Couldn't agree with you more. You are dead on.

There is WAY too much sex on television and sexual depictions. Even sexual inuendos(sp?).

Its all about greed and the big wigs know they are targeting younger audiences, they just want more money. Sick bastards.

the television has an OFF button.

better still, just get rid of the danged thing.

Mark,

You are absolutely right, and I for one pay close attention to what my daughter watches on TV. But I think that for every parent that does monitor what their kids watch there are probably a dozen who don't, so in the final analysis I do lay much of the blame on parents.

Nothing scientific about those numbers, just my opinion.

Just go to the mall and take a look at what young teens are wearing and that'll make my case for me.

Adults want to watch Sex in the City on late night HBO? Have at it. I just object targeting kids with this stuff during primetime. I don't think that the entire world should be rated G, but I also don't think that R-rated stuff should be aimed at those who should still be in a G or PG rated world.

Vic

i think the key words in your quote are "may hasten" and "could appreciably delay".

there's always been a lot of debate out there as to whether tv drives or is a reflection of society.

it seems to me that if kids have been educated enough as to the consequences of such activity, that should be enough.

i'm just not buying tv as the blame.

Yeah, I know, it's the chicken and the egg thing, and in a way I think it *is* circular: media and society feed off each other, each lowering the bar when the other does, creating a snowball effect.

Regardless of the "mays" and "coulds", on a gut level I *know* that it's not right to expose kids in today's society to this stuff as is now being done. And I think many kids are not being educated properly. I'm not talking about school, I'm talking about at home.

I'm sure most of the 13-15 year old girls walking around with the waistline of their pants 1 inch above the pubic bone are pretty oblivious to the effect that has on their male schoolmates. I remember where *my* mind was at back then. This equals not aware of the consequences.

Me being an older guy with a daughter, I'm sure explains a lot of our differences of opinion. :-)

Vic

Since "Smallville" is the gayest show on teevee, I think more nudity is only appropriate. After all turnabout is fair play since Clark does have x-ray vision.

The show would only be improved by doing an entire episode all nude.

I'm sure he uses that a lot more than they show on the series. ;-)

Vic

I think USAian parents should use any possible "Smallville" nudity as a lesson. Combined with Larry Niven's classic essay "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex".

Basically, a horny teenaged Clark Kent is a disaster (never mind that his spurning of Lex is what makes him become his mortal enemy). Just like teaching your kids in the 50s that wearing a towel around your neck when you jump off the roof doesn't make you Superman, the same applies to all nude "Smallville" (where the town slogan is "It shrunk because it's cold").

The best defence against teenage sexuality is to make it as boring as, well, "Smallville".

I wonder if the increased nudity will part of an effort to prove or disprove the show's title

This review was chosen for Advance.net. You will be able to find it on newspaper sites including Cleveland.com.

I am sick and tired of so much sex on tv. I don't even look at most series, but I like smallville.
It's becoming horrible. Why can't people get married
to have sex? What the heck are you doing to our
children? You think 18 to 34 year olds watch it?
You guys are really stupid! My seven year old
wants to watch and I don't let him, because I'm
afraid he will see something he shouldn't be
looking at. And by the way, I am over 40.

Oh come on now. Several months ago I recounted a story about a mother who was in a local electronic game store. Her 11 year old son wanted a particular video game. The clerk informed the mother that the game was filled with pretty graphic violence that may not be suited for her son's age. She asked if there was any sex in it. He replied, "well, no." She said, "good, as long as there's no sex in it, he can have it." That sums it all up for me. Violence, gore, hatred are OK to shove down our kids' throats but show a bare breast or a french kiss and we have collective convulsions. Think about that this Holiday Season. Would you rather encourage healthy sexual lives without the puritanically imposed shame and guilt or keep promoting random acts of violence? The choice is pretty clear to me.

The attitude of that woman shouldn't "sum it all up" for you. She sounds like she was clueless, and is an example of someone who makes concerned parents look bad.

Trying to explain the point of view of a parent to someone in their teens or twenties who is single really is an exercise in futility...

Vic

My kids can watch sex and nudity on video, but not violence.

Actually, that's not entirely true, but I do try to be as sensitive, or even more sensitive, about violence than sex or nudity.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the same sort of people who would let a television raise their children would object to sexual content because it might jolt sexual curiosity into overdrive. Here's a radical thought. How about some pro-active parenting? How about saying, "Mitch. They put a lot of sex on this show to enhance ratings. But in the real world sexual experience is not be taken lightly. It's an important decision with important repercussions." It never ceases to amaze me how many parents will do ANYTHING but have a genuine relationship with their kids. They'd rather go to incredible lengths trying to protect them from the world (that sooner or later is going to get through) than give them the tools to deal with it. They'd rather gripe about TV content than monitor their kids or discuss the shows with them.

Christopher, when I read your post, the first thought that popped into my head was: "Do you have kids? Probably not."

I most certainly monitor what my daughter watches and discuss issues with her, BTW so you might want to be careful about painting the author with a broad brush, eh?

Vic

Okay, so, if you monitor what she watches and discuss these issues with her, then what exactly is the problem? You can only have so much (if any) control over SMALLVILLE's content, and my guess is, as long as they can pack in the viewers with blunted eroticism they will continue to do so. And if this is what they want to do, why shouldn't they? You're right, I don't have children, and if I'm missing something here, please, honestly, tell me. I completely agree that with media content being what it is these days, that certain material probably DOES precipitate premature sexual behavior. So you can either have final say over what your children watch or keep an ongoing discussion in play to help them make the right choices when the time comes. As was pointed out in the essay: "Of course this is one of those things that I don't believe required a "study" to figure out." So what's the point in carrying on about what you can't control anyway? If someone drowned in a flash flood would you shoot the weather man?

"If someone drowned in a flash flood would you shoot the weather man?"

Dude, that's a lousy analogy, which is a bummer, because I LOVE good analogies. :-)

You stated in your comment what my point is: that exposing kids/teens to this stuff does precipitate the behaviour or at least lowers the barriers to it. My problem with it is that most parents DON'T monitor what their kids watch. So sue me for caring about kids that are not my own. Besides the fact that my daughter has to interact with those kids.

As to carrying on about what I can't control anyway, isn't that what 90% of the posts on this site are about? ;-)

Vic

Dear Vic,
yeah, I suppose it was a lousy analogy, I was afraid of that. Okay. Let's see. Hmmmm. It's like the king that ordered that the sea be flogged, because he was pissed at it. The sea didn't care. It didn't change anything. It was wasted effort. It was stupid. HOWEVER. Vic I think it's great that you care about other people's children, I honestly do. What set me off about this issue (I think) is battles like The Scopes Trial, "Intelligent Design" and a recent incident in which parents protested when an innocuous, 2-3 minute clip from BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN was shown in a class on cinematography (and/or filmmaking). Everyone gets all worked up and before you know it, they're talking about censorship and forcing other individuals to facilitate the education they think their children SHOULD have. If you want your kids to believe God created the world in 7 days, TELL THEM at home and simply explain that the world is diverse and different people hold different beliefs. I get ANGRY because I hear about these mobs who for some insane reason think it's easier to impose their codes of belief and propriety on others than to simply do their job as parents. If you involve yourself in your children's lives, they'll be equipped to say, "Gosh, I saw Clark get a handjob from Lana on television last night, but maybe I should wait till our 11th date before I ask Mavis."


Cheers,


Christopher

LOL, yeah, a good analogy is hard to come by, but I love it when I nail one. :-)

I understand what you're saying, but conversely, as you bring up folks trying to ram their beliefs down the throats of others I see the same thing in regards to Hollywood and the social engineering that goes on in public schools. It cuts both ways, although those on either side tend to see it only from their point of view.

Best regards,

Vic

I dont think it matter for any one who has a computer for instance u can have a downloading site like limewire u can type sumthing for a picture or a video and end up with a bunch of porno video's and pictures or even with google i personaly say that if parents are that consernd about it they should like block the cannels that have nudity or w.e like im 17 and i live in sum small town that has way to much drugs floating around and there the odd fight and stuff i herd about but i kinda agree with the person that said that violence is worse then nudity becuase nudity and sex is part of human nature and its how every one is made and violence is wut kills millions of people every year but we need violence in the sence that if people didnt die the world we be over run and we would run out of food and stuff so i honestly say that it doesnt really matter becuase i think introducing violence and sex and drugs to kids as early as possible like age 7 or so introduce them to it but teach them wut happens to people that just go out on the streets and asault sum one and teach them wut happens if u dont wear a rubber during sex and teach them to love who they have sex with and with drugs teach them how fucked up u end up if u do it like u end up always trying to get money by stealing to killing for the drugs so i think this is clear and kinda cunfusing but yeah this is they way it should be cuzz as much as u dont want ur kids to have sex to they find that specail person or never do drugs or never get in a fist fight is very likey to all happen b4 their 18-20ish like i kno 12-14 that have already had sex with 20 different guys gotten in to crack cocain worse then most people that are older and got in many fights so my mane point is no matter if thiers more-less of anything on tv and movies theirs just as much going on whenu open ur door and go to skewl

Two thoughts:
1) He said there would be nudity, not more sex. If there's more nudity in non-sexual situations, I think that's healthy and to be encouraged.
2) Even 'though he didn't say it, most often in media nudity means sexual situations. If it's more sex being depicted, we need that like we need a hole in the head.

I'm surprised that no one has brought up a discussion regarding the obvious perversion of the whole "superman" image that has been reflected in this TV show aimed at our younger generation(mainly pre-teen and adolescent males). It's hard to imagine that an intelligent, thinking, adult, who is a true Superman fan would appreciate the distorted ideals that are portrayed in this series. The legend of Superman was about "good" overpowering evil but in Smallville, there is often pronouced ambiguity between the good and evil characters. Actually, the "evil" characters are often portrayed as more interesting, more attractive, successful, and more appealing than the supposed "good" characters." The incessant scenes of scantily clad and sexually provocative females, and of the beloved Lois Lane character often portrayed, frankly as a "skanky" sexpot, only further illustrate the level of debauchery involved here. I don't believe in censorship, but I do think the writers' clear distortion of the Superman legend/icon values borders on unethical filmmaking, particularly since the show is predominately geared toward a very young, impressionable audience. It's a sad commentary about the disintegrating values of our society. We may be losing a Superhero.

Young people will always find their own sources for sexual info and titillation when it becomes interesting to them. Before that they just think it's 'weird' and 'gross'. The exception, very sexually conscious children, is not children who see things on TV but children who are molested and abused at home.

If an 8 yr. old displays overly sexual behaviour, especially in attempts to manipulate or appeal to adults, best look into their home environment rather than their TV habits.

That's just my opinion, based on observation of abused children and discussions with experienced psychologists.