fett on 13/8/2009 at 17:34

---

Absolutely. I guess I'm using the pole as an absurd hypothetical to get to the Transformers/masturbation issue. If it had been a fleeting moment on the screen (even with something visual like the guy quickly zipping up his pants), a kid would think nothing of it. But an extended conversation about what to call masturbation and the kid needing privacy raised a lot of questions with my (then) 6 year old. Kids doing strip dances over Miley Cyrus is a stretch, but I can definitely empathize with the parents who feel betrayed - they are either going to have to ignore it or start filtering Miley stuff that wasn't a problem before, which in turn creates a conflict, which in turn requires explanations, etc. It's not the most horrible thing in the world, but it is truly a pain in the ass for a parent who is neither prudish nor ignorant, but trying to be responsible.



Also agreed. But as I said above, at what point does the Parent draw a line and say, "I know you love Miley, but she's not for kids anymore"? And yeah (@Rogue Keeper) when she's on the Disney channel, targeted to young kids, with merchandise tailored for young kids, there does need to be a point where that shit goes away so that kids aren't driving parents crazy to watch everything Miley when she goes through her Madonna stage. To do otherwise is purposely betraying the trust of the customer who has supported said celeb so far. I know that's the way big business operates, but as I said above, it makes it no less a pain in the ass for the Parent, and I empathize with their concerns.



It could have been called the PORN choice awards and KIDS would have watched it because Miley Cyrus was on it. Maybe she's reached a point where there needs to be a clearer distinction between what is "Hanna Montana" (for younger kids) and Miley Cyrus (for older girls and horny boys)?

Muzman on 13/8/2009 at 18:06

---

Yes and no. This thing sorta goes in waves. All over the cultural-crit literature from twenty years ago was the sexualisation of children; that usually boils down to people from essentially the same background (educated middleclass white academics) splitting right down the middle on what it all means. Some say sexuality has been repressed for 200 hundred years and are all kinda Freud meets Hippies about it and hope we'll all just get over it one day, be open and embrace all the free love and loveliness the world has to offer. The other lot are very worried about the commercialisation of sexuality and it being sold to kids in confusing mixed messages that do far more than they realise, give the wrong idea about how relationships work (in their book anyway) and basically set people up to be exploited in later life in ways parents can't keep under control; sends the wrong message about self worth etc

There was a surge of fuss about this a few years ago (probably about 9 or ten by now); kids having to grow up faster and wanting to etc. There was that movie Thirteen and some concern about acts like The Pussycat Dolls (being as they are basically strippers who make tunes for 6-8yr old girls).

There does seem to be a long term trend and it's all certainly different from when us old farts were kids etc. I wouldn't call it peadophilia exactly though. It's more likely the McDonalds school of marketing at work in fashion; you want long term customers you gotta make people (girls mostly) very image conscious at a young age. You make "sexy" a very complex art form that needs a lot of finesse with accessories that only you can provide.
Of course, there has long been playing to aspects of female culture in this way. It's just that the trend seems to be to brazen self exposure and the quest for new markets is targeting younger and younger.

fett on 13/8/2009 at 20:12

---

That's not the fucking point. I took a 6 year old and here's why: The toys are for 6 year olds, the trailers played before movies made for 6year olds, the tv trailers played during shows watched by 6 year olds, and McDonald's sold happy meals with Transformers splattered all over them with transformer toys inside, which are typically sold to 6 year olds, and Oscar Myer Lunchables contained Transformer toys which are packaged food intended for 6 year olds.

The fucking point is that there is a serious disconnect between the demographic being targeted and the content of the product. My 6 year old handled it just fine but even PG-13 movies run the gamut in terms of sex and violence. You assume because it's a movie about fighting robots, the PG-13 is due to the violence. Most folks don't think Transformers = unfunny sexual situations. But that's what it was. I'm just saying it sucks when your kid plays with the toys, watches the cartoon, eats the happy meal, etc. and you can't take him to the movie because some dumb fuck thought it would be cute to show robots ejaculating and insert a ten minute conversation about beating off.

Edit: And don't start some shit about how sex is bad but violence is okay because kids understand violence a lot better than they understand why people are humping each other and it's a hell of a lot easier to explain good guys/bad guys than it is to explain sex to a kid for whom puberty is still 6 years away.

SubJeff on 13/8/2009 at 20:30

---

I'm sure they make Terminator toys for 6 year olds too dude. No win on the toy angle. Rating said PG13, it said PG13.

fett on 13/8/2009 at 22:27

---

You're supporting my point exactly, but misconstruing my complaint.

WHY are Terminator toys being made for 6 year olds when the movies are rated for a much older audience? To sell toys, yes, but I suspect it's also because there's some hope that parents will take their kids to those movies. That's the fault of the corporation, and the fault of the parent if they take the kid.

Regardless, my complaint is that more and more, parents are being lulled into a franchise by the marketing, only to find out that the product is inappropriate for the age group that's been targeted. In the case of Miley Cyrus, it's even worse because she started out being safe and "clean" for younger kids and suddenly SURPRISE she's not, and without warning. The change was even more drastic with Britany Spears, but like Starr said, at least she wasn't Disney's poster child anymore when she tongue kissed Madonna.