# Skins:  "The Most Dangerous Show on Television"



## chanel

> Skins is surely one of the most sexually charged programs that MTV has featured. Before it even had its premiere, the Parents Television Council, a TV watchdog group, labeled Skins the most dangerous program that has ever been foisted on your children. The group objected to the gratuitous scenes of drug and alcohol use, violence and sexual acts.
> 
> Of course, those scenes may be what attract young viewers in the first place. Jessica Bennett, a senior writer for Newsweek, wrote last week,  Skins may be the most realistic show on television.
> 
> The show is off to a running start. It attracted 3.3 million to its premiere on Monday night and set a new first-episode record for the channel among viewers ages 12 to 34.



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/b...p=1&adxnnlx=1295632949-rrIGAAUa2T6US9tiiFlDng

Has anyone seen it?  I did.  Worse than you can possibly imagine.  And I can tell you as someone who spends every day with teenagers (who often give me TMI), this is NOT "the most realistic show on television."

The most disturbing part for me was the end of the first episode.  Driving stoned, the kids run their car off a bridge into the water.  Amazingly all the passengers emerge completely unscathed and one announces "Oh shit,  The weed got wet".  And they laugh and laugh and laugh...  Scary.

Glorifying sex, drugs, and child prostitution is dangerous.  Glorifying teen driving accidents is deadly.


----------



## strollingbones

and this is why....tv's have an on...off button.....

do it with me....hell i bet you can do it with a remote now....


on....off....

most dangerous show on television....bit reactionary arent you


----------



## strollingbones

Skins | Ep. 1 | 'Tony' | MTV


----------



## chanel

No.  This is not faux outrage bones.  And as much as we'd like to think that parents have control over what their teens are watching on TV and the internet, it's simply not the case.  Most kids have TVs and computers in their bedrooms.  May not be a great idea, but it's just the way it is.

1.2 million teens watched that show the first night.  It's bad.

Several sponsors pulled their ads and the PTC is demanding a federal investigation into kiddie porn charges.  All of the actors are under 18.


----------



## Douger

chanel said:


> May not be a great idea, but it's just the way it is.


Typical fucking murkin.
That's exactly why that nation is FINISHED.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

I read where MTV had an emergency meeting after the FCC warned of possible criminal prosecution after investigating possible child pornography.
In the series, actors as young as 15 took part in sex scenes (no nudity was shown).

  MTV should be renamed to TTV (Trash TV).
MTV has not been about music for at least 10 years.

BTW - MTV has been filtered off of every TV in my house...I don't know...7-8 years now.


----------



## NYcarbineer

So?  Conservatives are putting boycotts and censorship back on the table?  Well, that didn't last long...


----------



## strollingbones

iamwhatiseem said:


> I read where MTV had an emergency meeting after the FCC warned of possible criminal prosecution after investigating possible child pornography.
> In the series, actors as young as 15 took part in sex scenes (no nudity was shown).
> 
> MTV should be renamed to TTV (Trash TV).
> MTV has not been about music for at least 10 years.
> 
> BTW - MTV has been filtered off of every TV in my house...I don't know...7-8 years now.



so you havent seen the show?  sex scenes with no nudity....o say it aint so?


----------



## chanel

The sex is salacious and may have violated the law. I don't know. I am more concerned about the glorification of drug use. There is one scene where they all sitting in a bathroom stall at school smoking a joint as if this common practice. Remarkably, they all seem to be good students. And a little drug induced car crash never hurt anyone...


----------



## RadiomanATL

silly kids. smoke the joint in your car or a friends car. thats why you get tinted windows.


----------



## Mad Scientist

NYcarbineer said:


> So?  Conservatives are putting boycotts and censorship back on the table?  Well, that didn't last long...


Agreed. *All sex acts *should be shown on tv to include fellatio, lesbian and homosexual sex. Children as young as 8 should be watching too. In fact, the FCC should mandate that all TV shows should have at least one gratuitous sex act per 30 minutes of television as a condition of license. 

How else can we push society forward against the oppressive religious right?


----------



## chanel

Hypocrisy Alert!



> The cultural Left would like you to think that children should be free to experiment persistently in the Laboratory of Life without soul-stifling rules. They have limits to libertine behavior, to be sure. *No high school bake sales (encourages obesity), no bottled water (destroys the environment), and absolutely no uncivil bullying of people who are different than you* (unless they belong to the Tea Party, in which case you can blame them for random shootings.)
> 
> Now those secular progressives at MTV have opened a new front. They feel one should enjoy a childhood stuffed with sex, drugs, and alcoholism. That would be the message of their new teen drama Skins. Adapted from a British series and filmed in Canada, MTV boasts that the actors are actually under 18  in another intepretation, we call them children  and that the show's writers are barely out of high school, so its libertine escapades are authentic, the real secret lives of teenagers.
> 
> Read more: Bozell Column: MTV's Sordid 'Skins' | NewsBusters.org


----------



## California Girl

I've seen it. I sure as hell would not be allowing my kids to watch such crap.


----------



## geauxtohell

"Dangerous"?

C'mon.

It's not society's problem if parent's are too weak to even enforce what their kids see on television.

If that's the case, you've got bigger problems than the television.


----------



## elvis

geauxtohell said:


> "Dangerous"?
> 
> C'mon.
> 
> It's not society's problem if parent's are too weak to even enforce what their kids see on television.
> 
> If that's the case, you've got bigger problems than the television.



They thought this was dangerous.....


----------



## Jackson

Is this what we've come to?  That some people would even think that this is alright and all we have to do is turn off the tv or turn the channel?  There is no place for this kind of shit on TV.  The FCC had better act and fast.

Who are the sponsors?


----------



## elvis

Jackson said:


> Is this what we've come to?  That some people would even think that this is alright and all we have to do is turn off the tv or turn the channel?  There is no place for this kind of shit on TV.  The FCC had better act and fast.
> 
> Who are the sponsors?



Taco Bell and others have pulled their sponsorship, and it's their right to do so.  the FCC has no call to play parent to your or anyone else's kids.


----------



## G.T.

I'm not offended by the show at all.


----------



## geauxtohell

elvis said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Dangerous"?
> 
> C'mon.
> 
> It's not society's problem if parent's are too weak to even enforce what their kids see on television.
> 
> If that's the case, you've got bigger problems than the television.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They thought this was dangerous.....
Click to expand...


Exactly.  Nothing new under the Sun.

Of course, it's always refreshing to see that some conservatives actually agree with big government (i.e. The FCC) as long as it's the big government that is regulating things they agree with moral values.


----------



## chanel

You mustn't be a parent or teacher.  Or you think it's ok for children to engage in prostitution and illegal drugs - without consequence.

Wouldn't it be refreshing if MTV did an honest "realistic" depiction of high school kids?  Fat kids smoking cigarettes, littering, and playing video games until 4 a.m.?  Or would that be too offensive?

Parents do not monitor teenagers' media.  Unless a parent wants to spend 24/7 with their older children, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prevent them from seeing trash like this.  What I'd like to see is all sponsors boycott the show.


----------



## Mini 14

G.T. said:


> I'm not offended by the show at all.



How many children do you have?


----------



## chanel

Ha ha.  I'm not sure what's more disgusting.  Children watching it or adults?


----------



## elvis

chanel said:


> You mustn't be a parent or teacher.  *Or you think it's ok for children to engage in prostitution and illegal drugs - without consequence.*
> 
> Wouldn't it be refreshing if MTV did an honest "realistic" depiction of high school kids?  Fat kids smoking cigarettes, littering, and playing video games until 4 a.m.?  Or would that be too offensive?
> 
> Parents do not monitor teenagers' media.  Unless a parent wants to spend 24/7 with their older children, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prevent them from seeing trash like this.  What I'd like to see is all sponsors boycott the show.



do you think it's ok to murder, or do you want all the crime dramas where the killer is never caught to be taken off the air as well?


----------



## geauxtohell

chanel said:


> You mustn't be a parent or teacher.  Or you think it's ok for children to engage in prostitution and illegal drugs - without consequence.



Oh please.  Disagreeing with your personal moral standards of decency as it applies to what is on MTV is not a tacit approval of illegal activity.



> Wouldn't it be refreshing if MTV did an honest "realistic" depiction of high school kids?  Fat kids smoking cigarettes, littering, and playing video games until 4 a.m.?  Or would that be too offensive?



No.  It would be boring and boring =/= bad ratings.  Bad ratings equals poor profit.  Capitalism.  Dig it.



> Parents do not monitor teenagers' media.  Unless a parent wants to spend 24/7 with their older children, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prevent them from seeing trash like this.  What I'd like to see is all sponsors boycott the show.



Damn.  I guess at some point in their lives, parents need to cut the umbilical cord and build a relationship of trust with their children.  If they can't do it over the damn T.V., they are going to have real trouble when it comes to the car keys.


----------



## Mini 14

elvis said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mustn't be a parent or teacher.  *Or you think it's ok for children to engage in prostitution and illegal drugs - without consequence.*
> 
> Wouldn't it be refreshing if MTV did an honest "realistic" depiction of high school kids?  Fat kids smoking cigarettes, littering, and playing video games until 4 a.m.?  Or would that be too offensive?
> 
> Parents do not monitor teenagers' media.  Unless a parent wants to spend 24/7 with their older children, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prevent them from seeing trash like this.  What I'd like to see is all sponsors boycott the show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you think it's ok to murder, or do you want all the crime dramas where the killer is never caught to be taken off the air as well?
Click to expand...


As long as it doesn't involve crosshairs, its harmless, right?

That show is an irresponsible piece of garbage, and yes, I agree that it is VERY dangerous.


----------



## geauxtohell

Mini 14 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not offended by the show at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many children do you have?
Click to expand...


How does spitting out a couple of kids give you the latitude to decide what can and can't come across my television?


----------



## G.T.

lol @ it being daNgerous


----------



## chanel

elvis said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mustn't be a parent or teacher.  *Or you think it's ok for children to engage in prostitution and illegal drugs - without consequence.*
> 
> Wouldn't it be refreshing if MTV did an honest "realistic" depiction of high school kids?  Fat kids smoking cigarettes, littering, and playing video games until 4 a.m.?  Or would that be too offensive?
> 
> Parents do not monitor teenagers' media.  Unless a parent wants to spend 24/7 with their older children, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prevent them from seeing trash like this.  What I'd like to see is all sponsors boycott the show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you think it's ok to murder, or do you want all the crime dramas where the killer is never caught to be taken off the air as well?
Click to expand...


No elvis.  I am not a proponent of murder.  

I've never seen a TV show where the killer isn't caught, but I am not a fan of gratuitous violence either.


----------



## geauxtohell

Mini 14 said:


> As long as it doesn't involve crosshairs, its harmless, right?
> 
> That show is an irresponsible piece of garbage, and yes, I agree that it is VERY dangerous.



Television shows are dangerous, but you oppose any form of gun regulation (if I remember correctly)?

The last time I checked, a television never blew the head off of a kid who mishandled it.  

Don't mistake this for me being pro-gun control.

I am just pointing out that "dangerous" is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## elvis

Mini 14 said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mustn't be a parent or teacher.  *Or you think it's ok for children to engage in prostitution and illegal drugs - without consequence.*
> 
> Wouldn't it be refreshing if MTV did an honest "realistic" depiction of high school kids?  Fat kids smoking cigarettes, littering, and playing video games until 4 a.m.?  Or would that be too offensive?
> 
> Parents do not monitor teenagers' media.  Unless a parent wants to spend 24/7 with their older children, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prevent them from seeing trash like this.  What I'd like to see is all sponsors boycott the show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you think it's ok to murder, or do you want all the crime dramas where the killer is never caught to be taken off the air as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as it doesn't involve crosshairs, its harmless, right?
> 
> That show is an irresponsible piece of garbage, and yes, I agree that it is VERY dangerous.
Click to expand...


I defended Palin on the crosshairs issue.  Try again.


----------



## Mini 14

geauxtohell said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not offended by the show at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many children do you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does spitting out a couple of kids give you the latitude to decide what can and can't come across my television?
Click to expand...


I never implied that.

Having children, I think it puts it in a different perspective than it might be perceived by someone who doesn't have children. I merely asked G.T. if he had any kids, as he stated he isn't offended by it at all. 

Sorry if my post didn't fit neatly inside your little box


----------



## boedicca

strollingbones said:


> and this is why....tv's have an on...off button.....
> 
> do it with me....hell i bet you can do it with a remote now....
> 
> 
> on....off....
> 
> most dangerous show on television....bit reactionary arent you




This is a good time to invoke and modify Sturgeon's Revelation:  "90% of Everything is Crap."

On television, the ratio is easily 99%.


----------



## geauxtohell




----------



## geauxtohell

Mini 14 said:


> I never implied that.
> 
> Having children, I think it puts it in a different perspective than it might be perceived by someone who doesn't have children. I merely asked G.T. if he had any kids, as he stated he isn't offended by it at all.
> 
> Sorry if my post didn't fit neatly inside your little box



Great.  That's why you are the king of your castle and regulator of the airwaves under your roof.  

Having kids skews your whole perspective of decency?  I am willing to bet that parents don't stop looking at pornography once they have kids.  The content of the material isn't offensive to them.  The concept of their kids looking at it is.  That's reasonable, but it doesn't change the fact that what you deem to be offensive to your kids is not offensive to adults.


----------



## Mini 14

geauxtohell said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as it doesn't involve crosshairs, its harmless, right?
> 
> That show is an irresponsible piece of garbage, and yes, I agree that it is VERY dangerous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Television shows are dangerous, but you oppose any form of gun regulation (if I remember correctly)?
> 
> The last time I checked, a television never blew the head off of a kid who mishandled it.
> 
> Don't mistake this for me being pro-gun control.
> 
> I am just pointing out that "dangerous" is in the eye of the beholder.
Click to expand...


You remember incorrectly. I support regulation, at the level we currently have (with some possible qualifiers to be added). If anything, I am one of the most stringent gun dealers you will ever meet with regard to who should be allowed to possess a firearm, and how they should be allowed to do so. I turn away more people in a month than most dealers likely do in a career. "Not just anyone" can buy a gun from me. If I am personally not comfortable with you having a firearm, you will not walk out of my stores with one.

Firearms can be dangerous in the hands of the wrong person.

Can "art" be dangerous if shown to the wrong person?


----------



## Mini 14

geauxtohell said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never implied that.
> 
> Having children, I think it puts it in a different perspective than it might be perceived by someone who doesn't have children. I merely asked G.T. if he had any kids, as he stated he isn't offended by it at all.
> 
> Sorry if my post didn't fit neatly inside your little box
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  That's why you are the king of your castle and regulator of the airwaves under your roof.
> 
> Having kids skews your whole perspective of decency?  I am willing to bet that parents don't stop looking at pornography once they have kids.  The content of the material isn't offensive to them.  The concept of their kids looking at it is.  That's reasonable, but it doesn't change the fact that what you deem to be offensive to your kids is not offensive to adults.
Click to expand...


My kids aren't "adults."

You're defeating your own argument. I'm not saying that it is dangerous to adults at all, or that some adults might not find it entertaining and interesting.

But "kids" are not "adults."

There is a reason we don't let them vote, participate in pornography, or drink (among other things). It has to do with maturity, impressionability, and experience. 

An "adult" has dealt with those.

A "kid" has not.


----------



## Mini 14

elvis said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you think it's ok to murder, or do you want all the crime dramas where the killer is never caught to be taken off the air as well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as it doesn't involve crosshairs, its harmless, right?
> 
> That show is an irresponsible piece of garbage, and yes, I agree that it is VERY dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I defended Palin on the crosshairs issue.  Try again.
Click to expand...


I didn't mean to aim that at you, specifically. It was a general observation, I apologize for making it look as if I was sticking it on you.


----------



## Mini 14

geauxtohell said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never implied that.
> 
> Having children, I think it puts it in a different perspective than it might be perceived by someone who doesn't have children. I merely asked G.T. if he had any kids, as he stated he isn't offended by it at all.
> 
> Sorry if my post didn't fit neatly inside your little box
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  That's why you are the king of your castle and regulator of the airwaves under your roof.
> 
> Having kids skews your whole perspective of decency?  I am willing to bet that parents don't stop looking at pornography once they have kids.  The content of the material isn't offensive to them.  The concept of their kids looking at it is.  That's reasonable, but it doesn't change the fact that what you deem to be offensive to your kids is not offensive to adults.
Click to expand...


I notice GT didn't answer.

How about you?

How many children do you have, Geauxto?


----------



## random3434

OK, this liberal thinks this show is just another sign of the Apocalypse, just like ANY reality show out there.

 Highest rated program for them? Of course it is, who doesn't want to watch underage kids drink, smoke, get high and have sex on cable TV? Teens watch it because they can relate, adults watch it to get some sort of thrill.

Good for the sponsers that pulled their ads. Maybe all that will be left is those hearing aid and phone sex commercials. 


*I don't think my 15 year old will be watching this show, when she wakes up (it is only 10:40 on a Sunday ya know) I'll ask her if she's heard of it. I'm sure if she has she'd say those kids are idiots, she doesn't suffer fools gladly.


----------



## chanel

How does the saying go "Its hard to define pornography, but I know it when I see it"?

Next week they will feature minors engaging in lesbian sex and in Week 3 - child nudity.  Be sure to set your DVRs pervs.


----------



## random3434

PS:

Have any of us commenting even watched the show? I haven't, as a matter of fact I'd never heard of it until now. We don't watch a lot of TV in our house, as a matter of fact, the TV in the living room where Mini-Echo hangs out is never on during the week unless we are watching something together. I don't think it's been on all weekend, but will be today for the football games.

Anyhoo............I feel like I need to see a bit of this to see what it's all about, then come back and comment further.


----------



## Mini 14

Echo Zulu said:


> PS:
> 
> Have any of us commenting even watched the show? I haven't, as a matter of fact I'd never heard of it until now. We don't watch a lot of TV in our house, as a matter of fact, the TV in the living room where Mini-Echo hangs out is never on during the week unless we are watching something together. I don't think it's been on all weekend, but will be today for the football games.
> 
> Anyhoo............I feel like I need to see a bit of this to see what it's all about, then come back and comment further.



EZ....strollingbones provided a link in an earlier reply. I watched about 15 minutes, scanning through from beginning to end.

Even if the other 15 minutes were socially redeeming, I still find it offensive and irresponsible. 

I hope (and trust) that my kids would react as yours.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

chanel said:


> No.  This is not faux outrage bones.  And as much as we'd like to think that parents have control over what their teens are watching on TV and the internet, it's simply not the case.  Most kids have TVs and computers in their bedrooms.  May not be a great idea, but it's just the way it is.
> 
> 1.2 million teens watched that show the first night.  It's bad.
> 
> Several sponsors pulled their ads and the PTC is demanding a federal investigation into kiddie porn charges.  All of the actors are under 18.



Most cable outlets and satellite programs as well as Internet providers have parental controls that can be used to block certain shows and channels in your house.

Regarding the kiddie porn charges, unless the actors were truly engaging in sexual acts on the show this charge is nothing but crying wolf.

While I do agree with you that shows with gratuitous sex and drug use aimed at teenagers, like this one, are contributing to the moral decay of society, the way to stop that and protect your children from it is for you to be a better parent to you own kids and not expect the government to be one for you.


----------



## elvis

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  This is not faux outrage bones.  And as much as we'd like to think that parents have control over what their teens are watching on TV and the internet, it's simply not the case.  Most kids have TVs and computers in their bedrooms.  May not be a great idea, but it's just the way it is.
> 
> 1.2 million teens watched that show the first night.  It's bad.
> 
> Several sponsors pulled their ads and the PTC is demanding a federal investigation into kiddie porn charges.  All of the actors are under 18.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most cable outlets and satellite programs as well as Internet providers have parental controls that can be used to block certain shows and channels in your house.
> 
> Regarding the kiddie porn charges, unless the actors were truly engaging in sexual acts on the show this charge is nothing but crying wolf.
> 
> While I do agree with you that shows with gratuitous sex and drug use aimed at teenagers, like this one, are contributing to the moral decay of society, the way to stop that and protect your children from it is for you to be a better parent to you own kids and not expect the government to be one for you.
Click to expand...


I agree.  Either use the parental controls or cancel the expanded cable.


----------



## uscitizen

MTV can fe blocked on cable and satellite.  And who uses the V-chip option?
And yes you give them computers in their room instead of in a commons area.

But of course there is nothing a parent can do...


----------



## geauxtohell

Mini 14 said:


> You remember incorrectly. I support regulation, at the level we currently have (with some possible qualifiers to be added). If anything, I am one of the most stringent gun dealers you will ever meet with regard to who should be allowed to possess a firearm, and how they should be allowed to do so. I turn away more people in a month than most dealers likely do in a career. "Not just anyone" can buy a gun from me. If I am personally not comfortable with you having a firearm, you will not walk out of my stores with one.
> 
> Firearms can be dangerous in the hands of the wrong person.



After Arizona, some people wanted to ban clips that held more than 10 rounds.  Would you support that?



> Can "art" be dangerous if shown to the wrong person?



No.


----------



## elvis

geauxtohell said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You remember incorrectly. I support regulation, at the level we currently have (with some possible qualifiers to be added). If anything, I am one of the most stringent gun dealers you will ever meet with regard to who should be allowed to possess a firearm, and how they should be allowed to do so. I turn away more people in a month than most dealers likely do in a career. "Not just anyone" can buy a gun from me. If I am personally not comfortable with you having a firearm, you will not walk out of my stores with one.
> 
> Firearms can be dangerous in the hands of the wrong person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After Arizona, some people wanted to ban clips that held more than 10 rounds.  Would you support that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can "art" be dangerous if shown to the wrong person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...


should have banned the white album after the Tate and LaBianca murders.


----------



## random3434

*OK, Mini-Echo is up. I asked her about this show, here she is to tell her opinion:*

_
I personally think the show is a dumb show, I watched it- it's just some MTV ploy to get teenagers to watch their show by "connecting" with the equally dumb characters. It's just another "The Hills" or "Gossip Girl" type of crappy show, then again people who watch it most likely watch the Jersey Shore, which says a lot about the person. I will never watch it again, this show targets the dumb teenagers that can't think for themselves like the reality shows. Some kids (in my school) goal is to try out for reality shows, how lame is that?
Anyway, 'Skins' is a stupid show._


*(she typed that but didn't read the thread, I just asked her about the show. I TRUST her and her judgement, enough said.) *


----------



## Mini 14

geauxtohell said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You remember incorrectly. I support regulation, at the level we currently have (with some possible qualifiers to be added). If anything, I am one of the most stringent gun dealers you will ever meet with regard to who should be allowed to possess a firearm, and how they should be allowed to do so. I turn away more people in a month than most dealers likely do in a career. "Not just anyone" can buy a gun from me. If I am personally not comfortable with you having a firearm, you will not walk out of my stores with one.
> 
> Firearms can be dangerous in the hands of the wrong person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After Arizona, some people wanted to ban clips that held more than 10 rounds.  Would you support that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can "art" be dangerous if shown to the wrong person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...


Clips holding more than 10 rounds are already banned in some areas. In general, no, I wouldn't support it, because it doesn't do anything. My sidearm holds 8 rounds in the magazine. I own 9 magazines. The time to reload is negligible to a well trained person, especially when no one else is firing back.

I disagree with you about art being dangerous if shown to the wrong person. So do those who are blaming Palin's crosshairs for Loughner's violence, as well as the Muslims who have threatened the cartoonist's life for his images of Mohammed.


----------



## Mini 14

Echo Zulu said:


> *OK, Mini-Echo is up. I asked her about this show, here she is to tell her opinion:*
> 
> _
> I personally think the show is a dumb show, I watched it- it's just some MTV ploy to get teenagers to watch their show by "connecting" with the equally dumb characters. It's just another "The Hills" or "Gossip Girl" type of crappy show, then again people who watch it most likely watch the Jersey Shore, which says a lot about the person. I will never watch it again, this show targets the dumb teenagers that can't think for themselves like the reality shows. Some kids (in my school) goal is to try out for reality shows, how lame is that?
> Anyway, 'Skins' is a stupid show._
> 
> 
> *(she typed that but didn't read the thread, I just asked her about the show. I TRUST her and her judgement, enough said.) *



You're obviously a great parent, EZ.

Job well done!


----------



## geauxtohell

chanel said:


> How does the saying go "Its hard to define pornography, but I know it when I see it"?
> 
> Next week they will feature minors engaging in lesbian sex and in Week 3 - child nudity.  Be sure to set your DVRs pervs.



Who is that directed at? 

You are better than this.


----------



## Mini 14

geauxtohell said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the saying go "Its hard to define pornography, but I know it when I see it"?
> 
> Next week they will feature minors engaging in lesbian sex and in Week 3 - child nudity.  Be sure to set your DVRs pervs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is that directed at?
> 
> You are better than this.
Click to expand...


Geauxto.....did you see my question about how many children you have?

Is that too personal of a question to ask?


----------



## geauxtohell

Mini 14 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never implied that.
> 
> Having children, I think it puts it in a different perspective than it might be perceived by someone who doesn't have children. I merely asked G.T. if he had any kids, as he stated he isn't offended by it at all.
> 
> Sorry if my post didn't fit neatly inside your little box
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  That's why you are the king of your castle and regulator of the airwaves under your roof.
> 
> Having kids skews your whole perspective of decency?  I am willing to bet that parents don't stop looking at pornography once they have kids.  The content of the material isn't offensive to them.  The concept of their kids looking at it is.  That's reasonable, but it doesn't change the fact that what you deem to be offensive to your kids is not offensive to adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice GT didn't answer.
> 
> How about you?
> 
> How many children do you have, Geauxto?
Click to expand...


None.

Now tell me why that is germane.


----------



## random3434

Mini 14 said:


> Echo Zulu said:
> 
> 
> 
> *OK, Mini-Echo is up. I asked her about this show, here she is to tell her opinion:*
> 
> _
> I personally think the show is a dumb show, I watched it- it's just some MTV ploy to get teenagers to watch their show by "connecting" with the equally dumb characters. It's just another "The Hills" or "Gossip Girl" type of crappy show, then again people who watch it most likely watch the Jersey Shore, which says a lot about the person. I will never watch it again, this show targets the dumb teenagers that can't think for themselves like the reality shows. Some kids (in my school) goal is to try out for reality shows, how lame is that?
> Anyway, 'Skins' is a stupid show._
> 
> 
> *(she typed that but didn't read the thread, I just asked her about the show. I TRUST her and her judgement, enough said.) *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're obviously a great parent, EZ.
> 
> Job well done!
Click to expand...


Thanks, she's a great kid, and like I said I trust her and her judgement. She asked me if she could type '_*crappy'*_ on here lol!


----------



## geauxtohell

Mini 14 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never implied that.
> 
> Having children, I think it puts it in a different perspective than it might be perceived by someone who doesn't have children. I merely asked G.T. if he had any kids, as he stated he isn't offended by it at all.
> 
> Sorry if my post didn't fit neatly inside your little box
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  That's why you are the king of your castle and regulator of the airwaves under your roof.
> 
> Having kids skews your whole perspective of decency?  I am willing to bet that parents don't stop looking at pornography once they have kids.  The content of the material isn't offensive to them.  The concept of their kids looking at it is.  That's reasonable, but it doesn't change the fact that what you deem to be offensive to your kids is not offensive to adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My kids aren't "adults."
> 
> You're defeating your own argument. I'm not saying that it is dangerous to adults at all, or that some adults might not find it entertaining and interesting.
> 
> But "kids" are not "adults."
> 
> There is a reason we don't let them vote, participate in pornography, or drink (among other things). It has to do with maturity, impressionability, and experience.
> 
> An "adult" has dealt with those.
> 
> A "kid" has not.
Click to expand...


Isn't that what I just said?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Mad Scientist said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So?  Conservatives are putting boycotts and censorship back on the table?  Well, that didn't last long...
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. *All sex acts *should be shown on tv to include fellatio, lesbian and homosexual sex. Children as young as 8 should be watching too. In fact, the FCC should mandate that all TV shows should have at least one gratuitous sex act per 30 minutes of television as a condition of license.
> 
> How else can we push society forward against the oppressive religious right?
Click to expand...


You free market guys are fabulous dancers.


----------



## Mini 14

geauxtohell said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  That's why you are the king of your castle and regulator of the airwaves under your roof.
> 
> Having kids skews your whole perspective of decency?  I am willing to bet that parents don't stop looking at pornography once they have kids.  The content of the material isn't offensive to them.  The concept of their kids looking at it is.  That's reasonable, but it doesn't change the fact that what you deem to be offensive to your kids is not offensive to adults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice GT didn't answer.
> 
> How about you?
> 
> How many children do you have, Geauxto?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None.
> 
> Now tell me why that is germane.
Click to expand...


That being the case, can you see where there may be a perspective here from which you cannot judge one of the arguments against the show? I'm generalizing greatly here, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that those of us arguing against the merit of this show all have children. HAVING children, and IMAGINING having children, are two entirely different things (I IMAGINED having children before I actually had them, and it is an entirely UNIMAGINABLE reality, until you're there).

Further generalization.......I'll bet those arguing that the show is fine, there is nothing wrong with it, and its your right (which it certainly is) DO NOT have children. 

I don't think that correlation (if I'm correct) is coincidental.


----------



## NYcarbineer

G.T. said:


> I'm not offended by the show at all.



I haven't watched MTV in over 20 years, at least.

That may change.


----------



## geauxtohell

Mini 14 said:


> Clips holding more than 10 rounds are already banned in some areas. In general, no, I wouldn't support it, because it doesn't do anything. My sidearm holds 8 rounds in the magazine. I own 9 magazines. The time to reload is negligible to a well trained person, especially when no one else is firing back.
> 
> I disagree with you about art being dangerous if shown to the wrong person. So do those who are blaming Palin's crosshairs for Loughner's violence, as well as the Muslims who have threatened the cartoonist's life for his images of Mohammed.



Would you support a law requiring child locks on all firearms in a house that had children in it?

It's irrelevant to me what knee jerk liberals/conservative or insane Muslims deem as dangerous art.  You asked me the question, and my response was "no".


----------



## Mini 14

geauxtohell said:


> Would you support a law requiring child locks on all firearms in a house that had children in it?
> 
> It's irrelevant to me what knee jerk liberals/conservative or insane Muslims deem as dangerous art.  You asked me the question, and my response was "no".



No, I would not support a law REQUIRING trigger locks on ALL firearms in a house with children.

Does your perception of "irrelevance" with regards to their reactions make the real threat any less dangerous? I mean, because you think it is irrelevant, should the cartoonist relax because the Muslims aren't going to do anything now that you've deemed it irrelevant?

Is it "irrelevant" merely because it doesn't affect you?


----------



## geauxtohell

Mini 14 said:


> That being the case, can you see where there may be a perspective here from which you cannot judge one of the arguments against the show? I'm generalizing greatly here, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that those of us arguing against the merit of this show all have children. HAVING children, and IMAGINING having children, are two entirely different things (I IMAGINED having children before I actually had them, and it is an entirely UNIMAGINABLE reality, until you're there).
> 
> Further generalization.......I'll bet those arguing that the show is fine, there is nothing wrong with it, and its your right (which it certainly is) DO NOT have children.
> 
> I don't think that correlation (if I'm correct) is coincidental.



Excellent, this is exactly where I wanted this argument to go.  

Now reconcile your above statement with your statement in this post #31 and then answer my original question from post #31.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3241274-post31.html


----------



## Mini 14

geauxtohell said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That being the case, can you see where there may be a perspective here from which you cannot judge one of the arguments against the show? I'm generalizing greatly here, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that those of us arguing against the merit of this show all have children. HAVING children, and IMAGINING having children, are two entirely different things (I IMAGINED having children before I actually had them, and it is an entirely UNIMAGINABLE reality, until you're there).
> 
> Further generalization.......I'll bet those arguing that the show is fine, there is nothing wrong with it, and its your right (which it certainly is) DO NOT have children.
> 
> I don't think that correlation (if I'm correct) is coincidental.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent, this is exactly where I wanted this argument to go.
> 
> Now reconcile your above statement with your statement in this post #31 and then answer my original question from post #31.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3241274-post31.html
Click to expand...


Simple enough!

I never said the show should be censored (though I would take it off the air in a heartbeat if it were my decision, and not give a rip what anyone thought), only that it was dangerous and irresponsible. It is up to each individual parent/person whether or not they watch the show or not. Watch it all you want, it doesn't make it any less dangerous to the right audience, IMO.

Again, you need a different box. I don't fit in the one you're currently wanting to use.


----------



## geauxtohell

Mini 14 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you support a law requiring child locks on all firearms in a house that had children in it?
> 
> It's irrelevant to me what knee jerk liberals/conservative or insane Muslims deem as dangerous art.  You asked me the question, and my response was "no".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I would not support a law REQUIRING trigger locks on ALL firearms in a house with children.
> 
> 
> 
> This is my point exactly:  "dangerous" is in the eye of the beholder.  You don't deem firearms dangerous enough to children to legally require protections on those weapons to prevent children from shooting themselves.  Even though you can't argue miss-use of a gun is not as dangerous as miss-use of a television.  Yet, you do deem a television show to be dangerous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does your perception of "irrelevance" with regards to their reactions make the real threat any less dangerous? I mean, because you think it is irrelevant, should the cartoonist relax because the Muslims aren't going to do anything now that you've deemed it irrelevant?
> 
> Is it "irrelevant" merely because it doesn't affect you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's irrelevant to my position in this argument.  I don't have to account for the actions of the fringe when it comes to my own beliefs and opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## geauxtohell

Mini 14 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That being the case, can you see where there may be a perspective here from which you cannot judge one of the arguments against the show? I'm generalizing greatly here, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that those of us arguing against the merit of this show all have children. HAVING children, and IMAGINING having children, are two entirely different things (I IMAGINED having children before I actually had them, and it is an entirely UNIMAGINABLE reality, until you're there).
> 
> Further generalization.......I'll bet those arguing that the show is fine, there is nothing wrong with it, and its your right (which it certainly is) DO NOT have children.
> 
> I don't think that correlation (if I'm correct) is coincidental.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent, this is exactly where I wanted this argument to go.
> 
> Now reconcile your above statement with your statement in this post #31 and then answer my original question from post #31.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3241274-post31.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple enough!
> 
> I never said the show should be censored (though I would take it off the air in a heartbeat if it were my decision, and not give a rip what anyone thought), only that it was dangerous and irresponsible. It is up to each individual parent/person whether or not they watch the show or not. Watch it all you want, it doesn't make it any less dangerous to the right audience, IMO.
> 
> Again, you need a different box. I don't fit in the one you're currently wanting to use.
Click to expand...


Then, again, why is it even germane if we have kids?  I don't need kids to find things offensive and not watch them.

It's absurd that some people feel as if they've reached a higher state of conscious/morality simply because they have children.


----------



## chanel

Parents and teachers worry more about the dangers and complexities of adolescence geautohell.  This is just another nail in the coffin of innocence.  Yes.  Some of them still aren't having sex or doing drugs.  In this show, kids just doing kid stuff are portrayed as total losers.


----------



## Mini 14

geauxtohell said:


> This is my point exactly:  "dangerous" is in the eye of the beholder.  You don't deem firearms dangerous enough to children to legally require protections on those weapons to prevent children from shooting themselves.  Even though you can't argue miss-use of a gun is not as dangerous as miss-use of a television.  Yet, you do deem a television show to be dangerous.
> 
> 
> 
> It's irrelevant to my position in this argument.  I don't have to account for the actions of the fringe when it comes to my own beliefs and opinions.



I never said that I don't deem firearms dangerous enough to children. When did I say that?

Still haven't found the right box, have you?

I know children who I would rather see holding a firearm than some adults I know. In general, kids and guns don't mix, but it has to do with experience, maturity, and impressionability. 

Which is my exact argument with this show.


----------



## Zoom-boing

chanel said:


> No.  This is not faux outrage bones.  And as much as we'd like to think that parents have control over what their teens are watching on TV and the internet, it's simply not the case.  Most kids have TVs and computers in their bedrooms.  *May not be a great idea, but it's just the way it is.*
> 
> 1.2 million teens watched that show the first night.  It's bad.
> 
> Several sponsors pulled their ads and the PTC is demanding a federal investigation into kiddie porn charges.  All of the actors are under 18.



And THAT is the parent's fault.  Period.

We have parental locks on the tvs and use them.  MTV is blocked, shows are blocked based on the content ratings we choose, channels we deem unsuitable are blocked.  No tv, computers in the bedrooms.  My kids won't see this show unless they see it at another kids house.

As to the show . . . the bar has been lowered that anything goes.  I call bullshit on the 'just turn it off' too.  The solution is that the bar needs to be raised again and kept there.  (Oh but the left will cry 'censorship'.  )


----------



## chanel

Well zoom I applaud your diligence. I can't say I've done the same, but I have never allowed my kids TVs in their rooms. 

But I still find it a bit disingenuous when people who believe that its the govts job to feed the children and for the school's job to raise the kids, suddenly find that v-chips are the parents' responsibility. Weird, huh?


----------



## strollingbones

i just finished watching the 1st show....i have to wonder what sheltered life one must lead to think this is the most dangerous show on television?


----------



## Zoom-boing

chanel said:


> Well zoom I applaud your diligence. I can't say I've done the same, but I have never allowed my kids TVs in their rooms.
> 
> But I still find it a bit disingenuous when people who believe that its the govts job to feed the children and for the school's job to raise the kids, suddenly find that v-chips are the parents' responsibility. Weird, huh?



I should have edited my post to include that they won't see this show unless they see it at another kids house or on the internet.  THAT is proving to be much more difficult to control content-wise than tv.  The computer the kids use is in the living room but it's still in the next room.  I'm looking into parental controls for that.  Too much available crap and not nearly enough blocking controls for it.

Didn't you hear?  We need to be more like Europe in our attitudes.  Morality is soooo yesterday.


----------



## geauxtohell

chanel said:


> Parents and teachers worry more about the dangers and complexities of adolescence geautohell.  This is just another nail in the coffin of innocence.  Yes.  Some of them still aren't having sex or doing drugs.  In this show, kids just doing kid stuff are portrayed as total losers.



Doom and gloom!  Doom and gloom!  We've been nailing this "adolescent coffin" shut for as long as I can remember.  

It's only a "nail in the coffin of innocence" if parents aren't doing their job.  If that's the case, I would venture to guess they weren't doing their job a long time before this show was broadcast.  

Sex sells.  It's no secret.  It's just strange that you guys still act like this is anything knew.  

I'd also argue that the kids who are ambitious probably aren't going to let their plans be stymied by the shit that comes across MTV.  It's not like someone is going to say:  "I'd have gone to Harvard if it weren't for that damn "Skins" show that led me into a life of sex and drugs!"


----------



## strollingbones

o and i watched it on the computer


----------



## geauxtohell

Mini 14 said:


> I never said that I don't deem firearms dangerous enough to children. When did I say that?



You didn't.  However, you don't deem the dangerous enough to support trigger locks.  It's not an esoteric point, as every year children are killed by miss-handling their parent's weapons.  To date, no child had been killed by miss-handling a television.  

Again, my point is this:  "dangerous" is in the eyes of the beholder.  



> Still haven't found the right box, have you?
> 
> I know children who I would rather see holding a firearm than some adults I know. In general, kids and guns don't mix, but it has to do with experience, maturity, and impressionability.
> 
> Which is my exact argument with this show.



So some children should be able to watch the show, but not others?


----------



## strollingbones

Uproar over 'Skins' is a blessing for the show - Entertainment - Television - TODAYshow.com


----------



## geauxtohell

chanel said:


> Well zoom I applaud your diligence. I can't say I've done the same, but I have never allowed my kids TVs in their rooms.
> 
> But I still find it a bit disingenuous when people who believe that its the govts job to feed the children and for the school's job to raise the kids, suddenly find that v-chips are the parents' responsibility. Weird, huh?



Yes.  The television being under the roof of the parents should be the responsibility of the parents to regulate.

What is your solution?  Allowing the government to regulate your TV (aside from the fact that they already do that with the FCC).


----------



## chanel

I've already stated what I'd like to see: sponsors boycotting the show.

Yes sex sells. But selling kiddie sex is still against the law. For now...


----------



## chanel

Oh and I believe cable shows are exempt from FCC rules. Maybe that should be changed.


----------



## G.T.

I'll venture to guess that the kids will run into trouble with the law, (down the road in the season), the one girl almost DIED, already, one ritzy girl had a party and her consequence was that her parent's house was destroyed and her Dad's SUV was stoled and driven into a river....

Glorifying it/that life? It didn't look like that, to me. It looked like quite a good repellant, to me.


----------



## Mini 14

geauxtohell said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that I don't deem firearms dangerous enough to children. When did I say that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't.  However, you don't deem the dangerous enough to support trigger locks.  It's not an esoteric point, as every year children are killed by miss-handling their parent's weapons.  To date, no child had been killed by miss-handling a television.
> 
> Again, my point is this:  "dangerous" is in the eyes of the beholder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still haven't found the right box, have you?
> 
> I know children who I would rather see holding a firearm than some adults I know. In general, kids and guns don't mix, but it has to do with experience, maturity, and impressionability.
> 
> Which is my exact argument with this show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So some children should be able to watch the show, but not others?
Click to expand...


You just hear what you want to hear, don't you?

I never said I don't support trigger locks. Never. (In fact, if you've read my posts in other threads, you would know that parents leave my stores with MULTIPLE, FREE trigger locks, not just the one required by law). I said I wouldn't support a law REQUIRING trigger locks on ALL guns in homes where children are present. Big difference in what I said, and what you wish I had said. 

Yes, I think there are some children who are better suited to view the show than others. 

You're just all about absolutes, aren't you?

There is no grey area with you....it either fits in the box, or you cram it in the box whether it fits or not.

I realize now what a futile endeavor this was to think we could have a constructive discussion about it. No matter what I say, you hear whatever it is that you want to hear that will support your preconceived debate, and you think that because you haven't experienced something, its irrelevant, it doesn't matter, its bullshit.

I'm a gun dealer....... so I must hate kids, trigger locks, and think all guns should come equipped with high-cap mags.

I'm a parent....... so I must think I'm better than you, must think I'm more in-touch with kids, better suited to judge what is "good" and what is "bad" simply because I have procreated. 

Here's a little lagniappe for you, brother:

I'm not a coonass, but I know lot of them. That doesn't make me an expert on all things cajun.

Right over your head, I'm sure.......


----------



## G.T.

Further, even if it did glorify it, I still think it's essentially the parent's responsibility to engage in moral and value teaching to their kids..................if they're letting their TVs do it then they're not doing that great of a job as parents. 

When I have a kid (no I don't have any), he's not going to be censored from much. He's going to be taught the value of right vs. wrong by me and my wife, not by his television or MTV. 

When I was a teen, I watched Beavis and Butthead. To date, I didn't live in a slum shack spending every day trying to break the law and acting like a retard.


----------



## Mini 14

Hey bones....

Do you have kids (I honestly don't remember)?


----------



## G.T.

If anyone thinks a television show, which even 5-year olds can determine is Scripted, fake Entertainment......is Dangerous...

but thinks that over the top hateful hyperbole against _REAL LIFE _political opponents is alright, good and fine, then you've got yourself into a juxtaposition here.


----------



## Mini 14

G.T. said:


> If anyone thinks a television show, which even 5-year olds can determine is Scripted, fake Entertainment......is Dangerous...
> 
> but thinks that over the top hateful hyperbole against _REAL LIFE _political opponents is alright, good and fine, then you've got yourself into a juxtaposition here.



Vice versa as well, GT.

Which has been a minor point of mine all along.


----------



## G.T.

Mini 14 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone thinks a television show, which even 5-year olds can determine is Scripted, fake Entertainment......is Dangerous...
> 
> but thinks that over the top hateful hyperbole against _REAL LIFE _political opponents is alright, good and fine, then you've got yourself into a juxtaposition here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vice versa as well, GT.
> 
> Which has been a minor point of mine all along.
Click to expand...


No, I won't agree that it's vice versa as well. You have fake entertainment, vs. propoganda against real life happenings/persons. HUGE difference, to me anyways. That's just me I guess.


----------



## Mini 14

G.T. said:


> . That's just me I guess.



Let's hope so


----------



## G.T.

Mini 14 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> . That's just me I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's hope so
Click to expand...


You don't think that there's a difference between a Fictional TV show, and people telling you that in _ACTUALITY_ your political opposition are facists, Commies, trying to take over your Country, etc?

No, no difference to you at all? Be honest here......


----------



## RadiomanATL

I think anything with the Kardashians in it, or any show cast in Jersey is the most dangerous there is.

Fucking orange people.


----------



## Mini 14

G.T. said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> . That's just me I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's hope so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think that there's a difference between a Fictional TV show, and people telling you that in _ACTUALITY_ your political opposition are facists, Commies, trying to take over your Country, etc?
> 
> No, no difference to you at all? Be honest here......
Click to expand...


For me, yes there is a difference. I'm 48, and have been around the block once or twice.

For a child?

Nope....none at all. 

I still maintain that the correlation between those arguing the show is dangerous being parents, and those arguing the show is NOT dangerous NOT being parents, isn't merely a coincidence. 

There is something in that experience that changes the perception, IMO.


----------



## G.T.

Mini 14 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's hope so
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think that there's a difference between a Fictional TV show, and people telling you that in _ACTUALITY_ your political opposition are facists, Commies, trying to take over your Country, etc?
> 
> No, no difference to you at all? Be honest here......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For me, yes there is a difference. I'm 48, and have been around the block once or twice.
> 
> For a child?
> 
> Nope....none at all.
> 
> I still maintain that the correlation between those arguing the show is dangerous being parents, and those arguing the show is NOT dangerous NOT being parents, isn't merely a coincidence.
> 
> There is something in that experience that changes the perception, IMO.
Click to expand...


I'll disagree, there. Not on the last sentence, but the middle paragraph.


----------



## Mini 14

G.T. said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think that there's a difference between a Fictional TV show, and people telling you that in _ACTUALITY_ your political opposition are facists, Commies, trying to take over your Country, etc?
> 
> No, no difference to you at all? Be honest here......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For me, yes there is a difference. I'm 48, and have been around the block once or twice.
> 
> For a child?
> 
> Nope....none at all.
> 
> I still maintain that the correlation between those arguing the show is dangerous being parents, and those arguing the show is NOT dangerous NOT being parents, isn't merely a coincidence.
> 
> There is something in that experience that changes the perception, IMO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll disagree, there. Not on the last sentence, but the middle paragraph.
Click to expand...


Fair enough.

Do you have an alternate explanation?

Or do you just disagree?


----------



## G.T.

Mini 14 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For me, yes there is a difference. I'm 48, and have been around the block once or twice.
> 
> For a child?
> 
> Nope....none at all.
> 
> I still maintain that the correlation between those arguing the show is dangerous being parents, and those arguing the show is NOT dangerous NOT being parents, isn't merely a coincidence.
> 
> There is something in that experience that changes the perception, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll disagree, there. Not on the last sentence, but the middle paragraph.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> Do you have an alternate explanation?
> 
> Or do you just disagree?
Click to expand...


Yes, I do. Echo Zulu's pov is the same as mine. She has children. 

I can't imagine that you'd have any reason to believe me but fwiw I *do* know what it's like to care about someone else's well-being more than my own. With that, I already know and anticipate this will be true for my future child/children. Sure, perspectives change with experience. But the one about sheltering my kid from things vs. teaching my kid about the things instead...........won't change. That's a pretty solid part of my make-up that I don't anticipate changing.


----------



## manifold

I can keep my kids from watching any program I don't approve of pretty easily.

What is more difficult is stopping them from seeing Trojan vibrator commercials aired at 9 o'clock in the morning.


----------



## chanel

RadiomanATL said:


> I think anything with the Kardashians in it, or any show cast in Jersey is the most dangerous there is.
> 
> Fucking orange people.



Orange people are people too. 

But in all seriousness, Jersey Shore is gross. But most people agree that those kids are gross. We get to see them throw up, leave dirty tampons around, and get arrested. The kids in Skins are not gross at all. They are beautiful and smart and funny. Big diff. And MTV claims this is "the most realistic show on TV".  Real grownups know that's bullshit; but awkward insecure kids may not. If they think this is normal; we are going to see teens slitting their wrists because they still haven't gotten a blow job.


----------



## RadiomanATL

chanel said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think anything with the Kardashians in it, or any show cast in Jersey is the most dangerous there is.
> 
> Fucking orange people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Orange people are people too.
> 
> But in all seriousness, Jersey Shore is gross. But most people agree that those kids are gross. We get to see them throw up, leave dirty tampons around, and get arrested. The kids in Skins are not gross at all. They are beautiful and smart and funny. Big diff. And MTV claims this is "the most realistic show on TV".  Real grownups know that's bullshit; but awkward insecure kids may not. If they think this is normal; we are going to see teens slitting their wrists because they still haven't gotten a blow job.
Click to expand...


Maybe I need to try that tactic on my wife....


----------



## Mini 14

G.T. said:


> Yes, I do. Echo Zulu's pov is the same as mine. She has children.
> 
> I can't imagine that you'd have any reason to believe me but fwiw I *do* know what it's like to care about someone else's well-being more than my own. With that, I already know and anticipate this will be true for my future child/children. Sure, perspectives change with experience. But the one about sheltering my kid from things vs. teaching my kid about the things instead...........won't change. That's a pretty solid part of my make-up that I don't anticipate changing.



EZ's position in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3241313-post39.html

I agree with her as well, and I haven't seen her deviate from that position.

I will handle it pretty much identically with my daughter (who is 11, but much more mature than her age. I expect almost the identical reaction that EZ's daughter gave her. In fact, I'm wondering if EZ's daughter and mine aren't the same person in alternate dimensions  

All of that as it is, I still maintain the show is dangerous and irresponsible. EZ and I are fortunate to have great kids.


----------



## G.T.

chanel said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think anything with the Kardashians in it, or any show cast in Jersey is the most dangerous there is.
> 
> Fucking orange people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Orange people are people too.
> 
> But in all seriousness, Jersey Shore is gross. But most people agree that those kids are gross. We get to see them throw up, leave dirty tampons around, and get arrested. The kids in Skins are not gross at all. They are beautiful and smart and funny. Big diff. And MTV claims this is "the most realistic show on TV".  Real grownups know that's bullshit; but awkward insecure kids may not. If they think this is normal; we are going to see teens slitting their wrists because they still haven't gotten a blow job.
Click to expand...


They should slit their wrists if they still haven't gotten a blow job! (kidding). 

If you haven't raised your kids to tell the difference between ignorance and virtue, then I can see this show being dangerous. But that wouldn't be the show's fault.


----------



## G.T.

Mini 14 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do. Echo Zulu's pov is the same as mine. She has children.
> 
> I can't imagine that you'd have any reason to believe me but fwiw I *do* know what it's like to care about someone else's well-being more than my own. With that, I already know and anticipate this will be true for my future child/children. Sure, perspectives change with experience. But the one about sheltering my kid from things vs. teaching my kid about the things instead...........won't change. That's a pretty solid part of my make-up that I don't anticipate changing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EZ's position in this thread:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3241313-post39.html
> 
> I agree with her as well, and I haven't seen her deviate from that position.
> 
> I will handle it pretty much identically with my daughter (who is 11, but much more mature than her age. I expect almost the identical reaction that EZ's daughter gave her. In fact, I'm wondering if EZ's daughter and mine aren't the same person in alternate dimensions
> 
> All of that as it is, I still maintain the show is dangerous and irresponsible. EZ and I are fortunate to have great kids.
Click to expand...


It can be dangerous to the kids of the irresponsible parents who haven't spent the time to teach them any better, is how I'd put it.


----------



## Mini 14

G.T. said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do. Echo Zulu's pov is the same as mine. She has children.
> 
> I can't imagine that you'd have any reason to believe me but fwiw I *do* know what it's like to care about someone else's well-being more than my own. With that, I already know and anticipate this will be true for my future child/children. Sure, perspectives change with experience. But the one about sheltering my kid from things vs. teaching my kid about the things instead...........won't change. That's a pretty solid part of my make-up that I don't anticipate changing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EZ's position in this thread:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3241313-post39.html
> 
> I agree with her as well, and I haven't seen her deviate from that position.
> 
> I will handle it pretty much identically with my daughter (who is 11, but much more mature than her age. I expect almost the identical reaction that EZ's daughter gave her. In fact, I'm wondering if EZ's daughter and mine aren't the same person in alternate dimensions
> 
> All of that as it is, I still maintain the show is dangerous and irresponsible. EZ and I are fortunate to have great kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It can be dangerous to the kids of the irresponsible parents who haven't spent the time to teach them any better, is how I'd put it.
Click to expand...


So, we agree after all.


----------



## manifold

A TV show isn't going to make a teen take drugs anymore than vitriolic political rhetoric is going to make someone shoot up a shopping mall.


----------



## G.T.

Mini 14 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> EZ's position in this thread:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3241313-post39.html
> 
> I agree with her as well, and I haven't seen her deviate from that position.
> 
> I will handle it pretty much identically with my daughter (who is 11, but much more mature than her age. I expect almost the identical reaction that EZ's daughter gave her. In fact, I'm wondering if EZ's daughter and mine aren't the same person in alternate dimensions
> 
> All of that as it is, I still maintain the show is dangerous and irresponsible. EZ and I are fortunate to have great kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It can be dangerous to the kids of the irresponsible parents who haven't spent the time to teach them any better, is how I'd put it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, we agree after all.
Click to expand...


Not quite. The show being irresponsible is where we part ways. To me, it's on those parent's backs who haven't taught their kids right from wrong.............not on the show's back. 

The writer is trying to be entertaining for a buck, he's not really in the business of raising your kids. (not yours meaning *you* but yours, general).


----------



## chanel

No one said he has to raise them. But he doesn't have the right to exploit them. 


And anyone who knows anything about teens knows that peer pressure is a far greater influence on them than parents. At least during those years. Adolescent Psych 101.  Maybe they should bring back cigarette advertising on TV too. After all, its not TVs fault if kids choose to smoke, right? No effect whatsoever. No harm; no foul.


----------



## JScott

chanel said:


> Skins is surely one of the most sexually charged programs that MTV has featured. Before it even had its premiere, the Parents Television Council, a TV watchdog group, labeled Skins the most dangerous program that has ever been foisted on your children. The group objected to the gratuitous scenes of drug and alcohol use, violence and sexual acts.
> 
> Of course, those scenes may be what attract young viewers in the first place. Jessica Bennett, a senior writer for Newsweek, wrote last week,  Skins may be the most realistic show on television.
> 
> The show is off to a running start. It attracted 3.3 million to its premiere on Monday night and set a new first-episode record for the channel among viewers ages 12 to 34.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/b...p=1&adxnnlx=1295632949-rrIGAAUa2T6US9tiiFlDng
> 
> Has anyone seen it?  I did.  Worse than you can possibly imagine.  And I can tell you as someone who spends every day with teenagers (who often give me TMI), this is NOT "the most realistic show on television."
> 
> The most disturbing part for me was the end of the first episode.  Driving stoned, the kids run their car off a bridge into the water.  Amazingly all the passengers emerge completely unscathed and one announces "Oh shit,  The weed got wet".  And they laugh and laugh and laugh...  Scary.
> 
> Glorifying sex, drugs, and child prostitution is dangerous.  Glorifying teen driving accidents is deadly.
Click to expand...


Its not dangerous. Turn it off and *BAM* youre all safe and cozy again.


----------



## Blagger

Anyway, back to the unrealistic window into the lives of British teenagers who seem to have a never-ending flow of cash to fund their hedonistic 'lifestyle', even though none of them seem to have a job.

I've seen a couple of episodes, but more importantly, I was unfortunate enough to see the "Skins Party" in which dedicated viewers were invited to a party styled on the one's in the show.

What would you do if you were invited to such a gathering? I know what I'd do. I wouldn't actually be there; I'd be viewing the celebration through a military grade night-scope, enjoying the mayhem and tragedy the acid and ecstacy tablets I'd bought from the North Korean goverment were causing to the care free delinquents of channel 4's Bristol. Once they realised that something sinister and 'uncool' was unfolding in the forest around them I'd start firing .50 caliber hollow points treated with Ricin and depleted uranium into their malnourised torso's with eye watering accuracy. Now time for phase 2. I'd instigate a pincer movement utilising my private military contractors sourced from Chechnya, war criminals from Yugoslavia and Rwanda, Sadam's former personal guard and a few Texans for good measure to start mopping up any of the fleeing if not mutilated middle-class revelers; armed solely with rusty bread knives and salt n vinegar. Phase 3, locate main cast. The boys will be taken by rendition flights to C.I.A black sites in north Africa and Kazakstan where they shall be forced dress normally, get normal part-time work in a supermarket; but I'll eventually get bored and subject them to a 'hostel 1+2' style incarceration. The girls will simply be stabbed in the face and be forced to twist the handle a full 360 degrees. Phase 4, claim responsibility by delivering the teenage idiots' final moments of agony to their real-life parents in an envelope marked 'Swagger. A disaffected viewer'.


----------



## bodecea

geauxtohell said:


> "Dangerous"?
> 
> C'mon.
> 
> It's not society's problem if parent's are too weak to even enforce what their kids see on television.
> 
> If that's the case, you've got bigger problems than the television.



They do....the comment about tv's and computers in their kids' bedrooms...there's your problem right there.


----------



## chanel

Even the uber-liberal NYT thinks this show has crossed the line.  In fact, the writer made a similar point to mine about the Jersey Shore.  They are adults; and they suffer consequences.



> But while Snooki & Co. may act like children, they can legally drink alcohol and give consent to what might ensue: the age of 21 may seem like an arbitrary distinction but its an important one and, besides, its the law.
> 
> Even in the most scripted reality programming, the waterfall of poor personal choices is interrupted by comeuppance. People get painful hangovers, the heartbreaks are real if overly dramatic and the cast members have to live with their decisions.
> 
> Not so on Skins, where a girl who overdoses and is rushed to the hospital wakes up to laughter when the stolen S.U.V. taking her there slams to a halt. Teenagers show children how to roll blunts, bottles of vodka are traded on merry go-rounds, and youngsters shrug off being molested and threatened by a drug dealer. And when the driver of the stolen S.U.V. gets distracted and half a dozen adolescents go rolling into a river, the car is lost but everyone bobs to the surface with a smile at the wonder of it all.
> 
> Teenagers are both sexual beings and highly impressionable, and because of that, theyre vulnerable to just these kinds of messages. You have to wonder if there isnt a better way to make a living.
> 
> There is. *You could produce a show that clearly depicts what happens when kids do only what they want and exercise some poor judgment*. Theres already a very good one on MTV, by the way. Its called Teen Mom.





http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/business/media/24carr.html


----------



## strollingbones

watch this with your kids...and watch everyone die laughing at buying 4 oz of shank.....anyone got any clue how much that would cost in reality....

you think these kids are the 'beautiful people'?  really.....i just dont get this most dangerous tv show label......i still wonder how sheltered your life must be


----------



## asterism

chanel said:


> You mustn't be a parent or teacher.  Or you think it's ok for children to engage in prostitution and illegal drugs - without consequence.
> 
> Wouldn't it be refreshing if MTV did an honest "realistic" depiction of high school kids?  Fat kids smoking cigarettes, littering, and playing video games until 4 a.m.?  Or would that be too offensive?
> 
> Parents do not monitor teenagers' media.  Unless a parent wants to spend 24/7 with their older children, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prevent them from seeing trash like this.  What I'd like to see is all sponsors boycott the show.



As much as I understand the sentiment and agree that the show is nothing but trash, the time to monitor media exposure is well before the teen years.  By the time the kids are able to watch TV without parental controls and have access to unfiltered and unmonitored internet there should already be a moral foundation.  If there is then this is just more _Animal House_ silliness.

This show is on Cable and should not be regulated by the FCC, especially when inadequate parenting is the real culprit.


----------



## asterism

chanel said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mustn't be a parent or teacher.  *Or you think it's ok for children to engage in prostitution and illegal drugs - without consequence.*
> 
> Wouldn't it be refreshing if MTV did an honest "realistic" depiction of high school kids?  Fat kids smoking cigarettes, littering, and playing video games until 4 a.m.?  Or would that be too offensive?
> 
> Parents do not monitor teenagers' media.  Unless a parent wants to spend 24/7 with their older children, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prevent them from seeing trash like this.  What I'd like to see is all sponsors boycott the show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you think it's ok to murder, or do you want all the crime dramas where the killer is never caught to be taken off the air as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No elvis.  I am not a proponent of murder.
> 
> I've never seen a TV show where the killer isn't caught, but I am not a fan of gratuitous violence either.
Click to expand...


Gratuitous murder is alive and well on "Lifetime, Television for Women."


----------



## strollingbones

daytime soaps....hell what is that series...'snapped' i refer to it....as ...how not to kill your husband

i think the op loses a lot of crediablity with the most dangerous mal


----------



## asterism

Mini 14 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice GT didn't answer.
> 
> How about you?
> 
> How many children do you have, Geauxto?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None.
> 
> Now tell me why that is germane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That being the case, can you see where there may be a perspective here from which you cannot judge one of the arguments against the show? I'm generalizing greatly here, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that those of us arguing against the merit of this show all have children. HAVING children, and IMAGINING having children, are two entirely different things (I IMAGINED having children before I actually had them, and it is an entirely UNIMAGINABLE reality, until you're there).
> 
> Further generalization.......I'll bet those arguing that the show is fine, there is nothing wrong with it, and its your right (which it certainly is) DO NOT have children.
> 
> I don't think that correlation (if I'm correct) is coincidental.
Click to expand...


I have kids.


----------



## asterism

strollingbones said:


> daytime soaps....hell what is that series...'snapped' i refer to it....as ...how not to kill your husband
> 
> i think the op loses a lot of crediablity with the most dangerous mal



Yup.

&#34;Snapped&#34; (2004) - Full cast and crew


----------



## Zoom-boing

G.T. said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll disagree, there. Not on the last sentence, but the middle paragraph.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> Do you have an alternate explanation?
> 
> Or do you just disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I do. Echo Zulu's pov is the same as mine. She has children.
> 
> I can't imagine that you'd have any reason to believe me but fwiw I *do* know what it's like to care about someone else's well-being more than my own. With that, I already know and anticipate this will be true for my future child/children. Sure, perspectives change with experience.* But the one about sheltering my kid from things vs. teaching my kid about the things instead...........won't change. That's a pretty solid part of my make-up that I don't anticipate changing*.
Click to expand...


Nor should you.  You can teach/raise your children with morals and all the best of your experience.  And then they hit the teen years and friends/outside influences come crashing down all around them and believe me, those outside influences/peer pressure are unbelievably strong.  Why ask for even more trouble with crap like this?  I've already stated that I block this shit in my house but seriously?  The bar is in the gutter and needs to be raised.  

Shows likes this, specifically aimed at teens, will influence teens.  You may think 'oh no, not my kid' but in reality, you don't have teenagers and don't know what it's like.  My youngest is 13 (14 on Feb 2) and her friends all watch Jersey Shore. wtF is wrong with their parents???  While I block it in my home there isn't much I can do from them telling her all about the adventures of Snookie and Company.   I know what Snookies adventures are (I've already heard how 'cool' Snookie is from my youngest ) and am not really interested in putting any more ideas in my kid's head than are already out there in the real world she encounters every day.

Tuck the parental info in this thread away and try to reflect back on it years down the road when your kids are teenagers.  If tv and the like is at the level it is now I can't even imagine what it will be like by the time your kids are that age.


----------



## High_Gravity

Douger said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> May not be a great idea, but it's just the way it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical fucking murkin.
> That's exactly why that nation is FINISHED.
Click to expand...


Still better than whatever pussy ass country you live in retard.


----------



## High_Gravity

The people on Jersey Shore are adults and the actors on Skins are kids right? big difference, Snookie getting hammered on Grey Goose all day and having meaningless sex is different than if a 15 year old girl does it.


----------



## Mini 14

Subway pulled their sponsorship today, Orbit Gum is expected to tomorrow. That will mean 5 of the 8 original sponsors have bailed.

MTV is standing by the show, and likely will sponsor it themselves after the remaining three pull out (Loreal, Foot Locker, and Extra Chewing Gum).

3 chewing gum sponsors.......

interesting observation there.


----------



## NYcarbineer

High_Gravity said:


> The people on Jersey Shore are adults and the actors on Skins are kids right? big difference, Snookie getting hammered on Grey Goose all day and having meaningless sex is different than if a 15 year old girl does it.



Different as in I wouldn't watch the former.


----------



## draper

Yes it may be a horrible show.  I notice 16 and pregnant preceded it though hence teenagers don't really need nasty TV to show them what to do.

The kids dressed in black smoking weed outside my daughters high school this afternoon didn't suddenly start up a weed habit after watching Skins either.  They've been doing it for years.

TV has an off switch - and most now have a parental control code where the parent can block certain channels.


----------



## chanel

Well 1.2 million kids watched it the first night (and how many more on rerun and internet?) and they don't all have bad parents.  Sheez.

This show isn't going to make good kids pop pills and sell themselves for sex.  But there are also many impressionable young people who have no guidance at home. At school we label them "at risk".  And that encompasses just about everything.  Esp. substance abuse. 

Call me a compassionate conservative.  I am a teacher.  I happen to care about those kids.

I am glad sponsorships are being pulled.  Kudos to those responsible companies.


----------



## strollingbones

lets see how many watch the 2nd show...i think viewership will be down...as for sponsors that is their affair....


----------



## BrianH

Mini 14 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many children do you have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does spitting out a couple of kids give you the latitude to decide what can and can't come across my television?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never implied that.
> 
> Having children, I think it puts it in a different perspective than it might be perceived by someone who doesn't have children. I merely asked G.T. if he had any kids, as he stated he isn't offended by it at all.
> 
> Sorry if my post didn't fit neatly inside your little box
Click to expand...


Exactly, people without kids have no frickin business telling people how they "should" be raising their kids.  And you're right, someone without any kids may not be offended as someone with kids....He'll understand one day when daddy's little freshman is sitting in the driveway smoking pot and giving head to the senior captain of the football team.


----------



## Modbert

geauxtohell said:


> "Dangerous"?
> 
> C'mon.
> 
> It's not society's problem if parent's are too weak to even enforce what their kids see on television.
> 
> If that's the case, you've got bigger problems than the television.



If that's the case, they probably shouldn't send their kids outside. That sun gives off cancer if you stand in front of it long enough.


----------



## Modbert

chanel said:


> *You mustn't be a parent or teacher.  Or you think it's ok for children to engage in prostitution and illegal drugs - without consequence.
> *
> Wouldn't it be refreshing if MTV did an honest "realistic" depiction of high school kids?  Fat kids smoking cigarettes, littering, and playing video games until 4 a.m.?  Or would that be too offensive?
> 
> Parents do not monitor teenagers' media.  Unless a parent wants to spend 24/7 with their older children, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prevent them from seeing trash like this.  What I'd like to see is all sponsors boycott the show.



So when you have no argument, you resort to these kind of arguments. Pathetic.

This is more Big Government Social Conservative behavior from you.


----------



## Modbert

geauxtohell said:


> How does spitting out a couple of kids give you the latitude to decide what can and can't come across my television?



I guess being a parent suddenly gives you some wisdom as soon as the kid is born that the rest of us don't have. Maybe they have some special decoder rings too?


----------



## BrianH

Modbert said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does spitting out a couple of kids give you the latitude to decide what can and can't come across my television?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess being a parent suddenly gives you some wisdom as soon as the kid is born that the rest of us don't have. Maybe they have some special decoder rings too?
Click to expand...


Why don't you have a kid and then decide if you want your 14 year old daughter watching it....  Maybe you can throw Debbie Does Dallas in the DVD player for her.


----------



## Mini 14

Modbert said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does spitting out a couple of kids give you the latitude to decide what can and can't come across my television?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess being a parent suddenly gives you some wisdom as soon as the kid is born that the rest of us don't have. Maybe they have some special decoder rings too?
Click to expand...


Not wisdom.

But definitely perspective.


----------



## Douger

I remember when I was a little kid and my grandma was 51.......................No resemblance


----------



## MarcATL

MTV is a prime example of the free market at work.

That's capitalism.

Deal with it.

Personally, its been 5 or 6 years, at least, since I've allowed my TV to even pass that channel.


----------



## Modbert

Mini 14 said:


> Not wisdom.
> 
> But definitely perspective.



In the case of this thread, a skewed one it seems. 

A.) If you can't control what your kid watches on television, it's going to be a mighty big problem when they start going out at night.

B.) The assumption here is that the kids will watch the show and suddenly engage in sex, drugs, and rock and or roll. Seriously, can't sit down with the kid and treat them like an adult? EZ's kid seems to have a strong head on her shoulders, as do millions of other teenagers.

This is like saying after I watch Goodfellas, I'm gonna go out there and try to become a gangster. Ridiculous rhetoric best left to ridiculous people.


----------



## Douger

High_Gravity said:


> Douger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> May not be a great idea, but it's just the way it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical fucking murkin.
> That's exactly why that nation is FINISHED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still better than whatever pussy ass country you live in retard.
Click to expand...


Brilliant.....coming from an asshole dumb enough to live in Baltimore.
Baltimorestan. Gawd. If you're going to live in murka could't you find somewhere else ? Like Colorado or Va. or Missouri or Florida or Idaho, Ca. WA, Oregon, or................

Get a passport and go educate yourself.


----------



## Mini 14

Modbert said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not wisdom.
> 
> But definitely perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the case of this thread, a skewed one it seems.
> 
> A.) If you can't control what your kid watches on television, it's going to be a mighty big problem when they start going out at night.
> 
> B.) The assumption here is that the kids will watch the show and suddenly engage in sex, drugs, and rock and or roll. Seriously, can't sit down with the kid and treat them like an adult? EZ's kid seems to have a strong head on her shoulders, as do millions of other teenagers.
> 
> This is like saying after I watch Goodfellas, I'm gonna go out there and try to become a gangster. Ridiculous rhetoric best left to ridiculous people.
Click to expand...


Modbert, I don't give a fuck about you.

I'm concerned about the kids who haven't already experienced the pathetic existence that is your life.

Do you think a 12 year-old, who is spending the night at a friend's house, who happens to have a TV in her room, has enough experience to separate what is "cool" from what is responsible.

Kids don't just soak up the wisdom of their parents the first time their parent tells them "that isn't a good choice, and let me tell you why."

If they did, you wouldn't be arguing about children from a child-less adult's perspective.


----------



## Modbert

BrianH said:


> Why don't you have a kid and then decide if you want your 14 year old daughter watching it....  Maybe you can throw Debbie Does Dallas in the DVD player for her.



Spoiler Alert: If I had a kid, would they probably be watching this? Probably not. Why? Because in the first place, they wouldn't probably enjoy any show on MTV.

Secondly, if they did, it's called parental responsibility if you think the kid shouldn't watch it. This means being responsible for one's own kids, not trying to be essentially the parent for every other kid by saying what should and what should not be censored.

Thirdly, I see the assumption continued that if a kid watched a movie that is rated R or PG-13 that they're suddenly going to become crazy sex addicts, huge drug users, or perhaps crazy serial killers. It's ridiculous.


----------



## Modbert

Mini 14 said:


> Modbert, I don't give a fuck about you.
> 
> I'm concerned about the kids who haven't already experienced the pathetic existence that is your life.
> 
> Do you think a 12 year-old, who is spending the night at a friend's house, who happens to have a TV in her room, has enough experience to separate what is "cool" from what is responsible.
> 
> Kids don't just soak up the wisdom of their parents the first time their parent tells them "that isn't a good choice, and let me tell you why."
> 
> If they did, you wouldn't be arguing about children from a child-less adult's perspective.



Seriously, the attempted use of insults (which failed btw) doesn't make your argument any better. So let's take your example, what do we do with the 12 year old? Ban them from forever going over their friend's house? Sit them down and explain to them why they can't watch the show? Or try to get the show banned from television because it offends your moral sensitivity?

If that's the case, maybe some people should of tried to get Jerry Falwell's offensive ass thrown off the airwaves. Don't need my kids flipping through the 700 Club and seeing that piece of filth spew stuff like 9/11 was the fault of Homosexuals.

Or, I could change the channel. What a novel concept huh? You seem to have no concept of the Pandora's box you want to jam open.


----------



## Modbert

Fun Fact: When Elvis first appeared on television, he was not allowed to be shot from the waist down. There were plenty of parents then too saying he was the reason for the moral decay of society and that he should be removed from television.


----------



## Mini 14

Modbert said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Modbert, I don't give a fuck about you.
> 
> I'm concerned about the kids who haven't already experienced the pathetic existence that is your life.
> 
> Do you think a 12 year-old, who is spending the night at a friend's house, who happens to have a TV in her room, has enough experience to separate what is "cool" from what is responsible.
> 
> Kids don't just soak up the wisdom of their parents the first time their parent tells them "that isn't a good choice, and let me tell you why."
> 
> If they did, you wouldn't be arguing about children from a child-less adult's perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, the attempted use of insults (which failed btw) doesn't make your argument any better. So let's take your example, what do we do with the 12 year old? Ban them from forever going over their friend's house? Sit them down and explain to them why they can't watch the show? Or try to get the show banned from television because it offends your moral sensitivity?
> 
> If that's the case, maybe some people should of tried to get Jerry Falwell's offensive ass thrown off the airwaves. Don't need my kids flipping through the 700 Club and seeing that piece of filth spew stuff like 9/11 was the fault of Homosexuals.
> 
> Or, I could change the channel. What a novel concept huh?
Click to expand...


You're going to have a hard time changing the channel when your daughter is out with her friends, walking around the neighborhood watching it via the Internet on her playmate's smart phone.

But good luck with that. I'm sure with your omniscience, it will be (forgive the pun) "child's play."

You'll "get it" if you ever have kids, but in a nutshell, it boils down to this:

This world isn't all about you.


----------



## MarcATL

If the Free Market has decided its OK for this show to exist, which clearly it has, its not up to anyone BUT the parent to be PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for their own child(ren's) TV watching habits.

If it means blocking that channel or not paying for cable at all...that's what it takes.

Pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps and take some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY, we don't need no stinkin Big Government telling us what to and what not to watch!


----------



## Article 15

Mini 14 said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Modbert, I don't give a fuck about you.
> 
> I'm concerned about the kids who haven't already experienced the pathetic existence that is your life.
> 
> Do you think a 12 year-old, who is spending the night at a friend's house, who happens to have a TV in her room, has enough experience to separate what is "cool" from what is responsible.
> 
> Kids don't just soak up the wisdom of their parents the first time their parent tells them "that isn't a good choice, and let me tell you why."
> 
> If they did, you wouldn't be arguing about children from a child-less adult's perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, the attempted use of insults (which failed btw) doesn't make your argument any better. So let's take your example, what do we do with the 12 year old? Ban them from forever going over their friend's house? Sit them down and explain to them why they can't watch the show? Or try to get the show banned from television because it offends your moral sensitivity?
> 
> If that's the case, maybe some people should of tried to get Jerry Falwell's offensive ass thrown off the airwaves. Don't need my kids flipping through the 700 Club and seeing that piece of filth spew stuff like 9/11 was the fault of Homosexuals.
> 
> Or, I could change the channel. What a novel concept huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're going to have a hard time changing the channel when your daughter is out with her friends, walking around the neighborhood watching it via the Internet on her playmate's smart phone.
> 
> But good luck with that. I'm sure with your omniscience, it will be (forgive the pun) "child's play."
> 
> You'll "get it" if you ever have kids, but in a nutshell, it boils down to this:
> 
> This world isn't all about you.
Click to expand...


You're going to have a hard time keeping that joint off of your daughter's lips when she is out with her friends, walking around the neighborhood, etc

You're going to have a hard time keeping bottle out of your daughter's hands when she is out with her friends, walking around the neighborhood, etc

You're going to have a hard time keeping your daughter's panties on when she is out with her friends, walking around the neighborhood, etc

You're going to have a hard time keeping your daughter's seatbelt buckled when she is out with her friends, walking around the neighborhood, etc

etc, etc, etc


----------



## Modbert

Article 15 said:


> You're going to have a hard time keeping that joint off of your daughter's lips when she is out with her friends, walking around the neighborhood, etc
> 
> You're going to have a hard time keeping bottle out of your daughter's hands when she is out with her friends, walking around the neighborhood, etc
> 
> You're going to have a hard time keeping your daughter's panties on when she is out with her friends, walking around the neighborhood, etc
> 
> You're going to have a hard time keeping your daughter's seatbelt buckled when she is out with her friends, walking around the neighborhood, etc
> 
> etc, etc, etc



Like I said earlier, I guess Mini 14 and Chanel better not let their kids outside.


----------



## Modbert




----------



## High_Gravity

Douger said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Douger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical fucking murkin.
> That's exactly why that nation is FINISHED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still better than whatever pussy ass country you live in retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brilliant.....coming from an asshole dumb enough to live in Baltimore.
> Baltimorestan. Gawd. If you're going to live in murka could't you find somewhere else ? Like Colorado or Va. or Missouri or Florida or Idaho, Ca. WA, Oregon, or................
> 
> Get a passport and go educate yourself.
Click to expand...


You type like shit, you need to take more remedial English classes because even someone with downs syndrome has you beat at the English language.


----------



## MarcATL

RWers...who do you want to shut this program down? WHO?


----------



## xotoxi

chanel said:


> No.  This is not faux outrage bones.  And as much as we'd like to think that parents have control over what their teens are watching on TV and the internet, it's simply not the case.  Most kids have TVs and computers in their bedrooms.  May not be a great idea, but it's just the way it is.
> 
> 1.2 million teens watched that show the first night.  It's bad.



And the worst part about it is that of those 1.2 million teens, 98% of them had never had sex, smoked, drank, or did drugs.

Now they ALL will.

A generation lost...


----------



## Zoom-boing

Modbert said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does spitting out a couple of kids give you the latitude to decide what can and can't come across my television?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess being a parent suddenly gives you some wisdom as soon as the kid is born that the rest of us don't have. Maybe they have some special decoder rings too?
Click to expand...


Not even remotely.  It takes time and experience for parents to (hopefully) become good parents.  Here's the thing . . . all the 'firsts' that the firstborn experiences -- walking, talking, preschool, first grade, puberty, driving, etc. -- it's also a 'first' for the parents.  All of it is.  And all the books and advice in the world cannot take the place of the experience of actual parenting.  The last thing parenting is, is a cake walk.  



Modbert said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not wisdom.
> 
> But definitely perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the case of this thread, a skewed one it seems.
> 
> A.) If you can't control what your kid watches on television, it's going to be a mighty big problem when they start going out at night.
> 
> B.) The assumption here is that the kids will watch the show and suddenly engage in sex, drugs, and rock and or roll. *Seriously, can't sit down with the kid and treat them like an adult*? EZ's kid seems to have a strong head on her shoulders, as do millions of other teenagers.
Click to expand...


You don't think peer pressure and outside influences affect them?  You're dead wrong on that.  Hopefully the guidelines/rules/morals they've been taught will be what they rely on but . . . that just simply isn't always the case. 

Since when did 13, 14, 15, 16 = adult?   Yeah, there will be kids who watch this show and emulate it.  You're foolish if you don't believe that.



> This is like saying after I watch Goodfellas, I'm gonna go out there and try to become a gangster. Ridiculous rhetoric best left to ridiculous people.



You might not but others might.  Was Goodfellas directly aimed at 15 year olds?  



Modbert said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you have a kid and then decide if you want your 14 year old daughter watching it....  Maybe you can throw Debbie Does Dallas in the DVD player for her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler Alert: If I had a kid, would they probably be watching this? Probably not. Why? Because in the first place, they wouldn't probably enjoy any show on MTV.
Click to expand...


My youngest will be 14 (8th grade) and her best friend is 13 (7th grade).  Her friend is allowed to watch Jersey Shore.  What makes you think she wouldn't be interested in Skins?  She slept over the other week and wanted her dad to bring over a movie they could watch.  The movie was 'Easy A'. In a nutshell it's a movie about kids having sex in order to be popular.  wtf?  Why would any parent let their 12/13 year old watch that?  You're wrong about the younger kids not wanting to watch stuff like this.  Didn't you ever watch Barney or Kidsongs or see Barbie commercials?  The kids are just a few years older than the target market; the younger ones want to be like the 'big kids'. 



> Secondly, if they did, it's called parental responsibility if you think the kid shouldn't watch it. This means being responsible for one's own kids, not trying to be essentially the parent for every other kid by saying what should and what should not be censored.



Absolutely agree.  But when is enough, enough?  Are there no limits, no boundaries?  



> Thirdly, I see the assumption continued that if a kid watched a movie that is rated R or PG-13 that they're suddenly going to become crazy sex addicts, huge drug users, or perhaps crazy serial killers. It's ridiculous.



You're stating extremes, which are likely not to happen.  But to influence them to_ try_ sex or_ try_ drugs or _try_ hurting someone?  This show is specifically targeted/aimed at teens, who are not 'young adults'.  There is a huge difference between 15 and 19.



Modbert said:


> Fun Fact: When Elvis first appeared on television, he was not allowed to be shot from the waist down. There were plenty of parents then too saying he was the reason for the moral decay of society and that he should be removed from television.



Right and eventually Elvis got a pass and . . . look where we are now?  Discussing teenage sex and drug use being openly shown on tv.  My, my how far we've come.  

At what point do you (general you) draw the line?  If it all just comes down to 'turn off the tv', why not just show hard-core porn?  I mean it's the parents problem, right?  You have no idea at all how hard it is to keep this crap out.  None.  You make it sound like 'just turn off the tv' and that's it, problem solved.


----------



## xotoxi

Mini 14 said:


> Do you think a 12 year-old, who is spending the night at a friend's house, who happens to have a TV in her room, has enough experience to separate what is "cool" from what is responsible.



You'd let your 12-year-old spend the night at someone else's house???  

That's where the problem lies...bad parenting.


----------



## MarcATL

MarcATL said:


> If the Free Market has decided its OK for this show to exist, which clearly it has, its not up to anyone BUT the parent to be PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for their own child(ren's) TV watching habits.
> 
> If it means blocking that channel or not paying for cable at all...that's what it takes.
> 
> Pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps and take some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY, we don't need no stinkin Big Government telling us what to and what not to watch!





MarcATL said:


> RWers...who do you want to shut this program down? WHO?


Well...?


----------



## xotoxi

MarcATL said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Free Market has decided its OK for this show to exist, which clearly it has, its not up to anyone BUT the parent to be PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for their own child(ren's) TV watching habits.
> 
> If it means blocking that channel or not paying for cable at all...that's what it takes.
> 
> Pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps and take some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY, we don't need no stinkin Big Government telling us what to and what not to watch!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> RWers...who do you want to shut this program down? WHO?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well...?
Click to expand...


After they get this show cancelled, maybe they can work on eliminating junk food from the school cafeterias.


----------



## Zoom-boing

MarcATL said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Free Market has decided its OK for this show to exist, which clearly it has, its not up to anyone BUT the parent to be PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for their own child(ren's) TV watching habits.
> 
> If it means blocking that channel or not paying for cable at all...that's what it takes.
> 
> Pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps and take some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY, we don't need no stinkin Big Government telling us what to and what not to watch!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> RWers...who do you want to shut this program down? WHO?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well...?
Click to expand...


I do block this shit and I'd be fine if the plug got pulled on this show.  At what point does a line get drawn?


----------



## xotoxi

Zoom-boing said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Free Market has decided its OK for this show to exist, which clearly it has, its not up to anyone BUT the parent to be PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for their own child(ren's) TV watching habits.
> 
> If it means blocking that channel or not paying for cable at all...that's what it takes.
> 
> Pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps and take some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY, we don't need no stinkin Big Government telling us what to and what not to watch!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> RWers...who do you want to shut this program down? WHO?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do block this shit and I'd be fine if the plug got pulled on this show.  *At what point does a line get drawn?*
Click to expand...


The free market will determine that.


----------



## High_Gravity

In 2050 porn will be shown on MTV during the daytime.


----------



## BrianH

Modbert said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you have a kid and then decide if you want your 14 year old daughter watching it....  Maybe you can throw Debbie Does Dallas in the DVD player for her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler Alert: If I had a kid, would they probably be watching this? Probably not. Why? Because in the first place, they wouldn't probably enjoy any show on MTV.
> 
> Secondly, if they did, it's called parental responsibility if you think the kid shouldn't watch it. This means being responsible for one's own kids, not trying to be essentially the parent for every other kid by saying what should and what should not be censored.
> 
> Thirdly, I see the assumption continued that if a kid watched a movie that is rated R or PG-13 that they're suddenly going to become crazy sex addicts, huge drug users, or perhaps crazy serial killers. It's ridiculous.
Click to expand...


A 14 year old wouldn't want to watch MTV???? LOL...you're half-retarded and naive dude.  Why does MTV have shows like "My Super Sweet 16" and "16 and Pregnant" among others....? You think you can keep your kid from watching this crap just by turning the TV off??? lol.  We live in an age where any kid can watch this shit on their cell phones or on the computer.  You can google tity and get pictures of them.  What you're suggesting is that a parent pretty much control every aspect of the kids life...censoring what they watch, what they listen to, what they do, etc....something you would probably call an "overbearing" parent.  You would have to keep your kid in a glass bubble to keep them away from this filth.  Which is why it outrages people that television stations would show this.  The film industry uses the same bullshit explanation every time.  That it's up to the parents to control what their kids watch knowing good and well that parents can't stop their kids from watching this; short of getting rid of your TV and not allowing them to have a cell-phone.

As far as your last statement, no one is suggesting that the kids will turn into the EXTREME of everything you see.  You're giving extreme examples just to make your argument.  First things first,: 1. Showing a 14 year-old having sex on TV is called child pornography....it's the law.  2. A 14 year-old seeing a show like this could give them ideas or cause them to be curious about the events taking place...especially since the show glorifies it and makes it look fun.


----------



## Zoom-boing

xotoxi said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Free Market has decided its OK for this show to exist, which clearly it has, its not up to anyone BUT the parent to be PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for their own child(ren's) TV watching habits.
> 
> If it means blocking that channel or not paying for cable at all...that's what it takes.
> 
> Pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps and take some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY, we don't need no stinkin Big Government telling us what to and what not to watch!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> RWers...who do you want to shut this program down? WHO?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After they get this show cancelled, maybe they can work on eliminating junk food from the school cafeterias.
Click to expand...


Appleton WI, cast study on education and the student behavioral modification from changing to an adequate lunch program


----------



## BrianH

xotoxi said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Free Market has decided its OK for this show to exist, which clearly it has, its not up to anyone BUT the parent to be PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for their own child(ren's) TV watching habits.
> 
> If it means blocking that channel or not paying for cable at all...that's what it takes.
> 
> Pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps and take some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY, we don't need no stinkin Big Government telling us what to and what not to watch!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> RWers...who do you want to shut this program down? WHO?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After they get this show cancelled, maybe they can work on eliminating junk food from the school cafeterias.
Click to expand...


Last I checked, potato chips doesn't have the picture of two underage kids screwing on them.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Tonight we present Mr.Happy with the keys to furry city.
Great dialogue.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

They eat in Nutbush cafeteria.
They go to  parties and get a  girl recockulously spliffed up and  she bangs you.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Why don't FCC rules apply to cable?


----------



## Zoom-boing

xotoxi said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do block this shit and I'd be fine if the plug got pulled on this show.  *At what point does a line get drawn?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The free market will determine that.
Click to expand...


so if MTV decided to air full on porn marketed specifically for the 13-17 crowd that'd be ok if the free market says it's ok?


----------



## AllieBaba

Nope.

It's child porn. 

It's revolting that people are supporting it.


----------



## G.T.

Mr.Fitnah said:


> They eat in Nutbush cafeteria.
> They go to  parties and get a  girl recockulously spliffed up and  she bangs you.



well, fwiw, she willingly goes along with getting drugged up to be used for sex but uh, yea


----------



## G.T.

AllieBaba said:


> Nope.
> 
> It's child porn.
> 
> It's revolting that people are supporting it.



I consider it something.....porn's not it though.


----------



## G.T.

Zoom-boing said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do block this shit and I'd be fine if the plug got pulled on this show.  *At what point does a line get drawn?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The free market will determine that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so if MTV decided to air full on porn marketed specifically for the 13-17 crowd that'd be ok if the free market says it's ok?
Click to expand...


13-17 porn is illegal


----------



## AllieBaba

G.T. said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> It's child porn.
> 
> It's revolting that people are supporting it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I consider it something.....porn's not it though.
Click to expand...


Actually, yes, it is, according to the definition of child porn:

"What Is Child Pornography?
Under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256), child pornography1 is defined as any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where  

the production of the visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or


the visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or


the visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.   
Federal law (18 U.S.C. §1466A) also criminalizes knowingly producing, distributing, receiving, or possessing with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting, that

depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or


depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. "

Child Pornography Fact Sheet


----------



## G.T.

AllieBaba said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> It's child porn.
> 
> It's revolting that people are supporting it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I consider it something.....porn's not it though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, yes, it is, according to the definition of child porn:
> 
> "What Is Child Pornography?
> Under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256), child pornography1 is defined as any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where
> 
> the production of the visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
> 
> 
> the visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
> 
> 
> the visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
> Federal law (18 U.S.C. §1466A) also criminalizes knowingly producing, distributing, receiving, or possessing with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting, that
> 
> depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or
> 
> 
> depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. "
> 
> Child Pornography Fact Sheet
Click to expand...


 I guess so, then!


----------



## High_Gravity

I haven't watched this show but is it really that bad as people say?


----------



## G.T.

High_Gravity said:


> I haven't watched this show but is it really that bad as people say?



Not if you're not uptight. (about stuff like this)

I guess it breaks that law Allie posted, but I don't even agree with the law necessarily. It implies sex, on the show....and these kids are in high-school, but that doesn't bug me because #1: they don't show actual sex ala what *I'd* consider pornography, and #2: I had sex in high school.


----------



## GHook93

strollingbones said:


> and this is why....tv's have an on...off button.....
> 
> do it with me....hell i bet you can do it with a remote now....
> 
> 
> on....off....
> 
> most dangerous show on television....bit reactionary arent you



Easier said then done at time Bones! In most cases I think people over-react, but I walked one episode and its disgusting! Think of the movie Kids on the silver screen! I fear this will open up flood gates to copy cats. I fear for the day my kids are teenagers!


----------



## G.T.

Try (anoyone) not to raise your kids to be gullible followers. Then you won't have to hide them from the truth of anything, if you're sucessful.


----------



## High_Gravity

G.T. said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't watched this show but is it really that bad as people say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you're not uptight. (about stuff like this)
> 
> I guess it breaks that law Allie posted, but I don't even agree with the law necessarily. It implies sex, on the show....and these kids are in high-school, but that doesn't bug me because #1: they don't show actual sex ala what *I'd* consider pornography, and #2: I had sex in high school.
Click to expand...


Well unless the kids are actually having sex i.e actual insertion of penis in vagina or mouth or whatever it can't really be considered child porn right?


----------



## AllieBaba

You guys are missing the big picture...it promotes the sexual exploitation of young kids, and that's illegal, beside being completely reprehensible.

Stop thinking just about how iit just affects you personally and think about the big picture...there are people with camera posing people in front of those cameras and telling them where to put their tongues and how to breathe so it looks like kids having sex. It sexualizes kids when we are putting people in jail for having sex with kids.

Think about it.


----------



## AllieBaba

High_Gravity said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't watched this show but is it really that bad as people say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you're not uptight. (about stuff like this)
> 
> I guess it breaks that law Allie posted, but I don't even agree with the law necessarily. It implies sex, on the show....and these kids are in high-school, but that doesn't bug me because #1: they don't show actual sex ala what *I'd* consider pornography, and #2: I had sex in high school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well unless the kids are actually having sex i.e actual insertion of penis in vagina or mouth or whatever it can't really be considered child porn right?
Click to expand...


Er..no.

Read the definition, you retard.


----------



## Mini 14

If anyone can show where I've stated that the show should be censored outside of the free market, I will gladly sign over the deed to my home (and it is free and clear of any liens or mortgages). 

I am getting my wish, as the FREE MARKET is compelling sponsors to pull their advertising, one by one, as the pressure to be responsible mounts.

And for Modbert:

At 11, my daughter is a very well-adjusted, VERY mature child. She is an actress, and has had much success (yes, you've seen her, and no, I'm not going to tell you who she is). She is proficient with firearms, has never made anything less than an A, has an IQ that is the highest in her school, and will likely complete college within a year of graduating High School.

She does not have a boyfriend, but don't get any ideas.

I'll take my chances with my children, I don't ask anyone to raise them for me. However, from the perspective of a responsible parent (something you can only imagine, not experience), I recognize the irresponsibility and danger in showing this to the audience at which it is targeted. Most children the age of my daughter are not as mature, well-adjusted, or experienced in dealing with adults and "adult issues" as she. She is the exception, not the norm.

I understand that you think you know everything, that you are different, that your kids will be different.

I thought that too, when I was a young, foolish man, just like you.....just like all of us.

You want to watch the show for whatever reason you want to watch it.....fine. 

That doesn't mean it is any less dangerous or irresponsible to a kid of 11, 14, and some of 21 and 27.

The sponsors are pulling their money, after seeing the show and the public reaction. I applaud them for that decision, and support them in that regard. Ultimately, MYV is going to have to decide if they want to spend their own money to keep the show out there, because regardless of how YOU feel, it is apparent that the people who control the purse strings of the target audience of this show DO NOT support the show itself. There will be a defacto boycott and stigma attached to those who DO sponsor it, whether you agree with that decision or not.

I appreciate you telling me what its like to be a parent, and how you will be such a better parent than me if/when you ever do have kids. But the bottom line is, you have no credibility in that regard because you have no experience in it. You have a preconceived notion of "how it will be for you" and whether you want to accept it or not, remember that I told you "you're only fooling yourself." Unless you choose to control every facet of your child's life, you will never, and should never, control them.

I'm not worried about my daughter. 

I'm not worried about EZ's daughter.

Our daughters are the exception, not the norm.

Bank that.

I've paid for a lot of abortions, a lot of prison time, a lot of drug rehab, and a lot of the cost of crime that was perpetrated by teenage kids and immature 20-somethings.

And not a single one of those for whom I've paid taxes to provide remedy for their decisions was own child, my own sibling, or my own direct family.

I'm not worried about MY kids.

I'm worried about kids like I imagine yours will be.

Kudos to Subway, GM, Schick, Wrigley, H&R Block, and Taco Bell for not wanting to sponsor this type of "entertainment." I'm sure those corporations are all simply chock-full of bad, irresponsible parents who are too stupid, irresponsible and selfish to acknowledge your right to free kiddie porn and the glamorization of drug abuse, but money is power, and they have both.


----------



## G.T.

AllieBaba said:


> You guys are missing the big picture...it promotes the sexual exploitation of young kids, and that's illegal, beside being completely reprehensible.
> 
> Stop thinking just about how iit just affects you personally and think about the big picture...there are people with camera posing people in front of those cameras and telling them where to put their tongues and how to breathe so it looks like kids having sex. It sexualizes kids when we are putting people in jail for having sex with kids.
> 
> Think about it.



You know, in all honesty there was this little innocent show on TV called *Saved by the Bell*, and I wonder what the Director was telling Zack to do with his tongue when he was kissing Kelly?


----------



## High_Gravity

AllieBaba said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you're not uptight. (about stuff like this)
> 
> I guess it breaks that law Allie posted, but I don't even agree with the law necessarily. It implies sex, on the show....and these kids are in high-school, but that doesn't bug me because #1: they don't show actual sex ala what *I'd* consider pornography, and #2: I had sex in high school.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well unless the kids are actually having sex i.e actual insertion of penis in vagina or mouth or whatever it can't really be considered child porn right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Er..no.
> 
> Read the definition, you retard.
Click to expand...



Shut the fuck up  *XXXXXXX* .


----------



## Mini 14

G.T. said:


> Try (anoyone) not to raise your kids to be gullible followers. Then you won't have to hide them from the truth of anything, if you're sucessful.



Can you also give us advice on how you cope with your period?

How about child birth......what helped you during labor and morning sickness?

Next I think I'll go ask a white man what its like to be black, and a blind man what it is like to see.


----------



## AllieBaba

The sole purpose of Saved By The Bell wasn't to sexualize children, and there were no close-ups of french kidding, or girls having orgasms.


----------



## G.T.

Does anyone Remember West Beverly High School? Beverly Hills 90210 was *this* explicit sexually, and yes, they were in High School.


----------



## AllieBaba

High_Gravity said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well unless the kids are actually having sex i.e actual insertion of penis in vagina or mouth or whatever it can't really be considered child porn right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Er..no.
> 
> Read the definition, you retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Shut the fuck up  *XXXXXXX*
Click to expand...


Yes, we should all listen to what HG has to say about kiddie porn. Obviously he has a horse in this race.


----------



## High_Gravity

AllieBaba said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Er..no.
> 
> Read the definition, you retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shut the fuck up *XXXXXXX*  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, we should all listen to what HG has to say about kiddie porn. Obviously he has a horse in this race.
Click to expand...


You are the dumbest fucking  *XXXXXXX*  on these boards, congratulations.


----------



## G.T.

Mini 14 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try (anoyone) not to raise your kids to be gullible followers. Then you won't have to hide them from the truth of anything, if you're sucessful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you also give us advice on how you cope with your period?
> 
> How about child birth......what helped you during labor and morning sickness?
> 
> Next I think I'll go ask a white man what its like to be black, and a blind man what it is like to see.
Click to expand...


You didn't experience and learn from........you know......**being** raised?


----------



## uscitizen

BrianH said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does spitting out a couple of kids give you the latitude to decide what can and can't come across my television?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never implied that.
> 
> Having children, I think it puts it in a different perspective than it might be perceived by someone who doesn't have children. I merely asked G.T. if he had any kids, as he stated he isn't offended by it at all.
> 
> Sorry if my post didn't fit neatly inside your little box
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly, people without kids have no frickin business telling people how they "should" be raising their kids.  And you're right, someone without any kids may not be offended as someone with kids....He'll understand one day when daddy's little freshman is sitting in the driveway smoking pot and giving head to the senior captain of the football team.
Click to expand...


ahh the american way from the Happy Days era.


----------



## G.T.

AllieBaba said:


> The sole purpose of Saved By The Bell wasn't to sexualize children, and there were no close-ups of french kidding, or girls having orgasms.



The sole purpose of 90210 was.


----------



## G.T.

Also, you all are continuing with the canaard that they're sensationalizing these activities. 

-girl takes pills, almost dies.
-girl throws party while parents are away. house gets destroyed, suv gets stolen.
-boy buys pot from some brothel. dealer threatens boy's life for non-payment. \

This seems like a deterrant, not a sensationalization/promotion-of, these activities, to me.


----------



## Mini 14

G.T. said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try (anoyone) not to raise your kids to be gullible followers. Then you won't have to hide them from the truth of anything, if you're sucessful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you also give us advice on how you cope with your period?
> 
> How about child birth......what helped you during labor and morning sickness?
> 
> Next I think I'll go ask a white man what its like to be black, and a blind man what it is like to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't experience and learn from........you know......**being** raised?
Click to expand...


Yeah, I did.

I also remember a moment you're going to have one day.

When, after having your own kids, you go to your parents and say.....

"I get it now.....I understand. I may not agree, now or ever, but I certainly DO understand."

I said the exact same things you are saying.

There is a perspective you cannot imagine, no matter how hard you try, or special you think you are, or how smart you are. I know, because I imagined it myself.

And it isn't anything CLOSE to the reality.


----------



## xotoxi

Mini 14 said:


> If anyone can show where I've stated that the show should be censored outside of the free market, I will gladly sign over the deed to my home (and it is free and clear of any liens or mortgages).



What does it appraise at?  Does it need a lot of updating?

I'd like a little more information about your house to determine if it is worth me reading through your posts.


----------



## G.T.

Mini 14 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you also give us advice on how you cope with your period?
> 
> How about child birth......what helped you during labor and morning sickness?
> 
> Next I think I'll go ask a white man what its like to be black, and a blind man what it is like to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't experience and learn from........you know......**being** raised?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I did.
> 
> I also remember a moment you're going to have one day.
> 
> When, after having your own kids, you go to your parents and say.....
> 
> "I get it now.....I understand. I may not agree, now or ever, but I certainly DO understand."
> 
> I said the exact same things you are saying.
> 
> There is a perspective you cannot imagine, no matter how hard you try, or special you think you are, or how smart you are. I know, because I imagined it myself.
> 
> And it isn't anything CLOSE to the reality.
Click to expand...


i realized those things already


----------



## xotoxi

Mini 14 said:


> At 11, my daughter is a very well-adjusted, VERY mature child. She is an actress, and has had much success (yes, you've seen her, and no, I'm not going to tell you who she is). She is proficient with firearms, has never made anything less than an A, has an IQ that is the highest in her school, and will likely complete college within a year of graduating High School.



She sounds like Sarah Palin (except for the "very well-adjusted", "VERY mature", "an actress, and has had  much success", "never made anything  less than an A", "has an IQ that is the highest in her school", or "will  likely complete college")


----------



## Mini 14

G.T. said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sole purpose of Saved By The Bell wasn't to sexualize children, and there were no close-ups of french kidding, or girls having orgasms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sole purpose of 90210 was.
Click to expand...


And that's where you're wrong. Maybe you saw only the gratuitous sex and glamorization of abuse because that's what you WANTED to see, or you weren't mature enough to hear the whole message.

As cheesy and horrible as 90210 was, almost EVERY EPISODE had a message, many of them very controversial. I recall episodes about teen pregnancy, where they argued abstinence and safe sex. I remember SEVERAL episodes dealing with drug and alcohol abuse, and the devastating effects. They didn't glorify those things, they showed the realities and then offered responsible ways to deal with them.

If anything, 90210 was an asset to kids of that time, because it came close to their reality (as close as anything based in Beverly Hills to the "real world" can come) and then gave the kids not so subliminal advice on where, how, and who they could ask for advice, experience, or guidance. I hated that show, but because of the cheesy acting and because I didn't think the kids were a true representation of the average teen (I didn't have kids at that time). Looking back on it now, it had more merit than I realized at the time, even though it may be the cheesiest show of all time.

See any of that in Skins?


----------



## xotoxi

AllieBaba said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> It's child porn.
> 
> It's revolting that people are supporting it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I consider it something.....porn's not it though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, yes, it is, according to the definition of child porn:
> 
> "What Is Child Pornography?
> Under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256), child pornography1 is defined as any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where
> 
> the production of the visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
> 
> 
> the visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
> 
> 
> the visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
> Federal law (18 U.S.C. §1466A) also criminalizes knowingly producing, distributing, receiving, or possessing with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting, that
> 
> depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or
> 
> 
> depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. "
> 
> Child Pornography Fact Sheet
Click to expand...


The only problem with this is that the clip you posted last night only showed sexually _implicit _conduct.  Nothing _explicit _was shown (in the small clip that I saw).

It was _implied_ that the girl was receiving oral sex.  She could also have had the same reaction from a good foot rub.


----------



## High_Gravity

xotoxi said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I consider it something.....porn's not it though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, yes, it is, according to the definition of child porn:
> 
> "What Is Child Pornography?
> Under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256), child pornography1 is defined as any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where
> 
> the production of the visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
> 
> 
> the visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
> 
> 
> the visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
> Federal law (18 U.S.C. §1466A) also criminalizes knowingly producing, distributing, receiving, or possessing with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting, that
> 
> depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or
> 
> 
> depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. "
> 
> Child Pornography Fact Sheet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only problem with this is that the clip you posted last night only showed sexually _implicit _conduct.  Nothing _explicit _was shown (in the small clip that I saw).
> 
> It was _implied_ that the girl was receiving oral sex.  She could also have had the same reaction from a good foot rub.
Click to expand...


Allie doesn't know shit about what is porn and what is not which is why she ran out and looked for some definitions, unless Skins has these kids actually fucking on the set its not porn.


----------



## Mini 14

G.T. said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't experience and learn from........you know......**being** raised?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I did.
> 
> I also remember a moment you're going to have one day.
> 
> When, after having your own kids, you go to your parents and say.....
> 
> "I get it now.....I understand. I may not agree, now or ever, but I certainly DO understand."
> 
> I said the exact same things you are saying.
> 
> There is a perspective you cannot imagine, no matter how hard you try, or special you think you are, or how smart you are. I know, because I imagined it myself.
> 
> And it isn't anything CLOSE to the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i realized those things already
Click to expand...


And yet you continue to argue that the parents are over-reacting, though you "realize" everything I told you in the post above.

Words on a screen look so good, don't they.

If you type them often enough, even YOU may come to believe you know what you're talking about.


----------



## Trajan

question - how many people feel that the medium of television as in its content, ( nets obviously) has been a net plus for society overall since its inception?


----------



## G.T.

Mini 14 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I did.
> 
> I also remember a moment you're going to have one day.
> 
> When, after having your own kids, you go to your parents and say.....
> 
> "I get it now.....I understand. I may not agree, now or ever, but I certainly DO understand."
> 
> I said the exact same things you are saying.
> 
> There is a perspective you cannot imagine, no matter how hard you try, or special you think you are, or how smart you are. I know, because I imagined it myself.
> 
> And it isn't anything CLOSE to the reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i realized those things already
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you continue to argue that the parents are over-reacting, though you "realize" everything I told you in the post above.
> 
> Words on a screen look so good, don't they.
> 
> If you type them often enough, even YOU may come to believe you know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...


Vice versa, bud. You're even providing my POV with your own experience, and implicating that everyone else's kids but a few aren't smart enough to realize that this show isn't reality. I don't think that a *majority* of kids are having abortions, on drugs, etc etc as you'd like to presume by said implication. 

What I "already realized," I was referring to those moments of "ohhh...Mom, THAT'S why you tought me that!!! (head-slap)"

Those days are behind me. I'm not an idiot.


----------



## Article 15

Trajan said:


> question - how many people feel that the medium of television as in its content, ( nets obviously) has been a net play for society overall since its inception?



In English, please?


----------



## G.T.

Further, 90210 you said has merit for it's messages. 

What about this show giving you a pretty up close horror show of the consequences of taking drugs? Buying drugs? Having house parties when your parents are away?

I mean, they're showing the consequences. That's not a message?


----------



## Trajan

on a general note- its always a charm to witness the ever amazing double standardized super duper elasticized application meter as to when it okay to hold parents 'responsible' &#8230;&#8230; or not &#8230;.


----------



## Trajan

Article 15 said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> question - how many people feel that the medium of television as in its content, ( nets obviously) has been a net play for society overall since its inception?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In English, please?
Click to expand...


see? TV has dumbed you down....


----------



## Mini 14

G.T. said:


> Further, 90210 you said has merit for it's messages.
> 
> What about this show giving you a pretty up close horror show of the consequences of taking drugs? Buying drugs? Having house parties when your parents are away?
> 
> I mean, they're showing the consequences. That's not a message?



You know everything, you're the center of the Universe. Ahhh....to have all the answers.....yes.......those were the days   

On the off-chance that some day, your perspective will change (based on ACTUALLY experiencing things, and AMAZINGLY finding them to be different from what you IMAGINED they would be) may I preemptively say:

"I told you so."

Have your kiddie porn and glorified drug abuse. Embrace it, enjoy it. I sincerely and genuinely hope it brings you all the gratification and self-righteousness you seem to so desperately seek in defending it.

Now, as a Cherokee Indian, I am off to write a paper on what its like to be an immigrant to America. Because until this discussion, I did not realize that I am an (imagined) expert on the subject.


----------



## G.T.

Mini 14 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further, 90210 you said has merit for it's messages.
> 
> What about this show giving you a pretty up close horror show of the consequences of taking drugs? Buying drugs? Having house parties when your parents are away?
> 
> I mean, they're showing the consequences. That's not a message?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know everything, you're the center of the Universe. Ahhh....to have all the answers.....yes.......those were the days
> 
> On the off-chance that some day, your perspective will change (based on ACTUALLY experiencing things, and AMAZINGLY finding them to be different from what you IMAGINED they would be) may I preemptively say:
> 
> "I told you so."
> 
> Have your kiddie porn and glorified drug abuse. Embrace it, enjoy it. I sincerely and genuinely hope it brings you all the gratification and self-righteousness you seem to so desperately seek in defending it.
> 
> Now, as a Cherokee Indian, I am off to write a paper on what its like to be an immigrant to America. Because until this discussion, I did not realize that I am an (imagined) expert on the subject.
Click to expand...


YOU can't say I told you so, to me. YOU took my future approach. YOU said your daughter is adjusted enough to watch this, like EZ's daughter was. Dismissed.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Mini 14 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you also give us advice on how you cope with your period?
> 
> How about child birth......what helped you during labor and morning sickness?
> 
> Next I think I'll go ask a white man what its like to be black, and a blind man what it is like to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't experience and learn from........you know......**being** raised?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I did.
> 
> I also remember a moment you're going to have one day.
> 
> When, after having your own kids, you go to your parents and say.....
> 
> "I get it now.....I understand. I may not agree, now or ever, but I certainly DO understand."
> 
> I said the exact same things you are saying.
> 
> There is a perspective you cannot imagine, no matter how hard you try, or special you think you are, or how smart you are. I know, because I imagined it myself.
> 
> And it isn't anything CLOSE to the reality.
Click to expand...


^^^  This? * YES.*  It cannot be stated any clearer than this.


----------



## GHook93

G.T. said:


> Also, you all are continuing with the canaard that they're sensationalizing these activities.
> 
> -girl takes pills, almost dies.
> -girl throws party while parents are away. house gets destroyed, suv gets stolen.
> -boy buys pot from some brothel. dealer threatens boy's life for non-payment. \
> 
> This seems like a deterrant, not a sensationalization/promotion-of, these activities, to me.



Oh please, they sensationize it without a doubt!


----------



## AllieBaba

G.T. said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sole purpose of Saved By The Bell wasn't to sexualize children, and there were no close-ups of french kidding, or girls having orgasms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sole purpose of 90210 was.
Click to expand...


I never saw anything on 90210 that looks remotely like what SKINS broadcasts.


----------



## G.T.

AllieBaba said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sole purpose of Saved By The Bell wasn't to sexualize children, and there were no close-ups of french kidding, or girls having orgasms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sole purpose of 90210 was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never saw anything on 90210 that looks remotely like what SKINS broadcasts.
Click to expand...


----------



## AllieBaba

Is 90210 still in production?


----------



## uscitizen

Ahh lets talk about the daytime soaps...


----------



## BrianH

uscitizen said:


> Ahh lets talk about the daytime soaps...



Daytime soaps aren't geared towards teenagers.........  Try to get a high school kid to sit through one...lol


----------



## BrianH

G.T. said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further, 90210 you said has merit for it's messages.
> 
> What about this show giving you a pretty up close horror show of the consequences of taking drugs? Buying drugs? Having house parties when your parents are away?
> 
> I mean, they're showing the consequences. That's not a message?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know everything, you're the center of the Universe. Ahhh....to have all the answers.....yes.......those were the days
> 
> On the off-chance that some day, your perspective will change (based on ACTUALLY experiencing things, and AMAZINGLY finding them to be different from what you IMAGINED they would be) may I preemptively say:
> 
> "I told you so."
> 
> Have your kiddie porn and glorified drug abuse. Embrace it, enjoy it. I sincerely and genuinely hope it brings you all the gratification and self-righteousness you seem to so desperately seek in defending it.
> 
> Now, as a Cherokee Indian, I am off to write a paper on what its like to be an immigrant to America. Because until this discussion, I did not realize that I am an (imagined) expert on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU can't say I told you so, to me. YOU took my future approach. YOU said your daughter is adjusted enough to watch this, like EZ's daughter was. Dismissed.
Click to expand...


1. Do you have any kids?

2. If you don't, just wait......


----------



## AllieBaba

The subject isn't crappy tv; it's child porn.

Material specifically tailored to represent children having sex.


----------



## BrianH

No kid is "adjusted" enough.  I had a good friend of mine who was "adjusted."  never did a bad thing in his life...went to college, went buck-ass wild....


----------



## G.T.

AllieBaba said:


> The subject isn't crappy tv; it's child porn.
> 
> Material specifically tailored to represent children having sex.


----------



## uscitizen

BrianH said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh lets talk about the daytime soaps...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daytime soaps aren't geared towards teenagers.........  Try to get a high school kid to sit through one...lol
Click to expand...


Right the toddlers watch them while momma does.
It prepped them for the next level we are at now.


----------



## Mini 14

It now appears that even MTV is having concerns over the show as well. They have ordered the 3rd episode be edited to remove partial nudity of a minor, and "frequent showings" of one of the minor male actor's erection, which "is a running joke in the show."

Looks like the free market may win after all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/business/media/24carr.html?ref=mtvnetworks


----------



## G.T.

Mini 14 said:


> It now appears that even MTV is having concerns over the show as well. They have ordered the 3rd episode be edited to remove partial nudity of a minor, and "frequent showings" of one of the minor male actor's erection, which "is a running joke in the show."
> 
> Looks like the free market may win after all.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/business/media/24carr.html?ref=mtvnetworks



that would be best


----------



## Mini 14

G.T. said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It now appears that even MTV is having concerns over the show as well. They have ordered the 3rd episode be edited to remove partial nudity of a minor, and "frequent showings" of one of the minor male actor's erection, which "is a running joke in the show."
> 
> Looks like the free market may win after all.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/business/media/24carr.html?ref=mtvnetworks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that would be best
Click to expand...


Let me know when you want to get serious about your rap. I've never written a rap song, never performed a rap song, never really listened to much rap at all (can't stand it!), but I've thought about it a lot and I've realized and imagined everything there could possibly be to know about it, plus I know lots of people who have rap in their lives, so I'm a qualified expert on the subject of writing successful rap "music." You'd be a fool not to follow my advice. (Whatever you do, don't listen to any rap musicians.....just because they do it every day, they don't know any better than I).


----------



## G.T.

Mini 14 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It now appears that even MTV is having concerns over the show as well. They have ordered the 3rd episode be edited to remove partial nudity of a minor, and "frequent showings" of one of the minor male actor's erection, which "is a running joke in the show."
> 
> Looks like the free market may win after all.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/business/media/24carr.html?ref=mtvnetworks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that would be best
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me know when you want to get serious about your rap. I've never written a rap song, never performed a rap song, never really listened to much rap at all (can't stand it!), but I've thought about it a lot and I've realized and imagined everything there could possibly be to know about it, plus I know lots of people who have rap in their lives, so I'm a qualified expert on the subject of writing successful rap "music." You'd be a fool not to follow my advice. (Whatever you do, don't listen to any rap musicians.....just because they do it every day, they don't know any better than I).
Click to expand...


/corny. 

EZ has a child that she'd let watch it, having a child didn't change her perspective on whether or not she'd let her kid watch it, and I'm taking the same position as her that I'd also let mine watch it. Dunno how that's hard to "imagine."


----------



## Mini 14

G.T. said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> that would be best
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know when you want to get serious about your rap. I've never written a rap song, never performed a rap song, never really listened to much rap at all (can't stand it!), but I've thought about it a lot and I've realized and imagined everything there could possibly be to know about it, plus I know lots of people who have rap in their lives, so I'm a qualified expert on the subject of writing successful rap "music." You'd be a fool not to follow my advice. (Whatever you do, don't listen to any rap musicians.....just because they do it every day, they don't know any better than I).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> /corny.
> 
> EZ has a child that she'd let watch it, having a child didn't change her perspective on whether or not she'd let her kid watch it, and I'm taking the same position as her that I'd also let mine watch it. Dunno how that's hard to "imagine."
Click to expand...


/naive

Still not serious about the rap, huh?

Just say the word. 

Until then, you're a poser.


----------



## G.T.

Mini 14 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know when you want to get serious about your rap. I've never written a rap song, never performed a rap song, never really listened to much rap at all (can't stand it!), but I've thought about it a lot and I've realized and imagined everything there could possibly be to know about it, plus I know lots of people who have rap in their lives, so I'm a qualified expert on the subject of writing successful rap "music." You'd be a fool not to follow my advice. (Whatever you do, don't listen to any rap musicians.....just because they do it every day, they don't know any better than I).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /corny.
> 
> EZ has a child that she'd let watch it, having a child didn't change her perspective on whether or not she'd let her kid watch it, and I'm taking the same position as her that I'd also let mine watch it. Dunno how that's hard to "imagine."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> /naive
> 
> Still not serious about the rap, huh?
> 
> Just say the word.
> 
> Until then, you're a poser.
Click to expand...


Yea, this is a totally legitimate comparison. 

Anyways, have fun with this thread man. When the conversations turn this way with snide remarks and shits, it stops being interesting to me tbh.


----------



## Mini 14

G.T. said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> /corny.
> 
> EZ has a child that she'd let watch it, having a child didn't change her perspective on whether or not she'd let her kid watch it, and I'm taking the same position as her that I'd also let mine watch it. Dunno how that's hard to "imagine."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /naive
> 
> Still not serious about the rap, huh?
> 
> Just say the word.
> 
> Until then, you're a poser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, this is a totally legitimate comparison.
> 
> Anyways, have fun with this thread man. When the conversations turn this way with snide remarks and shits, it stops being interesting to me tbh.
Click to expand...


You mean, when someone tries to apply your logic to you, you haul ass, right?

I am just as much an expert in rap as you are in parenting. We both have the same experience in our respective areas of "expertise."


----------



## G.T.

Mini 14 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /naive
> 
> Still not serious about the rap, huh?
> 
> Just say the word.
> 
> Until then, you're a poser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, this is a totally legitimate comparison.
> 
> Anyways, have fun with this thread man. When the conversations turn this way with snide remarks and shits, it stops being interesting to me tbh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean, when someone tries to apply your logic to you, you haul ass, right?
> 
> I am just as much an expert in rap as you are in parenting. We both have the same experience in our respective areas of "expertise."
Click to expand...


No, here's where you lose me. 

You're trying to apply the logic that "because you've parented, and I haven't, that automatically gives your parenting "skills" of what you would, and wouldn't do, in certain situations, more weight.

If this were true, then hell, where are all of our little mal-adjusted retards coming from? I mean, because once someone's a parent they "know how to properly parent," right? More than anyone else, right? 

That's not "logic," so you're not "using my logic" against me. You're just bloviating about "I'm a parent you're not so you have no idea how to handle this situation!" Which is a fallacy. 

Anyways, people that have never ever rapped before could also be better at Rap then a lot of Rappers. So, you're still not using my logic against me really you're just continuing your fallacy that people who don't have experience in something are automatically void of a legitimate opinion. It's a fallacy.


----------



## Trajan

I am flummoxed as to why someone would let their child watch this, what exactly would be the purpose? what not to do? you can tell them that,  they need to see it? Take them to a jail, show'em around. take them to skid row.....


and I thought one of the major issues was MTV may have used underage actors?


----------



## G.T.

Trajan said:


> I am flummoxed as to why someone would let their child watch this, what exactly would be the purpose? what not to do? you can tell them that,  they need to see it? Take them to a jail, show'em around. take them to skid row.....
> 
> 
> and I thought one of the major issues was MTV may have used underage actors?



The purpose is a philosophical one. There's a couple of schools of thought. 

#1 is that you shelter someone from the wrongs of the world....which _*could *_go wrong because they *may* be void of what to do once the shelter is lifted as pertaining to said situation. But it could all work out.

#2 is that you don't censor, you instead teach-of............and hope that they understand. This could also go wrong in-that your kid might be gullible and wrought by (said show/thing in life's) wrath.


----------



## newpolitics

chanel said:


> Skins is surely one of the most sexually charged programs that MTV has featured. Before it even had its premiere, the Parents Television Council, a TV watchdog group, labeled Skins the most dangerous program that has ever been foisted on your children. The group objected to the gratuitous scenes of drug and alcohol use, violence and sexual acts.
> 
> Of course, those scenes may be what attract young viewers in the first place. Jessica Bennett, a senior writer for Newsweek, wrote last week,  Skins may be the most realistic show on television.
> 
> The show is off to a running start. It attracted 3.3 million to its premiere on Monday night and set a new first-episode record for the channel among viewers ages 12 to 34.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/b...p=1&adxnnlx=1295632949-rrIGAAUa2T6US9tiiFlDng
> 
> Has anyone seen it?  I did.  Worse than you can possibly imagine.  And I can tell you as someone who spends every day with teenagers (who often give me TMI), this is NOT "the most realistic show on television."
> 
> The most disturbing part for me was the end of the first episode.  Driving stoned, the kids run their car off a bridge into the water.  Amazingly all the passengers emerge completely unscathed and one announces "Oh shit,  The weed got wet".  And they laugh and laugh and laugh...  Scary.
> 
> Glorifying sex, drugs, and child prostitution is dangerous.  Glorifying teen driving accidents is deadly.
Click to expand...


This, a product of capitliasm... give the consumer what it wants. There is no morality when tit comes to profit. It's so funny to me that it is often conservatives who complain about television and it's material, yet are the foremost proponents for free-market capitalism, yet it is capitalism that directly produces these kinds of shows.


----------



## Mini 14

G.T. said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am flummoxed as to why someone would let their child watch this, what exactly would be the purpose? what not to do? you can tell them that,  they need to see it? Take them to a jail, show'em around. take them to skid row.....
> 
> 
> and I thought one of the major issues was MTV may have used underage actors?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose is a philosophical one. There's a couple of schools of thought.
> 
> #1 is that you shelter someone from the wrongs of the world....which _*could *_go wrong because they *may* be void of what to do once the shelter is lifted as pertaining to said situation. But it could all work out.
> 
> #2 is that you don't censor, you instead teach-of............and hope that they understand. This could also go wrong in-that your kid might be gullible and wrought by (said show/thing in life's) wrath.
Click to expand...


Traj,
The original discussion was whether or not the show is dangerous and irresponsible. GT (no kids) and others (MOSTLY no kids) think its fine just the way it is, and not anything anyone should be concerned with.

Me (parents), and others (MOSTLY parents) think it sends a dangerous and irresponsible message to kids of a VERY impressionable age. 

One of the tangents that GT and the other "pro-show" crowd have taken the original discussion along is that we are trying to censor the show.

Some are.

I'm not.

I see it for how it could affect teenagers, and thus, their parents. Not as a cheap thrill for people who it can't affect (those past the age of impression, or those without children of that age).

Its shock tv, no question.

And it appears the sponsors and the network are beginning to see that it isn't being received very well, even though it is chock full of kiddie sex and drug use. 

I predict it will be gone before the first season is completed. 

And you're right.....one of the major issues is that the ages of ALL of the actors playing the major characters are between 15 and 19. Not a single adult in the central cast.


----------



## Mini 14

newpolitics said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skins is surely one of the most sexually charged programs that MTV has featured. Before it even had its premiere, the Parents Television Council, a TV watchdog group, labeled Skins the most dangerous program that has ever been foisted on your children. The group objected to the gratuitous scenes of drug and alcohol use, violence and sexual acts.
> 
> Of course, those scenes may be what attract young viewers in the first place. Jessica Bennett, a senior writer for Newsweek, wrote last week,  Skins may be the most realistic show on television.
> 
> The show is off to a running start. It attracted 3.3 million to its premiere on Monday night and set a new first-episode record for the channel among viewers ages 12 to 34.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/b...p=1&adxnnlx=1295632949-rrIGAAUa2T6US9tiiFlDng
> 
> Has anyone seen it?  I did.  Worse than you can possibly imagine.  And I can tell you as someone who spends every day with teenagers (who often give me TMI), this is NOT "the most realistic show on television."
> 
> The most disturbing part for me was the end of the first episode.  Driving stoned, the kids run their car off a bridge into the water.  Amazingly all the passengers emerge completely unscathed and one announces "Oh shit,  The weed got wet".  And they laugh and laugh and laugh...  Scary.
> 
> Glorifying sex, drugs, and child prostitution is dangerous.  Glorifying teen driving accidents is deadly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This, a product of capitliasm... give the consumer what it wants. There is no morality when tit comes to profit. It's so funny to me that it is often conservatives who complain about television and it's material, yet are the foremost proponents for free-market capitalism, yet it is capitalism that directly produces these kinds of shows.
Click to expand...


You're right.

And it is also capitalism that is choking the life out of it now that it has hit the air.


----------



## AllieBaba

It's not just about whether it sets a bad example; most of tv does that.

It's the fact that it's CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. It is providing sexually explicit material TO children (furnishing) and it is portraying children in sexually explicit ways. This is against the law, and harmful to children.


----------



## G.T.

Mini 14 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am flummoxed as to why someone would let their child watch this, what exactly would be the purpose? what not to do? you can tell them that,  they need to see it? Take them to a jail, show'em around. take them to skid row.....
> 
> 
> and I thought one of the major issues was MTV may have used underage actors?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose is a philosophical one. There's a couple of schools of thought.
> 
> #1 is that you shelter someone from the wrongs of the world....which _*could *_go wrong because they *may* be void of what to do once the shelter is lifted as pertaining to said situation. But it could all work out.
> 
> #2 is that you don't censor, you instead teach-of............and hope that they understand. This could also go wrong in-that your kid might be gullible and wrought by (said show/thing in life's) wrath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Traj,
> The original discussion was whether or not the show is dangerous and irresponsible. GT (no kids) and others (MOSTLY no kids) think its fine just the way it is, and not anything anyone should be concerned with.
> 
> Me (parents), and others (MOSTLY parents) think it sends a dangerous and irresponsible message to kids of a VERY impressionable age.
> 
> One of the tangents that GT and the other "pro-show" crowd have taken the original discussion along is that we are trying to censor the show.
> 
> Some are.
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> I see it for how it could affect teenagers, and thus, their parents. Not as a cheap thrill for people who it can't affect (those past the age of impression, or those without children of that age).
> 
> Its shock tv, no question.
> 
> And it appears the sponsors and the network are beginning to see that it isn't being received very well, even though it is chock full of kiddie sex and drug use.
> 
> I predict it will be gone before the first season is completed.
> 
> And you're right.....one of the major issues is that the ages of ALL of the actors playing the major characters are between 15 and 19. Not a single adult in the central cast.
Click to expand...


I never brought it on the actual cencorship discussion. When I said censor, I meant on a personal level. I didn't see you promoting censorship of the show itself, on a national level, and never accused you of such. 

Also, I also agreed that if the market decides people don't like it, then good, get rid of it. 

Also, I never said it's not anything anyone shouldn't be concerned with. First off, I said that if you're a parent with a well-enough adjusted and taught kid, you shouldn't be concerned. And there's a difference between me saying that, and you saying what I said above. 

Also, I never saw every episode, obviously they're not even all released yet, but if it one day breaches "child porn," then I have an obvious problem with that as would anyone, not b/c viewers but the actual actors themselves. I haven't seen that yet. I also posted a sex scene from 90210. West Beverly High! (in fairness, they portray high-schoolers but the actors themselves might not have been underage as these dweebs are).


----------



## G.T.

AllieBaba said:


> It's not just about whether it sets a bad example; most of tv does that.
> 
> It's the fact that it's CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. It is providing sexually explicit material TO children (furnishing) and it is portraying children in sexually explicit ways. This is against the law, and harmful to children.



I think that if the acting itself breaches child pornography, then I'll have an issue with it. I've not seen that, yet. You posted the law, which is nice, but the language of the law itself and the portrayal of the show itself is going to have the be subject to judicial review for me to know that for sure, because right now, to me, it's not "explicit" porn, in the sense that I've always known/considered porn to be.


----------



## AllieBaba

That's because you don't understand what constitutes pornography.

Where they will get off, if they do, will be by claiming there's a purpose to it aside from just producing pornography. That's what the whole spiel they've generated about it portraying what real kids are going through is all about. They're trying to make the case for "art".


----------



## G.T.

AllieBaba said:


> That's because you don't understand what constitutes pornography.
> 
> Where they will get off, if they do, will be by claiming there's a purpose to it aside from just producing pornography. That's what the whole spiel they've generated about it portraying what real kids are going through is all about. They're trying to make the case for "art".



I guess I don't understand the legal definition, that's true.  

My understanding of porn is insertion, nudity, felatio, actual sex, anal sex, fuck.... some weirdos have some pee and foot fetishes, ....crap like that. I don't consider the "portrayal" of sex in, say, a movie....porn. Porn to me is XXX.


----------



## Mini 14

AllieBaba said:


> That's because you don't understand what constitutes pornography.
> 
> Where they will get off, if they do, will be by claiming there's a purpose to it aside from just producing pornography. That's what the whole spiel they've generated about it portraying what real kids are going through is all about. They're trying to make the case for "art".



While I can see an "art" quality to it (I think it tells an interesting story, but only appropriate for an adult), and while it certainly could be more "pornographic" than it is, my big beef is that it isn't appropriate for the audience it is aimed at (granted, I understand they are going after the adult lecherous crowd as well, but I believe the primary target is teens).

I think MTV is going to kill it themselves. They're already softening the blow with some of their latest press releases revealing they are growing concerned, and have sent future episodes back for further editing.

As one of the articles I read said (can't remember which one or I'd link), MTV has been pushing the envelope since the day they first aired, and they appear to be realizing that this time, they may have pushed too far.


----------



## Zoom-boing

G.T. said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you don't understand what constitutes pornography.
> 
> Where they will get off, if they do, will be by claiming there's a purpose to it aside from just producing pornography. That's what the whole spiel they've generated about it portraying what real kids are going through is all about. They're trying to make the case for "art".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I don't understand the legal definition, that's true.
> 
> My understanding of porn is insertion, nudity, felatio, actual sex, anal sex, fuck.... some weirdos have some pee and foot fetishes, ....crap like that. I don't consider the "portrayal" of sex in, say, a movie....porn. Porn to me is XXX.
Click to expand...


Did you ever watch FX's _Nip/Tuck_?  I always considered nearly most of the sex scenes as soft porn.


----------



## G.T.

Zoom-boing said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you don't understand what constitutes pornography.
> 
> Where they will get off, if they do, will be by claiming there's a purpose to it aside from just producing pornography. That's what the whole spiel they've generated about it portraying what real kids are going through is all about. They're trying to make the case for "art".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I don't understand the legal definition, that's true.
> 
> My understanding of porn is insertion, nudity, felatio, actual sex, anal sex, fuck.... some weirdos have some pee and foot fetishes, ....crap like that. I don't consider the "portrayal" of sex in, say, a movie....porn. Porn to me is XXX.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever watch FX's _Nip/Tuck_?  I always considered nearly most of the sex scenes as soft porn.
Click to expand...


N'aw. Never saw it.


----------



## Luissa

chanel said:


> Skins is surely one of the most sexually charged programs that MTV has featured. Before it even had its premiere, the Parents Television Council, a TV watchdog group, labeled Skins the most dangerous program that has ever been foisted on your children. The group objected to the gratuitous scenes of drug and alcohol use, violence and sexual acts.
> 
> Of course, those scenes may be what attract young viewers in the first place. Jessica Bennett, a senior writer for Newsweek, wrote last week,  Skins may be the most realistic show on television.
> 
> The show is off to a running start. It attracted 3.3 million to its premiere on Monday night and set a new first-episode record for the channel among viewers ages 12 to 34.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/b...p=1&adxnnlx=1295632949-rrIGAAUa2T6US9tiiFlDng
> 
> Has anyone seen it?  I did.  Worse than you can possibly imagine.  And I can tell you as someone who spends every day with teenagers (who often give me TMI), this is NOT "the most realistic show on television."
> 
> The most disturbing part for me was the end of the first episode.  Driving stoned, the kids run their car off a bridge into the water.  Amazingly all the passengers emerge completely unscathed and one announces "Oh shit,  The weed got wet".  And they laugh and laugh and laugh...  Scary.
> 
> Glorifying sex, drugs, and child prostitution is dangerous.  Glorifying teen driving accidents is deadly.
Click to expand...

They had  the same show, but probably worse in the UK. The children of the UK are still here.


----------



## High_Gravity

G.T. said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I don't understand the legal definition, that's true.
> 
> My understanding of porn is insertion, nudity, felatio, actual sex, anal sex, fuck.... some weirdos have some pee and foot fetishes, ....crap like that. I don't consider the "portrayal" of sex in, say, a movie....porn. Porn to me is XXX.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever watch FX's _Nip/Tuck_?  I always considered nearly most of the sex scenes as soft porn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> N'aw. Never saw it.
Click to expand...


Nip/Tuck was for adults and was on later in the night, it was not geared towards children or feature children doing sexual acts.


----------



## High_Gravity

Luissa said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skins is surely one of the most sexually charged programs that MTV has featured. Before it even had its premiere, the Parents Television Council, a TV watchdog group, labeled Skins the most dangerous program that has ever been foisted on your children. The group objected to the gratuitous scenes of drug and alcohol use, violence and sexual acts.
> 
> Of course, those scenes may be what attract young viewers in the first place. Jessica Bennett, a senior writer for Newsweek, wrote last week,  Skins may be the most realistic show on television.
> 
> The show is off to a running start. It attracted 3.3 million to its premiere on Monday night and set a new first-episode record for the channel among viewers ages 12 to 34.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/b...p=1&adxnnlx=1295632949-rrIGAAUa2T6US9tiiFlDng
> 
> Has anyone seen it?  I did.  Worse than you can possibly imagine.  And I can tell you as someone who spends every day with teenagers (who often give me TMI), this is NOT "the most realistic show on television."
> 
> The most disturbing part for me was the end of the first episode.  Driving stoned, the kids run their car off a bridge into the water.  Amazingly all the passengers emerge completely unscathed and one announces "Oh shit,  The weed got wet".  And they laugh and laugh and laugh...  Scary.
> 
> Glorifying sex, drugs, and child prostitution is dangerous.  Glorifying teen driving accidents is deadly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had  the same show, but probably worse in the UK. The children of the UK are still here.
Click to expand...


People in the UK have thicker skin.


----------



## Luissa

High_Gravity said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/b...p=1&adxnnlx=1295632949-rrIGAAUa2T6US9tiiFlDng
> 
> Has anyone seen it?  I did.  Worse than you can possibly imagine.  And I can tell you as someone who spends every day with teenagers (who often give me TMI), this is NOT "the most realistic show on television."
> 
> The most disturbing part for me was the end of the first episode.  Driving stoned, the kids run their car off a bridge into the water.  Amazingly all the passengers emerge completely unscathed and one announces "Oh shit,  The weed got wet".  And they laugh and laugh and laugh...  Scary.
> 
> Glorifying sex, drugs, and child prostitution is dangerous.  Glorifying teen driving accidents is deadly.
> 
> 
> 
> They had  the same show, but probably worse in the UK. The children of the UK are still here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People in the UK have thicker skin.
Click to expand...


I am sure the  US version will not be so full on, either. 
I watched the show. It doesn't sugar coat what  really goes on with teenagers. Plus it was while they were in the UK's version of community college or whatever. Does the new show take place in high school or college?

We all realize that teenagers do drugs, have eating disorders, get in car wrecks etc, right?

If they go along the same storyline, like they usually do when they copy a UK  show. It will most likely show all the downsides of doing all these things. The UK show was good at not making all these things look glamorous. The main character was hit by a car  at the end of one of the seasons. What he goes through, isn't glamorous. His ex is also vilified for being a slut.


----------



## BrianH

uscitizen said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh lets talk about the daytime soaps...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daytime soaps aren't geared towards teenagers.........  Try to get a high school kid to sit through one...lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right the toddlers watch them while momma does.
> It prepped them for the next level we are at now.
Click to expand...


lol...yeah.  From Ice Age, to Days of Our Lives, to Skins, to Space Nuts


----------



## BrianH

We all know what teens can and may do, however, we don't need to plaster it all over television.  I feel the same way about tampon commercials... Like women really need an advertisement to discover that they exist...


----------



## High_Gravity

Luissa said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> They had  the same show, but probably worse in the UK. The children of the UK are still here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People in the UK have thicker skin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure the  US version will not be so full on, either.
> I watched the show. It doesn't sugar coat what  really goes on with teenagers. Plus it was while they were in the UK's version of community college or whatever. Does the new show take place in high school or college?
> 
> We all realize that teenagers do drugs, have eating disorders, get in car wrecks etc, right?
> 
> If they go along the same storyline, like they usually do when they copy a UK  show. It will most likely show all the downsides of doing all these things. The UK show was good at not making all these things look glamorous. The main character was hit by a car  at the end of one of the seasons. What he goes through, isn't glamorous. His ex is also vilified for being a slut.
Click to expand...


People in the UK are more realistic and they realize kids will make mistakes and are not perfect, when in the US everyone wants to throw sheets over their childrens eyes and force them to live like nuns and priests, I'm not agreeing with the show either but this is what I see.


----------



## Sheldon

G.T. said:


> I'm not offended by the show at all.




Me neither. It would be hypocritical for me to get indignant about it anyways. And I think some of the angst is a generational thing.

Back in the twenties, you just KNOW there were parents bent out of shape about knee-length skirts.



But if I was a parent I could see myself feeling differently about this show. There's reasons I don't sit at the table on Thanksgiving and tell the family about what I do and have done.

I think some of the controversial stuff in the show, parents can find themselves having done in their own past, or things they had seen others do back then--and they're things they regret and don't want their kids to repeat.

There is some legit truth under the over-dramatization, and I think that's why the show hits a parental nerve. I could just be talking out of my ass about this since I'm not actually a parent, but it sounds about right.


----------



## AllieBaba

What do you not understand about "child porn is illegal and harmful"?


----------



## xotoxi

Zoom-boing said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do block this shit and I'd be fine if the plug got pulled on this show.  *At what point does a line get drawn?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The free market will determine that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so if MTV decided to air full on porn marketed specifically for the 13-17 crowd that'd be ok if the free market says it's ok?
Click to expand...


The free market would not say it was okay.


----------



## Sheldon

AllieBaba said:


> What do you not understand about "child porn is illegal and harmful"?



A Wednesday night Bible study is the only place you're going to find someone in my age group who thinks that show actually depicts child pornography.


----------



## chanel

Interesting discussion.  Too bad some people had to ruin it with personal attacks on other's parenting.  Isn't that against the rules?  

The show is over the top and has definitely crossed the line.  Some people think that kids are unaffected by TV.  I don't.  Some people think kids may be affected, but don't care.  I do.

Many drunk drivers avoid accidents.  Doesn't make it any less dangerous.  Same thing.

I remember my mother forbidding from watching "Dark Shadows" when I was little.  I used to visit the old lady in the next apt. and watch it with her.


----------



## Luissa

AllieBaba said:


> What do you not understand about "child porn is illegal and harmful"?



Is there child porn in the show?


----------



## xotoxi

AllieBaba said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> It's child porn.
> 
> It's revolting that people are supporting it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I consider it something.....porn's not it though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, yes, it is, according to the definition of child porn:
> 
> "What Is Child Pornography?
> Under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256), child pornography1 is defined as any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of *sexually explicit conduct*, where
> 
> the production of the visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in _*sexually explicit conduct*_; or
> 
> 
> the visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in _*sexually explicit conduct*_; or
> 
> 
> the visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in _*sexually explicit conduct*_.
> Federal law (18 U.S.C. §1466A) also criminalizes knowingly producing, distributing, receiving, or possessing with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting, that
> 
> depicts a minor engaging in _*sexually explicit conduct*_ and is obscene, or
> 
> 
> depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. "
> 
> Child Pornography Fact Sheet
Click to expand...



You still have not shown any evidence that the show in question displays _*SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONDUCT*_.

The rugmunching scene is _SEXUALLY *IMPLICIT* CONDUCT_...and a girl lying down breathing hard could be interpreted as non-sexual.


----------



## AllieBaba

*the visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.*


----------



## Luissa

chanel said:


> Interesting discussion.  Too bad some people had to ruin it with personal attacks on other's parenting.  Isn't that against the rules?
> 
> The show is over the top and has definitely crossed the line.  Some people think that kids are unaffected by TV.  I don't.  Some people think kids may be affected, but don't care.  I do.
> 
> Many drunk drivers avoid accidents.  Doesn't make it any less dangerous.  Same thing.
> 
> I remember my mother forbidding from watching "Dark Shadows" when I was little.  I used to visit the old lady in the next apt. and watch it with her.



Trust me, it wasn't a tv show that made me drink beer and smoke pot in high school. Parents should try to understand their children, instead of blaming a tv show.


----------



## xotoxi

Luissa said:


> They had  the same show, but probably worse in the UK. The children of the UK are still here.



The children of the UK are not here and never have been.

They are all over there.


----------



## xotoxi

AllieBaba said:


> *the visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.*



That means that you do a little photoshopping to place a minor's head on the body of someone having sex.

The only thing the girl in that scene was doing was breathing hard and moaning...IMPLYING that something sexual was being done to her.

Had they shown the other girl's head in her lap, then I would agree with you wholeheartedly.

But, as of now, all we have is a girl pulling a Meg Ryan in Harry/Sally.


----------



## chanel

We haven't seen the third episode yet.  That's the one they had the big fucking meeting over.  Apparently, it's been edited out.  Can't imagine this show getting worse, but apparently it does.


----------



## AllieBaba

I guess I should be surprised that there are a good big chunk of loons on here who are pro-child pornography....but I'm not.

It's illegal. It's child porn. No, it does't mean photoshopping somebody's head onto a body because the definition goes on to state that even hand-drawn material can be considered child porn, if there are CHILDREN being depicted.

It's about what is being depicted. It's not about whether the actors are 18 (though some are as young as 15, which is illegal); it's not about whether or not it's good tv. It's about depicting kids in school having sex. That is child porn, pure and simple.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Luissa said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skins is surely one of the most sexually charged programs that MTV has featured. Before it even had its premiere, the Parents Television Council, a TV watchdog group, labeled Skins the most dangerous program that has ever been foisted on your children. The group objected to the gratuitous scenes of drug and alcohol use, violence and sexual acts.
> 
> Of course, those scenes may be what attract young viewers in the first place. Jessica Bennett, a senior writer for Newsweek, wrote last week,  Skins may be the most realistic show on television.
> 
> The show is off to a running start. It attracted 3.3 million to its premiere on Monday night and set a new first-episode record for the channel among viewers ages 12 to 34.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/b...p=1&adxnnlx=1295632949-rrIGAAUa2T6US9tiiFlDng
> 
> Has anyone seen it?  I did.  Worse than you can possibly imagine.  And I can tell you as someone who spends every day with teenagers (who often give me TMI), this is NOT "the most realistic show on television."
> 
> The most disturbing part for me was the end of the first episode.  Driving stoned, the kids run their car off a bridge into the water.  Amazingly all the passengers emerge completely unscathed and one announces "Oh shit,  The weed got wet".  And they laugh and laugh and laugh...  Scary.
> 
> Glorifying sex, drugs, and child prostitution is dangerous.  Glorifying teen driving accidents is deadly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had  the same show, but probably worse in the UK. The children of the UK are still here.
Click to expand...


The UK version of 'Skins' already ran on BBC America.


----------



## Trajan

G.T. said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am flummoxed as to why someone would let their child watch this, what exactly would be the purpose? what not to do? you can tell them that,  they need to see it? Take them to a jail, show'em around. take them to skid row.....
> 
> 
> and I thought one of the major issues was MTV may have used underage actors?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose is a philosophical one. There's a couple of schools of thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #1 is that you shelter someone from the wrongs of the world....which _*could *_go wrong because they *may* be void of what to do once the shelter is lifted as pertaining to said situation. But it could all work out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> okay so what you're basically describing imho, is; the mother complex, mother them to death and they'll never know what to do or be equipped to adequately handle adversity, strange situations , over all coping skills...yes, I have raised 2  children and get that. You cannot nor should not protect them from everything. I agree.....
> 
> However there are lines that blur and dont lend themselves to simple inculcated experience;  watching gratuitous sex or compromising situational  dialogues and demonstrations,  being exposed to  harsh language that is all simple ingestion, etc., doesnt mean they will always take or infer the correct lesson.
> 
> They will in all likelihood be exposed to their fair share of that whether parents allow it or not, so I dont see the point in watching something that lacks any rational message or that may even glorify certain behaviors, its a mean voyeurism that I dont see as healthy in the long run. Theres a great deal that I would prefer they watch, no, why even waste time on things like this,  you cannot force them but you can certainly influence them and I am aware of the pitfalls of straight denial, which creates its own mystery and curiosity that may just drive them to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #2 is that you don't censor, you instead teach-of............and hope that they understand. This could also go wrong in-that your kid might be gullible and wrought by (said show/thing in life's) wrath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes well, its curious to me, yes they certainly have the 'right' to put on the show, or shows like it, but at the end of the day what exactly does this bring to the table? Thats it, because they can its all good? And yes we can hope kids don't see it as anything they wish to imitate, but in a world now where-in kids feel they can speak on cell phones at the top of their voices using colorful expletives, describing as I once witnessed their latest sex tryst and other details I neither care to hear or want to , I wonder how we got here...this certainly can't help.
> 
> Ed Murrow once had something to say the medium of television, to wit; it could either be a wondrous tool of information and education and...well things like this...whats the point? Its  appeal top the common denominator, salaciousness for salaciousness's sake because.......it sells?
Click to expand...


----------



## Zoom-boing

High_Gravity said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever watch FX's _Nip/Tuck_?  I always considered nearly most of the sex scenes as soft porn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> N'aw. Never saw it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nip/Tuck was for adults and was on later in the night, it was not geared towards children or feature children doing sexual acts.
Click to expand...


I didn't say it was geared towards kids. Because I consider the sex in_ Nip/Tuck_ as soft porn, I was asking G.T. if he had ever seen it, in response to this post of his



G.T. said:


> I guess I don't understand the legal definition, that's true.
> 
> My understanding of porn is insertion, nudity, felatio, actual sex, anal sex, fuck.... some weirdos have some pee and foot fetishes, ....crap like that. I don't consider the "portrayal" of sex in, say, a movie....porn. Porn to me is XXX.


----------



## xotoxi

AllieBaba said:


> I guess I should be surprised that there are a good big chunk of loons on here who are pro-child pornography....but I'm not.
> 
> It's illegal. It's child porn. No, it does't mean photoshopping somebody's head onto a body because the definition goes on to state that even hand-drawn material can be considered child porn, if there are CHILDREN being depicted.
> 
> It's about what is being depicted. It's not about whether the actors are 18 (though some are as young as 15, which is illegal); it's not about whether or not it's good tv. It's about depicting kids in school having sex. That is child porn, pure and simple.



Did you realize that on the street, when a prostitute holds up her fingers in a "V" sign, she is telling potential clients that her vagina is wet and ready?

Just sayin'...


----------



## Amanda

Lots of ado about nothing IMO.

Here's a clue: Your kids ARE having sex. Deal with it.


----------



## MarcATL

AllieBaba said:


> What do you not understand about "child porn is illegal and harmful"?



Are you this hysterical about violence as well?

One thing I've noticed is that with all the lists I saw thrown around in this thread that was harmful to children...no a one mentioned violence.

Violence has only been ramping up in our society, in our culture and in public...yet...no hysteria from the Right.

Video games, read violent video games, are at an all time high. Games like Car Theft Auto (or whatever its call) are being pushed to children, Mortal Kombat where kids are taught to enjoy blood and gore from the youngest of ages...yet no outcry from the Right.

Why is this?

Do you people not consider that harmful as well?

...Interesting.


----------



## AllieBaba

If you promote kids having sex or create stuff that LOOKS like kids having sex, you're breaking the law.

If you provide kids with sexual material, you are FURNISHING porn to kids. That's also illegal.


----------



## AllieBaba

MarcATL said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you not understand about "child porn is illegal and harmful"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you this hysterical about violence as well?
> 
> One thing I've noticed is that with all the lists I saw thrown around in this thread that was harmful to children...no a one mentioned violence.
> 
> Violence has only been ramping up in our society, in our culture and in public...yet...no hysteria from the Right.
> 
> Video games, read violent video games, are at an all time high. Games like Car Theft Auto (or whatever its call) are being pushed to children, Mortal Kombat where kids are taught to enjoy blood and gore from the youngest of ages...yet no outcry from the Right.
> 
> Why is this?
> 
> Do you people not consider that harmful as well?
> 
> ...Interesting.
Click to expand...


It probably wasn't brought up because this thread is about child Porn, i.e., Skins.

And though there are certain people who like to sexualize children and would like to pretend it's perfectly normal, the fact remains...it's illegal, and harmful to children.


----------



## newpolitics

MarcATL said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you not understand about "child porn is illegal and harmful"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you this hysterical about violence as well?
> 
> One thing I've noticed is that with all the lists I saw thrown around in this thread that was harmful to children...no a one mentioned violence.
> 
> Violence has only been ramping up in our society, in our culture and in public...yet...no hysteria from the Right.
> 
> Video games, read violent video games, are at an all time high. Games like Car Theft Auto (or whatever its call) are being pushed to children, Mortal Kombat where kids are taught to enjoy blood and gore from the youngest of ages...yet no outcry from the Right.
> 
> Why is this?
> 
> Do you people not consider that harmful as well?
> 
> ...Interesting.
Click to expand...


Violence is not a sin according to the bible. Sex is. Therefore, they only get upset when something is not in accordance with what the good book says. Violence is okay, but sex isn't. Killing people is okay, but doing that which produces life isn't. Such irony.


----------



## chanel

Amanda said:


> Lots of ado about nothing IMO.
> 
> Here's a clue: Your kids ARE having sex. Deal with it.



No they are not Amanda.  Maybe you've been watching too much T.V.  

A good percentage of teenagers have not had sex yet.  And even those that have "had sex" are not "having sex" on a daily basis.  

Anyone notice that none of these derelicts smoke cigarettes?  That's what many teens do. I wonder why MTV chose not to have these kids smoke?  

Anyone????


----------



## BrianH

Sheldon said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not offended by the show at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me neither. It would be hypocritical for me to get indignant about it anyways. And I think some of the angst is a generational thing.
> 
> Back in the twenties, you just KNOW there were parents bent out of shape about knee-length skirts.
> 
> 
> 
> But if I was a parent I could see myself feeling differently about this show. There's reasons I don't sit at the table on Thanksgiving and tell the family about what I do and have done.
> 
> I think some of the controversial stuff in the show, parents can find themselves having done in their own past, or things they had seen others do back then--and they're things they regret and don't want their kids to repeat.
> 
> There is some legit truth under the over-dramatization, and I think that's why the show hits a parental nerve. I could just be talking out of my ass about this since I'm not actually a parent, but it sounds about right.
Click to expand...


You're exactly right....as a single 20 year old I probably would have thought the show was cool...  But now as a father (of a daughter especially) it's something I don't want her seeing.  I don't want to control every aspect of her life by not letting her watch tv, but at the same time, I don't want her seeing this filth.  The thing about kids (especially teenagers) is that they make short-minded decisions without thinking about consequences...like many adults I know.  I did a lot of stupid crap that I tihought was cool at the time but think is pretty stupid and dangerous now.  I just don't think we should be throwing stuff like that in their faces.  My daughter's not even of age to do this stuff and it still bothers me.  This show will probably be off the air before my daughter is even old enough to be able to watch it.


----------



## Dr Grump

chanel said:


> Skins is surely one of the most sexually charged programs that MTV has featured. Before it even had its premiere, the Parents Television Council, a TV watchdog group, labeled Skins the most dangerous program that has ever been foisted on your children. The group objected to the gratuitous scenes of drug and alcohol use, violence and sexual acts.
> 
> Of course, those scenes may be what attract young viewers in the first place. Jessica Bennett, a senior writer for Newsweek, wrote last week,  Skins may be the most realistic show on television.
> 
> The show is off to a running start. It attracted 3.3 million to its premiere on Monday night and set a new first-episode record for the channel among viewers ages 12 to 34.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/b...p=1&adxnnlx=1295632949-rrIGAAUa2T6US9tiiFlDng
> 
> Has anyone seen it?  I did.  Worse than you can possibly imagine.  And I can tell you as someone who spends every day with teenagers (who often give me TMI), this is NOT "the most realistic show on television."
> 
> The most disturbing part for me was the end of the first episode.  Driving stoned, the kids run their car off a bridge into the water.  Amazingly all the passengers emerge completely unscathed and one announces "Oh shit,  The weed got wet".  And they laugh and laugh and laugh...  Scary.
> 
> Glorifying sex, drugs, and child prostitution is dangerous.  Glorifying teen driving accidents is deadly.
Click to expand...


this is why conservative america is the laughing stock of not only the rest of america, but the rest of the world..

no,  seriously, you are.

You are that out of touch with normal folk..


carry on



MORONS...


----------



## Mini 14

MarcATL said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you not understand about "child porn is illegal and harmful"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you this hysterical about violence as well?
> 
> One thing I've noticed is that with all the lists I saw thrown around in this thread that was harmful to children...no a one mentioned violence.
> 
> Violence has only been ramping up in our society, in our culture and in public...yet...no hysteria from the Right.
> 
> Video games, read violent video games, are at an all time high. Games like Car Theft Auto (or whatever its call) are being pushed to children, Mortal Kombat where kids are taught to enjoy blood and gore from the youngest of ages...yet no outcry from the Right.
> 
> Why is this?
> 
> Do you people not consider that harmful as well?
> 
> ...Interesting.
Click to expand...


We probably didn't bring it up because this isn't a political discussion, you stupid, fucking wank.

We're talking about social mores here Marc.....there are liberals and conservatives having a discussion about something we ALL can relate to, but disagree. And not once has politics come into the discussion in 11 pages of posts. Well......until the very first time you show up.

You would politicize your mother's funeral, I'm sure.


----------



## Dr Grump

AllieBaba said:


> I guess I should be surprised that there are a good big chunk of loons on here who are pro-child pornography....but I'm not.
> 
> It's illegal. It's child porn. No, it does't mean photoshopping somebody's head onto a body because the definition goes on to state that even hand-drawn material can be considered child porn, if there are CHILDREN being depicted.
> 
> It's about what is being depicted. It's not about whether the actors are 18 (though some are as young as 15, which is illegal); it's not about whether or not it's good tv. It's about depicting kids in school having sex. That is child porn, pure and simple.



Christ almighty - just when I think you can't get any higher on the MORON METER you outdo yourself. This is the second thread where you are comparing something to kiddie porn.

Note to Allie MORON. Skins is NOT pornography. It appears on MTV. Who at MTV, the makers or the programme or anybody who runs what is allowed to be shown on TV has been arrested for child porn? Hint: NO ONE YOU FUCKING DUMB FUCK.....

God, just becuase YOU think something meets a certain definition doesn't mean it is what you think it is. All it means is you are a FUCKING IDIOT AND A MORON - NOTHING MORE

 Now fuck off and go and try and do something useful in your life - like have ONE father for your kids....is that so hard you hypocritical douche...


----------



## BrianH

Dr Grump said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I should be surprised that there are a good big chunk of loons on here who are pro-child pornography....but I'm not.
> 
> It's illegal. It's child porn. No, it does't mean photoshopping somebody's head onto a body because the definition goes on to state that even hand-drawn material can be considered child porn, if there are CHILDREN being depicted.
> 
> It's about what is being depicted. It's not about whether the actors are 18 (though some are as young as 15, which is illegal); it's not about whether or not it's good tv. It's about depicting kids in school having sex. That is child porn, pure and simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christ almighty - just when I think you can't get any higher on the MORON METER you outdo yourself. This is the second thread where you are comparing something to kiddie porn.
> 
> Note to Allie MORON. Skins is NOT pornography. It appears on MTV. Who at MTV, the makers or the programme or anybody who runs what is allowed to be shown on TV has been arrested for child porn? Hint: NO ONE YOU FUCKING DUMB FUCK.....
> 
> God, just becuase YOU think something meets a certain definition doesn't mean it is what you think it is. All it means is you are a FUCKING IDIOT AND A MORON - NOTHING MORE
> 
> Now fuck off and go and try and do something useful in your life - like have ONE father for your kids....is that so hard you hypocritical douche...
Click to expand...


I get the feeling you don't like Allie very much...maybe it's just me...


----------



## Mini 14

BrianH said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I should be surprised that there are a good big chunk of loons on here who are pro-child pornography....but I'm not.
> 
> It's illegal. It's child porn. No, it does't mean photoshopping somebody's head onto a body because the definition goes on to state that even hand-drawn material can be considered child porn, if there are CHILDREN being depicted.
> 
> It's about what is being depicted. It's not about whether the actors are 18 (though some are as young as 15, which is illegal); it's not about whether or not it's good tv. It's about depicting kids in school having sex. That is child porn, pure and simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christ almighty - just when I think you can't get any higher on the MORON METER you outdo yourself. This is the second thread where you are comparing something to kiddie porn.
> 
> Note to Allie MORON. Skins is NOT pornography. It appears on MTV. Who at MTV, the makers or the programme or anybody who runs what is allowed to be shown on TV has been arrested for child porn? Hint: NO ONE YOU FUCKING DUMB FUCK.....
> 
> God, just becuase YOU think something meets a certain definition doesn't mean it is what you think it is. All it means is you are a FUCKING IDIOT AND A MORON - NOTHING MORE
> 
> Now fuck off and go and try and do something useful in your life - like have ONE father for your kids....is that so hard you hypocritical douche...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get the feeling you don't like Allie very much...maybe it's just me...
Click to expand...


Yeah.....I can't see where you're getting that impression, Brian   

This was a rare, constructive, GOOD thread for 11 pages. There were good arguments on both sides of the opinion, and I think some people (myself included) actually stopped for a second and thought about "the other guy's" perception.

Then Marc and Grump showed up to remind us all that this is still USMB.

Damn reality.......


----------



## G.T.

AllieBaba said:


> I guess I should be surprised that there are a good big chunk of loons on here who are pro-child pornography....but I'm not.
> 
> It's illegal. It's child porn. No, it does't mean photoshopping somebody's head onto a body because the definition goes on to state that even hand-drawn material can be considered child porn, if there are CHILDREN being depicted.
> 
> It's about what is being depicted. It's not about whether the actors are 18 (though some are as young as 15, which is illegal); it's not about whether or not it's good tv. *It's about depicting kids in school having sex. That is child porn*, pure and simple.



then you agree 90210 *DID* this?


----------



## strollingbones

Despite its advertiser and ratings woes, however, MTV insists the network is standing by the show. In a statement to FOX411, the network said: &#8220;Skins has earned the loyalty of fans across the globe for its thoughtful and honest portrayal of teen life today. An internationally acclaimed scripted drama, the show has been honored with a long list of prestigious awards.  MTV stands by the US adaptation of Skins and the vision of its creator Bryan Elsley.&#8221;

Read more: EXCLUSIVE: &#39;Skins&#39; &#39;In Danger of Being Canceled,&#39; Source Says - FoxNews.com


honest protrayal of teen life?  really?   most teens have the money to buy 4 oz of skank weed?   most drug dealers, deal out of whore houses?  really?
honest.....i dont think so...made for tv...yes....dangerous?  i still dont buy into that


----------



## strollingbones

SEXUAL ACTIVITY

Although only 13% of teens have ever had vaginal sex by age 15, sexual activity is common by the late teen years. By their 19th birthday, seven in 10 teens of both sexes have had intercourse. [1]

On average, young people have sex for the first time at about age 17,[2,3] but they do not marry until their mid-20s. [4] This means that young adults are at increased risk of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) for nearly a decade.

Teens have been waiting longer to have sex than they did in the recent past. In 2006&#8211;2008, some 11% of never-married females aged 15&#8211;19 and 14% of never-married males that age had had sex before age 15, compared with 19% and 21%, respectively, in 1995. [1]

However, after substantial declines in the proportion of teens who had ever had sex between 1995 and 2002, the level did not change significantly from 2002 to 2006&#8211;2008. [1]

In 2006&#8211;2008, the most common reason that sexually inexperienced teens gave for not having had sex was that it was &#8220;against religion or morals&#8221; (42% among females and 35% among males). The second and third most common reasons for females were &#8220;don&#8217;t want to get pregnant&#8221; and &#8220;haven&#8217;t found the right person yet.&#8221; [1]

Among sexually experienced teens, 72% of females and 56% of males report that their first sexual experience was with a steady partner, while 14% of females and 25% of males report a first sexual experience with someone whom they had just met or who was just a friend. [1]


Facts on American Teens' Sexual and <br />Reproductive Health
Seven percent of young women aged 18&#8211;24 who had had sex before age 20 report that their first sexual experience was involuntary. Those whose first partner was three or more years their senior were more likely to report this than were other women in that age-group. [1]


----------



## AllieBaba

G.T. said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I should be surprised that there are a good big chunk of loons on here who are pro-child pornography....but I'm not.
> 
> It's illegal. It's child porn. No, it does't mean photoshopping somebody's head onto a body because the definition goes on to state that even hand-drawn material can be considered child porn, if there are CHILDREN being depicted.
> 
> It's about what is being depicted. It's not about whether the actors are 18 (though some are as young as 15, which is illegal); it's not about whether or not it's good tv. *It's about depicting kids in school having sex. That is child porn*, pure and simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then you agree 90210 *DID* this?
Click to expand...


I don't know, I never watched it.

If it's over, it doesn't matter.


----------



## Luissa

AllieBaba said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I should be surprised that there are a good big chunk of loons on here who are pro-child pornography....but I'm not.
> 
> It's illegal. It's child porn. No, it does't mean photoshopping somebody's head onto a body because the definition goes on to state that even hand-drawn material can be considered child porn, if there are CHILDREN being depicted.
> 
> It's about what is being depicted. It's not about whether the actors are 18 (though some are as young as 15, which is illegal); it's not about whether or not it's good tv. *It's about depicting kids in school having sex. That is child porn*, pure and simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then you agree 90210 *DID* this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know, I never watched it.
> 
> If it's over, it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...


Actually it isn't. 
There is a new 90210.

I also  watched Skins last night. Pretty  sure they didn't break any laws, but whatever.


----------



## xotoxi

AllieBaba said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I should be surprised that there are a good big chunk of loons on here who are pro-child pornography....but I'm not.
> 
> It's illegal. It's child porn. No, it does't mean photoshopping somebody's head onto a body because the definition goes on to state that even hand-drawn material can be considered child porn, if there are CHILDREN being depicted.
> 
> It's about what is being depicted. It's not about whether the actors are 18 (though some are as young as 15, which is illegal); it's not about whether or not it's good tv. *It's about depicting kids in school having sex. That is child porn*, pure and simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then you agree 90210 *DID* this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know, I never watched it.
> 
> If it's over, it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...


So how much of this skin show have you watched?

Did you realize that viewing child porn is against the law?


----------



## Samson

xotoxi said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> then you agree 90210 *DID* this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, I never watched it.
> 
> If it's over, it doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how much of this skin show have you watched?
> 
> Did you realize that viewing child porn is against the law?
Click to expand...


----------



## AllieBaba

xotoxi said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> then you agree 90210 *DID* this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, I never watched it.
> 
> If it's over, it doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how much of this skin show have you watched?
> 
> Did you realize that viewing child porn is against the law?
Click to expand...


I watched enough of it to form an opinion.


----------



## AllieBaba

Samson said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, I never watched it.
> 
> If it's over, it doesn't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how much of this skin show have you watched?
> 
> Did you realize that viewing child porn is against the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


When child porn is broadcast on channels that are piped into my kids' bedrooms, I'm going to see it, and shut it off...and identify it as what it is.


----------



## xotoxi

AllieBaba said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, I never watched it.
> 
> If it's over, it doesn't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how much of this skin show have you watched?
> 
> Did you realize that viewing child porn is against the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched enough of it to form an opinion.
Click to expand...


So you watched child porn, right?

Did you alert the cops?

If you didn't alert the cops, yet instead came on here and talked in detail about the child porn that you had just watched, that means that you are a pedophile.


----------



## Luissa

If you don't want your kids watching Mtv, you should block the channel.


----------



## xotoxi

AllieBaba said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how much of this skin show have you watched?
> 
> Did you realize that viewing child porn is against the law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When child porn is broadcast on channels that are piped into my kids' bedrooms, I'm going to see it, and shut it off...and identify it as what it is.
Click to expand...


And before coming here and discussing openly a crime that you had witnessed before your very eyes, you should have immediately contacted the local police.

Otherwise, you might be considerd an accessory to a world wide child porn ring.


----------



## Mini 14

xotoxi said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When child porn is broadcast on channels that are piped into my kids' bedrooms, I'm going to see it, and shut it off...and identify it as what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And before coming here and discussing openly a crime that you had witnessed before your very eyes, you should have immediately contacted the local police.
> 
> Otherwise, you might be considerd an accessory to a world wide child porn ring.
Click to expand...


You're a lot funnier when you don't try so hard to be funny.


----------



## xotoxi

AllieBaba said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how much of this skin show have you watched?
> 
> Did you realize that viewing child porn is against the law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When child porn is broadcast on channels that are piped into my kids' bedrooms, I'm going to see it, and shut it off...and identify it as what it is.
Click to expand...


If you see an adult out in the street fondling a young child, will you quickly pull the blinds...and identify it as what it is?


----------



## xotoxi

Mini 14 said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> When child porn is broadcast on channels that are piped into my kids' bedrooms, I'm going to see it, and shut it off...and identify it as what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And before coming here and discussing openly a crime that you had witnessed before your very eyes, you should have immediately contacted the local police.
> 
> Otherwise, you might be considerd an accessory to a world wide child porn ring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a lot funnier when you don't try so hard to be funny.
Click to expand...


You think that child porn is funny?

How despicable!!!


----------



## Samson

AllieBaba said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how much of this skin show have you watched?
> 
> Did you realize that viewing child porn is against the law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When child porn is broadcast on channels that are piped into my kids' bedrooms, I'm going to see it, and shut it off...and identify it as what it is.
Click to expand...


V-chip.


----------



## Sheldon

xotoxi said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how much of this skin show have you watched?
> 
> Did you realize that viewing child porn is against the law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watched enough of it to form an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you watched child porn, right?
> 
> Did you alert the cops?
> 
> If you didn't alert the cops, yet instead came on here and talked in detail about the child porn that you had just watched, that means that you are a pedophile.
Click to expand...



I'm going to lock and delete this thread, since it could be construed as promoting child pornography. -- Sheldon


----------



## Luissa

Allie shouldn't watch Shameless or Weeds, either. LOL


----------



## xotoxi

Sheldon said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched enough of it to form an opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you watched child porn, right?
> 
> Did you alert the cops?
> 
> If you didn't alert the cops, yet instead came on here and talked in detail about the child porn that you had just watched, that means that you are a pedophile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to lock and delete this thread, since it could be construed as promoting child pornography. -- Sheldon
Click to expand...



I'm going to delete your post as it could be construed as impersonating a moderator - xotoxi


----------



## High_Gravity

Jersey Shore.


----------



## Sheldon

Luissa said:


> Allie shouldn't watch Shameless or Weeds, either. LOL





I love Weeds! Andy is the coolest uncle in the history of TV.


----------



## Samson

xotoxi said:


> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you watched child porn, right?
> 
> Did you alert the cops?
> 
> If you didn't alert the cops, yet instead came on here and talked in detail about the child porn that you had just watched, that means that you are a pedophile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to lock and delete this thread, since it could be construed as promoting child pornography. -- Sheldon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to delete your post as it could be construed as impersonating a moderator - xotoxi
Click to expand...


The inmates are running the asylum- samson


----------



## Luissa

Sheldon said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allie shouldn't watch Shameless or Weeds, either. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love Weeds! Andy is the coolest uncle in the history of TV.
Click to expand...


Yeah he  is. LOL
Hopefully they get back on track next season, this last season except for the last two episodes, wasn't the Weeds I love. I wish they  would bring back Conrad, but he  is on another show now.


----------



## Sheldon

Luissa said:


> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allie shouldn't watch Shameless or Weeds, either. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love Weeds! Andy is the coolest uncle in the history of TV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah he  is. LOL
> Hopefully they get back on track next season, this last season except for the last two episodes, wasn't the Weeds I love. I wish they  would bring back Conrad, but he  is on another show now.
Click to expand...



The last episode I saw was where she showed her Mexican lover mayor guy the ultrasound photo. Season 4?

But yeah, the best seasons were when they were in Agrestic.

Were you referring to the scene where Silas hooked up with the milf from the cheese store? I'm pretty sure he was playing a character that was 17 then, so yeah... kiddie porn.


----------



## Luissa

Sheldon said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love Weeds! Andy is the coolest uncle in the history of TV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah he  is. LOL
> Hopefully they get back on track next season, this last season except for the last two episodes, wasn't the Weeds I love. I wish they  would bring back Conrad, but he  is on another show now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The last episode I saw was where she showed her Mexican lover mayor guy the ultrasound photo. Season 4?
> 
> But yeah, the best seasons were when they were in Agrestic.
> 
> Were you referring to the scene where Silas hooked up with the milf from the cheese store? I'm pretty sure he was playing a character that was 17 then, so yeah... kiddie porn.
Click to expand...


Then there was the scenes with the deaf girl, and Shane losing his virginity.
ON Shameless, a new show, which actually has Doug's gay son, a "minor" gets a blow job.


----------



## xotoxi

AllieBaba said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, I never watched it.
> 
> If it's over, it doesn't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how much of this skin show have you watched?
> 
> Did you realize that viewing child porn is against the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched enough of it to form an opinion.
Click to expand...


You said that you are a mandatory reporter.

To whom have you reported this child pornography?

You probably should notify your local authorities.  They will not have an jurisdiction, but at least it will cover your ass.

You also should notify your State Child Protective Services.  This would also be a CYA move.

Finally, you should contact the FCC, as they would be the people to investigate the pornography that you accidentally witnessed.


----------



## Sheldon

Luissa said:


> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah he  is. LOL
> Hopefully they get back on track next season, this last season except for the last two episodes, wasn't the Weeds I love. I wish they  would bring back Conrad, but he  is on another show now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last episode I saw was where she showed her Mexican lover mayor guy the ultrasound photo. Season 4?
> 
> But yeah, the best seasons were when they were in Agrestic.
> 
> Were you referring to the scene where Silas hooked up with the milf from the cheese store? I'm pretty sure he was playing a character that was 17 then, so yeah... kiddie porn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then there was the scenes with the deaf girl, and Shane losing his virginity.
> ON Shameless, a new show, which actually has Doug's gay son a "minor" gets a blow job.
Click to expand...


Yep, forgot about those.

AND there was the scene in either the first or second episode of S1 where Silas and Quinn lost their virginity under that hole in the roof--and I think they were 15 year old characters.

These are good examples. Like xotoxi kept saying about the law--it was implicit depicitions, not explicit.

If a show like Weeds wasn't taken off the air for breaking child porn laws, I doubt Skins does. I think the fact that it's on Showtime is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned.


----------



## xotoxi

Luissa said:


> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah he  is. LOL
> Hopefully they get back on track next season, this last season except for the last two episodes, wasn't the Weeds I love. I wish they  would bring back Conrad, but he  is on another show now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last episode I saw was where she showed her Mexican lover mayor guy the ultrasound photo. Season 4?
> 
> But yeah, the best seasons were when they were in Agrestic.
> 
> Were you referring to the scene where Silas hooked up with the milf from the cheese store? I'm pretty sure he was playing a character that was 17 then, so yeah... kiddie porn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then there was the scenes with the deaf girl, and Shane losing his virginity.
> ON Shameless, a new show, which actually has Doug's gay son a "minor" gets a blow job.
Click to expand...


More child porn???  

Someone alert Alliebabby!!!


----------



## Luissa

xotoxi said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last episode I saw was where she showed her Mexican lover mayor guy the ultrasound photo. Season 4?
> 
> But yeah, the best seasons were when they were in Agrestic.
> 
> Were you referring to the scene where Silas hooked up with the milf from the cheese store? I'm pretty sure he was playing a character that was 17 then, so yeah... kiddie porn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there was the scenes with the deaf girl, and Shane losing his virginity.
> ON Shameless, a new show, which actually has Doug's gay son a "minor" gets a blow job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More child porn???
> 
> Someone alert Alliebabby!!!
Click to expand...


They showed a lot more on Weeds, than on  Skins last night. I actually watched it because of this thread. I have seen the UK show, and wondered what it was like. First, it was dark and you couldn't see anything. It was implied they had sex, like many other shows. All they showed was girls kissing, and one girl moans. The other girl could be moaning because she is kissing her stomach or something.


----------



## MarcATL

AllieBaba said:


> It probably wasn't brought up because this thread is about child Porn, i.e., Skins.
> 
> And though there are certain people who like to sexualize children and would like to pretend it's perfectly normal, the fact remains...it's illegal, and harmful to children.



It would be nice if you would stop with the pretense for once. We don't live in a bubble, nor a vacuum. The thread is about what is harmful to children. That's the point I'm making.

Many other things were brought up as examples of what's harmful to children...none of them being violence.

Why is that?


----------



## MarcATL

newpolitics said:


> Violence is not a sin according to the bible. Sex is. Therefore, they only get upset when something is not in accordance with what the good book says. Violence is okay, but sex isn't. Killing people is okay, but doing that which produces life isn't. Such irony.


I won't be a party to Bible and/or God bashing.

Violence is a sin.

You need to revisit Exodus and read The 10 Commandments once again.


----------



## NYcarbineer

What if all the actors were at least 18, but they just looked like they were 13 or 14?

Does that satisfy all the 'child porn' complainers here?


----------



## chanel

The show would still be dangerous.  But not necessarily illegal.




> Although early sexual activity may be caused by a variety of factors, research indicates that the media plays a significant role.[13]  According to journalism professor and media critic Jane Brown, since adolescents see so much sex in the media it is piquing their interest in sex at ages younger than they have traditionally been.[119] * Research has "found a direct relationship between the amount of sexual content children see and their level of sexual activity* or their intentions to have sex in the future."[120][119]  However, the direction (and mechanism) of causality remains unclear.
> 
> A 2001 report found that teens rank the media second only to school sex education programs as a leading source of information about sex,[13]  but a 2004 report found that "the media far outranked parents or schools as the source of information about birth control."[121]  Studies have found that adolescents whose media diet was rich in sexual content were more than twice as likely as others to have had sex by the time they were sixteen.[122] * In a Kaiser Family Foundation study, 76 percent of teens said that one reason young people have sex is because TV shows and movies make it seem normal for teens.[123]*  Adolescents may turn to the media as a "sexual super peer" when seeking information about sexual norms and adult roles given the lack of information about sexuality readily available to them.[120]  Teens believe the media, as a super-peer, encourages and pressures them to have sex.[121]
> 
> Some researchers have found a direct link between the amount of television with high sexual content that teenagers watch and an* increased likelihood of them becoming pregnant* or fathering a child out of wedlock.[127]  It has been discovered that teens exposed to the most sexual content on TV are twice as likely as teens watching less of this material to become pregnant before they reach age 20.[128]
> 
> Children who watch adult content on television are more likely to have sex earlier once they reach adolescence.[129][130] For every hour of adult-targeted television or movies watched by children when they were 6 to 8 years old, there was *a 33% increased risk of becoming sexually active in early adolescence.*
> 
> "Children have neither the life experience nor the brain development to fully differentiate between a reality they are moving toward and a fiction meant solely to entertain," explained David Bickham, a staff scientist in the Center on Media and Child Health.[130] "Children learn from the media, and when they watch media with sexual references and innuendos, our research suggests they are more likely to engage in sexual activity earlier in life."[130]
> 
> Several complementary studies have found that television viewing can influence multiple aspects of reproductive health among youths and that "earlier sexual initiation is associated with negative health outcomes."[127] Previous research has revealed two major ways that this glamorized perception of sex contributes to teen pregnancy: by encouraging teens to become sexually active early in their adolescence and by promoting inconsistent use of contraceptives
> 
> Researchers have also found that *the younger an adolescent is at the time of their sexual debut, the greater the likelihood that they will engage in delinquent acts later*. Adolescents who experience late sexual debut are the least likely to participate in delinquency.[170]  According to one of the study's co-authors, Dana Haynie, adolescents who start having sex at a young age may not be prepared to deal with the emotional, social and behavioral consequences of their actions.[171]  Study coauthor Stacy Armour theorized that adolescents "who waited longer than average may be developing friendships and relationships that can help protect them from potentially troublesome behaviors as they become young adults...The timing of events such as sexual activity can have profound consequences for adolescents, particularly when they occur prematurely..*.[T]he timing of sexual initiation does matter. Adolescents need to be at a stage when they are developmentally prepared for it.*"[171]



Adolescent sexuality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes it's wiki, but there are numerous citations at the bottom.


----------



## blu

strollingbones said:


> and this is why....tv's have an on...off button.....
> 
> do it with me....hell i bet you can do it with a remote now....
> 
> 
> on....off....
> 
> most dangerous show on television....bit reactionary arent you



what about 'ch +' and 'ch -' ?


----------



## blu

chanel said:


> Skins is surely one of the most sexually charged programs that MTV has featured. Before it even had its premiere, the Parents Television Council, a TV watchdog group, labeled Skins the most dangerous program that has ever been foisted on your children. The group objected to the gratuitous scenes of drug and alcohol use, violence and sexual acts.
> 
> Of course, those scenes may be what attract young viewers in the first place. Jessica Bennett, a senior writer for Newsweek, wrote last week,  Skins may be the most realistic show on television.
> 
> The show is off to a running start. It attracted 3.3 million to its premiere on Monday night and set a new first-episode record for the channel among viewers ages 12 to 34.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/b...p=1&adxnnlx=1295632949-rrIGAAUa2T6US9tiiFlDng
> 
> Has anyone seen it?  I did.  Worse than you can possibly imagine.  And I can tell you as someone who spends every day with teenagers (who often give me TMI), this is NOT "the most realistic show on television."
> 
> The most disturbing part for me was the end of the first episode.  Driving stoned, the kids run their car off a bridge into the water.  Amazingly all the passengers emerge completely unscathed and one announces "Oh shit,  The weed got wet".  And they laugh and laugh and laugh...  Scary.
> 
> Glorifying sex, drugs, and child prostitution is dangerous.  Glorifying teen driving accidents is deadly.
Click to expand...


meh this show should help clean the gene pool at least


----------



## blu

chanel said:


> No.  This is not faux outrage bones.  And as much as we'd like to think that parents have control over what their teens are watching on TV and the internet, it's simply not the case.  Most kids have TVs and computers in their bedrooms.  May not be a great idea, but it's just the way it is..



its not "just the way it is" ... if a teenager is too irresponsible or can't be trusted than the parent should yank the tv  and computer from their rooms or maybe the parents should educate themselves enough to block the content


----------



## blu

iamwhatiseem said:


> I read where MTV had an emergency meeting after the FCC warned of possible criminal prosecution after investigating possible child pornography.
> In the series, actors as young as 15 took part in sex scenes (no nudity was shown).
> 
> MTV should be renamed to TTV (Trash TV).
> MTV has not been about music for at least 10 years.
> 
> BTW - MTV has been filtered off of every TV in my house...I don't know...7-8 years now.



congrats you are a pro-active, responsible parent unlike people who sit and cry everytime something bad comes on TV as if they have no control over their kids watching it


----------



## blu

Mad Scientist said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So?  Conservatives are putting boycotts and censorship back on the table?  Well, that didn't last long...
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. *All sex acts *should be shown on tv to include fellatio, lesbian and homosexual sex. Children as young as 8 should be watching too. In fact, the FCC should mandate that all TV shows should have at least one gratuitous sex act per 30 minutes of television as a condition of license.
> 
> How else can we push society forward against the oppressive religious right?
Click to expand...


or parents should just be responsible for what their kids watch. 100 channels could broadcast bdsm all day if they want and it wouldn't bother me at all. I would simply block the channels


----------



## blu

California Girl said:


> I've seen it. I sure as hell would not be allowing my kids to watch such crap.



another responsible parent?!?! didn't you know you should be complaining to the government instead?


----------



## blu

Jackson said:


> Is this what we've come to?  That some people would even think that this is alright and all we have to do is turn off the tv or turn the channel?  There is no place for this kind of shit on TV.  The FCC had better act and fast.
> 
> Who are the sponsors?



yep. change the channel and you wouldn't even know it exists. its pretty easy


----------



## blu

chanel said:


> *You mustn't be a parent or teacher.  Or you think it's ok for children to engage in prostitution and illegal drugs - without consequence.*
> 
> Wouldn't it be refreshing if MTV did an honest "realistic" depiction of high school kids?  Fat kids smoking cigarettes, littering, and playing video games until 4 a.m.?  Or would that be too offensive?
> 
> Parents do not monitor teenagers' media.  Unless a parent wants to spend 24/7 with their older children, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prevent them from seeing trash like this.  What I'd like to see is all sponsors boycott the show.



nice non-sequitir. you always run to fallacies when your silly arguments are confronted. parent's can monitor there teenagers media just ast hey can a childs. if your teenager knows what you expect them to watch and they watch something else they are obviously too immature to make such decisions. take the tv out of their room and block the offending channels on all other tvs


----------



## blu

Mini 14 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many children do you have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does spitting out a couple of kids give you the latitude to decide what can and can't come across my television?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never implied that.
> 
> Having children, I think it puts it in a different perspective than it might be perceived by someone who doesn't have children. I merely asked G.T. if he had any kids, as he stated he isn't offended by it at all.
> 
> Sorry if my post didn't fit neatly inside your little box
Click to expand...


you mean your fallacious garbage?


----------



## Samson

Luissa said:


> All they showed was girls kissing, and one girl moans. The other girl could be moaning because she is kissing her stomach or something.


----------



## BrianH

blu said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read where MTV had an emergency meeting after the FCC warned of possible criminal prosecution after investigating possible child pornography.
> In the series, actors as young as 15 took part in sex scenes (no nudity was shown).
> 
> MTV should be renamed to TTV (Trash TV).
> MTV has not been about music for at least 10 years.
> 
> BTW - MTV has been filtered off of every TV in my house...I don't know...7-8 years now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> congrats you are a pro-active, responsible parent unlike people who sit and cry everytime something bad comes on TV as if they have no control over their kids watching it
Click to expand...


That doesn't stop his kids from going over to little johnny's house and watching it because of johnny's irresponsible parents.


----------



## BrianH

blu said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this what we've come to?  That some people would even think that this is alright and all we have to do is turn off the tv or turn the channel?  There is no place for this kind of shit on TV.  The FCC had better act and fast.
> 
> Who are the sponsors?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yep. change the channel and you wouldn't even know it exists. its pretty easy
Click to expand...


It's all over the news, how would you NOT know it exists?


----------



## blu

BrianH said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read where MTV had an emergency meeting after the FCC warned of possible criminal prosecution after investigating possible child pornography.
> In the series, actors as young as 15 took part in sex scenes (no nudity was shown).
> 
> MTV should be renamed to TTV (Trash TV).
> MTV has not been about music for at least 10 years.
> 
> BTW - MTV has been filtered off of every TV in my house...I don't know...7-8 years now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> congrats you are a pro-active, responsible parent unlike people who sit and cry everytime something bad comes on TV as if they have no control over their kids watching it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't stop his kids from going over to little johnny's house and watching it because of johnny's irresponsible parents.
Click to expand...


or he could talk to johnny's parents about what they let their kids watch/do/etc as most responsible parents do OR he could have a relationship of trust with his kid and tell the kid he doesn't want him watching such stuff anywhere


----------



## blu

BrianH said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this what we've come to?  That some people would even think that this is alright and all we have to do is turn off the tv or turn the channel?  There is no place for this kind of shit on TV.  The FCC had better act and fast.
> 
> Who are the sponsors?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yep. change the channel and you wouldn't even know it exists. its pretty easy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's all over the news, how would you NOT know it exists?
Click to expand...


only because the lazy parents brigade is trying to get the government to do their job for them


----------



## Dr Grump

Or the right wing nuts could start another thread that diminishes the affect real child porn has on the community


----------



## Mini 14

blu said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> yep. change the channel and you wouldn't even know it exists. its pretty easy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all over the news, how would you NOT know it exists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> only because the lazy parents brigade is trying to get the government to do their job for them
Click to expand...


blu - 

How many kids do you have?

Bonus question - 

What do you bench?!?   (showing my age again)


----------



## BrianH

blu said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> congrats you are a pro-active, responsible parent unlike people who sit and cry everytime something bad comes on TV as if they have no control over their kids watching it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't stop his kids from going over to little johnny's house and watching it because of johnny's irresponsible parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> or he could talk to johnny's parents about what they let their kids watch/do/etc as most responsible parents do OR he could have a relationship of trust with his kid and tell the kid he doesn't want him watching such stuff anywhere
Click to expand...


lol.  Do you have kids??  And don't lie....


----------



## GHook93

I think the show promotes taking drugs, having sex, fightint and just bad behavior of children (but there are many shows like that). MTV, in my mind, promotes many bad behaviors in teenages, such as that teen mom show WTF. That said I am strongly against censorship, unless it is my children. Heck I would demand Spartacus and Sons of Anarchy be of the air if I demanded Skins be off that air.

In other words as a parent, I would not let my kids watch this show and then call it a day. I wouldn't boycott MTV, boycott the sponsors or think twice about the show! I mean teenagers have behaved badly and in unsafe manners for long before Skins, long before TV, so I am sure they will continue to do so after Skins. 

Where do you stop after Skins? I am sure shows like 90210 have sex and drinking! Spartacus has extreme violence. Sons of Anarchy glorifies the outlaw biker life style. And there could be a million other shows that people could have a problem with. Before you know it we could be stuck with Andy Griffin and Leave it to Beaver!


----------



## mdn2000

chanel said:


> The sex is salacious and may have violated the law. I don't know. I am more concerned about the glorification of drug use. There is one scene where they all sitting in a bathroom stall at school smoking a joint as if this common practice. Remarkably, they all seem to be good students. And a little drug induced car crash never hurt anyone...



I remember the first time I heard of a car crash in our school, kids a good five years older than me piled into a car and drove 15 miles to the next town for lunch at McDonalds, speeding back they lost control and hit a tree, three out of five dead.

MTV, my kids do not get to watch MTV, I am not real worried though, I have boys, if I had girls I would be out of my mind, MTV is pornography. Soft Porn.

I think the bigger question is why are children allowed to fake sex on Television or the Movies, it seems awfully close to a director or producers obsession with being a Pedaphile versus being entertainment.

If the actors are over 18 and pretend to be 14 year olds having sex, still, its what is inside the mind of man that is the problem, 14 year olds having sex, sounds very erotic, so, so, sensual, so damned hot. 

MTV, we used to have to hide in the back alley. Not so anymore, another sexual door being opened. Sex with Children.


----------



## chanel

Yep TV has been pushing boundaries for years. Sad that there are a few people who don't believe in boundaries at all.

It looks like more companies are pulling the plug. The show may not survive the first season.  Perhaps the social experiment failed.


----------



## blu

Mini 14 said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all over the news, how would you NOT know it exists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> only because the lazy parents brigade is trying to get the government to do their job for them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> blu -
> 
> How many kids do you have?
> 
> Bonus question -
> 
> What do you bench?!?   (showing my age again)
Click to expand...


1

um probably 250 at most... don't really work out anymore


----------



## blu

BrianH said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't stop his kids from going over to little johnny's house and watching it because of johnny's irresponsible parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or he could talk to johnny's parents about what they let their kids watch/do/etc as most responsible parents do OR he could have a relationship of trust with his kid and tell the kid he doesn't want him watching such stuff anywhere
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.  Do you have kids??  And don't lie....
Click to expand...



yep, 1

your deflection is noted


----------



## elvis

blu said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> or he could talk to johnny's parents about what they let their kids watch/do/etc as most responsible parents do OR he could have a relationship of trust with his kid and tell the kid he doesn't want him watching such stuff anywhere
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Do you have kids??  And don't lie....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yep, 1
> 
> your deflection is noted
Click to expand...


how is a deflection different from a block?


----------



## chanel

> MTV said Thursday that racy teen dram "Skins" will not be returning for a second season in the U.S., due to dwindling ratings for the American version of the popular U.K. show.
> 
> After its Jan. 17 premiere, the show's controversial content saw at least nine major sponsors pull their ads, including Taco Bell, GM, Wrigley and Subway.
> 
> The show also suffered as it wasn't able to be shown until after 10:00pm because of its MA rating, but was aimed at high school-aged viewers.


Read more: MTV Cancels Racy Teen Drama 'Skins' After One Season - FoxNews.com

Hmmm.  I should have placed a wager.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

chanel said:


> You mustn't be a parent or teacher.  Or you think it's ok for children to engage in prostitution and illegal drugs - without consequence.
> 
> Wouldn't it be refreshing if MTV did an honest "realistic" depiction of high school kids?  Fat kids smoking cigarettes, littering, and playing video games until 4 a.m.?  Or would that be too offensive?
> 
> Parents do not monitor teenagers' media.  Unless a parent wants to spend 24/7 with their older children, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prevent them from seeing trash like this.  What I'd like to see is all sponsors boycott the show.


*THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!*

I thought that was supposed to be the "liberal" rallying cry?


----------



## Yoda

Instead of giving in to knee-jerk reactions and start censoring everything. Maybe this would be a good time educate your children instead of expecting society and the media to do it for you. 

Your kids are smarter than you think.
You are dumber than you'd like to believe.

That's not meant as an insault, but as a parent myself, you'll find it that you don't know as much as you think you do. When you make something more "taboo", you're actually raising their intrest in it but when you educate them, then the subject becomes boring after while. By educating them, you make it less desirable.

I'm not a religious person by any streatch, but there's a quote by St. Raphael (I think) that says: " A saintly man isn't one who hides from temptation but walks through it without sercoming".


----------



## Douger

Television is only for dead people ( from the neck up).


----------



## Yoda

theDoctorisIn said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mustn't be a parent or teacher.  Or you think it's ok for children to engage in prostitution and illegal drugs - without consequence.
> 
> Wouldn't it be refreshing if MTV did an honest "realistic" depiction of high school kids?  Fat kids smoking cigarettes, littering, and playing video games until 4 a.m.?  Or would that be too offensive?
> 
> Parents do not monitor teenagers' media.  Unless a parent wants to spend 24/7 with their older children, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prevent them from seeing trash like this.  What I'd like to see is all sponsors boycott the show.
> 
> 
> 
> *THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!*
> 
> I thought that was supposed to be the "liberal" rallying cry?
Click to expand...


No, it's the rally cry of anyone that loses a censorship argument because they the lack of an intelligent argument. Anyone who resorts to "think of the children" has already lost the debate.


----------



## Rationalist1016

I think it is a terrible show.  I've seen two episodes and that was all I could handle.
Of course, that is my opinion.  For those that like it, more power to you.  That is why we have so many channels to watch, because there are so many different interests.
Yes, I do have kids and no, they will not be watching that show in our house.  All the TV's are in "gathering" rooms so they cannot watch it with out me knowing.  I still believe it is the parents "job" to raise their children..................not plant them in front of the TV and let the Kardashians do it!  If it makes me a bad parent to keep my kids from seeing all the crap on TV, then, so be it.  I don't have any illusion that they won't see some of it anyway........at a friends house, etc.  But I hope that I have raised them to have enough character, morals & BRAINS to know that it is ONLY a TV show.  In other words, not real, made up, fiction, & no relevance to real life.


----------

