I remember the mother of five who took her family (ages 3 to 12) to see "Silence of the Lambs" and sat them all in the front row. If she thought it was about Little Bo Peep, she didn't realize any better until Hannibal had attacked some cops and Buffalo Bill got blown away.....
2006-08-30 05:59:49 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Family & Relationships ➔ Other - Family & Relationships
And to answer some of you, no -- I'm not trying to deem what is absolutely "appropriate" or not. There are some real life situations out there but I'm not advocating total ignorance. Yet I think there's a big difference between raising kids with the notions of violence and sex, and subjecting them to big-screen images of people getting their faces peeled off and cannibals creating people-suits. Unless you're raising your kid in Beirut, I'm going to guess there's a better time and place for this, particularly for the younger set.
2006-08-30 06:20:07 · update #1
I have seen it myself and it makes me so mad that parents would expose their kids to something or anything of that nature. Parents like that are only out to satisfy their needs. I have a ten year old and I would never let him see any vile movies like that. He's not even allowed to watch pg-13 movies. And we wonder why kids are the way they are today...... IGNORANT PARENTS
2006-08-30 06:09:13 · answer #1 · answered by NICOLE D 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Where do you get your notion of "appropriate?" Are you the parent in this situation? Do you have any right to say how someone else's children should be brought up? Let me try to turn it around for you: A 15-year-old who has never been told anything substantive by his or parents anything about STDs or sex in general is being irresponsible and childish. Same goes for drugs. And "don't do it" is not substantive. What makes you think that a plainly fake(yes, to children as well as adults), 2-dimensional boogeyman has significantly more influence over a child's mind than his or her own parents? Far more inappropriate is parents not impressing on their children true dangers, such as those that the internet holds, and in general the true facts of life. If a child is old enough to understand a movie, they are old enough to be taught the reality behind the movie; specifically, that it has none. As a side note, I saw Total Recall when I was 5, and had regular, fact-filled conversations about sex starting at around 8 or 9 (I think). I turned out fine.
2006-08-30 13:16:17 · answer #2 · answered by aristotle2600 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because this woman is an idiot. I've seen this same thing and you just want to tell these people that when their kids grow up to become criminals and whack jobs that they better not say one single word of complaint. They're asking for it. But do you think they'll be telling their friends and family that it was their fault for not bringing the child up right? No, they'll be blaming the government for not building fancy schools in their neighborhoods or providing enough welfare. These people have no common sense and very little intelligence but somehow they mysteriously become literate and eloquent when they need to publicly blame someone else for their stupidity.
2006-08-30 13:09:20 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm surprised by this question - I think parents have a right to monitor what their kids view. Some parents are responsible adults and others are irresponsible (shouldn't really be parents). I'm also extremely surprised that the mother was allowed to take the kids into the theater. Isn't that movie rated "R" i.e. no children's tickets sold and the theater can be charged for letting them in even if they bought adult tickets.
2006-08-30 13:18:26 · answer #4 · answered by Admiral 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Some parents know what their children have already been exposed to. I had a neighbor that did not let her kids watch anything but Disney type stuff. Guess who the wild kids on the block were when they got old enough to find out things on their own. It is a parents decision to allow kids to watch certain things. The ratings are guidelines to let them know what a certain picture might contain.
2006-08-30 13:05:34 · answer #5 · answered by Just Another Guy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some parents believe that you should teach a kid at a young age to think for themselves. Ex: If you don't feel that you are old enough to watch this then don't.
It creates a few things for a child. A sense of independence and horrid nightmares.
Other parents just don't seem to think of their little young minds and how it would affect them. Hannibal is not something any little one should see. I would have said something to this stupid woman.
2006-08-30 13:04:50 · answer #6 · answered by angelfmfo 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
or we can all raise them on nothing but rainbows and lollypops!!!! Yeay. So when they get older they have NO ******* CLUE how to handle sexual or violent material. I agree that maybe silence of the lambs was not appropaate for a 4, 5 or 6 year old. But a 12 year old? C mon....its just a movie. Do you forbid them from watching the NEWS?!?! The news is more violent then anything. And please don't get me started on MTV.
2006-08-30 13:05:52 · answer #7 · answered by J. P 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't know, but it really bugs me too. I couln't even imagine taking my kids to a movie like that, I think it is a very irresponsible thing to do as a parent. I mean, it could really upset a child, they don't understand it's only a movie. I don't think a child should ever be allowed into a rated r movie even with a parent. They should really change that!
2006-08-30 13:04:47 · answer #8 · answered by cksunshine 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
they do it to open the kids up to a wonderful viewing experience.
maybe.
and silence of the lambs isn't the best one to start with...
2006-08-30 13:03:50 · answer #9 · answered by Frankel 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
becasue they think that the kids dont understand which wont have an impact on them
2006-08-30 13:02:47 · answer #10 · answered by ..;..;.. 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋