Music videos face crackdown over sexualised content

[alp227]

Source: The Guardian

Tighter regulations on sexualised music videos and a single portal for parents to complain about products that are inappropriate for children are to be proposed by a government report into the sexualisation and commercialisation of childhood.

The chief theme of the report will be the empowerment of parents to complain about inappropriate material, including advertising, partly by offering an easier way through the current confusing fog of regulatory bodies.

The report has been commissioned by David Cameron from Reg Bailey, the chief executive of the Mothers' Union and a long-term critic of premature sexualisation, and it is due to be published on Monday.

Bailey is likely to give the retail, advertising and video industry 18 months to improve their act voluntarily or face tougher government regulation.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jun/02/music-videos-face-crackdown-sexualised-content

---

Also, "Critics will complain that the government is trying to recreate a Victorian image of childhood that takes no account of how the digital age has transformed childhood irrevocably."

[roguevalley]

1. if I never see another girl shake her butt in a boy's face or parade

around vacant eyed and ready to ______ (fill in the blank) because that's all she is in the video to show it will be too soon. Call me square but I am sick of mysogny and bullshit in videos.

[cyberpj]

2. I'm with you. It's gone Waaa-aaaaaay too far. nt

[0rganism]

3. People still watch music videos? Really??

Wow, I thought they went out with parachute pants, pastel jogging suits, and record stores.

[Javaman]

12. That was my first thought as well. nt

[mahatmakanejeeves]

17. There's a local channel that shows music videos around the clock.

And I have to say that "80s at 8" is a great show. It's all videos from the 1980s. Half the videos are awful, but the ones that are good are great. I never would have thought I'd miss Duran Duran.

WNUV Wikipedia entry

WNUV website

TheCoolTV

[cyberpj]

21. It came back via downloading. To iPods and computers and now most phones as well. nt

[arcane1]

4. Wasn't it at one time illegal to advertise directly to kids?

:shrug:

[palmtree guy]

8. wouldnt that

make all the toy commercials against the law?? cartoon channels would have ZERO commercials!

[mopinko]

14. i think you might be right, but i think it was

almost immediately circumvented. i think that all you had to do was to basically change the sales pitch from "get this kids!" to "ask mom to get this kids!". you weren't allowed to use cartoon ads, too.
i think that stuff died in the raygun years.

[alp227]

16. America no, but Europe yes I believe n/t

[and-justice-for-all]

5. If they do not like what their kids are watching, perhaps they should

be better parents.

[Kievan Rus]

6. Looks like the PMRC is making a comeback

[Codeine]

7. What the hell is a music video? nt

[Frank Cannon]

9. How about a crackdown on the use of autotune?

I certainly wouldn't mind seeing government agents raid the offices of The Black Eyed Peas.

[Javaman]

13. We can only hope. nt

[cyberpj]

20. Abso-freakin-lutely! I'll sign THAT petition. nt

[boppers]

41. Industry hint on auto-tune:

That's a crackdown on the last 50 years of music. Before it was done with computers, it was done with tape speed controls. Same thing with auto-tempo, it was done with tape, and a razor, to make shitty drummers sound like they were in time.

But yeah, BEP are pure product, no soul. Except for maybe will, but the rest are crap... this was will's work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY

Remember it?

[Frank Cannon]

42. The problem with autotune is it's so blatant and it ALWAYS sounds horrible.

It's pretty obvious that the person "singing" the song couldn't carry a tune in a bucket.

[boppers]

43. That's intentional.

It's an "effect".

Like reverb or chorus or (whatever), it's over-driven to be obvious.

[Frank Cannon]

45. Reverb and chorus can sound good, even great.

Autotune? Not so much. And I disagree with you that it's an "effect". Maybe Cher used it that way, but now it's primarily used to help a talentless fashion model pretend that he/she has pipes.

[Le Taz Hot]

47. +5,000,000

I remember when singers could actually, you know, sing. It was such novel concept.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boppers]

11. Burquas for everybody! No hip movement either!

WTF is "premature sexualisation"?

Haven't the brits caught on that humans are *born* with sex organs?

edit: fix homophone

[ronnie624]

15. So it's either burquas or marketing pornography to children?

Two extremes are the only choices anyone has?

[tabasco]

22. Are they showing explicit sex in the music videos?

That's what pornography is, not girls shaking their asses.

[ronnie624]

27. pornography:

1: the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement

2: material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement

3: the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction

<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pornography>


It isn't necessarily explicit sex

[boppers]

30. Ah, so, Elvis shaking his hips and women with uncovered ankles.

Pretty slippery slope there.

[ronnie624]

32. The article doesn't mention any of that.

It says, mainly, that parents are concerned about sexualized ads and music videos marketed to their children.

[boppers]

33. There's a reason Elvis was filmed from the waist up.

Parents considered his hip-shaking as "sexualized music video".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/flashpoints/music/elvis.html

The ankles thing is a reference to Victorian fashion (mentioned in the OP).

And for no reason whatsoever (snicker), here's a relevant image to the discussion:

[ronnie624]

35. I don't see any simulated sex acts in that image. n/t

[boppers]

36. Do you recognize it?

It's from a movie about a town that banned dancing, because it was "too sexual" for children.

[ronnie624]

37. I do indeed.

I liked that movie a lot. I particularly enjoyed the last part, with all that great dancing at the prom. I certainly would not want dancing banned.

However, I think parents might have legitimate concerns about big companies targeting their children with sexually charged music videos and ad campaigns.

[boppers]

39. What's wrong with sex?

What do you think the parents are concerned about?

[boppers]

23. I haven't seen porn in music videos, or in culture in general.

If people think that dance is porn, well, that's kind of my point.

[ronnie624]

28. It's a subjective matter.

Some people consider sexual depictions porn, and there is far more than just dancing in music videos.

[Codeine]

44. And those people are idiots.

Complete fucking idiots.

[Scout]

18. if you REALLY don't know what "premature sexualisation" means, i feel

sorry for any children you have, especially the girls

:eyes:

[boppers]

24. Boys "play with themselves" as infants. So do girls. Sorry to break it to you.

Developing a mature, safe, sexuality takes many years, but learning and development starts at birth, not at age 18. Parents who try to pretend it doesn't exist, or that it's "premature" to have sex organs, or be sexual beings, aren't teaching their kids about safety, boundaries, age-appropriate behavior, trust, love, etc.

I'd rather my kids know that being fondled by a priest, or groped by an uncle, is wrong *before* it happens.

[ronnie624]

29. I think "developing a mature, safe, sexuality",

would necessarily include not marketing pornography to children.

[boppers]

31. ...and we're back to calling dance pornography.

See, this is why the Taliban banned music, because music would lead to dancing, and dancing leads to porn.

:sarcasm:

[ronnie624]

34. Dancing?

You mean like this?

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km7uBUlUTC0>

I like her, and I think that video is very entertaining, but many parents will think the sexual imagery is a little too strong for their nine-year-olds.

[boppers]

38. I give the dancing a 7 out of 10.

Too many isolations, not enough flow, but that's part of the whole cut-shot style...

As far as age appropriate material, I would have understood the video at age 9, because by the time I reached age 8, our parents had already pointed us to where the "sex" books were in our library (at our house... we grew up with a *lot* of books), and I was reading books with position diagrams (and photographs), books with self-examination questions about discovering your sexuality, etc.

Age 7, I would have loved the catchy hook, and not known why they were squirming so much, and just thought it was funny dancing, and the girl should find a dry shirt, unless it was really hot wherever she was, which seems possible, because she keeps pouring liquid on herself.

...which kind of highlights another point. The problem isn't that children *can't* understand sex, it's that parents can't (or don't want to) understand children... who *can* understand sex.

Here's an older video (1999):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xat1GVnl8-k
A word "dropped" by the way, on that video, is "doggy", as in "doggy style". After viewing that video, and it's lyrics, what age is "old enough" to be exposed to the video, or the song?

What age is old enough to have a dog?

To go to the zoo?

To watch Discovery channel?

[quakerboy]

49. Exactly.

In the end, a lot of it has to do with what parents are teaching their kids, as you say. Many modern video sources glorify sexuality(the question of whether the type of sexuality they glorify is beneficial is another issue) and that makes it hard for a certain element to pretend that sex doesn't exist.

It also seems to me that a lot of what people consider "over sexualised" has to do with our cultural understandings of sex. In a culture where the whole family lives in one room until you go out and build your own hut, I am guessing that people making sexually suggestive movements are much less controversial or impactful. Same with a nudist or lower clothing threshold culture and seeing the forbidden nipple or butt cheek.

[Scout]

51. exploring one's own sexuality and sexual organs is NOT the same

as sexualization.

see, i knew you didn't get it.

[LanternWaste]

52. I imagine it's something like the beauty pageant moms pushing six and seven year old children

WTF is "premature sexualisation"?

I imagine it's something like the beauty pageant moms pushing six and seven year old children into pageant worlds... :shrug:

[AngryAmish]

19. I guess Tipper has a lot of free time now...

[boppers]

25. Al's been worried about other kinds of "warming".

:evilgrin:

[zappaman]

26. That Elvis feller always shaking his hips makes me see red!

Goshdurnit!

[boppers]

40. Oh, Elvis was fine. Madonna, OTOH, is corrupting our youth.

Or is it Lady GaGa?

Or the reason for her name?

[Evasporque]

46. More violence and gore....

What has the world come to, gun violence and bloody sawing of people and cadavers is okay but a sexy video is frowned on.

[originalpckelly]

48. Blowing some dude? No. Blowing some dude's head off? Yes.

Loverly world.

[LetTimmySmoke]

50. Here we go with the government telling people what they can and can't see.

This has been tried many times, and nearly always fails. North Korea is the shining exception.

EDIT - Seriously though, every 5 or 6 years we have a big fucking discussion about "declining moral values" and "entertainment today." Last one was in 04-05 during the wardrobe malfunction, grand theft auto, and of course, Georgeolf Bushler's "moral values" 04 re-election campaign.