Pedophelia and Diaper commercials

[Brad]

I hate seeing diaper commercials on t.v. They show too much of the babies. How can they get away with that? They don't show hot chicks naked like that on commercials... I don't get it; and I think that pedophiles are watching this and being enticed by them. Please tell me what you think.

------------------
Silence Fills the Nothingness.

Even though stuff happens that we don't plan, be a man... use you hand.

I'm in love and it's my job to make other people jealous.
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/love2.gif" border=0>

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

Yeah, I agree 100%! I think they should show hot chicks naked in commercials too!

Oops that wasn't what you meant was it?

Okay, here's the deal. We were born naked. Nudity is okay. Perhaps sex on screen isn't; I can grant you that. But c'mon dude.

Here's a great idea for ending pedophilia: Let's ban children!

(PS: all in good fun, no offense meant etc etc.)

 

[Brad]

Must dissagree... Yes we were born naked, but children weren't meant to be oogled like that and that is what is happening these days, so while we were born naked we shouldn't make this type of thing available to those who will abuse this type of thing.

Darnnit Forgot my Sig...
Oh well.

[This message has been edited by Brad (edited June 08, 2001).]

 

[Mongol Horde]

You're kidding right? A baby is a beautiful thing naked or clothed, being naked is just natural. I would also vouch that even most paedophiles aren't interested in babies so tiny except perhaps a few abhorrently sick individuals. If we should stop naked babies on the telly should we also stop naked women to stop the rapists jerking off? We can't let the scum of society dictate how the rest of us live.

 

[Brad]

I see your points Mongol Hoard, but there is a difference here... 1) The babies didn't decide to show themselves on t.v... beautiful girls do. 2) Masterbating is different then going out and doing something with the desired object... I would rather have people sitting at home w\thier pants around their ankels, then someone going to a crowded mall and taking home a child to abuse. 3) Diaper commercials don't really affect how we live, I was just commenting on them showing thier butts not thier faces, yes babies are beautiful, but how many new parents take the towel off the child right away and start commenting on what a great bum the child has

. I'm not saying 'Ban diaper commercials,' I'm saying 'don't show baby bums on them.

------------------
Silence Fills the Nothingness.

Even though stuff happens that we don't plan, be a man... use you hand.

I'm in love and it's my job to make other people jealous.
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/love2.gif" border=0>

 

[drake]

Brad, c'mon man, women love that crap!
AWW, look at the baby butt!

And as for pedophiles getting their jollies off of babies on tv?

Come now Brad

 

[Magnus]

I have never even thought of such a rediculous thing! How could anyone even imagine an infant as a sexual object? Good Lord what a silly topic. Maybe we should go ahead and ban silos because they look so phallic, they might make people become sexual miscreants.

 

[BlueMonday]

I think that is a rash over-simplification. To simply say that we shouldn't show an unclad infant on TV becuase there are a few individuals out there who might get sexually excited is incibescant foolishness. By the same logic you could prevent anything from being shown on TV, becuase someone might become aroused. We'd have to stop showing Emergency Medicine shows since people who like blood and sex would be aroused, or Balley's Total Fitness commercials becuase young adolescents who like to see women working out in sports bras might get excited. Granted we shouldn't be showing anything on Basic TV that is sexually explicit, but that does not include an unclad infant.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/image_uploads/goodbye3.jpg" border=0>
<FONT COLOR="blue">I don't ask why, I just fall into the meadow; I close my eyes, and I, I wait to die.
Yes I am a liar, yes I am a sinner; please forgive my broken soul.</FONT c>

 

[Brad]

This is more then a complaint about people getting thier jollies off of them, I'm talking about those who decide to go and abduct a child for sexual purposes. We all have to agree that there are perverts like that out there, so I'm just saying that by NOT showing baby butts on t.v, it might lower the amont of abductions for this purpous... BlueMonday, I'm not complaining about them getting aroused by it, that in itself is thier buisness, but them abducting and abusing children, and none of us can deny that happening.

------------------
Silence Fills the Nothingness.

Even though stuff happens that we don't plan, be a man... use you hand.

I'm in love and it's my job to make other people jealous.
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/love2.gif" border=0>

 

[BlueMonday]

post hoc ergo propter hoc
after this therfore because of this

That is the biggest pile of lies I have ever heard in my life. "People see naked children on TV and then they go and and abduct them." Please, serious anti-social behaviors like pedophila are not caused by simple diaper adverts. For a person to act out sexual rage on children it requires many years of abuse. Depsite what much of the media has been spouting lately, people are not perfect sponges. They don't see something on TV and then go out a do it. Serious anti-social behaviors are not caused by innocent nudity on adverts, they are instead cause by long periods of mental, verbal, or sexual abuse; family problems; social problems; or other developmental or physical problems.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/image_uploads/goodbye3.jpg" border=0>
<FONT COLOR="blue">I don't ask why, I just fall into the meadow; I close my eyes, and I, I wait to die.
Yes I am a liar, yes I am a sinner; please forgive my broken soul.</FONT c>

[This message has been edited by BlueMonday (edited June 09, 2001).]

 

[Loaf Warden]

Exactly. There were perverts and sexual deviants before we had television. If someone is sick enough to rape a baby, then they're going to do it whether babies' butts get shown on diaper commercials or not. If that's what arouses them, they'll find their own ways to get it. Abolishing infant nudity on television is not going to stop or even slow down these freaks one iota.

Besides, nudity is a beautiful thing, and there is nothing in all the world more natural. I'm not sure how it got all tangled up with the idea of sex in the first place, but I assure you that to people who are used to seeing nudity, there is nothing inherently sexual about it. Ask anyone who has spent time on a nude beach; total nudity is about the most anti-sexual condition there is. Even if they showed full nudity of adult women in non-sexual situations on television, it would cease being titillating after awhile and become rather mundane.

(And even if it wouldn't, it's an experiment that I, for one, would be willing to see happen. <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>)

Edit: I forgot to comment on the 'ban it because of what might happen' side of the argument. Here's my thought on that; there are a lot of strange fetishes out there. If we were going to ban everything that might arouse a sexual deviant, we would have to ban all references to urine and excrement, vomit, underwear, shoes, whips, chains, leather, lace, rubber, balloons, diapers in any context, cars, food, and pretty much everything else there is. If it's out there, someone has a fetish for it. In a public mall, you might sneeze and give someone their jollies. We can't deny things to the millions of normal, well-adjusted people out there on the theory that a handful of perverted miscreants may or may not get excited by it. I know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and it is better to keep pedophiles from doing what they do than it is to punish them after they've done it, but let's try to be realisitic in terms of the big picture. If we tried to ban everything that might lead to sexual deviance from a few sick bastards out there, we'd have nothing left. Society in general should not be forced to suffer through arbitrary censorship because of a few proverbial 'bad apples'.

[This message has been edited by Loaf Warden (edited June 09, 2001).]

 

[Brad]

First off BLUEMONDAY, I see your point, but I don't think you quite got what I was saying. I wasn't saying that BB (baby bums) MAKE a person into a pedophile. I agree w\your point on abuse and all that. What I'm saying is AFTER all of that abuse is over with and the person is on his\her own, and because of the abuse is now aroused by Kiddies, THEN when they see the stimuli on t.v, BB, they act out.
Don't you think that it would be worth it? To ban BB on t.v just to save even one kid from being molested? How much does seeing a BB on t.v really mean to you? I don't think it's neccesary to sell diapers. So what would be the harm in removing them? From t.v that is

.
Loaf Warden, I also see your point on fetishes... but how many people who are turned on by your sneezing, however desgusting that is

, are going to harm sombody because of it; I'm talking about protecting INFANTS from being molested, even if there is only a handful of perverts out there who are going to act on seeing a BB on t.v, I think it be worth it. Honestly now how much have our lives been improved by seeing BB on t.v?
BTW: I'd be interested in that little experemnt as well

.

------------------
Silence Fills the Nothingness.

Even though stuff happens that we don't plan, be a man... use you hand.

I'm in love and it's my job to make other people jealous.
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/love2.gif" border=0>

 

[BlueMonday]

"What I'm saying is AFTER all of that abuse is over with and the person is on his\her own, and because of the abuse is now aroused by Kiddies, THEN when they see the stimuli on t.v, BB, they act out."

I see nothing to prove your theory. You're just extrapolating conclusions out of thin air. If someone is sufficiently messed up enough to actually sexually abuse an infant, it won't matter whether or not they see infant nudity on TV or not, they'll still do it. Bottom line: the theory is preposterous. I do not see any reason to link diaper commercials with pedophilia.

"How much does seeing a BB on t.v really mean to you? I don't think it's neccesary to sell diapers. So what would be the harm in removing them?"

It means nothing to me, I find neither sexual stimulation nor innocent happiness in infant nudity. I don't see it doing any harm, in fact I see it as a viable marketing strategy. You ask what harm removing it could do...I say the loss of millions of dollars in sales. I definitely don't see any good in removing them, pedophilia is not caused by infant nudity on TV, therefore there is no reason to remove it for such reasons.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/image_uploads/goodbye3.jpg" border=0>
<FONT COLOR="blue">I don't ask why, I just fall into the meadow; I close my eyes, and I, I wait to die.
Yes I am a liar, yes I am a sinner; please forgive my broken soul.</FONT c>

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

Originally posted by Brad:
How much does seeing a BB on t.v really mean to you? I don't think it's neccesary to sell diapers. So what would be the harm in removing them? From t.v that is

THe harm isn't from this one particular issue. You're probably right--showing baby bums on TV or not showing them would have a negligible effect on society, except for one thing: it would begin set up a certain precedent, a certain shift in our collective ideas of what is censorable and *why*.

So today, baby bums. Tomorrow we can move up to, let's say, banning sitcoms where teenagers find themselves in sexual situations. Certainly arguments can be made that they arouse pedophiles to a greater extent that baby commercials. But heck, why stop there? If you ban sexual situations *altogether*, might that not make just a little difference? Might that not prevent a rape or two?

THen when those are gone we can look at how we can start banning showing human flesh at all, in sexual contexts or not. But you know what will happen? A woman's exposed ankle will suddenly become as arousing as a chick in a bikini would be to us today. THe human brain is far too powerful a sex organ.

If I can make a suggestion that is very relevant to this whole issue: read something about sexual repression in Victorian England. I highly recommend "THe French Lietennant's Woman" by John Fowles. It's a good novel as well as being a prefect way of approaching Victorians from a modern perspective.