Oh no! Gossip girls is corrupting our children!

[SilentStranger]

I friggin hate Gossip Girl, the very premise of both the books and the show disgusts me, but booking banning is bad, dag-nabbit! It's like one step away from book burning

 

[mokes310]

So, does that mean they'll be moving the Bible as well? That FICTION publication is way graphic!

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Now, see I agree with educating your kids at about the age of, say 10 or so, it's not just a "natural thing" like people say it's a fucking necessity to the species, but there's a difference between that and reading erotic stories. As I've already said I don't exactly know the level of explicitness involved in these books, but I would not want my kid reading about really screwed up or detailed stuff when they were, for example, 10. Just the same as I wouldn't like them looking at porn.

Sexual education is incredibly important but the last thing people should be doing is over exposing their children to sexual material. It can massively impact a person's psyche having so much information they don't know what to do with given to them all at once.

For example I have a friend who lost his virginity at 13 and for want of a better phrase, could be best described as a man-slut, and has never held down a girlfriend for more than a few months. I'm not exactly a psychiatrist but I'd say there was probably a connection there.

Now I can't really speculate on why your friend is the way he is, but from some of my own encounters with sluts in general (men or women, it doesn't really matter), some of them actually become the way they are because of over-protective parents treating sex like it was rape and murder, and dangerous to just know what it is.

I think that over exposure to pretty much anything can have a bad influence on someone growing up, regardless of whether it be sex, violence, drinking, drugs, watchin tv, eating unhealthy food, religion, politics etc. etc.

But don't you think that if your kid knows about sex and what it is (in the "no-nonsense" kind of way without all the stupid euphemisms about insects and plants) BEFORE he or she encounters any sort of graphically explicit material (which all kids will do at one time or another. Just using the internet will make sure of that), they will be able to handle it in a more mature and informed way, rather than going nuts about the "forbidden fruit"?

Or better yet, instead of having a "talk" (which is a big fuss), how about just telling the kid what it is in a more spontaneous manner?

Let's say that your son and daughter catches a glimpse of people having sex on tv at a you age. Most kids at that age will ask their parents what those peopleare doing. What kind of impression will the kid get if "mummy" or "daddy" rushes towards the remote control and immediately change the channel and go all over-protective of the kid, and act all embarassed?

Why it will catch the child's attention and instantly make it more curious of course!

But what if mom or dad just walked in the room and casually responded: "Why those two are having sex. It's where babies comes from." and then invent whatever reason for changing the channel or something.

Suddenly the "buzz" and curiosity about sex will instantly drop, and chances are that the kid will forget about even seeing it on tv.

Quite simply, if an underage kid sees it's parents go: "...meh!" when something R-Rated or possibly X-rated is depicted on tv, the kid will most likely do the same. After all, kids don't listen to what their parents say that well, but they pick up on acting like their parents quite fast.

 

[ssgt splatter]

Uhh, no they shouldn't. No offense to the elderly but, times change. In your time, circa 193-fucking-5, yes this kind of stuff would probally be highly offensive and could loosely be called "porn" but now it's just...*facepalm* Urgh! Just let it go.

 

[sirdanrhodes]

Be serious, how many people knew these books even existed?

However, they bring up one interesting idea. Why don't books have to go for the arse ache of the ratings system?

 

[wewontdie11]

-Snipt-

Oh definitely. Parents shouldn't shy away from the subject, and better they know about the practical applications before the recreational ones. That's the basics of how kids work, "Hmm there's something maybe I'm not supposed to know.... NOW I MUST KNOW!".

So we agree that kids should be told about at least the basics from about a double figures age but (in the words of Airbourne) too much, too young, too fast is just as bad a way to go, i.e. showing a kid of the same age sex/porn or overly graphic sexual descriptions?

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

-Snipt-

Oh definitely. Parents shouldn't shy away from the subject, and better they know about the practical applications before the recreational ones. That's the basics of how kids work, "Hmm there's something maybe I'm not supposed to know.... NOW I MUST KNOW!".

So we agree that kids should be told about at least the basics from about a double figures age but (in the words of Airbourne) too much, too young, too fast is just as bad a way to go, i.e. showing a kid of the same age sex/porn or overly graphic sexual descriptions?

I guess we do. Over exposure and glorification is just as bad as under exposure and demonizing, if you with to instill a kid with a moderate and healthy attitude towards... Well pretty much anything at all, then it is best to simply stay away from overreacting, regardless of which manner the overreactions is predisposed to.

Also, Airbourne is a sweet band. I've seen them live as a support band for Motörhead. Good memories from that night! : )

 

[wewontdie11]

-Snipt-

Oh definitely. Parents shouldn't shy away from the subject, and better they know about the practical applications before the recreational ones. That's the basics of how kids work, "Hmm there's something maybe I'm not supposed to know.... NOW I MUST KNOW!".

So we agree that kids should be told about at least the basics from about a double figures age but (in the words of Airbourne) too much, too young, too fast is just as bad a way to go, i.e. showing a kid of the same age sex/porn or overly graphic sexual descriptions?

I guess we do. Over exposure and glorification is just as bad as under exposure and demonizing, if you with to instill a kid with a moderate and healthy attitude towards... Well pretty much anything at all, then it is best to simply stay away from overreacting, regardless of which manner the overreactions is predisposed to.

Also, Airbourne is a sweet band. I've seen them live as a support band for Motörhead. Good memories from that night! : )

Awww man I wanted to see both of those bands the last time they were touring. Both came to about 20 miles away but none of my mates fancied it.
/jealousy

Also you just reminded me to go buy tickets for a whole plethora of gigs with my new loan money.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Awww man I wanted to see both of those bands the last time they were touring. Both came to about 20 miles away but none of my mates fancied it.
/jealousy

Also you just reminded me to go buy tickets for a whole plethora of gigs with my new loan money.

Aww, that sucks. How can you call those people "mates" if they don't fancy seeing Motörhead? They are simply too awesome to pass up, regardless if you like heavy metal or not.

Also, that sounds like a perfectly suitable way of spending loan money. XD

 

[CoziestPigeon]

And chain sex =/= chain smoking. Use a condom, and fucking is good for you.

Until the condom breaks, obviously. Why else would there be so many teen pregnancies?

And anyway, I'm all for books having labels and ratings. And as for the old lady calling Gossip Girls pornography, well, any photo/description that calls sexual images to your mind is technically pornography. Soft-core, no doubt, but her point isn't completely ignorable.

Why else are their teen pregnancies? Cause horny teenagers are both stupid and shy. Too shy to buy condoms, too stupid to remember that they help you with that whole not getting knocked up thing.

 

[Ace of Spades]

Do these people not understand that teens are already pretty corrupted as it is? I know I'm generalizing here, but for god's sake, we've already seen this stuff!

 

[Lord Krunk]

...what, pray tell, is "chain sex?" Does that just mean having more than one partner?

I'm thinking it's like a conga line...

Nah, your one is probably right. Conga lines are too awesome for Gossip Girl.

Conga line sex? ...that's simultaneously the least sexy and most hilarious thing I've ever imagined.

Probably why these old guys are so adamant about getting rid of it.

 

[Cakes]

Jesus Christ, if we don't do something, teenagers could start having sex! It'll be anarchy!

...yeah.

 

[Srkkl]

Until the condom breaks, obviously. Why else would there be so many teen pregnancies?

Um because majority of teens are learning a false rate of failure for condoms along with abstinence only education so when they have sex (which they will) they do it unprotected because they don't learn the huge benifit of covering their member. I'm pretty sure minority of teens are using condoms.

Not supported by the teens I talk to. I am a 17 year old virgin, as are most of my friends, and we don't intend to have sex any time soon. Of my friends who do have sex, they all use condoms. One's pregnant from a cracked condom.

So your friend was stupid enough to not feel the condom break(trust me if it ever happens you'll know) and too stupid to get the morning after pill, it's hell on the girl who takes it for like a day or two, but better than 9 months and then a lifetime. Also I'm pretty sure average condoms have an 85 percent success rate so your friend bought one a size to small or he bought a very crappy generic brand, and when it comes to being safe I would thing paying the extra dollar or two would be worth it, or maybe he was just the 25 unlucky percent, and again, morning after is magical.

 

[lacktheknack]

Until the condom breaks, obviously. Why else would there be so many teen pregnancies?

Um because majority of teens are learning a false rate of failure for condoms along with abstinence only education so when they have sex (which they will) they do it unprotected because they don't learn the huge benifit of covering their member. I'm pretty sure minority of teens are using condoms.

Not supported by the teens I talk to. I am a 17 year old virgin, as are most of my friends, and we don't intend to have sex any time soon. Of my friends who do have sex, they all use condoms. One's pregnant from a cracked condom.

So your friend was stupid enough to not feel the condom break(trust me if it ever happens you'll know) and too stupid to get the morning after pill, it's hell on the girl who takes it for like a day or two, but better than 9 months and then a lifetime. Also I'm pretty sure average condoms have an 85 percent success rate so your friend bought one a size to small or he bought a very crappy generic brand, and when it comes to being safe I would thing paying the extra dollar or two would be worth it, or maybe he was just the 25 unlucky percent, and again, morning after is magical.

Two pointers:

1: 85% success rate IS ABSOLUTE CRAP. Every eighth round or so is a fail.

2: The inverse of 85% is 15%, not 25%.

 

[Srkkl]

Two pointers:

1: 85% success rate IS ABSOLUTE CRAP. Every eighth round or so is a fail.

2: The inverse of 85% is 15%, not 25%.

1. Really? it's "ABSOLUTE CRAP", thats a lot more than half and pretty good compared to a lot of other success rates, and again you can feel when it breaks if it does and the morning after pill. Also if you really want to take statistics completely litterally why not count the deaths from cancer every 3 seconds, or drunk driving accidents every 7, don't be stupid.

2. Yes my math was wrong but thats hardly the point of this post, you made a really uneducated statement on a subject that you obviously know nothing about (being that your a virgin and 17 I highly doubt your qualifyed at all to say that all teen pregnancies are due to condom failure) and your not making any points to actually rebuttle my points.

 

[RootbeerJello]

If they looked at Gossip Girls in relation to every other book in the young adult's section They'd realize that it's only the tip of the slutty, pot smoking iceberg.

 

[WolfMage]

God this reminds m why I hate living in Florida...

I share your pain.

I once spent a week there to buy a VW van.
I still get flashbacks...

 

[nicholaxxx]

it's under the young adults section the YOUNG ADULTS which generally means 16-21 I'm fairly certain at that age, the 'child' can choose what they do or do not want censored... even at 14 it's fine... though I could just be the exception... What I say does not represent the rest of the tard in my age group... I'll just leave by saying that IT'S A BOOK it's not actually depicting teens having chain sex, it's just talking about it, besides you can't shelter your child forever LIGHTEN UP

 

[xplay3r]

God this reminds m why I hate living in Florida...

I share your pain.

maybe we should start a group, "people who live in florida and hate it" ...ok I don't hate florida I just hate the backwater stupid shit they pull.

What the hell is wrong with parents?

If your kid is reading something like that you have two choices, be a responsable parnet, sit them down and talk to them truthfully about the subject, give them the facts good and bad, and then trust them to make the right discion because you've raised them well to this point in there lives.

If your a bad parent or like catholic strict, smack them in the pack of thier head and say "Don't read that shit, I don't want you reading it!" and take the book off them and return it. You don't try to control a government service like a libary and try to get the books moved.

Same thing with video games, and movies. Your there gaurdian it's YOUR responsibility to take care of your child and make the decision you think is best for them, no one else should have to change because you have a kid, and don't raise it right...

P.S. Jack thompson can go cliff diving without water, the controlling little tic.