Poll of the Day > they're sexulizing young girls on television

(+) Yeah! (+)

and its getting to the point where even I have a problem with it
---

Welcome to why I don't watch TV.
---

You should probably write a letter to someone or complain about it on Facebook if you really want something done.

what?
---

shadowsword87 posted...

Welcome to why I don't watch TV.

Really that's the main reason?
---

Oops_All_Berrys posted...

shadowsword87 posted...

Welcome to why I don't watch TV.

Really that's the main reason?

Oh god no, but I am happy I'm far away from that.
No I don't watch TV because it's pure garbage, and anything that is good is available online anyway.
---

DirtBasedSoap posted...

and its getting to the point where even I have a problem with it

They've had modeling for young girls for years now.
---

Dance Moms and Toddlers and Tiara only exist to trigger housewives.
---

DirtBasedSoap posted...

and its getting to the point where even I have a problem with it

---

I don't watch a lot of TV. There's plenty of programming that doesn't sexualize young girls in my prior experience. What are some examples of what you're 'dealing with'?
---

Thoughts and prayers
---

How young is young?
---

wwinterj25 posted...

How young is young?

Y u up at 5am
---

FatalAccident posted...

Y u up at 5am

... because reasons.
---

I dont like anything about this topic
---

With all the revelations of celebrities having molested or assaulted children or adults across the small screen such as rolf harris jimmy saville robert hughes bill cosby etc. Its actually not new.
---

Espn is the most wholesome thing on tv

Sports is the only reason why I still have a television.
---

you can use tvs for stuff other than watching tvs
---

spooky96 posted...

Sports is the only reason why I still have a television.

Same man. Same.

helIy posted...

you can use tvs for stuff other than watching tvs

Same applies to monitors.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

helIy posted...

you can use tvs for stuff other than watching tvs

Same applies to monitors.

Like hall monitors?

most men don't actually have a problem with it.

it's the taboo that makes people have to say they don't like it. or to stay silent on the matter.

Fam_Fam posted...

most men don't actually have a problem with it.

it's the taboo that makes people have to say they don't like it. or to stay silent on the matter.

---

Fam_Fam posted...
yikes.gif
---

MICHALECOLE posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

helIy posted...

you can use tvs for stuff other than watching tvs

Same applies to monitors.

Like hall monitors?

In light of this topic, misuse of a hall monitor isn't best mentioned.

Fam_Fam posted...

most men don't actually have a problem with it.

it's the taboo that makes people have to say they don't like it. or to stay silent on the matter.

Most men have a problem with those percieved to be too young for sex to be presenting sexually. Of course perception varies from person to person, however any person or group is socially obligated to express to the most cautious boundary of those viewing them.

A television company expresses their stuff to the majority of the nation so are socially obligated to be more reserved than the majority of the nation.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

MICHALECOLE posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

helIy posted...

you can use tvs for stuff other than watching tvs

Same applies to monitors.

Like hall monitors?

In light of this topic, misuse of a hall monitor isn't best mentioned.

Fam_Fam posted...

most men don't actually have a problem with it.

it's the taboo that makes people have to say they don't like it. or to stay silent on the matter.

Most men have a problem with those percieved to be too young for sex to be presenting sexually. Of course perception varies from person to person, however any person or group is socially obligated to express to the most cautious boundary of those viewing them.

A television company expresses their stuff to the majority of the nation so are socially obligated to be more reserved than the majority of the nation.

of course, the perception varies. and the perception that most people have is below what is considered to be societally acceptable in many circles. people have to hide how they actually feel to fit into society. Society itself is unnatural and this is an area in which it has (in the US) developed in a way that is counter to how many people actually feel about it.

believe me, if you removed stigma and changed arbitrary legal cutoffs for things, things would be VERY different.

as for the television company, they have their target demographics, and can choose to sell whatever they think that they will buy, provided that there are the appropriate safeguards to ensure that others are aware of what they might be exposed to (i.e. warning messages at the beginning of programming / ads).

they put it out there because people want it, whether or not they want to publicly admit it.

you also, like most people, probably misjudge what people actually privately want, but cannot publicly say because of societal pressure

Fam_Fam posted...

of course, the perception varies. and the perception that most people have is below what is considered to be societally acceptable in many circles. people have to hide how they actually feel to fit into society. Society itself is unnatural and this is an area in which it has (in the US) developed in a way that is counter to how many people actually feel about it.

Do you seriously believe that social norms are developed by the minority? What is socially acceptable is what the majority accepts.

Fam_Fam posted...

believe me, if you removed stigma and changed arbitrary legal cutoffs for things, things would be VERY different.

No they wouldn't. The belligerent minority would act like deviants and the majority would evict them. The stigma exists because it's what outsiders do, it's not normal to society at large.

Fam_Fam posted...

as for the television company, they have their target demographics, and can choose to sell whatever they think that they will buy, provided that there are the appropriate safeguards to ensure that others are aware of what they might be exposed to (i.e. warning messages at the beginning of programming / ads).

Social obligations are not the same as legal obligations. Break a social obligation and you get dirty looks (like this topic), break legal obligations and you will recieve punishment. We don't make deviancy illegal as it encroaches on the right of the society to adjust as it feels is appropriate, no society accepts a tyrannical structure.

Fam_Fam posted...

they put it out there because people want it, whether or not they want to publicly admit it.

They put it out there because that's what they want to film and people will tolerate it at edited levels.

Fam_Fam posted...

you also, like most people, probably misjudge what people actually privately want, but cannot publicly say because of societal pressure

What is not publicly expressed has no room to propagate, so must develop organically, and animals as a whole are protective of children, so private opinion does not support sexual deviancy toward children.
---

So? What are you gunna do... stick ur ween into the HDMI slot?
---

Mead posted...

I dont like anything about this topic

---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

of course, the perception varies. and the perception that most people have is below what is considered to be societally acceptable in many circles. people have to hide how they actually feel to fit into society. Society itself is unnatural and this is an area in which it has (in the US) developed in a way that is counter to how many people actually feel about it.

Do you seriously believe that social norms are developed by the minority? What is socially acceptable is what the majority accepts.

Fam_Fam posted...

believe me, if you removed stigma and changed arbitrary legal cutoffs for things, things would be VERY different.

No they wouldn't. The belligerent minority would act like deviants and the majority would evict them. The stigma exists because it's what outsiders do, it's not normal to society at large.

Fam_Fam posted...

as for the television company, they have their target demographics, and can choose to sell whatever they think that they will buy, provided that there are the appropriate safeguards to ensure that others are aware of what they might be exposed to (i.e. warning messages at the beginning of programming / ads).

Social obligations are not the same as legal obligations. Break a social obligation and you get dirty looks (like this topic), break legal obligations and you will recieve punishment. We don't make deviancy illegal as it encroaches on the right of the society to adjust as it feels is appropriate, no society accepts a tyrannical structure.

Fam_Fam posted...

they put it out there because people want it, whether or not they want to publicly admit it.

They put it out there because that's what they want to film and people will tolerate it at edited levels.

Fam_Fam posted...

you also, like most people, probably misjudge what people actually privately want, but cannot publicly say because of societal pressure

What is not publicly expressed has no room to propagate, so must develop organically, and animals as a whole are protective of children, so private opinion does not support sexual deviancy toward children.

if the social norms changed, behaviors would certainly changed. The posts would shift. There is a lot of people who would be HAPPY if the posts shifts, but cannot publicly admit it. I think there's a very significant number of people who would, for example, exchange pictures of naked 16 year old girls if it was legal. This would not be a belligerent deviant minority, it would be a very common practice, I think. And you're right, people would still push the limits and would be in trouble for it, but many, many people would have no significant problem with it, and many people would partake in it happily if they could. It's not some tiny group of people who are sexually aroused by 16 year olds. That's why we have so many cases of people that get in trouble. Why do you think its so common in spite of the awful penalties and stigma associated with it? How many people do you think don't get caught? How many people do you think woudl do it if they wouldn't get shat on publicly for doing so, and if there were no legal ramificiations? A small minority?

shadowsword87 posted...

No I don't watch TV because it's pure garbage

Someone who says that must have bad taste. There's just no other explanation.

By the way don't most people consider streaming shows like Netflix originals to be "TV" now?
---

kind9 posted...

shadowsword87 posted...

No I don't watch TV because it's pure garbage

Someone who says that must have bad taste. There's just no other explanation.

By the way don't most people consider streaming shows like Netflix originals to be "TV" now?

I've always considered that <_<
---

This is an odd thing to get upset about.

How about just ignore it?
---

Fam_Fam posted...

if the social norms changed, behaviors would certainly changed. The posts would shift. There is a lot of people who would be HAPPY if the posts shifts, but cannot publicly admit it. I think there's a very significant number of people who would, for example, exchange pictures of naked 16 year old girls if it was legal. This would not be a belligerent deviant minority, it would be a very common practice, I think. And you're right, people would still push the limits and would be in trouble for it, but many, many people would have no significant problem with it, and many people would partake in it happily if they could. It's not some tiny group of people who are sexually aroused by 16 year olds. That's why we have so many cases of people that get in trouble. Why do you think its so common in spite of the awful penalties and stigma associated with it? How many people do you think don't get caught? How many people do you think woudl do it if they wouldn't get shat on publicly for doing so, and if there were no legal ramificiations? A small minority?

We don't even know what @DirtBasedSoap was referring to as "children" anyway. Your 16 year old wouldn't be a child since they would be a teen.

kind9 posted...

Someone who says that must have bad taste. There's just no other explanation.

By the way don't most people consider streaming shows like Netflix originals to be "TV" now?

They are definitely TV shows.
---

rexcrk posted...

This is an odd thing to get upset about.

How about just ignore it?

just ignore the sexual exploitation of children! its FINE
---

DirtBasedSoap posted...

just ignore the sexual exploitation of children! its FINE

You haven't defined "children" yet.
---

lol I need to define children? lmao
---

DirtBasedSoap posted...

lol I need to define children? lmao

I can do it for you if you want. This thread is most likely a troll thread anyway since multiple people have asked you to post examples of what you were even talking about and you haven't yet.
---

You say this like Disney hasn't already being doing this for over a decade on their live action shows.
---

DirtBasedSoap posted...

rexcrk posted...

This is an odd thing to get upset about.

How about just ignore it?

just ignore the sexual exploitation of children! its FINE

No way, bro.
---

Revelation34 posted...

DirtBasedSoap posted...

lol I need to define children? lmao

I can do it for you if you want. This thread is most likely a troll thread anyway since multiple people have asked you to post examples of what you were even talking about and you haven't yet.

---

Revelation34 posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

if the social norms changed, behaviors would certainly changed. The posts would shift. There is a lot of people who would be HAPPY if the posts shifts, but cannot publicly admit it. I think there's a very significant number of people who would, for example, exchange pictures of naked 16 year old girls if it was legal. This would not be a belligerent deviant minority, it would be a very common practice, I think. And you're right, people would still push the limits and would be in trouble for it, but many, many people would have no significant problem with it, and many people would partake in it happily if they could. It's not some tiny group of people who are sexually aroused by 16 year olds. That's why we have so many cases of people that get in trouble. Why do you think its so common in spite of the awful penalties and stigma associated with it? How many people do you think don't get caught? How many people do you think woudl do it if they wouldn't get shat on publicly for doing so, and if there were no legal ramificiations? A small minority?

We don't even know what @DirtBasedSoap was referring to as "children" anyway. Your 16 year old wouldn't be a child since they would be a teen.

kind9 posted...

Someone who says that must have bad taste. There's just no other explanation.

By the way don't most people consider streaming shows like Netflix originals to be "TV" now?

They are definitely TV shows.

adult = 18+ by US society's definition. 16 is a child/minor. 16 is child porn, according to the US, and i'd bet you anything a lot of people (a lot more people) would be sharing that if they could.

Fam_Fam posted...

most men don't actually have a problem with it.

it's the taboo that makes people have to say they don't like it. or to stay silent on the matter.

Uhhhhhh

Also, to your other post. **** you. I'm of the opinion that 18 is a very good 'post' for when folks should be legally able to share their naked bodies for sexual purposes. As for the 'people who are sexually aroused by 16 year olds', I'm pretty sure those individuals need to learn to curb such sexual thought. Just because somebody has certain thoughts, doesn't mean they are healthy thoughts. I may have psychotic demons that rise in my brain from time to time, but I have gained tools to quell them and suppress such episodes of psychosis. Anyone having uncontrollably sexual thoughts regarding minors needs to seek help. People of the age of 16 are still very vulnerable. Wishing to pursue such impulses is wildly irresponsible and abusive in nature.

Don't need any of your pseudoscience internet webpage quack pedo BS thaNKS
---

'a lot of people would be sharing that if they could'

yes, for sure. and I'm of the opinion that 'a lot of people' are very ill, vile and unhelpful to society at large. wanting to **** 16 year olds isn't helping anyone but yourself. I'm sure you can cite instances where people have remained happy. Hell, one of my favourite actresses (Traci Lords) lied and made porn when she was 15. Is that a good thing? No. Did things turn out ok for her? Yes. Did things turn out ok for thousands of other people that took that route? Not really, judging by teen pregnancy and poverty rates in states with poor sexual education.
---

ReturnOfFa posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

most men don't actually have a problem with it.

it's the taboo that makes people have to say they don't like it. or to stay silent on the matter.

Uhhhhhh

Also, to your other post. **** you. I'm of the opinion that 18 is a very good 'post' for when folks should be legally able to share their naked bodies for sexual purposes. As for the 'people who are sexually aroused by 16 year olds', I'm pretty sure those individuals need to learn to curb such sexual thought. Just because somebody has certain thoughts, doesn't mean they are healthy thoughts. I may have psychotic demons that rise in my brain from time to time, but I have gained tools to quell them and suppress such episodes of psychosis. Anyone having uncontrollably sexual thoughts regarding minors needs to seek help. People of the age of 16 are still very vulnerable. Wishing to pursue such impulses is wildly irresponsible and abusive in nature.

Don't need any of your pseudoscience internet webpage quack pedo BS thaNKS

A person attracted to a 16 year old isn't a pedo.
---

DirtBasedSoap posted...

even I have a problem with it

Uh, why did you word it like that
---

Aren't they sexualizing EVERYONE these days? Young men, young women, even older people are now having overly perverted or sexual characters as some kind of beacon for living a "free-spirited" life.

This has been the way entertainment has been for decades now.

Personally, I only find it problematic when people on TV can never seem to enjoy a perfectly monogamous long-term relationship. Kids get it drilled into their heads that it's normal and HEALTHY to be whoring around before they're even out of high school. Dating a new person each week. Having sex with each of them. Cheating on your partner. Being controlling. Being a cuck. Forgiving them. Never forgiving them. Saying you "love" someone after only knowing them a few weeks. It's just juvelile disgusting behavior that is very psychologically damaging for young minds.

People need to bring back morality into our entertainment when it comes to HEALTHY displays of human relationships.

Also getting real tired of all the sitcoms and shows where the wife treats her husband like total shit around everyone, and it becomes like this running gag that he's fat, bald, and dumb, and she's this flawless beacon of beauty and intelligence who only stays with him out of pity and because he's sometimes charming sorta.
---

Blorfenburger posted...

DirtBasedSoap posted...

even I have a problem with it

Uh, why did you word it like that

thats the joke
---

Mead posted...

Mead posted...

I dont like anything about this topic

You don't like anything, though.
---