Category: Let's talk
Over the past few days the papers have been filled with disturbing images, as shocking as these are for adults,I really wonder how children are coping with and percieving pictures of people covered in blood, terribly injured and deeply shocked,I really feel that the press are sensationalising this atrocity and this can only play into the hands of Al Qaida....in other words how much is too much?..
It is terrible how the press sensationalizes everything. It's amazing how you can't show boobs on U.S. TV at 5 P.M., but the gore on the 5 P.M. news is A OK. It's disgusting! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which has the most potential to harm a child.
Fact is, blood and gore is a fact of life. Let's show that to our children, but when it's something sexual, which is also a fact of life, let's hide it.
Well I think we need to look at what we think is appropriate for children to see, and if we don’t think it’s appropriate, why not. As someone said above, violence and killing and blood … etc is a fact of life. People die in horrible circumstances, sometimes this is shown in graphic detail in the media, and sometimes, children will be exposed to it. What we have to remember is, while I realize that some of what is shown is perhaps a little graphic, it’s not something that has been re-created for the benefit of the viewers, or the people who buy the newspapers, this is actual events, actual people, who perhaps have been very badly hurt. We can switch off the television or cover up the pages of papers so that the children don’t see the most graphic images, but the reality is that we can’t cover it up for ever, children have to learn that the world isn’t all sunshine and roses and fairy stories, the more you protect them against what is really going on in the world, the harder it is for them to adjust to the reality when they’re faced with it. I actually think that sexual images are slightly different. I don’t have issue, for instance with a topless woman on tv, after all that’s all perfectly natural, but exposing children to images of an explicitly sexual nature is different – after all, I think there are some things that children just don’t need to see, not necessarily because the image of a couple having sex or performing acts of a sexual nature are disturbing, but because there is a time for all that when the children are older. And before anyone says that sex is a fact of life, I agree, but it’s not something that regularly happens in a public place and which is something we all need to be aware of. In fact the more sex is portrayed on television the more it is trivialised, and I think that sends out totally the wrong message anyway.
I think it is the parents' thing to prevent their children from seing these ictures. Because, I agree, they must be very shocking for children. I know, saying that parents should prevent them is easier said then donw. But still - for example, my parents earlier never let my sister look at the newspapers. Now that she is 16, they do of course, but back then, they just thought it could shock her.
Yes its up to the parents but when little Jimmy's pal says did you see that guy who was all burned its in the paper...and little Jimmy want's to see the picture, to be able to discuss it later with his pal, what do you do...let him see the disturbing image and try to explain why that man is so badly injured...the implications are huge
The fact is though, you can’t hide what goes on in the world from children. A child can walk into a supermarket and see these images on the front of a newspaper, what should you do, say “oh no don’t look at that”. How many young girls fall pregnant and it emerges that their parents never talked to them about sex? Well violence is the same, the more we hide things from our children, the less they will know about the world, and potentially the more of a distorted view they will have when they go and try to find the answers in the playground.
Of course you can't hide everything that goes on from children. So why should sexuality be any different? I'm just saying that we should encourage children to look at non-violent things instead of seeing something awful in the newspaper somewhere, or watching violent cartoons and modeling that behavior. And when I speak of children, I speak of very young children. We do have to shelter them from violence, even more than from sexuality. Young children do model behaviors after all. Although showing children images of sexuality that lessen the meaning of the act may also lead to exploration among peers. Then again, children have natural sex drives, and might explore whether being shown anything or not; it's just one of those facts of life. And children are aggressive too, but at least we can show them good role models to follow to channel their aggression. The point is we should encourage non-violent behavior and discourage sexual behavior (except for masturbation) until the child is older and mature enough to handle it. If things happen too early, lots of guilt, fear, shame and embarrassment can ensue. What if, for example, a child punches a child because cartoon character X, his hero, did it on TV? Or if a child touches another child and they play "house" together? As the children get older, they can be exposed to more and more and more until they are adults, or at least mature enough to view anything they want, and guidance from adults is key to help children think logically and get in touch with their own feelings.
Yeah that is true Goblin. And I also agree with you, 1800 Trivia. Of course you can not hide everything. But maybe sometimes you have to prevend the mfrom being shocked.
As much as I agree with that there are those children left along to look after themselves while their parents work or drink themselves stupid ect...how will they cope with such disturbing images and who will be there to pick up the pieces when they can't cope...
Good question. I wish I knew the answer.
I believe that the graphic images of what happened in London should be shown to evweryone. As should all graphic images relating to news events. This way everyone discovers how brutal terrorists really are and have an informed view. Children caught up in such events don't get a sensored version of them, so why should everyone else? To the people who experience the events, the graphicness is shown with no regard for personal sensitivities. Why should be different in the aftermath?
I agree to a point, Wayne. Still for very small children it can be too brutal and too shocking. Children should start understanding it with ... hm, 6 years old, maybe 5.
Yes well I know adults who were shown horrific pictures from the holocaust and they still cannnot even read about it...this is the kind of damage I am talking about and which you deem acceptable to people..would you inculde those who witnessed the carnage in Bali or Madrid..yet again you have opened your mouth and spewed forth verbal vomit...