|
|
|
|
| 16/02/2007 |
|
Adult Content R21
By sunfacer @ 1:21 PM :: 12127 Views ::
99 Comments ::  :: The Young Ones
|
 |
Early in the morning, I sat at my bus stop. There are others around - teenagers, kids, adults, the elderly and the early morning joggers.
The adults have their fancy mobile phones with them; they use their phones for smsing or for games.
The teenagers flash their colourful PSPs, often with earphones. As they wait for the bus, they indulge themselves in their games (often with breath-taking graphics and music that would wake up the dead).
The more organized take out their Palmtops and start tapping away - making notes, looking at schedules, playing games.
I was sleepy and still trying to figure out what I need to do this day so I did not pay attention the first few days. But as days went pass, I noticed the young kids looking at the teenagers, green with envy - the ipods, the PSPs, the casio babyG watches, the cool-looking bags and those funky hairstyles.
I also noticed the teengers looking at the adults - the Nokia N70+, the samsung camera phones, the Atoms and Dopods, the expensive haircuts. I also noticed these adults paying attention to the cars wheezing pass - the Volvo XC90 and S40s, the Honda Civics, the Integra, the BMW 3 and 5 series, the ever elegant Lexus LS and GS, the occasional Odyssey, the Streams and Airwaves.
Could this be why those kids I know carry mobile phones bigger, more flashy and more expensive than mine? Could this be why they keep asking me why I do not drive a car?
After work, at home on the internet, surfing around aimlessly stoned from the overusage of brain power. I wanted some pictures of my favourite cartoon characters. Typing in Naruto and Rock and Sakura, I ended up with what I want... PLUS a whole bunch of naked caucasian women pics. Man, how am I suppose to bring my blood pressure down? If I am tempted, how would the kids feel?
I spoke to the kids I know well, and often I hear the words 69 and 47 and bondage and DD or C.
I quit the net and switch to tv, only to see Fear Factor or Nip/Tuck. The women are well - endowed, perhaps looking even a little fake. The men look like they puffed steriods.
Weekend, a walk to the nearest book store for some new pens and files. The first poster I saw was that of a scantily - clad realistic looking CG character from a game with huge breasts and piston - thighs.
A visit to the music/video store also shows posters and displays of cool - looking idols in few cloths and more sensuality.
The kids often ask me - why do u look so nerd? Hey, I resent that! What is wrong with shirt and pants? What is wrong with a simplier hair cut?
When I was young, I wasn't exposed to all this sin. Now I am. And I am tempted. |
|
|
|
|
| Comments |
 By
Anthony Goh @
17/02/2007 10:51 AM 
|
Interest comments... well, if it will make you feel better, I don't know what 47, DD or C is... do I want to know? probably not coz it does not interest me.
Same thing with the electronic gadgets, they may be funky and flashy, but I dont' own any of them... I don't see the need to own all of them unless I need their functions, and I don't have an i-pod too.
What I am trying to say is, external influences have always been there for any generation, they can be very tempting, and the advertising world believes in "Sex Sells" which doesn't help with the perception of women as a sex object.
Once upon a time, the mini-skirt was attributed to the increase in crime against women... but exposed flesh doesn't give anyone the right to exert their right over others by touching them. The law will take good care of such people.
|
|
|
|
By
sunfacer @
17/02/2007 9:51 PM
|
I am not talking about how u feel about it. There is a special term to describe your view - expert's blindspot.
Let me spell it out plainly without all the gimmicks - the adults live the society without any concern for how the kids might turn out in an environment like this.
We do not leave our home doors open for rapists to come in. But we leave the TV and internet on for the rapists to come in.
We create our society with OUR interests in mind. Not very youth - friendly. And the worse thing? - We do not care.
|
|
|
|
By
nebulaenova @
18/02/2007 10:42 PM
|
|
Loved your article. In fact, just a week ago, I send a feedback through to MDA. The reason? I was offended by the many trailers for prime time shows being aired at breakfast hour on Channel 5! Really! The nerve! The one that hit the spot was for Victoria Secrets Runway Show trailers which was aired at 10.30 am! My daughter was asking me why the women aren't wearing any clothes!!!!
|
|
|
By
sg618 @
19/02/2007 10:48 AM 
|
Hi All,
I travel overseas for work and it seem that the conclusion on Singapore media has done some negative image for Singapore women in general (not all but quite a few). I can often identify a Singaporean women overseas by the way they are dressed. Eg. wearing V-neck during Winter in Beijing or Taipei.
While I hope that television programmes like sex in the city, and desperate housewives could be banned.
|
|
|
|
By
sunfacer @
19/02/2007 11:02 AM
|
We are cosmopolitan - though nothing compared to London, and our way of life is being attacked. Total defense? Military and Civil we have. But Psychological, Social? How?
Look at our young! So americanized. I am not against the Americans. I just do not want my Asian ways to become so blunt and crude.
Do not mistaken me, I am against Osama. But I also understand that such mental and spiritual filth must be only exposed to adults. But as of now, it is easily accessible to young singaporeans. Leave it to the parents to monitor? This thought is irresponsible and immature. We have first - class ministers and they recieve payment as first class ministers. Then they should produce first class results, even more so in a small city like ours.
|
|
|
|
By
John @
19/02/2007 2:52 PM
|
|
I agree that with <a href="http://www.cheap-mobile.com.au">mobile phone</a> and internet age that kids are becoming immune to sex and violence. The days where children were not exposed to this madness allowed children to be children.
|
|
|
|
By
Anthony Goh @
19/02/2007 5:37 PM
|
i do not condone any form of racism, violence and while restricting access to questionable materials by the young is necessary, the job cannot sit squarely with the government. we need to move away from the old practice of turning to the government for all solutions.
short of living in a cave up on bukit timah hill, there is no way of totally shutting out such "negative influences". possible ways are to manage it and educate our young...
moving forward, we need to work together as singaporeans in order to establish a mature and civic minded society that is open to new ideas but yet discerning.
this is my humble opinion as an individual and a singaporean. i am no expert thus any name calling, imho, in unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
By
Clay @
20/02/2007 2:31 PM
|
|
I agree that young people are exposed to so much in this modern age. But what can we do to change it?
|
|
|
|
By
sunfacer @
20/02/2007 7:18 PM
|
|
I agree with Anthony - we do not need to live in a cave. But we need to let these new marketing and advertising executives know - be more responsible. Do not do anything just for money. We know that sex and violence sells. But we as working adults must not forsake ethics and civic responsibility just to earn that extra buck.
|
|
|
|
By
Clay @
22/02/2007 2:03 PM
|
|
Great comment. These marketing companies are the ones to blame
|
|
|
|
By
sunfacer @
22/02/2007 2:45 PM
|
I am not in the marketing/advertisement line. And I am not here to shoot them down.
But I know that everyone is out to earn big bucks. Few actually think any lesser or any more.
This attitude has consequences - our society is only for us, not a good place to raise children.
|
|
|
|
By
zhen mei @
23/02/2007 11:25 AM
|
Many advertisements on TV need review.
Do we always need scantily dressed females to make something more attractive? I find animated advertisements more the way to go.
|
|
|
|
By
sunfacer @
23/02/2007 11:46 AM
|
|
Yes, personally, I think many shows and programs on tv is out of hand. i think the only section still considered clean and wholesome is kids central.
|
|
|
|
By
David @
23/02/2007 1:34 PM
|
|
Yes advertisers must take a different approach to advertising. Besides people are becoming immune to their sex sells theme
|
|
|
|
By
sunfacer @
23/02/2007 3:57 PM
|
|
Become immune is already bad. Become indifferent is another. Do you know what kids talk about and what they do to one another nowadays?
|
|
|
|
By
Fishy @
26/02/2007 5:08 PM
|
|
Perhaps this is the culture of today. People are constantly exposed to ad & tv program.And the TV program are catered to such group due to their expectation.
|
|
|
|
By
sunfacer @
26/02/2007 6:11 PM
|
There are somethings I can accept as the culture of today. Like teenagers having cell phones. Like jargon like sia. Like the nigger walk. Like hip-hop.
But I will never accept kids and teenagers being exposed at such early ages to implanted DD boobs, enlarged penises, anal and oral sex, 36-24-36 figures? I do not girls to slash themselves, compete with each other how many mates they've had and eating disorders. I will never accept this. And I think irresponsible advertising and the no-holds-barred attitude of capitalism is exposing kids to such things.
|
|
|
|
By
Kaixa @
26/02/2007 6:54 PM
|
|
I can only agree to a certain extent...kids nowadays are influenced with the wrong thoughts thanks to the media. I think the media should reinforce on the censorship and the shows they preview on tv.
|
|
|
|
By
KK @
05/03/2007 1:36 PM
|
|
Advertisers do not need to resort to Ad portraying sex and violence to sell. In the viewer's choice, the memorable, wholesome Ads are the ones people remember the most.
|
|
|
|
By
Clay @
07/03/2007 3:23 PM
|
|
Thats right. The best advertisements are the ones that make you feel nice inside.
|
|
|
|
By
Javad Namazie @
21/03/2007 11:38 AM
|
I think advertising and marketing companies have done their research, and if they're airing commercials portraying scantily-clad, attractive women, then that's probably what they've found to be most effective. Granted, some of the best commercials don't use sex, but top-end quality usually costs quite a bit more. And cost is a factor they have to strongly consider, especially when they develop commercials that are used only locally.
As for what's on TV, well, when I was a kid, my parents told me what I couldn and could not watch. Just because there are a whole lot more channels on TV now, doesn't mean parents can't do that.
Some people dislike the casual portrayal of sex on TV. But there are others who like it. What we have is a balance of these competing interests. Neither side has the right to fully satisfy their desire at the expense of the other.
As for "westernization" of the youth, perhaps a lot of what is construed as such is simply modernization. Attributing 'loose morals' and 'individuality' to western society is a little unfair when you take into account that not so long ago, America in particular was extremely conservative (I personally believe that it still is, but that's just my humble opinion).
|
|
|
|
By
sunfacer @
21/03/2007 1:44 PM
|
Glad you can see this issue in this cosmopolitan perspective.
But I will like to state my stand again - I will not accept such behaviour among the young. Using strong language, behaving agressively and copying what they saw or learnt from what they see or heard.
Take for example the drama series Desperate Housewives - such adultery should be kept out of sight and out of mind. At least, such material should be made difficult to obtain; not aired openly.
Kids learn more from actions and sight, not so much from hearing.
|
|
|
|
By
asd @
21/03/2007 5:58 PM
|
|
|
|
By
Eric Ang @
21/03/2007 11:16 PM
|
The fact is, as a parent, there are certain responsibility that we must exercise.
I guess ensuring that our children have a good and conducive environment to grow up in, is a very important aspect of good parenting.
We need to ensure that children are not exposed to "undesirable" materials too early in their impressionable stage of life.
We cannot shelter them forever, however, we should take care to educate and explain to them why the world are turning out idols who are skimpy and barely covering their body.
Having said all these, those negative influences are pervasive too in Singapore. Everywhere u turn, there are advertisements for ever thinner bodies, bigger boobs. TVs and movies are producing shows that glorifies violence and sex ...
I cant begin to write about all the porn and gambling advertisements that seemingly pop up of nowhere on the internet.
Finally, we have to teach our children that money plays a very important part in what they are exposed to in their daily life. Without the un-ending chase for more profits, the world will be much more peaceful
|
|
|
|
By
sunfacer @
22/03/2007 8:16 PM
|
Well said. What then do you propose? At our level, we can only do so much.
I suggest that mda take some measures - not to complicate matters but rather to exercise some constraint on the materials that are aired.
|
|
|
By
Jason Huang @
24/03/2007 5:57 PM 
|
|
I agree that the media has a huge influence over the younger generations. The younger generations may also seem too be too liberal, less conformist. Then again, isn't that how our parents back in our younger days think abt us? Wouldn't that be how their parents think abt them in their younger days. My point is that times are always changing. It is a matter of perception on how people judge what is good or bad.
|
|
|
|
By
G.K. Goh @
12/04/2007 11:03 PM
|
Wish the advertisers would adopt a standard of decency - bras at boy's school bus stop, sanitary pads on bus panels and TV adverts, bust inflation/bottoms tightening in newspapers. Are advertising dollars becoming "cheaper" - wont shareholders, managers, customers and other stakeholders make a "noise" to raise the standards of advertising? Where is the advertising ethics/morals committee?
Speak up please.
|
|
|
|
By
sunfacer @
13/04/2007 10:29 AM
|
Agreed. Speak up, please!
I think we must allow our own SMEs to flourish. But not at the price of our youth.
Some decency is vital. This is still an Asian country.
|
|
|
|
By
Koh Sian Ann @
22/04/2007 8:04 PM
|
Hi, I just learnt about this website. I'm very concerned about the many obscene photographs seen in Singapore's "family newspaper", The Straits Times.
I was very disappointed to read Peter Lim's comment some time back that he was given carte blanche to "sex up" The New Paper by Mr Lim Kim San.
I am also disappointed by MM Lee's present exercises to persuade Singaporeans to "modernise" vis a vis the casinos. He was a childhood hero of mine because I felt that he and his original colleagues stood for values which gave Singapore the proper foundation for its growth.
It is so sad to see him now change his position that there are no permanent values worth defending so long as Singapore is able to "progress" econcomically.
Koh Sian Ann
|
|
|
|
By
Javad Namazie @
24/04/2007 2:45 PM
|
It saddens me to see the conservatism with which people are approaching these issues. It is one thing to make a personal choice to avoid things that one deems immoral, it is quite another to expect that your government make that decision for the entire population. For every one of you who does not wish to see "obscene pictures" (which I find it difficult to believe that the Straits Times would print obscene material) there is someone else who wants to. By permitting something, the government is not telling you that it is moral or immoral. It is giving you the freedom to make that decision for yourself. If the reader is an adult, I should hope that they are mature enough to decide for themselves whether they take this opportunity or decline it. And if the reader is a child whose parent is objecting, I certainly hope that the parent finds it within his or her power to limit the exposure of their child to such materials.
Like anywhere else in the world, the people of Singapore can think for themselves, and decide issues on a personal level. They should not expect their government to treat them as if they were children, control their access to things that some part of the society finds undesirable, and tell them what is okay and what is not okay for them.
As for economic success, it is quite an unfair statement to say that everything is being sacrificed for its sake. Think about it for a moment - in countries where the people are starving, unable to afford housing, and cannot find jobs to support themselves, do you think the general population really cares whether there are scantily clad models in the newspapers, whether permission is given to open a casino? It is easy to sit on a high horse and complain about the morals of the government when you actually are enjoying economic success. When you are not, that is probably one of the furthest things from your mind.
|
|
|
|
By
G.K. Goh @
24/04/2007 3:29 PM
|
The adults are not our concern and should be reading their own magazines if they chose to. It is the youth and the children we are concerned about. What monkeys see monkeys do. As newspapers depict a part of the culture/values of the nation we surely do not want our newspapers to depict what is not true for the majority just because they have the means to do so. Let those who think also mind the young ones who have not yet arrived.
It is correct to say that people in the poor countries do not care if scantily clad models are in the newspapers because they themselves are models of the scantily clad.
|
|
|
|
By
Eric Ang @
24/04/2007 5:44 PM
|
Actually "decency" is never just a Asian value. Parents all over the world want their children to be protected from the ills of bad influence. That is until the child is old enough to make their own judgment.
However, "bad influence" does not have a universal definition. Different group of people will perceive the meaning of the phrase according to their race, culture and religion.
While the west is perceived to be very liberal in their thinking and expression, i have a feeling that nudity or even semi nudity is not something that they consciously impart to their children.
The underlying issue concerning these influences are rather complex. There is no single group who are responsible but an entire eco-system that is continuously reinforcing the belief. I think you need to be a sociologist to understand all the in dependencies involved.
To cut the argument short; the parent has a responsibility to educate the child on how the world function. They need to explain to the child at a suitable age why things are done in a certain way. While it is never easy to explain the bad-side of the world, we have a responsibility to ensure that they are prepared for what the world will try to throw at them.
|
|
|
|
By
sunfacer @
24/04/2007 7:23 PM
|
Dear Javad,
I am not against liberalism. But look at America. Conservative? I am not a conservative.
I am talking about our youth being exposed to more adult stimuli that they can handle.
I am no prophet. I can only guess where our youth will end up. Argue like a debater if you want. To me, arguements are for lawyers. Can't say I like ANY lawyers.
Look at the debate about computer gaming. People say that there are benefits to gaming. To me, it's just plain rubbish.
So debate all you want - I am saying this must not continue.
|
|
|
|
By
Javad Namazie @
25/04/2007 12:21 AM
|
Dear sunfacer,
I thnik you underestimate the adaptibility of youth. The young can "handle" quite a bit, but I don't believe that is what you are arguing about, what you are displeased with is the youth being exposed to what you do not want them to be exposed to.
To say you dislike lawyers and debate is effectively to say that you don't want to argue about it, you want it to be a certain way and there is no room for discussion. Without debate, and listening to the rational arguments of others, you will never develop your ideas, they will forever remain simplistic and unchallenged because you will not allow yourself to be influenced by good arguments, rational explanations, and maybe even cold hard facts. None of us are prophets, and even those who may claim certain results for certain acts can only guess and hypothesize. But it is through argument and debate, through the sharing and challenging of ideas that we come to better understand the possible outcomes.
People say there are benefits to computer gaming. There are also undeniably negative issues that are associated with the activity. But try to see the world in less absolute terms, for the world does not exist in absolute terms. If someone claims that computer gaming has benefits, listen to the reasons that they think so. Come up with counterarguments. To simply say something is rubbish without considering argument and reason is ignorant and foolish. If you can hear their arguments and rebut them, then you have reinforced your own beliefs, and maybe even convinced others that you are right.
I am interested to know what sort of articles in the newspapers there is unhappiness about. Is it advertisments for underwear? Photographs of celebrities in revealing clothing a la Jennifer Lopez in her super low-cut green dress? Surely there is little choice for the former, how do you advertise something without showing it - are you suggesting the complete banning of underwear advertising? And for the latter, it is reporting on news that people (for better or worse) have interest in - are you suggesting that censorship be increased, that the eyes of Singaporeans be further blinded to the outside world?
|
|
|
|
By
Javad Namazie @
25/04/2007 12:23 AM
|
"So debate all you want - I am saying this must not continue."
and, quite frankly, when you are in a position to decide what can and cannot be published, then such a position is absolutely fine. but until you have that power, perhaps it would behoove you to come up with a rational argument to convince whoever DOES make the decisions that they should listen to you.
|
|
|
|
By
G.K. Goh @
25/04/2007 12:06 PM
|
|
Cardinal values are non-negotiable. - love for country, filial piety, parental love, decency, no murder, no stealing (includes others spouses), faithfulness to committed causes or religion, being law abiding except for those contradicting conscience and faith doctrines (God before man, does not include extremism such as murderous sacrifice of life of self and others), etc. Advertisements/articles in the media teaching these values will be welcome.
|
|
|
|
By
sunfacer @
25/04/2007 2:40 PM
|
Dearest Javad. Perhaps our disagreement is the only constant here. We see the youth differently.
I see a future blackened with sin and waywardness, without regard for subtlety, grace and honour. The minds of our young concerned only with materials, excitement and status.
No room for respect and the finer things in life.
This is my fear. Perhaps you can persuade me.
|
|
|
|
By
sunfacer @
25/04/2007 2:42 PM
|
Dearest Javad. Perhaps our disagreement is the only constant here. We see the youth differently.
I see a future blackened with sin and waywardness, without regard for subtlety, grace and honour. The minds of our young concerned only with materials, excitement and status.
No room for respect and the finer things in life.
This is my fear. Perhaps you can persuade me.
|
|
|
|
By
sunfacer @
25/04/2007 2:52 PM
|
Thank you Goh. I think Goh has phrased it well for me. There are changes I welcome. But there are just some that I think must never change.
And homosexuality is one of them!
Advertisements must not allow sensuality be freely available to the young. Sex is meant for the matured. Enjoyment comes with subtlety and responsibility.
|
|
|
|
By
sunfacer @
25/04/2007 2:59 PM
|
Thank you Goh. You have phrased it well for me.
I welcome some changes. I am not a conservative person. But I think some things must never change. Homosexuality must never take root. And sensuality must not be readily available as eye candy just to boost sales.
Pleasure comes with a price tag. It is called maturity, sensibility and responsibilty.
|
|
|
|
By
fk @
27/04/2007 6:07 AM
|
Decency comes from within, it is inward, how you would treat others as yourself, and for the religious, a greater measure of benevolence and grace to others different from us.
If Gays are indeed genetically determined as said by our MM LKY, wouldn't it be indecent to label them R21? and one day be left as an exclusive island disconnected with reality.
FK
|
|
|
|
By
Javad Namazie @
27/04/2007 10:27 AM
|
Dear sunfacer,
I see your point, and I realize we disagree on a fundamental level and perhaps there is no hope for us seeing eye to eye. However, I personally feel that subtlety, grace and honour and showing skin in advertising are not mutually exclusive. It would be quite a gross generalization to say that one who has an appreciation of the physical beauty of the human form is incapable of, at the same time, possessing the afore-mentioned qualities.
At the same time, if advertising comes to consistently and repetitively show scantily clad women, it ceases to grab your attention at some point, and successful ads will be ads that break the mold, inspired creations that incorporate some other concept. The reason why these ads are being used is because they have been shown to work well. Presumably because they catch a lot of people's attention, and are in some way desirable.
I hardly think that this leads to "sin and waywardness" as you put it. If you are referring to sexual thoughts and desires, these are built into us. It's part of our physiological need to procreate to ensure the survival of the species. They are, in large part, why such advertising works. The ads about which people are complaining work so well simply because of this. They are symptomatic of the instinct-driven aspect of our personality, our personality as a species, as an animal.
But having these instincts does not preclude us from higher levels of thought. Indeed, if they were mutually exclusive, it would seem to suggest that evolution would have bred out the higher minded, in favor of the primal, animal man who focuses on procreation. Indeed, we have survived as a species, and our thoughts and ideas have developed and grown over time. To say that I am able to appreciate the beauty of the naked female form, as God created it, some might say, is not to say that I am unable to comprehend complex issues of ethics and morality, theories of physics, or the beauty of a heartfelt and well-written poem.
I think if there is a perceived downturn in grace, honour, and subtlety, then these are issues that must be dealt with independently, most effectively by parents in raising their children. I think it unfair to make the popular media a scapegoat for problems that we deem to be plaguing the youth of today.
I hope I have put forth a convincing argument, and that even if you do not agree with me, you at least understand my position.
|
|
|
|
By
sunfacer @
27/04/2007 2:11 PM
|
I am only concerned about a symptom called Expert's blind spot.
You may think rationally. But kids do not.
In many ways, I agree with you. Had agreed with you even before you said it. We say that having movie ratings - M18, R21. Although it prevents kids from going into the theatre, it does not prevent kids from watching the porn and the filth.
Any guesses why? No prizes though.
|
|
|
|
By
Tim @
28/04/2007 1:30 AM
|
Not having followed the discussion from the beginning, all I can gather is that JV is disputing Sunf's point on the media becoming too bent on ladies figures (presumably, semi-dressed).
I think that Sun's is based on the premise that there can be some who will become affected, and Sun is referring to those. JV, you I believe considers everyone to be as contained as yourself.
(This blog is difficult to discuss because you can't read the points, and have to keep referring back to the posting. It is onlymeant for 3 line postings at the most, for easy reference.) can't continue, as line of thought keeps breaking up. Interesting topic though, and could be better in the other site.
|
|
|
|
By
Javad Namazie @
28/04/2007 4:34 AM
|
I'm glad to see both of you understand the bulk of what I am saying. Which brings me to my final, perhaps previously too understated point: the fact that there are those who are able to handle the images at issue in the media and in advertising and still retain the desirable qualities we are discussing, suggests that the root cause of the problem is not these images themselves, but something else. I believe that something else is the inculcation of desirable values in children by their parents, and that the problem is not what children are exposed to, but how they are prepared by their parents for this exposure.
We live in a very safe and insulated society, the result of which being that parents have little to worry about when their children are outdoors at play. I think that this has led to an absence of motivation to be good parents in many cases. And that, in essence, is the problem we have. With the proper social education that parents should impart to their children comes the ability to handle risque and controversial subjects in a mature and responsible manner. The subjects here should not be blamed for the inability of their audience to perceive them in a proper light.
|
|
|
|
By
sunfacer @
29/04/2007 9:46 AM
|
If you see a kid on the streets running around near the road, would you stop him/her. The responsibility should be on the parents to guide? I believe you are not considering the entirety of the issue.
Tim? Can't follow? We could sit down in kopitiam to chat about this. While this is a forum, I post wherever the heat is, whether the structure is right or not. It's easy to follow. Just read and be patient. No one will spoon feed you.
|
|
|
|
By
Tim @
29/04/2007 12:33 PM
|
Sunf., To make sense, there should be a move of this discussion, preferably in one direction, forward. So, it would make sense to understand the flow of argument, instead of haphazard movement.
I believe JV tries to rationalise that ads bordering on porn. (as suggested by Sunf.), should not suffer any censoring, as by being sensible individuals, we should not rush out to commit crimes that Sunf. thinks could result from such. JV rationalises that it should be nipped at the root, by parenting etc.
But, JV, those are different areas of society. You are taking on the role of educationist/sociologist all rolled into one. Sunf., is just discussing media and public. fullstop.
I would agree with Sunf. that if ads do border on extreme suggestiveness, there should be a line drawn. It need not neccessarily be based only on coverage, but the copy, the pose, and all else.
However, when such a line needs to be drawn, again, it can be subjective. It is all too relative, but, a guide for the Mr Joe Bloggs should suffice. And, there lies the problem.
|
|
|
|
By
sunfacer @
29/04/2007 9:04 PM
|
|
Tim. Thanks for the reply. Good points.
|
|
|
By
YH Chiew @
01/05/2007 11:08 PM 
|
With globalisation, we will be exposed to many different ideas, some desirable, some not so.
My parents taught me the principle to discern the desirables from the undesirables. They taught me how to catch fish instead of feeding me fish. Trying to dictate what you want to your kids and not considering what they want only adds to resentment and causes communication breakdown. Relying on censorship and government to protect your young is like trying to take short cut, that is lazy parenting.
Kids these days are maturing much faster; in another blog it's somewhat saddens me that children in the lower primary actual understand what the word 'stress' means. But then again maturing faster could be a sign of progress too, except that the phase of 'ignorance is bliss' phase in human life cycle is getting shorter.
|
|
|
|
By
sunfacer @
02/05/2007 10:52 AM
|
Thank you for good points.
Yes, indeed. Even MM Lee said that Singapore must remain cosmopolitan.
Your parents did you justice. They taught you to fish. But not many parents do that. And I do not think the majority of parents can be trusted to parent properly.
So, I am suggesting we take a good hard look at our way of life. And the stimuli we allow openly in public.
|
|
|
|
By
amy @
05/05/2007 1:49 AM
|
I remember in my primary school days(1971-1976) during drawing lessons, me and my classmates used to draw and colour pictures of people(many people). Last year when I was at Jurong East Library, I saw an exhibition of drawings/artwork from the students from primary to secondary school and they were pictures of robots and aliens(guess I could imagine how future aliens come about). I often wonder is this the society we wanted in the future?? I also wish to say too much of voilent movies and american computer games(those that the kids played using machine guns or fist attacking the opponent till they dropped dead and and bleeded heavily do no good psychologically to their brain. It will have great effects and affect the society. I wonder... WHAT BECOMES THE WORLD???
|
|
|
|
By
sunfacer @
14/05/2007 11:11 AM
|
What has become of this world?
As it was wriiten - "...people have become lovers of themselves..."
There is no regard for others and the good for others anymore.
There is no solution to this.
|
|
|
|
By
Lam @
20/05/2007 1:28 AM
|
To get back to the topic of violence and negative influence in the media, espcially movies etc., I wonder if many, along with Sunfacer, feel that it is getting out of hand.
Is this trend in violence and gore a relfection of society, or is it influencing society?
And, regardles of either of the above, is the sole motive in getting more audience, or attracting a type of audience?
|
|
|
|
By
Chris Quek @
23/05/2007 11:51 AM
|
With the internet, even if we are to censor what will be shown on local TV (like Msia), kids these days will still be able to access the so called 'Soft Pornish' Content.
Let's face it, Sex Does Sells. Many businesses will not care about social responsibilities and money speaks loudest in this society.
I feel the only and best way is by education. Rather than avoiding the issue by trying to cover the kids' eyes, why not face the issue upfront and tell them what all these are about and what should be the correct attitude to handle these visuals and ideas?
The more we try to hide, the more curious they get.
|
|
|
|
By
Gerard Poh @
23/05/2007 8:38 PM
|
True, sometimes by denying existence of such visuals, it could lead to more curiosity. However, just educating is insufficient too. the message that whoever is using such subjects as 'porn', are degrading the subjects, should also be made clear.
There is no end, children are also used as subjects. What does it tell about us, if what we only do seems to be 'informing', 'educating' our children of the existence of such.
And, if we think that it is wrong, do we just give lip service? Surely, either, not buying/giving them exposure is one way to ensure that it does not persist.
|
|
|
|
By
sunfacer @
24/05/2007 12:08 PM
|
The forbidden fruit is always sweetest.
Or is it?
Yes, we merely rouse their curiousity by hiding the temptations. I used to say that we keep temptations away from the kids till they can learn what responsibility means.
Now, I wonder, are adults mature too? Can we, the adults, even overcome temptaions?
Then I make a new proposal, we should censor. Censor regardless of age. There are things screened or sold that just does not edify anyone. We do it the Singaporean way; we ban it.
|
|
|
|
By
Javad Namazie @
05/06/2007 11:04 AM
|
what gives you (or anyone) the right to tell someone else that giving in to their temptations is wrong? as adults, we have the right to decide how to live our lives. the law exists to protect society from those who would choose to live their lives in such a way that would cause harm to others, but within the law, there are plenty of temptations that are permissible, and if we should choose, as adults, that we wish to indulge in them, then we can, and we will.
this issue we are discussing only exists pertaining to children, who have been deemed by the law too young to make such decisions for themselves. they are sheltered by society until they have reached an age when (one would hope) they have sufficient maturity, experience, and education to decide how to live their lives. it is not to prevent them from ever engaging in what one person or another considers immoral, wrong, or distasteful. it is only to prevent them from doing so until they reach the age of maturity and can be held responsible for their actions.
the population of the entire country does not constitute the children of your household. censor everything? perhaps we should censor the news, i mean, god forbid someone decide to copy the things that happen there, i.e. killing, terrorism, sexual assault, so on and so forth.
|
|
|
|
By
kim @
07/06/2007 8:18 AM
|
" as adults, we have the -
right to decide how to live our lives. the law exists to protect society from those who would choose to live their lives in such a way that would cause harm to others,
but within the law, there are plenty of temptations that are permissible"
children, who have been deemed by the law too young to make such decisions for themselves. they are sheltered by society until they have reached an age when (one would hope) they have sufficient maturity, experience, and education to decide how to live their lives.
it is not to prevent them from ever engaging in what one person or another considers immoral, wrong, or distasteful. it is only to prevent them from doing so until they reach the age of maturity and can be held responsible for their actions.
censor everything? perhaps we should censor the news"
Your argument above is very liberal.
1. You accept everything wholesale, from the media/art/movies/tv etc.
2. You believe that as adults, the choice to indulge is a personal one.
3. That another adult has no right/authority to think that his opinion could be 'better' than another's, given that it is all individual.
You are giving an "open canvas" to so called producers of media.
Your high regard for those involved in this area is really commendable, in that, they need unrestrained creativity.
But, when it comes to milking society through this artistic licence, in the name of art/ and creativity, and imposing their various free ideas etc., and expecting the uninformed population to be able to sift through, after paying because of sensational advertisements?
Don't lump news into the same basket. Because we know the human brain is able to sort that out. But, let not the news-of child kidnap, rape etc., be a result of this inability to restrain ourselves to think only in terms of dollar signs, and give it a name of 'artistic' freedom.
|
|
|
|
By
kim @
07/06/2007 10:04 AM
|
Because 'news' is man-made. It is not a phenomenon of nature.
'News' is made by man. And today, the saddest thing is that 'news' is dominated by tragedies that occur through society's influence/moulding of our human nature.
And one of this mould, is through the media. (the media that is, of the creative world - the creative world that comprises of the porn., the child-porn., the seduction of the sensual elements)
|
|
|
|
By
kim @
07/06/2007 10:07 AM
|
But because either through ignorance on the part of each individual, (collectively, there could be a force), or through an unspoken acceptance of the layman that what he sees in the media, should be accepted, and regarded as a higher order, it is difficult to put into a sensible argument, why, there should often be more limits in this area.
|
|
|
|
By
Javad Namazie @
10/06/2007 7:25 AM
|
i don't deny at all that my argument is liberal, but you seem to be twisting my words somewhat, kim.
1. i do not "accept everything wholesale". i believe in the freedom of choice, for people to choose what they want to watch and not watch. this means that some people, presumably like yourself, will avoid movies, tv shows, and art exhibitions that involve sexual content and violence, and others will choose to watch or attend them because they have an interest. i understand that there is governmental interest in exercising some control, as is already done, such as censorship of foul language and nudity on tv, and ratings systems for movies that restrict access for younger people. however, beyond the minimum standard set, an entire population should not be subject to the stringent puritanical standards which some people choose to hold themselves to.
2. i absolutely believe that as adults the choice to indulge is a personal one. what separates man from animal? what is "democracy"? what are the foundations upon which human civilization is built? the right to choose, to decide how one wants to live one's life. of course, again, there are limits, and it is not acceptable to live your life in a fashion where it directly disadvantages the lives of others, and that is why the law exists. within the law, however, choice is what makes life worth living, whether it's a choice between chicken rice or a delifrance sandwich for lunch, between spending your night reading a book or out having a drink with friends, whether to vote for one candidate or another, or whether to watch a movie full of sex and violence or a disney cartoon. the act of watching such a movie does nothing to affect other people in society, and thus the government should not infringe on the personal freedom of an adult to do so.
3. everyone has the right to think that their opinion is better than another's. in fact, it would be rational for most people to believe so, or they would have no reason to keep that opinion. but at the same time it is important to respect the perspectives and opinions of other people, and not try to exercise your opinion over them. surely, if the tables were reversed, you'd be quite unhappy to have their opinions forced upon you.
as adults, the "uninformed population" has a duty to inform themselves if they are inclined to do so. if friend tells you that a certain book was fantastic, and you buy it and read it and don't like it, is it their fault? no. if it was that important to you, read a book review, look it up online, ask a librarian or staff at a bookstore. we are not children who need to be told what to do and not do in every aspect of our lives. if something is important to us, we have our own duty to ourselves to keep ourselves informed about it, rather than wander blindly through life.
i don't know where you picked up on the artistic freedom and unrestrained creativity issues, i said nothing about them. artistic freedom is important, of course within certain limits, but that is not the topic of this discussion.
and just FYI, studies have found that the effect of violence in the news, real, actual violence that is occurring in the world somewhere, has a much greater likelihood of resulting in violent acts from children than does fictional violence in tv shows and movies.
|
|
|
|
By
kim @
10/06/2007 10:11 AM
|
I don't deny at all that my argument is liberal, but you seem to be twisting my words somewhat, kim.
1. i do not "accept everything wholesale". i believe in the freedom of choice, for people to choose what they want to watch and not watch. (your premise on 'freedom of choice' - comes first from accepting whatever is in the media. You are assuming that the govt. controls are adequate - sufficient. I am not. So, in essence, our starting point. From GO, is on a different plane/level.) I understand that there is governmental interest in exercising some control, as is already done, such as censorship of foul language and nudity on tv, and ratings systems for movies that restrict access for younger people. however, beyond the minimum standard set (So, here, you are accepting this MINIMUM standard as a sufficient base/beginning. To reiterate, i am not. I do not think the current minimum standard is adequate - I am not referring to Singapore, but by a global standard- which means the origin of most media- the West). , an entire population should not be subject to the stringent puritanical standards (NO. Not stringent purititanical ones. But, wholesome ones. ) which some people choose to hold themselves to .
2. i absolutely believe that as adults the choice to indulge is a personal one. ( I don't deny this - but you are using this argument to uphold yours on that whatever the media shows should not be further curtailed) what separates man from animal? what is "democracy"? what are the foundations upon which human civilization is built? (You are using the very narrow topic of the freedom of the media/producers of media - to move on to the very high plane of 'democracy' - you are moving from the micro to the macro )the right to choose, ... within the law, however, choice is what makes life worth living, (rightly so - but, there will still be choices within the wholesome range - the only thing is to expand this wholesame choice - and not to make it a choice between wholesomeness - and lewdness) whether it's a choice between chicken rice or a delifrance sandwich for lunch, ... (I would rather see it as between chicken rice -well cooked and chicken rice with salmonella - or E. Coli)
the act of watching such a movie does nothing to affect other people in society, (You BELIEVE this? - this is what I see as your giving a 'blank canvas' to movie producers. You may be one or may be involved in this area - but surely, there should be more stringency in this area. The power of the producers is just too great these days - movie moguls are politicians in their own right. as you well know).
and thus the government should not infringe on the personal freedom of an adult to do so. ( so this is how it goes)
3. everyone has the right to think that their opinion is better than another's ... but at the same time it is important to respect the perspectives and opinions of other people, (TOTAL AND COMPLETE agreement here -nowhere did I say anything contrary - but here let's restrict to the topic of the MEDIA -print or celluloid) and
not try to exercise your opinion over them. surely, if the tables were reversed, you'd be quite unhappy to have their opinions forced upon you. (No, I would be very happy to change my opinion/s, should someone be able to convince me I am wrong. I would really have a turn about, if the counter arguments were truly unmotivated/informed/and well thought out.)
as adults, the "uninformed population" (SAD to say, no adult can be a totally informed person - no matter how hard we try - there will be large areas in life where we will have to choose to be 'uninformed', and that is why - greater powers have to have the greater good in mind - and not be ruled by '$' )
has a duty to inform themselves if they are inclined to do so. if friend tells you that a certain book was fantastic, and you buy it and read it and don't like it, is it their fault? (NO, certainly not - and I doubt any reasonign person would)
if something is important to us, we have our own duty to ourselves to keep ourselves informed about it, ... (RIGHT - yes/ if something is IMPORTANT - you hit the nail. However, most of us take media as the lesser important part of life - it is part of our leisure time - but, that is why it is so important. Becuase, in our leisure, what we read and watch is slowly but surely being imbibed. And, this slow absorption can be - absorbing arsenic or absorbing something healthy - depends on what we are fed? yes?)
i don't know where you picked up on the artistic freedom and unrestrained creativity issues,
i said nothing about them (YES you did. By, allowing this 'no holds barred' for producers in media - by assuming that the govt. controls is sufficient - remember it is not Singapore I am referring to - but excepting the 'informed' global population to make their 'informed' choice)
artistic freedom is important, of course within certain limits, but that is not the topic of this discussion. (Yes. it should be within this topic - because this artistic licence is what the media is banking on, when it comes to porn. or near porn stuff).
and just FYI, studies have found that
1. the effect of violence in the news, real, actual violence that is occurring in the world somewhere,
2. has a much greater likelihood of resulting in violent acts from children than does fictional violence in tv shows and movies.
(I would like to ask if you could have suggestions as to what causes these 'violent acts from children' ? )
I do not intend to sound rude or aggressive, and if I do, please excuse (this may happen when I get too involved in what I am trying to say - and not able to find the correct vocab.) Your points are very good, and wish I could reach your very lucid and succinct level of reasoning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click here to post a comment
Privacy Statement | Terms Of Use | Rate This Site Copyright 2006 REACH
Best viewed using IE 6.0+
|
|
|
|
By
teddy @
12/06/2007 12:56 PM
|
|
|
|
By
Javad Namazie @
12/06/2007 3:56 PM
|
kim,
First, it is obvious that we disagree on fundamental levels. i actually believe that the government controls as they currently exist are too stringent already, but given that they are already there, let's work from that starting point. regardless of where the baseline is, freedom of choice requires that there be a sufficiently diverse range of media to choose from, and thus i do believe that there should be as few restrictions as possible. i understand that your interests lie in the direction of "wholesome" material, and i respect your choice. but do you not see that by insisting that everything conform to this "wholesome" criteria, you are forcing your opinion upon other people who may desire to watch less "wholesome" things? i don't know what your definition of wholesome is, but you see my point that if, for example, it is limited to the Care Bears, My Little Pony, and the Cosby Show, people who wish to watch something with more adult themes are deprived of the option to do so. in any case, your "wholesome" category obviously does not cover "lewdness", as you categorize it.
now, whether you like it or not, i'm sure you agree with me that there is at very least a significant minority of people out there who are enjoy "lewdness" in the media. like everyone else, these people are entitled to their opinions, right? what you propose, by imposing your "wholesome" standard, is forcing your perspective, your opinion, upon others who do not share it. where is your regard for their opinion? you said (and i quote):
"No, I would be very happy to change my opinion/s, should someone be able to convince me I am wrong."
yet here you propose not an attempt to change opinions you disagree with, but rather to stamp them out without giving them a say. which brings me back to one of the points of my last post, the unhappiness one would experience were the contrary opinions of others imposed upon them. not posed to them in the form of an argument in an attempt to change their views, but imposed against their will without having first changed their minds.
Second, the media is not a monster that feeds us what it wants to, that forces us to accept whatever subjects, issues and plotlines it delivers. the media is largely run by advertising dollars. private tv and radio stations, internet websites, things which we get for free, are paid for by advertisers who want us to see their ads. in order for a media distributor to do well, they must maximize their advertising dollar. how do they do that? they do it by working to inc | | | | | | | |