Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 08/11/2010 4:14:01 AM PDT by cycle of discernment
11th August 2010
The man who helped launch the career of Kylie Minogue yesterday condemned modern pop culture for 'sexualising' youngsters.
Mike Stock, one third of the legendary pop factory Stock, Aitken and Waterman, said: 'The music industry has gone too far. It's not about me being old fashioned. It's about keeping values that are important in the modern world.
'These days you can't watch modern stars - like Britney Spears or Lady Gaga - with a two-year-old.
'Ninety-nine per cent of the charts is R 'n' B and 99 per cent of that is soft pornography.'
He continued: 'Kids are being forced to grow up too young. Look at the videos. I wouldn't necessarily want my young kids to watch them.
'I would certainly be embarrassed to sit there with my mum.'
Mr Stock believes that today's children are being 'sexualised' as a result of images put out by the pop industry of stars such as Lady Gaga.
He said: 'Mothers of young children are worried because you can't control the TV remote control.
'Before children even step into school, they have all these images - the pop videos and computer games like Grand Theft Auto - confronting them and the parents can't control it. Talking to mothers' groups, they were saying that even they have lost faith in brands like Disney.
'They were quite happy to put their kids in front of the telly to watch Hannah Montana but recently Miley Cyrus [who played Montana] has shown off her maturing body.'
'I'm being told by mothers of young kids they're worried by the pressure on them for their children to wear clothes and make-up at a young age.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
And we all know, if it’s not safe for a 2-year old, then it shouldn’t be allowed.
Well, not before the late evening anyway...
I think what we need is praying for the Christians who work in the industry. What happened to Mel Gibson, for instance, like it or not, reflected negatively on Christians.
Do what I do. NO TV.
Ahh so you’re ok with the sexualization of young kids?
“parents can’t control it”
Is that like not being able to control one’s car turning into a McDonald’s drive through? I had no problem controlling what my daughter watched, and she didn’t eat fast food either. This needs an adjective added to read “lazy parents can’t control it.” I’m blessed with a lovely daughter with modesty who started college at 13 and has social skills many would covet. As for the whole article, a “captain obvious” alert would apply for thinking people, but I’m guessing he’s a libtard and it’s aimed at libtards.
By then the parents are looking the other way and the young kids are hooked.
Of course not. I’m in favor of parents taking repsonsibility for their children. Britney Spears and Lady Gaga are adults, not child entertainers. If you’re letting your kids watch them, you’re nuts.
Funny, that’s the exact response you’d get from conservative thinking people if this were an attack on fast food’s deleterious effects on children. But since we’re talking about sex, “somebody should do something”.
If you have been able to shield your child from the 360 degrees, 24/7 sexual saturation happening in this culture...opportunistically aimed at kids, who are notoriously impressionable and the most fast and loose with their cash....Then you must be a modern-day miracle worker.
However:
If you have other pursuits in your life—like work for instance, that distract from your ability to stand watch over every “incoming” at your child—and if your child fraternizes with other children-—school pals for instance—you are naive in the extreme if you believe you can “control” your child’s exposure to today’s increasingly inappropriate content, visuals and experience.
You may have had some very outside the curve experience in your particular situation, but to imply “lazy” parents are too blame for not thwarting the avalanche of porn and damaging influence raining down upon families today is skewed and arrogant. We are fighting a tsunami. You are out of touch with the vast majority’s experience.
I venture there will be more to report in your scenario over time. You are still human, like the rest of us. Careful what you so pompously proclaim.
Such smugness is offputting.
How simplistic of you.
Connect the societal cause and effect dots... and rise above the fear that you should consider living a higher value set.
BTTT and congratulations Wolfie. You have hit the nail on the head with surgical precision.
So it’s “for the children”.
Fair enough. But accept the fact that you are putting that ball in play. Don’t be upset when others take a swing. (Fast food, soda pop, sugar, tobacco...)
Bah, it’s a lost cause. Read #13 and #14 and tell me that’s not the Nanny State writ large.
My parents did a good job keeping that stuff away from me until I was ready. Seems I should be able to do the same thing with little trouble - just homeschool, no tv, and actually know and approve of my kids’ friends. Not that hard.
“If you’re letting your kids watch them, you’re nuts.”
I agree but the problem is extremely pervasive and difficult to manage entirely. These companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars to reach your child with a sexualized message.
Its unrealistic to think you’ll be able to prevent any impact to your child without locking them in a closet.
Well said
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.