Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Other Do you think this is an appropriate thing to force onto a 4yr old child's phone?
- Thread starter brimpy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Your 4 year old child is using Apple Maps? 🤣
Looking for a way out.
Ahh America...
Country with the largest porn industry,
yet also the home of the world's most prudish people.
The avarge human being shows more skin on a daily basis than this.
Country with the largest porn industry,
yet also the home of the world's most prudish people.
The avarge human being shows more skin on a daily basis than this.
No. But I’ve had other adverts of lingerie that I’d prefer to avoid.
My point is that what is appropriate is subjective.
Thanks for your pontification. Somehow our kids grow up just fine. You don’t need to understand or agree with a religiously observant lifestyle. But respect for others way of life is always appreciated.
My point, in this post, is that the advertising today is pushing morally questionable images without the ability to turn it off.
I don’t care about Dolly Parton’s choice of dress and I’m not going to opine on the OP. However, Apple and Amazon have put lingerie advertising which, most would agree, is highly suggestive.
I am saying simply that it would be nice if one could choose what form of advertising is being shoved in our face.
And, that the OP should rethink giving a smartphone to a 4 y/o.
The irony is many users are fighting “personalized" ads. Certainly, tracking/fingerprinting your digital activity has gone to appalling levels, in my opinion. Nevertheless, prioritizing ads based on what we actually viewed, etc is very sadly, frustratingly the best option at this period to mostly avoid disliked content.
I don’t attempt to avoid it entirely because that isn’t going to happen. Instead, I try to keep the tracking contained. For example, I use Chrome for YouTube and shopping-related or general searches.
I think a 4 year old might just think of milk when seeing that picture?
Anyways, even if she was naked it wouldn’t be porn, nudity and pornography are two different things. When I was 5 years old I sat on a beach in France, staring at boobs all day. It was glorious, and surely wasn’t pornography.
Anyways, even if she was naked it wouldn’t be porn, nudity and pornography are two different things. When I was 5 years old I sat on a beach in France, staring at boobs all day. It was glorious, and surely wasn’t pornography.
There’s a big ‘debate’ in Star Wars fandom about Ahsoka being introduced as a fourteen year old in a tube top. And one of the things that never seems to be brought up is why the guys arguing about it automatically consider it sexualising the character. It’s all about whether or not it was ‘creepy’ for Filoni to draw her that way, never even questioning both sides automatic assumption that it is sexual.
It’s like… guys… you’re telling on yourselves, lol.
@OP she looks a bit ahem... let's say dressed for a date with a certain outcome in mind. I too think it's an inappropriate photo in this particular context.
However children are much too innocent to understand that. I'm sure my daughter would ask if she's Santa's wife or something.
I wouldn't give a smartphone to a child though.
However children are much too innocent to understand that. I'm sure my daughter would ask if she's Santa's wife or something.
I wouldn't give a smartphone to a child though.
There’s been a number of studies and analysis and articles showing that the most anti porn areas in America consume the most online porn.
Repression is a helluva drug.
My five year old self would have killed to be you then.
In Texas in the 1970s I only had Lynda Carter on Wonder Woman and Julie London on Emergency!
OTOH, everybody knows that everything is bigger in Texas, so there's that.
If you're sexualizing a 14 year old Togruta with undeveloped headtails you really need to get out into the real world more.
How can anyone see that image and think its sexualized? So if there is even a centimeter of skin its sexualized? I am a guy and like to look at women just like anyone else, but you need to teach your kids things. I don't even find beaches sexualized. This shows how I was raised.
I am not a parent, but I was raised by them. Overly sheltering a kid can do more harm than just talking about something with them. I was 9 when I played Doom and Grand Theft Auto (originals). My parents did not shelter me from playing them, they talked to me about the differences between games and reality. I didn't turn out a mess due to playing those games that young.
Wow, I hate the society we live in these days where guns and violence is more appropriate than simply wearing outfits like this (not specifically in this topic, but I have seen this trend many years now). I like a lot of action but wow there is just way too much violence in today's media.
I am not a parent, but I was raised by them. Overly sheltering a kid can do more harm than just talking about something with them. I was 9 when I played Doom and Grand Theft Auto (originals). My parents did not shelter me from playing them, they talked to me about the differences between games and reality. I didn't turn out a mess due to playing those games that young.
Wow, I hate the society we live in these days where guns and violence is more appropriate than simply wearing outfits like this (not specifically in this topic, but I have seen this trend many years now). I like a lot of action but wow there is just way too much violence in today's media.
You do make a good point. There’s a billboard close to my house that says “god saves” or something ridiculous like that. It’s offensive: I shouldn’t be subjected to such morally bankrupt ideas in public. It would be great if the advertising industry would crack down on this offensive disgusting nonsense. I don’t want my kids to grow up thinking there’s an invisible man in the sky telling them not to think for themselves. But frankly there’s not much I can do about the advertising: the best I can do is teach my kids to think critically for themselves so they can grow up empowered to make good decisions.
When was the last time Apple or Amazon or even Google pushed religious advertising?
We aren’t discussing billboards or what people wear in public. We’re discussing what pops up on your phone or computer without choice.
For the record, I don’t appreciate the “selling” of religion either. What I do find disturbing is that the argument is always one sided: “modernism” pushes the envelope of morality (admittedly subjective) further and further and anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the current “accepted” notion is deemed a religious fanatic.
All I’m suggesting is that people be permitted to control what is being pushed to their “personal” devices. Just as it is inappropriate to sell lingerie commercials for children’s show, it shouldn’t be forced on my iPhone.
And, I fully agree that Apple shouldn’t push religious ads either.
Ads in general need to stop, but that will never happen and as someone that will need to push a product when I finish it ads are necessary. I specifically go out of my way to avoid ads. YouTube Premium? I only have it to remove ads. Subscription on this site? I want to remove the ads while also supporting the site. Peacock/Hulu? I pay extra for no ads. I HATE ads!
I totally agree with you that the modern advertising industry is out of control! I was tying to make a point that what is acceptable is completely subjective - and I think your idea of letting consumers choose certain advertising "blacklists" would help make everyone feel safer online. I run lots of ad-blockers, and they're great - but I agree the built-in advertising Apple uses is gross. They should do better and not put [any] advertisements into the App Store or otherwise built into the iPhone OS or native apps.
I'll just add something here that illuminates our society…sports bras.
This is an item with a functional purpose and is not (normally) intended or designed to be lingerie. Yet it took years for our society to publicly accept them being worn as sports apparel by women. It's not a sexual item, although there are still those that see it this way. There are still news stories that show women in sports having to fight over being forced to 'cover up'.
If you're seeing them as something other than being functional sports apparel, that's your business. But I question where your mind is going.
Oh yeah good point! I mean why is all of this isolated to just woman/females? How many times do we see shirtless men? I am sure some women will sexualize it, but just because a guy is shirtless doesn't mean its sexualized.
Context is the key. I have seen news guests/anchors that have clothes more revealing than the picture on the first post. But still its not sexualized. What do people want? Women only showing eyes in public?
Its a cycle. If you limit to only showing eyes, people can even sexualize that.
- Status