The Final Word...should parents have it?

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2][FONT=Courier New]As every (or at least most, I should hope) parent would like to imagine, they are given the right to have the final word when it comes to what kind of media their child is exposed to.
This means that while some children will not be allowed a video game console of their own, others spend all their free time playing shoot-'em-up games. Similarly, some children are left in the dark when it comes to how intensely offensive and violent the media can be, while others revel in it constantly.
In most cases it seems entirely appropriate to let the parent decide what their child is prepared to see and take part in, however, there are some instances when it seems parents do a rather bad job of making judgements.

As I see it, my parents are neither over-protective when it comes to the media--I am allowed to watch R-rated movies, as they seem to understand I don't like chainsaw massicurs--nor are they overly passive.

Though some parents are, in my opinion, far too restricting when it comes to what they allow even their teenagers to see, there is another extreme.

With the release of the recent film, The Passion of Christ (was there a second 'the' in there somewhere??o.o), have come news stories entailing how parents brought their children, from ages [I]as young as six[/I] to view this film, as it was merely rated 18-A. As is widely known, Mel Gibson's flick is incredibly gorey--I have heard it described as a two-hour beating. One lady actually died of a heart attack after watching it.
Do you believe that parents should have the right to bring their children to a film of this nature? Or, in a more general view, do you think they should be allowed to truly have the final say to what their child can and cannot take part in?

In my opinion, parents should not have the right to expose their children to media of this nature, nor should they be allowed to determine whether or not it is safe for their child to live in a home with a large, aggresive dog.
In my eyes it is a form of emotional abuse. In yours?

Hey, this was my 100th post. Do I get a million dollars, or a goldfish or something?[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR] :all:

[AzureWolf]

[font=Georgia][color=blue]As a general rule, parents know more than you and are usually right about things. You may not understand where they are coming from, but they are coming from somewhere and have reasoning behind their decisions. Kids, on the other hand, probably have little reasoning besides their curiosity, and we all know what happened to that cat - yes, [i]Schrodinger's[/i] cat...[/color][/font]

[font=Georgia][color=#0000ff]The case of external stimuli within an internal environment (i.e., TV and video games) is a relatively new phenomenon, and that's where special exception [i]might [/i]exist. The concept is very similar to that of a child going outside unattended, seeing and experiencing everything without actually being a part of it. Here's where parents step in and use their best reasoning and decide that TV isn't all that. It's not that parents don't have faith in their kids, but they are more universal than you and know that the world has very few places to put faith in. They are using secondary references to try and determine what is right with respect to TV.[/color][/font]

[font=Georgia][color=#0000ff]I believe we'll hear a lot less complaining about TV restrictions when a generation of kids who grew up on TV raise kids. We've been raised alongside TV, know its flaws, its limitations, and its potential. So, it's safe to say that those people who are showing kids as young as six that movie probably grew up on TV, and know that it'll have little effect/significance at such a young age. Trust me, when things don't make sense to you, you don't tend to remember them. ;)[/color][/font]

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2][FONT=Courier New]Do you believe that parents should have the right to bring their children to a film of this nature?[/FONT][/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote]

[color=green]Yes.

Although, I?d hope that they?d first watch the movie themselves and evaluate it?s content. Then, parents should consider the emotional and intellectual maturity of their child. If, and only if, they feel that the movie is appropriate for their child should they allow their child to see it.[/color]

[quote name='Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2][FONT=Courier New]Or, in a more general view, do you think they should be allowed to truly have the final say to what their child can and cannot take part in?[/FONT][/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote]

[color=green]Yes.

A parent should be able to have the final say in decisions in their child?s life. A child, lacking experience and the wisdom that usually comes with age, isn?t qualified to make many decisions. A parent?s job is to assist in making difficult decisions, but also allow young adults to make enough decisions to allow them to learn from their successes and failures.[/color]

[quote name='Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2][FONT=Courier New] In my opinion, parents should not have the right to expose their children to media of this nature, nor should they be allowed to determine whether or not it is safe for their child to live in a home with a large, aggresive dog. In my eyes it is a form of emotional abuse. In yours?[/FONT][/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote]

[color=green]So you?d presume to tell me how to raise my kids? You?d advocate laws telling me what I can and cannot do to them? (Within reason. I don?t condone or support child abuse of any kind)

Taking a child to the movie, [u]The Passion of the Christ[/u] is not a smart decision unless that child is emotionally and intellectually ready to see the graphic and explicit nature of that film. That being said, I wouldn?t try and impose this view on others. They have the right to raise their children as they see fit, within reason.

It?s up to individual parents to raise their children. Not you; not the government.[/color]

[wrist cutter]

Maybe I wasn't six, but I have fond memories of decapitating foes in Mortal Kombat as a second grader. I don't know what age that corresponds to.

But honestly, I'm not a violent person and I didn't suddenly feel it was alright to kick people's heads off just because Johnny Cage did it.

If I were a parent and I had a six year old, I'm not sure I'd take him/her to The Passion of the Christ. I can't really remember being a six year old, but I know it'd probably be pretty frightening for them. I'm much older than six, but this movie was really hard to watch for me*; I imagine for such a young child it'd be even harder. Certainly, if they were 10 I'd take them, but anything before that I'm not sure. Depends on how they felt about blood and such.

* as a note, it wasn't the blood that made the movie such a difficult watch.

[Transtic Nerve]

Forunantly and unfortunantly, parents have the final and most ultimate say in anything involving their children till they turn 18. (that is along as it conforms to the laws of the land)

Children are essentially property till they turn 18.

[Baron Samedi]

[COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=1]Ooh. This is something that really lights my fire. Particularly in my case. My mother is extremely over-protective. Bleh. She doesn't let me stay up beyond 9 O'Clock. I occasionally get to, but it isn't a matter of course. Actually, that isn't really overprotective. However, she is quite a restricting parent. I mean, I'm not even aloud to wear two- T-Shirts if I want to. I say, my body, my choice.

Anyway, to the matter at hand. Parents do have a right. But it depends in what things. I think what children see is one. Obviously a responsible parent would need to decide what their children watched, and viewing it themselves first is a definite recommendation. After a certain age though, I think the child shuold be able to decide whether they want to go. Probably around 15-16.

I don't know where I am heading with this. I mean, obviously parents need to monitor, and in some cases censor what their children see/do. But sometimes, the child should be allowed to do what they want.

I feel like I am just rambling here. I suppose discretion of the parent is what matters. Everyone is different. I don't know how much freedom you have all had as kids. But I, personally, wish I had more.

There will never be a universal way that parents treat kids.

Should parents have the final word? Depends if they're responsible enough to handle it.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[DeathBug]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Parents have the final word until you're no longer their dependant. [i]Should[/i] they?

Yes. I mean, you look at how much money, time and energy it takes to raise a child, it should be among the least of said parent's privliges to determine what that child is exposed to. Besides, it's better that a parent be overprotrective than apathetic, in my opinion. At least the overprotective parent cares about their child's development.

Perhaps the reason some parents are 'over protective' is because their children have not shown themselves capable of handling certain content or situations. Of course, i'm sure their children would say otherwise.

Me? I was in Wrist Cutter's camp; I played Doom at the age of nine. Ah, those were the days...[/color][/size][/font]

[Heaven's Cloud]

[QUOTE=Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2][FONT=Courier New]
Do you believe that parents should have the right to bring their children to a film of this nature? Or, in a more general view, do you think they should be allowed to truly have the final say to what their child can and cannot take part in?

In my opinion, parents should not have the right to expose their children to media of this nature, nor should they be allowed to determine whether or not it is safe for their child to live in a home with a large, aggresive dog.
In my eyes it is a form of emotional abuse. In yours?

Hey, this was my 100th post. Do I get a million dollars, or a goldfish or something?[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR] :all:[/QUOTE]

[color=indigo]Before I respond to your question I'd like to ask one of my own, if parents should not be given responsibility of their and for their children who should?

Sure there are horrible parents that do horrible jobs raising their children, constantly bombarding them with emotional and physical abuse. Face facts though, the overwhelming majority of parents care a great deal for their children and go out of their way to ensure their safety and happiness. Media violence and school bullying need to be dealt with at the parent/child level. If a parent decides that the moral attributes of "Passion of Christ" outweigh the graphic violence of the movie then that parent should allowed to take his/her child to see it. At the same time a parent should have the right to forbid his child to watch South Park because he or she doesn't approve of the language.

It seems that the American government really thinks that they have the ability and the [b]right[/b] to monitor and nil decisions that parents make about the wellfare of their children. Personally, when I have children, I don't want to be put in a bottle...

So, yes, I do believe that parents should have the final say to what their child can and cannot take part in. When a child is old enough and mature enough to live entirely dependantfrom their parents then they can have that freedom.[/color]

[Shinmaru]

As much as children dislike it, it's for the best that parents (most parents, anyway) to have the final say - I know that if I had been running without any structure or anything, I wouldn't be half the person I am today.

I'm lucky enough to have really good parents. At times, I've felt they've been overprotective but, in retrospect, it's easier to see why they've made some of the decisions they've made. Let's face facts here - a lot of children (including myself) don't grow up in the best of environments and sometimes being overprotective is needed.

Luckily, though, my parents have given me the freedom to grow and develop into the person that I am today. Let's take religion, for example...my mom is a Baptist and my dad is a Catholic. However, neither of my parents have really tried to force their respective religions upon me. Sure, they took me to church when I was younger but we stopped going when they realized that I wasn't really getting anything out of it. I'm an Atheist but I've grown up with a lot of the more important moral values that some of these religions teach - after all, you don't have to believe the story in order to get something out of it. But that's a whole different story, heh.

It's the same thing with video games, television and music. My parents took the initiative to step in and stop me from being exposed to entities that they felt would not be appropriate for someone of my age. However, once they felt that I was mature enough to partake in them, then it's all fair game. I've been playing M rated games since I was about eleven years old because I understood the difference between a game and reality - a difference that is one of the many things I've learned from my parents.

Sometimes I resent them a bit but it's only natural. You just have to realize that, most of the time, what they're doing is for the best. The child is usually thinking in the present, while the parent is mindful of the future. They want to see their child grow up into someone that fulfills their true potential. If you're a bit young, you probably don't realize that now. I certainly didn't and I don't think my parents expected me to come to that realization for quite a while. However, with age comes experience and with experience comes wisdom. And it's wisdom that (most of the time) parents are imparting upon their children.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]Parents can't expect their children to lead productive lives growing up in bubbles, but on the other hand, you shouldn't take a six year old to go see [u]Passion Of The Christ[/u] just because it's a religious movie. Actually, you also shouldn't take a six year old to see the live action version of the Hulk because it was a comic book.

What agrivates me are the parents who sit their kids in front of a TV or don't pay any attention to what their kids are doing then wonder why Will or Sara has a sudden urge to try flying off the roof or run around with the meat cleaver .:mad:

As children get older parents should slowly allow them to make thier own descisions about what shows they want to watch or a movie they want to see. Of course, the parent should probably sit ther and watch the program or see the movie along with their child since that's the responsible thing to do.

I hope I can take my own advice when the time comes. Wish me luck[/color]

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2][FONT=Courier New]Okay, I think the nature of this post was inverted somewhere along the lines.

I am not talking about over-protective parents. No, not the people who are loving and care for their children enough to place restrictions on them.

I'm talking about the parents who agree to let their children see/take part in things that are simply inappropriate for a child of their age. I'm not whining about early curfews and whatnot.

If there is material that is clearly inappropriate for a child's eyes, then the parent should not be given the right to purposely expose their son/daughter to it.

Same for the kind of parent that ChibiHorsewoman brought up: the apathetic kind.

Perhaps I worded the original post poorly...[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Semjaza]

In the end, it's really up to the parent, I suppose. I can't tell people what to do with their kids.

At the same time, I have to wonder what people are thinking when they bring their toddlers and babies to movies like Starship Troopers, Freddy Vs. Jason and so forth. I suppose they want their children to have nightmares.

Something like The Passion is more subjective because, to some people, the message is important to their lives in some sort of faith-based way. Crap like Jeepers Creepers 2 has no message. It has no value. You're bringing your children to see gore and listen to horribly loud noise.

I know for some of the more relentless horror films, many theaters require an ID for each ticket. When I saw TCM, they only allowed people over 17 in to see it... despite it being R and not NC-17. Obviously this occurs on a per theater basis considering anyone can get into a R rated film normally as long as they were with someone else who was old enough.

I bring these movies up because in each case, other than The Passion, there were a few little kids. I just cannot fathom bringing them to these sorts of movies. If you can't get a babysitter, then see something else or don't go.

It also brings up the issue of me having to listen to babies scream and giggle throughout the entirety of a movie I paid $9.50 to see, although that has no bearing on your topic, really. Damn yuppies.

[Dan L]

In the UK, the Passion of the Christ has an "18" certificate. Meaning that only 18 year olds and over can see it. Regardless of who else is with them.

It simplifies things like this a little more..

[Semjaza]

[QUOTE=Dan L]In the UK, the Passion of the Christ has an "18" certificate. Meaning that only 18 year olds and over can see it. Regardless of who else is with them.

It simplifies things like this a little more..[/QUOTE]

Movie companies in the US try very hard to avoid getting above a R rating. The next highest is NC-17, which requires you to be at least 17 years old to enter no matter who you are with.

The problem with NC-17 is that it significantly prohibits many movies from being commercial successes, so producers and large film companies want nothing to do with it on average. I can't think of many movies offhand that have gotten the rating, let alone any that did well.

I can think of several movies (horror in particular) that were held back to edit enough content to avoid the NC-17 rating, though. In Kill Bill, from what I've read, that one fight scene was shown in black and white in the US to avoid the NC-17 rating. In many other countries that was in full color. It's certainly not the most gruesome movie I've seen, but apparently there was an issue with the liberal spilling of gallons of blood and the eye gouging section. I believe it was also an issue with House of 1,000 Corpses.

I honestly think your child be at least at a certain level of knowledge on the subject before you send them off to see The Passion. There really is no other reason to see it.

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2][FONT=Courier New]As movie ratings go "up here", your NC-17 is pretty much the equivalent of our 18-A (aside from the one-year age discrepancy).

Speaking of Kill Bill: Oh, how I regret not finding a way to see it in theatres. I am hearing so many wonderful things about it. :(

Heh, maybe I sort of contradict my original point through my nature alone, but I don't think any one has any business bringing their small child to see a movie full of non-stop violence. It's simply inapropriate.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Transtic Nerve]

[quote name='Semjaza Azazel']I can't think of many movies offhand that have gotten the rating, let alone any that did well. [/quote]

Show Girls was an NC-17 (which really shouldn't have been) rated movie which did fairly well. Well enough considering its rating. Thats the only commercial movie I can think of with that rating.

[wrist cutter]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']Show Girls was an NC-17 ... rated movie which did fairly well.[/quote]

And why do you suppose that is? :P

[MissWem]

Should parents get the final say...Yes...that's the least the child can do for their loving parents who laboured to bring them to life, to raise them under their roof with devotion so that one day the child may be let loose in society to work for the rest of their lives when they come of age, only to continue the cycle of existence.

16yrs of being told what one can or cannot watch is nothing compared to the potential 70 something for the rest of your life. Of course that's just in NZ, I think we can emancipate ourselves at 16...or 17...can't quite remember..eh...oh well I'm 16...but I don't wanna leave just yet :p

Anyway, I don't see much of a problem, my parents let me watch whatever I wanted and I think I came out just dandy. It isn't so bad watching 'The Blob' when you're 5 and having nightmares for two days, watching Jason Gunn when you're 6 and having nightmares for a week, watching Aliens(at whatever age I was when they came out) without nightmares. But then again perhaps when I was 10??, my parents shouldn't have let me watch 'Species'...and 'Species 2' or some other random movie where the girl gets raped with a full camera shot..and... I think I'll stop ^^"

No...not bad at all, now the only thing I'm scared of is hypodermic needles.

Still parents know what they're doing...sorta. But if they said to me: "No, you may not ask your boy friend to rent out 'Kill Bill' when it comes out so you can watch it, you're only 16 and it's R18." My reply: "Why did you let me watch 'Barney' as a kid? Do you know how traumatized I was by that purple dinosaur?Why?Why?WHY??!?!"

[Semjaza]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']Show Girls was an NC-17 (which really shouldn't have been) rated movie which did fairly well. Well enough considering its rating. Thats the only commercial movie I can think of with that rating.[/quote]

The production budget (I assume including advertising) for Showgirls was somehow 45 million dollars. It only brought in like 28 million for the US and Canadian markets. I don't know that is doing "fairly well" lol.

It is, however, the highest grossing NC-17 movie so far though... which I feel really just further proves my point. All the people who have heard of that movie and it really didn't do well at all. NC-17 is a sales disaster for film companies.

[Baron Samedi]

[color=darkred][size=1][quote name='Semjaza Azazel']NC-17 is a sales disaster for film companies.[/quote]

Why don't they all just made family friendly movies? Then it wouldn't matter.

... Right?[/size][/color]

[Shinken]

In most cases, yes, the parent(s) should have the final say. However, in some cases, they shouldn't. For example, if the parent (or both) is a "control freak" who controls absolutely every aspect of the child's life, they shouldn't have the last word. Or if, for another example, a parent tries to convince a child to not be friends with/ridicule another child (even a friend) on a racial or religious basis. These are very rare cases, but if that is the situation, then the parent definitely should not have the last word. Basically, if the parent is a psychotic control freak, no you! ^^

But in any other case, a parent should. Because they're a parent, and filial piety makes sense. (I'm not trying to sound anti-institutional here or anything. Just keeping it even.)

[SasukeUchiha]

Well, then you will be a parent who shelters your child. Who are you to judge what is appropiate or inappropiate. If I had a child I would absolutley bring them to see the movie if he or she wanted to see it. Sheltering children from violence can harm them just as much as exposing them. If you have every been around a child that is growing up, you will notice that anything they are not familiar with they get obcessed with, which in the end may cause more harm than good.