According to columnist “Chuck Norris” of Townhall.com :
MTV’s reality shows “Jersey Shore” and “16 and Pregnant” are only the beginnings of a television tidal wave of explicitly sexual content that is invading the hearts and minds of America’s youth.
While the word “invasion” captures the ubiquity of sex in the media, it actually does a disservice to the youth.
Content does not “invade” anyone — unless someone is forced to consume it. Content is usually consumed by choice. Explicit sexual content is casually consumed in the form of “entertainment.”
It’s arguable whether young children have a “choice” in consuming explicit sexual content, but we’d agree that parents have more of a choice when it comes to what content they expose their children to. The majority of parents just don’t care enough to consciously exercise that choice. Or they aren’t paying attention.
What parent would boycott Shrek Forever After?
Big green Ogre says to his love interest:
“My donkey fell in your waffle hole.”
(Or what parent would at least consider talking to their children about the innuendo?)
Shrek’s line may not be considered “explicit,” but it’s the start of the slippery slope. Parents continually fund this type of content (and much more explicit content) and they rationalize it by calling it “entertainment.”
So does the content constitute the invaders? Or do the parents? Or is it something else?
What is the invasion anyway? Parents neglecting to talk to their kids about sex, neglecting to model healthy relationships, neglecting to provide alternatives to the media-conjured social norms?
One of my high school aged Facebook friends had a profile picture for a time that featured her in a bikini, with her nipple showing through. Where did that content come from? Her mother financed the photo shoot.
Parents financially support this country’s youth. That’s what the “invasion” lingo (inadvertently) obscures.