Erotica Jones is a stripper by night who turns into a superhero crimefighter known as "Stripperella" later at night.

Her "weapons" and superpowers include: sex appeal, lie detector breasts, laser lipstick, wall climbing stiletto heels and a leg maneuver to get crooks in a headlock.

Anderson calls the character --also known as Agent 69-- her alter ego and says it is strong, smart, sexy and a bit of a slut. She said she thinks the cartoon could be rated PG and sees it as harmless for kids because the nudity scenes are pixelated or otherwise blurred or camoflauged.

Is nudity the only thing harmful for young viewers? What about all the sexual references and innuendoes? Anderson thinks it is an okay thing for her 5 and 7 year old to watch. Would you let your kids (if you had any) watch this? Why or why not?

I personally would NOT let them watch at 5 and 7. I think that is too young to be subjected to sexually-oriented material. I probably wouldn't want them to see it until they were 18 but realistically, they would probably sneak around and watch it sooner.
<BR><center> "Snowflakes are one of nature's most fragile things, but just look <br> what they can do when they stick together.." ... Vesta M. Kelly</center>
User avatar
Nyufrost
Frost Advisor
Frost Advisor
 
Posts: 5534
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 7:03 am
Location: Out There

Postby Kaos » Sun Jul 06, 2003 9:58 pm

arr, ages 5-7?

noo, children are influenced by television.

so how would you like it if your 5-7 year old starts dancing erotically in public on a lightpost, mimicing what they saw on t.v?

and little kids naturally look up to television heroes as rolemodels.
so instead of kids getting a good influence and wanting to grow up to be their favorite hero (as with superman etc)
they might just want to grow up to become a stripper who's a secret agent o.o

so i do not think it's suited for children 5-7 or even 7-17.
18+ plze :|

..i finished ranting..:bah
Image

Kaos v.2 Chim Edition
User avatar
Kaos
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 2618
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 1:54 am
Location: art room

Postby Roadkill » Sun Jul 06, 2003 10:22 pm

id have to agree with kaos here...

PG-13, as by then kids know this stuff.
Image
<center>The secret's in the wings...
User avatar
Roadkill
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: somewhere

Postby Nyufrost » Sun Jul 06, 2003 10:34 pm

I may be confused, but it seems to me that Kaos is suggesting an 18+ rating not a PG13 one, so it doesn't seem like you are agreeing with her.

That's a good point about the kids dancing around poles and trying to act sexy. Unfortunately, many parents would view that as "cute." :|

Some parents like to put makeup on their 5 year old and try to make her look 20 so I don't suppose those kinds of parents would care if their daughter watched a cartoon full of sluts and strippers. :roll:

I have a friend with a 3 year old. Recently, we watched Terminator at her house and she replayed it back from a certain scene because she had to stop it to do something. The next morning, she said the kid stood in front of the refrigerator yelling a really dirty line of Arnold's out over and over. My friend's husband nearly choked on his cereal and screamed at her "what kind of mother are you? what have you been letting her watch?"

The child had absolutely NO idea what she was saying ... she was just parroting Arnold. My friend didn't "think" about how the movie would effect her daughter. Good thing the father was sensible and immediately made a rule about what movies can and can't be watched in the presence of the kid.
<BR><center> "Snowflakes are one of nature's most fragile things, but just look <br> what they can do when they stick together.." ... Vesta M. Kelly</center>
User avatar
Nyufrost
Frost Advisor
Frost Advisor
 
Posts: 5534
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 7:03 am
Location: Out There

Postby Roadkill » Sun Jul 06, 2003 11:51 pm

well, as all the overall stuff. I dont want to retype that.

By the age of 13 you usually ahve that stuff figured out, and learn to handle it. Therefore i suggest PG-13. Who hasnt read books with sex in them by that age?
Image
<center>The secret's in the wings...
User avatar
Roadkill
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: somewhere

Postby TerraFrost » Mon Jul 07, 2003 12:08 am

just to play devil's advocate... why are sexy cartoons not okay when violent cartoons are? the whole shoot 'em up cartoon genre is actually very violent. if kids "parroting" sex is bad (and sex is a natural thing) then wouldn't kids "parroting" violence be that much worse?
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Roadkill » Mon Jul 07, 2003 12:18 am

because life is violent, not sexy.

Violence is okay, when theirs a reason. Sex... is sex. A method of reproduction. Its okay for them to learn of it, but why in the world would you teach them such obscene fantasies so early, esp when they dont understand them yet? I mean, "lie detector breasts"??? wtf? if a women tries such a stupid ass move like that on me or anyone i know, the first thing that'll happen is the woman getting punched or slapped.
Image
<center>The secret's in the wings...
User avatar
Roadkill
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: somewhere

Postby Megafrost » Mon Jul 07, 2003 12:25 am

then wouldn't kids "parroting" violence be that much worse?


I've heard someone argue once before that violence was a tool for survival.

This would certainly be true in the caveman days, since it wouldn't be very easy to get food. And as for today, it might still be in our heads to use violence as a tool for survival, though not necessarily against other humans.
The universe is mine and all shall bow before the might of Megafrost, master of Orion, master of the universe...
User avatar
Megafrost
Frost Blacksmith
Frost Blacksmith
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 4:15 pm
Location: The planet of Cybertron

Postby TerraFrost » Mon Jul 07, 2003 12:29 am

for some reason, i can't seem to infer any reason behind yosemiti sam shooting up everything in sight, or that other guy always trying to kill bugs bunny...

and on top of that, i can't see how killing would be okay, even if yosemiti sam did have a reason :lila:

it's much easier, i would think, to go to prison because you're violent then because you're a slut, heh.

as for this show... this show is extra stupid... the only way 'agent 69' could be pamela lee's alter ego was if she was a retard, too, heh. (j/k)

i think the best thing that should be done with this show is... it should be forgotten. it seems to be a completly degenerate idea, and kids will probably only watch it because they're told not to and they want to be defiant (not because they like sex). i mean, you know the old addage... all publicity is good publicity... or something like that, heh :)
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Roadkill » Mon Jul 07, 2003 12:47 am

well, ive alredy seen advertisements on TV for the show... so its gotta do atleast a few eps before they cancel it.

That someone was stupid. If that was the case, then Sex would also be a tool for survival.

Well, there's two things i can say in defense to violence.

#1 - the cartoons you mention seem to represent different things than guns and killing, which automatically registers in the kids minds. It does that in mine too. You see the rabbit always get away, cleverly. And you always see the guy in frustration, which could be considered funny. It represents more of a person always finding a way out of trouble, even though trouble comes looking for them. I dont see any possible way you could get guns and killing out of that.

Also, if the kid has been watching stupid violent shows, and for some reason whatsoever starts acting violently, he'll learn rather quickly what he forgot to pay attention to in the movies. Whatever you do rebounds back in your direction. Violence will be returned unto you. It may take a bit of pounding, as in my case, but they will learn the lesson. And they will learn it much better than most people.

I dont see why the hell there is os much focus on violonce with little kids. I mean, dont you play rough violent little games when your young (which modern mothers regrettably prevent, for some reason)? Did that make you a worse person? or did you learn about how violence rebounds quicker, without as dangerous results?
Image
<center>The secret's in the wings...
User avatar
Roadkill
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: somewhere

Postby Neerowolf » Mon Jul 07, 2003 1:07 am

Its proven that when a family is shown a few choice pictures, it increases how violent they are. So, It's best to be in a non-violent environment in order to become like the Stereotypical family. If thats possible.
User avatar
Neerowolf
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 6139
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 1:37 am
Location: none.

Postby Roadkill » Mon Jul 07, 2003 1:12 am

stereotypical family? HAH!

we grew up as a rave violently, and we continue to mimick it in our games, and then our movies. It is not an unneccessary trait, either. So what is all the big deal about this?

Walmarts pulling violent video games from shelves?

I bet if their were sex movies and games public, walmart would have those off its shelf way before the video games. But they never had them on their shelves to begin with.
Image
<center>The secret's in the wings...
User avatar
Roadkill
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: somewhere

Postby Nyufrost » Mon Jul 07, 2003 2:02 am

Roadkill wrote:i suggest PG-13. Who hasnt read books with sex in them by that age?
Kids whose parents take an active interest in what they deem appropriate for that age group and don't consider sex as appropriate viewing and reading material for their child. I never read books with sex in them until I was an older teenager and read Harlequin romance books while visiting my aunt ... even those don't have blatant sex scenes so much as uber romantic love scenes.
TerraFrost wrote:if kids "parroting" sex is bad (and sex is a natural thing) then wouldn't kids "parroting" violence be that much worse?
Well, think about it, shall we? Which scenario would you find most upsetting?

1. You are visiting a friend and his kids are playing after watching Yosemite Sam. They are chasing each other, shooting at each other with fake lime green guns, pretending to get hit and rolling around on the ground and calling each other varmints.

2. You are visiting your friend and his kids enter the room after watching Striperella. Little Susie does a pole dance around a floor lamp and starts pulling off her clothes. Little Johnny is whooping "take it all off bitch!" and drops his pants and begins to play with himself. Susie procedes to do a lap dance on you then Johnny throws her on the floor and starts trying to imitate having sex with her, as he has seen on TV.
<BR><center> "Snowflakes are one of nature's most fragile things, but just look <br> what they can do when they stick together.." ... Vesta M. Kelly</center>
User avatar
Nyufrost
Frost Advisor
Frost Advisor
 
Posts: 5534
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 7:03 am
Location: Out There

Postby Roadkill » Mon Jul 07, 2003 2:12 am

i read steven kings unedited version of the Stand when i was 11 or twelve. *shrug* you hear about it and joke about it about that age too.
Image
<center>The secret's in the wings...
User avatar
Roadkill
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: somewhere

Postby TerraFrost » Mon Jul 07, 2003 3:16 am

Well, think about it, shall we? Which scenario would you find most upsetting?


to edit your scenarios around a bit... which would you rather have... a 1% chance that a kid may find a real gun, and use it as is done in cartoons, or a 10% change that a kid may take off all their clothes and act like a stripper? one of these possibilities has an unfortunate permanence to it. you can't really tell someone that what they're doing is bad after they're dead...
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Next

Return to Twilight Zone

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron