Pop stars: Do they have a negative influence on teens?

While I can understand your perspectives, there's one thing that seems to have been overlooked.

You say two little girls went dressed up for haloween as pop stars, and that you see young kids strutting around in clothes like that all the time because they see the pop stars wearing them.

That means there are companies that are producing slutty attire for little children, and that there are parents who are purchasing this attire for them.

I must say I don't like seeing little kids dressed up like that either, but personally I would place very little of the blame on the artists. No, they don't have a responsibility to the children that watch and listen to them, they are living their life and doing what they want to, they have absolutely no responsibility to raise other peoples children.

Dol

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Dolencion
No, they don't have a responsibility to the children that watch and listen to them, they are living their life and doing what they want to, they have absolutely no responsibility to raise other peoples children.

Of course they have a responsibility to them if they are marketing to children.

To say otherwise is absurd.

That is like saying an automobile manufacturer has no responsibility to make a car safe because they are just living their lives and doing what they want to.

It is way too popular these days to reduce the amount of accountability and responsibility people have for their actions.

[Dalaena]

Originally posted by Dolencion

No, they don't have a responsibility to the children that watch and listen to them, they are living their life and doing what they want to, they have absolutely no responsibility to raise other peoples children.

Let's face it. There are SEVERAL different levels of parenting, and everyone believes that there's a different way to do it. Who really gets punished when the parents are slack? It's the kids. Then they grow up to be degenerates who often show the same lack of interest in their own kids, and the cycle perpetuates throughout our society.

While I agree that these pop stars are ultimately responsible for their own lives, the fact is that their products are very often marketed towards young children and young teens. That's when I feel that they DO become responsible. If you are marketing your crap to people who really aren't old enough to make reliably educated decisions, you need to watch your content as long as you want to be a part of society.

[Lokrian]

Sooo, what's the solution? I mean, is Christina Aguilera really marketing to the under 12 crowd, or is that just crossover? What are we supposed to do about that aspect of it, apart from the aforementioned parental guidance?

[Isaviel]

Originally posted by Aristotle
There is one thing, however, that makes me put the majority of the blame on the artists and the aforementioned corporate whores. There are a lot of kids out there who have HORRIBLE parents, or single parent homes where the single parent works insane hours, kids who bounce around foster homes, etc. Kids like this simply do not have much parental involvement and sometimes parental involvement is really not even possible. Do we just write those kids off to be polluted?

Where I agree that the artist and today's media where they promote this to younger children isn't right at all... as a single parent, no matter what hours you work you still need to be a parent. Yes, it's much harder when you have to deal with this kinda of crap because you can't be there all the time.

I work a full time job and have been since my son was 1 yrs old. So it's been harder for me when it comes to discipline because of how daycare handled situations and now how kindergarten handles situations and then how "I" handled situations.

Though my son wants to do this and that because his peers have done this and done that it doesn't necessarily mean Mom is going to agree with what they are doing. So my point being you still need to be a parent and lay down the rules of what YOU think is acceptable for your child.

Granted my child is not a teenager and I remember how I was and I'm just dreading that because I know they're going to do whatever they want regardless. However, at that point I will still be a "parent" until they are 18 and I might have to go about it differently but I'm hoping that my past experience with them as a parent will shine through. Meaning.. I would hope they have some what of a better judgement by then.

Personally I don't think Britney or Christina are acceptable for children or young teens.

What is the solution other than parental guidance?

Is there one? What better influence is there?

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Isaviel

Personally I don't think Britney or Christina are acceptable for children or young teens.

What is the solution other than parental guidance?

Is there one? What better influence is there?

Parental guidance is always the best solution. But is not the only solution because tons of kids don't have parental guidance.

It is far too easy to say "too bad, its the parent's fault" but that is not a solution for society as a whole. As Dalaena mentioned, those kids then grow up and perpetuate the cycle, or worse they become degenerates that are harmful to others.

The people who profit from the product need to exercise some restraint. If they want to make something racy or titilating, they should not market it to kids. For example, don't have Britney Spears doing Disney Channel and Nickelodeon specials if she is going to be parading around half naked jiggling her tits.

There are only two ways to make these people show restraint and act responsibility: first, shame and embarass them (to make them accountable) and second, resist buying/patronizing their product or service.

[Gilgamar]

Sadly our society is based on the mindset of "Commit a crime and punish the criminal" (I know there's nothing illegal about this, it's a metaphor I'll explain)

Society has a tendency to see a problem, then punish it thinking that others will see the punishment and fear doing the crime. This however does not work.

The fundamental problem with society is that we want to punish instead of making a person feel that an action is wrong. The reason why Britney can strut around on Nickelodeon is because it's not illegal. As such, people feel no worries about placing her there for preteens to see.

The core problem is a lack of morals in society. Specifically in the entertainment industry. There is a degree to which all things get pushed and once it's acceptable at one level, then it gets ushed again. Each time slowly desensitizing people. We've become a society of lax morals. Elvis couldn't shake his hips on Ed Sullivan's show and have it broadcast...Britney can do a striptease almost and it's fine.

Human Beings are sexual creatures. we crave it. We deny we do, but we do. We enjoy watching it in porn. We enjoy having it. We enjoy hearing about it. It is such a widely marketed thing because we fail to realize that while we need it, we should learn restraint in our dealing with it.

Again though, it all comes down to morals. Is it morally wrong for Britney to shake her ass on a 9 year old's tv screen? Depends on your morals. In the 1400's it wasn't uncommon for 13 year old's to be married and giving birth. It was morally accepted by society.
Today it's not. Why? Well, that's a question for your morals. You could present an argument that is upheld by today's standards to peopel of a few hundred years ago and you'd be the one considered in the wrong.

We as a society dictate what is acceptable via peer pressure and constantly desensitization.

There'd be no criminals without laws. There'd be nothing wrong with an 11 year old having sex without morals.

Punishing an act only makes criminals.
Teaching good morals makes good citizens.

[Lokrian]

Soooo, what are good morals?

As for Britney, is she doing the jiggling ON Disney, or is she jiggling in a video and then showing up Andrew Dice Clay-like in kids shows without the offensive material? Or does it matter, since she is on the kids shows and then seen somewhere else jiggling. If she is going to DO kids shows, must she stop marketing to pre-teens at all?

This is just a really difficult thing to legislate I think, and even more to define what is bad. I don't think you'd have to look far to find parents who find Britney's jiggling entirely unoffensive even for kids. I saw a Jr high level girl out WITH her parents last week with low ride jeans hanging so low I was afraid I was going to catch a glimpse of something I didn't really need to be seeing, yet there were her parents right beside her.

It's easy to get indignant. I should know; I do it all the time. But a solution, a real acceptable-to-most people solution is not so easy to find, especially in light of the difficulty in ever finding common ground on what is right and wrong.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Gorgoth

Society has a tendency to see a problem, then punish it thinking that others will see the punishment and fear doing the crime. This however does not work.

Actually, it works great.

The only thing it doesn't work with is drugs because that is a chemical addiction. Our continual stupidity in the way we treat drugs like every other crime is why our criminal justice system is going down the toilet.

In the last 5-10 years violent crime has been on the decline- largely due to getting tough on mandatory minimum sentences, the prevalence of "3 strikes and you're out" laws, and other tough on crime initiatives.

On drugs, however, we are hardly making a dent because we stupidly think drug abuse has the same root cause as armed robbery. HINT: It doesn't.

I don't recall the exact statistic, but perhaps someone can look it up. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 60%+ of all people in prison in the US are in prison for a drug related crime. That's idiotic.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Lokrian

This is just a really difficult thing to legislate I think

I certainly do not think it should be legislated and I do not think anyone else here does.

The tools we have are shame, embarassment, and our wallets. People who are out of line should be shamed and embarassed for their actions and then we should speak with our wallets and not buy their products or services.

The problem is that the prevailing wisdom right now is that it is WRONG to withold your dollars from people whose actions you find objectionable. This is ludicrous. For example, when people stopped buying Dixie Chicks albums because of their incredible stupidity, their supporters said that was unfair. Huh? Why should I give money to someone I do not like??? That is just moronic.