Porn writer bids to save US from hardcore invasion

[emad]

Paul Harris reports from New York on one man's crusade to remove sexual excess from Main Street, USA

Sunday April 24, 2005
The Observer

Gil Reavill was outside the library in the tranquil Westchester suburb of New York where he lives. A three-year-old was humming the latest hit from rapper 50 Cent, which has been a soaraway success in the American music charts.

'I take you to the candy shop, I'll let you lick the lollypop, Go 'head girl, don't you stop,' the toddler sang. For the benefit of those unfamiliar with gangsta rap lyrics: that isn't really a lollypop 50 Cent is talking about.

For Reavill it was just another example of how graphic sexual imagery and pornography have invaded every aspect of mainstream American culture. 'I know she was just three because I stopped and asked. Our culture has been hotwired everywhere for sex,' he said.

But Reavill has taken a stand. This week America's bookstores will be hit by Smut, Reavill's emotional plea to take sex out of Main Street, USA, and put it back in the bedroom.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1468987,00.html

[quaoar]

1. He has a very valid point

Toddlers shouldn't be singing the words to sexually graphic songs, no matter that they are unaware of what those words mean.

I never really realized how much sex permeates everything in the culture until I had children and started to listen to everything to determine what was appropriate for them to weatch/hear/ etc.

It's not easy to filter it out. In fact, it's nearly impossible.

[ret5hd]

2. yeah, not even the bible is fit for children.

[msongs]

5. are you reffering to all the....

rape, torture, murder, incest, witchcraft, sorcery, etc. in that tome?

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[BeFree]

19. Warning!

The post following this, by keopel, is a progressive, open minded post that was, as you will see, followed up by a regressive post. You have been warned!

--------------------

My two bits: War and killing are ok to show the wee ones, but love making is not?

[keopeli]

3. With all due respect, the problem is not the sex

In my opinion, the problem is with parental reaction to sex. By masking it from children for 10-15 years, you give sex an "underworld" type luster that becomes overwhelmingly popular to an adolescent. In this way, people who grow up in the US start out shielded from sex (giving 'sex' a power and seduction quality), then they become adolescents and not only seek sex (like all adolescents naturally do) but they take it underground, knowing their parents think it should be hidden. Finally, in a full circle fashion, the adolescents become parents and emulate the "sex should be hidden from children" fallacy.

50 cent is appealing to the adolescent phase of this development.

As a parent, perhaps a better path would be to de-mystify sex by acknowledging its intrinsic beauty. The child who does not think sex is something to be hidden from the light of day may become an adolescent who feels the same way. Sex might become more apparent in our culture, but it would also become less stigmatized as evil, improper and sinful. If adolescents stop seeking sex as the end-all of our human existence and embrace it as a natural part of our lives, performers like 50 cent won't have an audience.

The child singing those lyrics has no idea of what s/he is saying. The only ones offended by it are the parents who can identify the full meaning. Just get the child interested in other music. Then, when s/he is adolescent, the opaque double entendre will have far less emotional value.

Just my opinion. Take it for what it's worth. :)

Keo

[Eloriel]

16. No, keo, please -- and this is important

You have a couple of ideas here that SOUND good but are dangerous. They're dangerous for society and they're dangerous for children. Please give some serious thought to this because I consider some of your beliefs dangerous for YOUR children.

In my opinion, the problem is with parental reaction to sex. By masking it from children for 10-15 years, you give sex an "underworld" type luster that becomes overwhelmingly popular to an adolescent. In this way, people who grow up in the US start out shielded from sex (giving 'sex' a power and seduction quality), then they become adolescents and not only seek sex (like all adolescents naturally do) but they take it underground, knowing their parents think it should be hidden. Finally, in a full circle fashion, the adolescents become parents and emulate the "sex should be hidden from children" fallacy.

50 cent is appealing to the adolescent phase of this development.

Well, there's a point at which that whole "forbidden" scenario probably kicks in, I'll grant you that. But not until their own hormones start to kick in. In the meantime, IT IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT not to prematurely sexualize children who would have no natural interest in sexual content (because they're simply too young! they don't -- or wouldn't if left to their own devices -- have any knowledge, frame of reference or interest). To a very large extent, if I read the excerpt above correctly, this is partly what the pornographer is talking about (and if he isn't doing it consciously, he's doing it subconsciously).

It is HARMFUL to children to force-feed sexual content to them -- even if they're not fully aware of what that sexual content is. I can't tell you how horrified I am over Britney Spears and her overly sexualized impact on pre-pubescent girls. This (and so much more similar which is rufe thorughout our society) is societal sexual abuse. Trust me.

As a parent, perhaps a better path would be to de-mystify sex by acknowledging its intrinsic beauty. The child who does not think sex is something to be hidden from the light of day may become an adolescent who feels the same way.

NOT UNTIL THEY'RE READY -- IOW not before it's age-appropriate. PLEASE. This is so important.

Sex might become more apparent in our culture, but it would also become less stigmatized as evil, improper and sinful. If adolescents stop seeking sex as the end-all of our human existence and embrace it as a natural part of our lives, performers like 50 cent won't have an audience.

I don't know that you'll be able to wage a one-man (or two-parent) campaign like this and win, not with all of society ganged up working real damn hard against you.

The child singing those lyrics has no idea of what s/he is saying. The only ones offended by it are the parents who can identify the full meaning. Just get the child interested in other music. Then, when s/he is adolescent, the opaque double entendre will have far less emotional value.

Just my opinion. Take it for what it's worth. :)

Well, knowing something about child abuse, I can tell you that there's a very, very good chance that some day, when this "child" is an adult, she will feel deeply harmed -- violated -- by having been forced to sing lewd lyrics at the innocent age of 3 or 4 or whatever.

The very definition of child abuse, including child sexual abuse, is to use a child to satisfy your own needs, or to put any child's needs below your own. Having a child sing lewd lyrics IS child sexual abuse and if she's VERY lucky, there'll be a time when she resents it deeply consciously level and is able to get therapy or other help for having been used and abused this way (and do we REALLY think this is the only "abuse" she'll be enduring? I don't. It's probable if not likely that anyone who thinks that's cute or harmless is going to think it's also harmless to have her act out those lyrics -- after all, she won't remember, will she?).

Or, she may be just a common prositute by that time, society having done enough of its harm to her to turn her into fodder (willing worker) for the sex industry. At that point she may say and even believe she doesn't give a damn. She may have so little ability to connect with any small remnant of self-respect that on the surface she may even say she thinks it was cool or funny.

It is HARMFUL to children to force-feed sexual content to them --

-- the best you can do for your children is to fill them with SO MUCH rock-solid, innate, to the core self-respect that they will never be conned into being overly and prematurely sexual, that they'll respect sex as soemthing special between people who care about one another, not as just another cheap commodity and one's partner(s) as equally cheap commodities, which is what our popular culture has turned all of it into.

[mongo]

18. Do you cover your table legs too - lest the children see them?

First of all, there is NO concensous in the scientific studies of the effects of violent or sexual media on children. Most of the researchers who start out looking for a link, find it, no matter how small, and the researchers who are not looking for a link don't find one.

Also, most researchers acknowledge that the effect of media is small in contrast to parents, the context of the media and cultural values.

And children exposed to the same content do not react the same way. Some may become disturbed by it, some do not understand it and ignore it, etc.

Well, there's a point at which that whole "forbidden" scenario probably kicks in, I'll grant you that. But not until their own hormones start to kick in. In the meantime, IT IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT not to prematurely sexualize children who would have no natural interest in sexual content (because they're simply too young! they don't -- or wouldn't if left to their own devices -- have any knowledge, frame of reference or interest).

If it is so important not to sexualize children than why have studies shown that most child abusers and other sexual offenders come from sexually represed households, and typically have not seen any pornography until later in life than an average person?

Children tend to ignore what they are not ready to process, and most of what they would see on TV (adult situations, etc.) can be explained to them in the simplest of terms.

The very definition of child abuse, including child sexual abuse, is to use a child to satisfy your own needs, or to put any child's needs below your own. Having a child sing lewd lyrics IS child sexual abuse and if she's VERY lucky, there'll be a time when she resents it deeply consciously level and is able to get therapy or other help for having been used and abused this way

I don't think anyone's MAKING a child sing lewd lyrics - they are just repeating a song they heard on the radio. I think more harm comes from teaching kids that popular culture is "evil". Children need to be taught critical viewing/listening skills, so that they can process the information that gets fed to them from all corners of our society.

(and do we REALLY think this is the only "abuse" she'll be enduring? I don't. It's probable if not likely that anyone who thinks that's cute or harmless is going to think it's also harmless to have her act out those lyrics -- after all, she won't remember, will she?).


That is an aburd and offensive statement to the poster you were responding to - basically saying that the person is a child molester

[Tesha]

4. And it's mostly brought to you by...

> I never really realized how much sex permeates everything in the
> culture until I had children and started to listen to everything
> to determine what was appropriate for them to weatch/hear/ etc.
>
> It's not easy to filter it out. In fact, it's nearly impossible.

And it's mostly brought to you by Republican corporations exploiting
sex to make a buck while Republican politicians and clergy help keep
sex titilating by working hard to convince everyone that it is dirty
and evil. It's the perfect synergy! Create a strawman, make money
from it, and ensure that it stays propped-up!

Tesha

[LibDemAlways]

6. You can't filter it out, and raunchy stuff

reaches even the smallest ears. Not long ago I saw two little kids - maybe 6 years old - in Barnes and Noble listening to song snippets under headphones. They had selected Bowling for Soup's "1985" which they no doubt heard many times - the clean version anyway - on Radio Disney. Well the version they were singing along loudly to in the store, included the lyric "shake her ass on the hood of Whitesnake's car." Plenty of wide eyes, giggling, and playing it over and over.

I'm with you. Today's Top 40 is sex-soaked and kids - even little kids - are listening.

[mongo]

9. so don't filter it out ....

Teach your kids that there are adult words and kids words. And that adult words are even only appropriate for adults in certain circumstances.

Had to teach my daughter that one after she got in trouble at age 4 in day care saying the F word. Oops. She got the message pretty quick.

You can't filter out our society from your kids - and I'm not sure that trying to is the best thing for them.

[Stanchetalarooni]

7. Baby you can drive my car.

I once knew a girl, or should I say, she once knew me.
Aaaawwwwwwwwwwww Wham Bam Thank You Maam.
Be Bop b Lu Bop a Wham Bam Boom.
.........................
Pornographic code words? Let's get a grip here.

*on edit. Don't anyone misconstrue what I am talking about when I ask that we get a grip. I do not wish to have my mail box flooded with solicitations.

*on edit. That goes for the flooding my mail box too folks!

[Bridget Burke]

11. "I've got a brand new pair of roller skates....

"You've got a brand new key"...or, something like that.

Not to mention the REAL meaning of "Rock & Roll" & "Jazz"!

[ooglymoogly]

8. are we talking censorship here

freedom of speech is an integral part of a free society. it is up to each of us to decide what we want to see and what we want to read. by picking away at the ahole of freedom we can eventually kill the goose that laid the golden egg called democracy. but then that is the way the religious right works. for those who haven't figured it out sex in reality is an integral part of life. it is not an ugly thing. it in truth permeates every aspect of life. it is in fact LIFE. we are each free to read and discard and not to read what we choose. i for one don't want anyone telling me what i can cast my eyes upon or what i can listen to as regards sex. violence and the incite to violence is another matter.

[Zookeeper]

10. Sex is an integral part of life....

and not an ugly thing. However, most porn and commercialized "sex" does seem to make it an ugly, tawdry thing.

I have don't have a problem with porn being available in a plain brown wrapper. However, I really object to non-stop gratuitous and explotative images being everywhere for children to see. My kids were reading at the age of four and I can't tell you how thrilled I was to have them reading the covers of Cosmopolitan and The National Enquirer in the grocery store check-out lane. (Not.) Most of the "sexuality" displayed in our culture is shallow and dehumanizing, especially towards girls and women.

I'm a firm believer in freedom of speech, fun and bedroom privacy. However, children also have a right to age-appropriate innocence. I just shouldn't have to explain a headline like, "Here's the secret sexual trick all men want you to perform!" or some such crap. Jeez, put a wrapper on it!

[praxiz]

12. Sex must be mysterious.

Parents must force their kids to disown anything sexual. Say no to girlie-mags, raunchy lyrics, erotic elements in movies, and definetly no girlfriends/boyfriends.

Otherwise, sex won't be mysterious any more, and therefore no fun, and that would be a serious crime against our next generation.

All adults whose parents were prunes, go thank them - for making sex so interesting.

[bemildred]

13. It's too late:

Pornography is so common in the Digital Age that teens see it as 'part of the culture.' If it's corrupting them, the data don't yet show it

Mike Clark figures he was just a little kid when he saw his first sexy pop-up ad on the Internet, and somewhat older when he saw his first sexy pop-up that he understood. First X-rated spam? Let's see — when did he first learn to use e-mail? First videogame with sexy images? Probably the first time he played Grand Theft Auto. First glimpse of an online porn site?

"Right after my first sex ed class in seventh grade," the peach-fuzzed Orange County 16-year-old confessed one recent Saturday as his buddies burst out laughing.

"I mean, the minute they tell you that stuff is out there, you're like, 'Really? It is?' "

LA Times

The internet, and the bulletin board systems before it, were always
fountains of pornography, much of it free, explicit, and as raunchy as
anyone could like. Any mysterious or forbidden quality is long since
gone. There are now large numbers of sites dedicated to finding and
sharing and discussing porn, like we find and share and discuss news
here.

[youspeakmylanguage]

14. This guy is milking his "professional history" for all it's worth...

The newspaper has labeled him a "porn writer", yet they didn't detail what he actually wrote for those magazines. All of the magazines listed (except for Screw, which I've never read) employ real investigative journalists, in varying degrees of competency. He may have never even written about sex.

Just what we need - another converted moralist with a book coming out. Another Michael Medved/Brent Bozell in the making, ready to "take on HOLLYWEIRD" with their word processors blazing.

:puke:

[LdyGuique]

15. Back in the 50s, sex was pretty well censored

to the extreme of twin beds for Lucy and controversy about whether or not she should appear on the show while pregnant.

Our sex education classes were gender-based. Girls got all of the graphics about their reproductive systems -- but no info on how the sperm got there. I assume the boys got a similar dysfunctional view into human reproduction. At least, several years later, I still remember my brother, who was taking Biology as a High School freshman, announcing at the dinner table that "when girls are carrying a baby, it's called being pregnant," to the amusement of our parents. Backwards? Yeah, it could be called that.

Older National Geographic magazines were greatly prized when nearly naked cultures were photographed -- some could even be found in libraries.

Remember when Peyton Place, the book, became a best seller? When purchased, it was hidden from kids -- until we found it. A single copy would be passed around with a crib sheet of all the explicit sexual passages' page numbers.

Henry Miller's books were banned, but would still come into the country and whenever a copy could be found, it was passed around amidst much giggling.

Our overall ignorance didn't prevent teen pregnancies. The scandal of my group was when the most popular girl, a good Catholic girl, became pregnant and continued her classes until end-of-term. She and her boyfriend, a popular jock, got married and it was the end of schooling for them. This gal was a 4.0 student with strong aspirations of going to medical school.

Humans and most animals reproduce sexually rather than asexually. We don't tear ourselves in half and create an identical being as single-celled lifeforms do -- we mate and the female carries the offspring to term and then delivers it. Mothers' milk from breasts still feeds a whole lot of babies. It is fundamental to being a biological creature and is hardwired into our very natures.

It is ridiculous to pretend that humans aren't sexual beings. Little bits of information have to become part of one's overall knowledge, all along the way of growing and developing. The sex drive is still one of the primary driving forces of human nature.

Sex existed long before religious beliefs and long before settled family groups were part of the social order. Women will continue to be viewed as second class citizens, rather than lifegivers, as long as religion continues to dictate the rules of human sexuality. I am opposed to draconian censorship. I'm opposed to hiding a lactating mother feeding her baby away as though it's an obscene act, while I do feel that it's obscene for a "tweener" to be wearing makeup and dressing like a slut, before she's even had her first period.

Porn is popular because we have had a highly censored society. People have learned more about sexuality during the past 10 years than at any other time during our historical past. Porn and adult topics will continue to play a role throughout society because sex does drive a lot of adult behavior.

[ashmanonar]

20. good post!

i'm of the same mind. why do we need to hide sex away anymore? i do agree that young children don't even worry about it, but you shouldn't lie to them either. once they start asking, you should start being truthful.

[siliconefreak]

17. Exposure to sexuality is good for all ages

The genie's out of the bottle, in my opinion, and I think it can only be a good thing. The only reason that sexual images are a big deal is because adults MAKE it a big deal.