Children and Violence vs Nudity

 

Which scene may be
More hazardous to children?

is Society more invested in protecting children and young teens
from nudity than it is in protecting them from violence.

 

Bad For Your Brain


Pscyhologists have found that watching too much TV is considered to be "bad for your brain"


Like a magic genie, TV hypnotizes for its own ends

For decades, scientists have studied the effects of TV but mainly focusing on watching if violence on TV connects with real life violence. In the present, much of today's TV programming is violent. Viewing of TV violence by children causes aggressiveness. In fact, a single TV program being watched may increase aggressiveness. There are three major effects on children seeing violence on TV which are:


-They may become less sensitive to pain or suffering of others.


-They may be more fearful of the world around them.


-They may be more likely to behave in aggressive ways.

An interesting fact is that the average American child will have watched over 100,000 acts of violence on TV by the time he/she is 13 years old. Parents are often working and children have a lot of unsupervised time. Researchers have found that children's TV shows have approximately 20 violent acts per hour. They found many differences between children who watch violent shows and children who watch non-violent shows. The children who watch violent shows argue or disobey and are considered less willing to wait for things than the ones who watch the non-violent shows.
Researchers have looked at the children's behaviors in areas before and after the introduction of TV. In the 1970s, they compared aggression levels in first and second graders, one with access to TV and one with no TV access because of a mountain range. When the mountain town received TV, the viewing increased by approximately 160%.

In order to determine the effects of TV violence, one needs took look at the research that has been done. Though it may be difficult to offer definitive answers, in the last three years alone, there have been four widely publicized studies on the effects of violence on television, each looking at a different aspect. One of the studies was conducted by four universities and financed by the cable industry. It found that of nearly 2,700 shows analyzed in a 20 week survey of 23 channels, 57% were said to contain at least some violence (Zoglin, "Chips" 58). However, the names of the channels were not mentioned and it should be pointed out that many cable systems now have over 100 channels. Another study was done in 1995 by UCLA which was financed by the networks. It found "promising signs" that levels of network violence are declining (Zoglin, "Chips" 58).

In a third study about TV violence, L. Rowel Huesmann and Leonard Eron surveyed every 8 year old in a typical American city in 1960. It did follow up studies with the same subjects in 1971, 1981 and 1994. They found some shocking results. "The correlation between violence-viewing at age 8 and how aggressive the individual was at 19 was higher than the correlation between watching violence at age 8 and behaving aggressively at age 8" says Eron (Mortimer 17). Eron estimates that TV is responsible for only 10 percent of the violent behavior in this country. "But," he says, "If we could reduce violence by 10 percent, that would be a great achievement" (Mortimer 19).

The fourth study showing the effects of TV violence conducted was The National Television Violence Study. A broad coalition of researchers, media executives and mental health experts from several universities, including the University of Texas, the University of North Carolina and the University of California at Santa Barbara, took part in the study, which was assembled by Mediascope, a nonprofit organization hired by the National Cable Television Association in 1995 (Carter C11). It billed itself as the "most thorough scientific survey of violence ever undertaken." The study made some damning observations about the way violence is presented. According to the survey, 47% of the violent acts shown resulted in no observable harm to the victim; only 16% of violent shows contained a message about the long term negative repercussions of violence; and in a whopping 73% of all violent scenes, the perpetrator went unpunished (Zoglin, "Chips" 60). These figures, however, were based on some excessively strict guidelines. Unlike some earlier studies, comic injuries were not considered violence. Kramer hitting his head on a door on Seinfield and accident prone Tim Taylor on Home Improvement were not considered violent. Also in the survey, perpetrators of violence must be punished in the same scene as the violent act. By that measure, most of Shakespeare’s tragedies would be frowned upon; Macbeth, after all, does not get his comeuppance until the end of the play.
http://www.ridgenet.org/szaflik/tvrating.htm

 

Cathode Radiation
" Let us all bask in television's warm glowing warming glow."
Homer Simpson

Quite simply children are oblivious to nudity. Adolescents are normally just amused. There has to be associated threatening behaviour for it to be a problem.

Violence vs. Nudity


Are children adversely affected by nudity?
No, quite the contrary. Childhood experiences are enhanced by the naturalness and honesty associated with social nudity. Studies have shown that children raised in nudist households are more likely to grow up to have a better education, better jobs and more stable marriages (Ocami, Abramson, UCLA) Nudity is a natural state for children, it's the rejection of nudity that is a learned response.

 
Violence vs Nudity on TV
We conditition our children with War and Violence
Movies
Cartoons
Are we being socialy conditioned to socialy condition our children, make them useful to those that would dstroy them in wars?
Video Games
Internet
And hide the oposites as in love,natural bodies and sex

Which scene may be More Disturbing to children?

 
The results of the study are reported in the December issue of the Journal of Experimental Psychology. "I can say," concluded Bushman, "that the negative effects of television violence on memory for commercial messages can be partly due to the anger induced by the violent content. This is not good for advertisers because in the time they hope viewers are absorbing their commercial messages, viewers may actually be trying to calm their anger brought on by what they just watched." commercials.
Which scene may be More hazardous to children?
It gets better - or worse -(BrainDead) pro-family and women's groups are urging a boycott of Dove products for exposing children to adult nudity.
Which scene may be More hazardous to children?
Is This social engineering in direct practice. Did anyone really think the BB? was a nice, family orientated institution? TV soap broadcasters want us to fight, argue, get drunk, sleep around, and to shout at each other as oppose to calmly talking, because it takes our eye firmly off the ball of reality.
Unknown


 

 

Which scene may be More hazardous to children?
Culture is permeated with activities which glorify blood and violence. From the movies we watch, to the books we read, to the nightly news, blood and violence are everywhere.Three of the bloodiest sports: rugby, hockey, and boxing, have long been male-dominated. The recent fight for gender equality in the athletic realm has challenged male power, especially in the most violent arenas.
Which scene may be More hazardous to children?
The Social Engineer is not cocky, he is invisible. The art of misconception lies with remaining undetected during obvious deception. The Social Engineer will be below the radar and above it. Don't follow the crowd, hide in it, control it.
Which scene may be More hazardous to children?
there can be a violent movie on tv where women are being beaten up, or killed. then Fashion File or something comes on and theres this viewer discretion warning. god forbid, you might be exposed to something beautiful.
Which scene may be More hazardous to children?
Manipulation, objectification, and control are the fundamentals of Social Engineering. You must have developed some form of gross manipulation in order to effectively engineer a situation. The players (manipulated) must all be encouraged to play their roles (verbal, psychological) for the situation to be properly coaxed into the reality desired. Every aspect, including the radical of independent thought, must be accounted for and controlled. Provocation, whether passive or direct, has to be enacted upon all of the players independently and collectively.
Which scene may be More hazardous to children?
Some would argue that sex is one of the oldest social engineering ploys to deceive someone into doing something they normally wouldn't do.
Which scene may be More hazardous to children?
If you had to choose between letting your 5 year-old child watch a two minute nude scene involving a man and a woman, or a two minute graphic scene watching a woman get stabbed to death by a man, which would you choose?

 
Which scene may be More hazardous to children?
To manipulate ones thoughts, one must first understand the paths that the thoughts take in response to certain stimuli. Whether it is verbal or physical, these thought paths must be determined and understood in order to be changed, or manipulated. Knowing what your prey is thinking, has thought, or has been taught to think and respond will aid you in changing their perception and rolling along in the proper direction. Understanding that the unknown often brings fear, comfort and discomfort and the ability to create those emotions is absolutely key when engineering a situation

 

Some may see nakedness merely as evidence of lack of modesty, or worse, a statement of sexual perversion. So the strength of the feeling depends much on its interpretation.

The Male Female body is beautiful because it is
" the brilliant end point of millions of years of evolution",

And then there's Religion
Have you noticed that those into Religions are often
Totaly opposed to natural things?

But When God Sanctions Violence, the People Listen ,
they Torture mame and Kill in His/Her name

 

Any male or Female
who is somehow offended by the sight of a nude body,
probably has some major psychological issues.
The fact that God clothed Adam and Eve indicates that God expects us to be clothed. Nude beaches, nudist colonies, and all other forms of public nudity are not honoring to God. A Christian should definitely not be involved in nudist "activities."
One may note the comments of Pope John Paul II in this matter: The human body can remain nude and uncovered and preserve intact its splendor and its beauty... Nakedness as such is not to be equated with physical shamelessness... Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person...The human body is not in itself shameful... Shamelessness (just like shame and modesty) is a function of the interior of a person
There is nothing essentially sinful about nudity (Genesis 2:25). Adam and Eve did not realize they were naked until after the Fall (Genesis 3:7-11). Before the Fall, they were naked, and it was good (Genesis 1:31).
Which scene may be More hazardous to children?
An article published in the March issue of Psychological Science provides some new evidence confirming that old hypothesis — there exists a causal relationship between certain types of religious indoctrination and violence. The University of Michigan’s Brad Bushman and his colleagues conducted laboratory tests in which exposure to scripturally sanctioned violence tended to incresase violence, particularly among believers.
Which scene may be More Upsetting to children?
 
Which scene may be More Disturbing to children?
 
Which scene may be More Shocking to children?
 
Which scene may be More hazardous to children?
  
     
 
Which scene may be More hazardous to children?