# KNTV Sex



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 8, 2009)

This was just on TV in kids hours here (10.30-11.00) and I was absolutely shocked at what I saw.

It's an animated educational show and they covered things such as erogenous zones, role-play, masturbation, sex toys, visual stimulation and pornography, oral sex (they used the word 'blow job'), orgasm (and faking it), fetishes, bondage, fantasy versus perversion, and, briefly, the issue of consent.

I'm all for sex education and not keeping it hidden from children, but I feel this approach is maybe too much...

Thoughts?


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Oct 8, 2009)

That's terrible...
















So what channel?


----------



## JBroll (Oct 8, 2009)

If you don't want your kids seeing it, turn it off. How is this too much?

Sex education is necessary - since this appears to be a thorough, practical resource, I think you're leaving out the part that makes it clear how this is 'maybe too much'...

Also... 1030-11AM is usually 'kids in school' time, are (young) kids usually up that late watching TV without supervision over there?

Jeff


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 8, 2009)

Sex Education is necessary, I'm not denying that.

Role play, fetishes and bondage though? That's where I draw the line.

You don't need to know that shit to learn about sex.

I realise that, but kids TV is shown up until 11am, don't ask me why. I figured it's because a lot of kids are home schooled.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 8, 2009)

It's far better to be prepared for it. It's not like they're going to dive right in with ball gags and ceiling-suspended torture racks just because they saw it in a bloody cartoon.

Think about the alternative - if they never encounter that kind of naughty business in person, big deal. If they do, but they're unprepared for it... if I actually have to explain anything there, you really just don't want to know.

Jeff


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Oct 8, 2009)

JBroll said:


> It's far better to be prepared for it. It's not like they're going to dive right in with ball gags and ceiling-suspended torture racks just because they saw it in a bloody cartoon.
> 
> Think about the alternative - if they never encounter that kind of naughty business in person, big deal. If they do, but they're unprepared for it... if I actually have to explain anything there, you really just don't want to know.
> 
> Jeff


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 8, 2009)

JBroll said:


> It's not like they're going to dive right in with ball gags and ceiling-suspended torture racks just because they saw it in a bloody cartoon.



Maybe not in the USA, but over here... they start real young


----------



## JBroll (Oct 8, 2009)

... if your education system prepares kids to build sex fortresses, they deserve whatever the fuck they can get their ridiculously overeducated little hands on.

All things considered, I don't see how drawing the line at one arbitrary magically makes more sense. Kinky shit happens. Sex education is there to make unpleasant and damaging things less commonplace and prepare people for important choices, and if you can make someone's first exposure to nipple clamps, shock treatment, and genital mutilation come from a less traumatic and more thoughtful setup than... well, firsthand experience, I see no reason to complain.

Jeff


----------



## Zak1233 (Oct 8, 2009)

What channel was that on? sounds pretty fuckin weird to me tbh  for a uk show to air shit like than when the tweenies should be on is just weird haha


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 8, 2009)

There's a happy medium for everything, this ain't it.


----------



## Triple-J (Oct 8, 2009)

Wow Dave if anything I'm more surprised that your bothered by this show as you don't strike me as a member of the Mary Whitehouse brigade. 

As for the show I think there's far worse or just as bad during daytime on TV for example while KNTV was on last week I flicked through channels to the Maury show which had an episode titled "Outrageous teens!" it featured a 13 year old girl who proudly admitted to being gangbanged by 4 guys in a drug gang for cash I then turned over the channel to "This Morning" which featured a guy having his cock examined and his balls felt by a doctor in full view of the camera.

IMO KNTV isn't really that bad as it at least has a point to educate and inform which the majority of TV fails to do nowdays plus it manages to retain a sense of humour instead of having a super hardon for seriousness and attacking you with facts and trying to put you off.

As someone who was brought up in a catholic school I was for the longest time incredibly fucked up and confused about every aspect of sex and tbh I really wish a show like this had been around when I was a teenager.


----------



## hufschmid (Oct 8, 2009)

Zak1233 said:


> What channel was that on? sounds pretty fuckin weird to me tbh  for a uk show to air shit like than when the tweenies should be on is just weird haha



I like your avatar


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 8, 2009)

Triple-J said:


> Wow Dave if anything I'm more surprised that your bothered by this show as you don't strike me as a member of the Mary Whitehouse brigade.



I'm not bothered by it so much as shocked, I couldn't believe it. So much so in fact, that even though I knew it was a kid's program, I double checked it on the Channel 4 website.


----------



## synrgy (Oct 8, 2009)

One of my regrets about the world I grew up in and continue to exist in is that I'm part of a society that's so hung up on sex.

If it were YOUR kids Dave, would you rather they got the information from that cartoon, or from first-hand experience with other kids in their 6th-8th grade classes? I even remember some kids in my classes as early as 5th grade who were doing some stuff they arguably had no business doing, and that was like 1990 or some shit, so I can only imagine how much worse it is by now.

It's just like anything else: If the parents make it a taboo, the kids will work that much harder to expose themselves to it. That's just our nature.

So long as the cartoon was constructive, and not blatantly graphic in a more pornographic way than educational way, I don't see what the big deal is at all.

The thing you just have to remember is, at least for any kid who goes to public schooling (though I imagine the same principles apply in private schooling if they have ANY peers at all..), the parents simply don't get to decide when their kids are exposed to this stuff. The kids themselves, and their peers do. My parents feebly tried to keep me from being exposed to curse words, for instance. You know, not letting me watch movies like Beetlegeuse, or whatever. They didn't seem to understand that my 8-10 year old friends were already cursing like sailors.


----------



## Tiger (Oct 8, 2009)

Personally, if I had a child who's just now learning how to ride a bike, I'd prefer they not be spouting off words like blowjob and rimjob.

The last thing I need is for my 6 year old daughter going to school and telling the teacher "Daddy let me watch tv about blowjobs!"


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 8, 2009)

I think you misunderstand my position on this, Carl.

I want my children (if they ever exist, that is) to be well educated on sex and I will make sure they know what they need to know.

However, I won't be telling them about things like bondage and sex toys, those are things that they can find out about for themselves in their adult life if they wish to do so.



Tiger said:


> Personally, if I had a child who's just now learning how to ride a bike, I'd prefer they not be spouting off words like blowjob and rimjob.
> 
> The last thing I need is for my 6 year old daughter going to school and telling the teacher "Daddy let me watch tv about blowjobs!"


----------



## synrgy (Oct 8, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I think you misunderstand my position on this, Carl.
> 
> I want my children (if they ever exist, that is) to be well educated on sex and I will make sure they know what they need to know.
> 
> However, I won't be telling them about things like bondage and sex toys, those are things that they can find out about for themselves in their adult life if they wish to do so.



Please clarify -- I saw Jeff mentioned the bondage stuff, but that was just Jeff. Was that kind of activity actually depicted in this cartoon you saw, or have we diverted to hypothetical contexts?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 8, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> It's an animated educational show and they covered things such as erogenous zones, *role-play*, masturbation, *sex toys*, visual stimulation and pornography, *oral sex (they used the word 'blow job')*, orgasm (and faking it), *fetishes, bondage, fantasy versus perversion*, and, briefly, the issue of consent.



I've highlighted the parts from my original post that I don't think are appropriate to teach children


----------



## synrgy (Oct 8, 2009)

My blatant lack of attention skills. Let me show you them. 

Sorry, I missed all that.

That does seem strange, but then again, I'm also with Jeff on this one: If you don't like it, don't watch it. Done deal.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 8, 2009)

Your blatant lack of attention skills again maybe? 



Scar Symmetry said:


> I'm not bothered by it so much as shocked, I couldn't believe it. So much so in fact, that even though I knew it was a kid's program, I double checked it on the Channel 4 website.


----------



## synrgy (Oct 8, 2009)

I am paying *some* attention. 



> I'm all for sex education and not keeping it hidden from children, *but I feel this approach is maybe too much*...
> 
> Thoughts?



Those were my thoughts. If it's too much, don't watch it.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 8, 2009)

synrgy said:


> I am paying *some* attention.
> 
> Those were my thoughts. If it's too much, don't watch it.



Yeah not too much for me, but too much for the kids it's aimed at. KNTV's target audience is around 10 years old, and I personally think they shouldn't be teaching 10 year olds things like that.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 8, 2009)

I've found from a different source that it's aimed at "14 to 19-year-olds", but it is on immediately after children's TV ends, so I suppose my shock still stands.

A Christian blog on 'complaints' over the show:

www.christian.org.uk/news/viewers-complain-over-morning-sex-ed-show/


----------



## HamBungler (Oct 8, 2009)

Here's a clip from the cartoon in question.



Quite...interesting, to say the least.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 8, 2009)

See what I mean? The second one was part of the show shown this morning, definitely NOT appropriate to be shown immediately after children's TV has ended. I imagine some mothers this morning had a shock seeing this shown on morning TV while they were watching with their children.


----------



## maliciousteve (Oct 8, 2009)

Have they done one on the size of the average males penis?



































because mine is fucking huge


----------



## AK DRAGON (Oct 8, 2009)

Turn it off!
Kids watch entirely way too much TV these days


----------



## vampiregenocide (Oct 8, 2009)

I saw that on the programs listings, then looked at the time and assumed it too good to be true.


EDIT - Just watched those vids...wtf? That was creepy.


----------



## scottro202 (Oct 8, 2009)

They say it's supposed to target 14-19 year olds?? Well, if UK teens (at least guys) are anything like in the USA, they will probably already know it all by the time they are... Well, I knew this stuff by the timeI was in the 5th grade. My dad explained it all to me. I never liked talking about this stuff with my parents though, so when I covered up my ears, he used hand gestures to show what goes where 

Well, I didn't know about bondage and stuff, but I knew about blowjobs, and the "basic theory" of it, if you will 

Being in the targeted age group, it shocks me that they show this stuff on TV. I firmly beleive that they should tell us this stuff in school, in health class. Because even though my parents actually explained this stuff to me, I know some kids parents won't, and need somebody to explain this stuff.

In health class 2 years ago (8th grade), we had a day where we could write down a question about anything sexual, and he would read it aloud (anonymously) and answer it to everybody. 2 questions I remember from that were "Can you go blind from ejaculating in a woman's eye?" and "Can you use a plastic bag as a condom?" Now, it's good that they know the true answers to these questions now, but c'mon!!!

And to remain on-topic, I'm not sure if they should learn this from a TV show. Stuff like this should be learnt from some sort of adult (not the adults that make the TV show). Just doesn't seem "right" to me.


----------



## Empryrean (Oct 8, 2009)

It sounds too funny to be a bad thing


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 9, 2009)

scottro202 said:


> They say it's supposed to target 14-19 year olds??



One source does, another claims it's target audience is around 10 years old. Either way it's shown on TV immediately after typical children's programming which is waaaaaaaay innappropriate.


----------



## scottro202 (Oct 9, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> One source does, another claims it's target audience is around 10 years old. Either way it's shown on TV immediately after typical children's programming which is waaaaaaaay innappropriate.


 
Hm. If they mean to target 10 year olds, ths is too much for them. I won't let my 12 year old sister watch National Lampoon's Van Wilder  Also, they are in school at this time. What good does that do, no matter what kinda programming it is? What good is a show where most of your target audience can't see it?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 9, 2009)

While you are right, it doesn't mean that kids aren't watching it.

There's kids programs on from 6am-11am, surely it would make sense to stop all kids programming from between 8am to 9am as kids will be going to school at this time, but they still show it up until 11am, so any kids that are watching would be subject to it.


----------



## sPliNtEr_777 (Oct 9, 2009)

I had a touch of the swine flu today and pulled a sicky, and after watching the Godfather on sky movies modern classics I caught the last ten minutes of this. The actual programme wasnt innappropriate at all, no pornography or anything. 

However, the bit I saw was about "relationship advice", and there is a reason for the inverted commas: basically a 16/17 year old girl who was dating an older guy, 19/20 I think, said her boyfriend was pressuring her for sex and she didnt know what to do. Then, two computer generated russian whores told her that she should never hold out on sex, otherwise, and they even examplified this, her boyfriend would leave her and fuck her best friend!!!! Now, I am, admittedly, a horny 17 year old boy, but if my girlfriend didnt want it I would respect that. Regardless of all the posers who will say "that's good advice" or "if she wont give it out, why doesnt he just take it", any man worth his salt, hell, anyone with even the vaguest morals, would be able to see that is fucking stupid advice and totally inappropriate.

rant over/


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 9, 2009)

Today's might not have been, but yesterday's certainly was.


----------



## HammerAndSickle (Oct 9, 2009)

Yeah... as someone who is invested in children and education there's no way to endorse this. Sex ed is one thing. Children of any age should know the "facts of life" and the idea that sex creates life, but is also used for pleasure. But "technique" is hardly appropriate.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 9, 2009)

You're all saying how this is inappropriate but failing completely to explain how.

Jeff


----------



## loktide (Oct 9, 2009)

i don't see anything wrong with it. i think it's better for kids to learn about sexuality from a serious tv documentary rather than just by using google or from hearsay.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 9, 2009)

JBroll said:


> You're all saying how this is inappropriate but failing completely to explain how.
> 
> Jeff



I've already explained my reasons Jeff, so have you. 

We get it, you don't agree, but you don't have to.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 9, 2009)

You explained that you drew the line before bondage and toys... but not how that makes any more sense than drawing the line before any copulation not intended for procreation, or drawing the line just before snuff... there's a big difference between stating and explaining things. How is toy use inherently less appropriate than other forms of foreplay?

Jeff


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 9, 2009)

JBroll said:


> You explained that you drew the line before bondage and toys... but not how that makes any more sense than drawing the line before any copulation not intended for procreation, or drawing the line just before snuff... there's a big difference between stating and explaining things. How is toy use inherently less appropriate than other forms of foreplay?
> 
> Jeff



I'm aware there is, but I don't need to explain myself. Like I said, if my kids want to know about those things, they will either find out about them in their teenage years or they can look into them if they so wish.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 9, 2009)

You said you explained your reasons, and I was only pointing out that you hadn't explained anything. Now you haven't explained your reasons, because you don't need to... can you just pick one and stick to it?

Jeff


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 9, 2009)

I've said my reasons as far as I want to, on my terms rather than yours.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 9, 2009)

Fine, that's what I was trying to establish... although 'my terms rather than yours' makes it sound like I was looking for them engraved on stone tablets or something stupid like that.

Jeff


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 9, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Fine, that's what I was trying to establish... although 'my terms rather than yours' makes it sound like I was looking for them engraved on stone tablets or something stupid like that.
> 
> Jeff



Oh you didn't? I'll just stop where I am on the second paragraph then.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 9, 2009)

No, if you've actually started to explain yourself instead of making arbitrary statements with no justification or reasoning I'd like to see them.

Jeff


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 9, 2009)

JBroll said:


> No, if you've actually started to explain yourself instead of making arbitrary statements with no justification or reasoning I'd like to see them.
> 
> Jeff



Lighten up Jeff, it was a joke. Jesus


----------



## JBroll (Oct 9, 2009)

I'm well aware. (You seem to do an even better job of missing any humor in what I say than I could ever do to you, so I do at least try.)

Jeff


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 9, 2009)

Well that's cause you're so goddamn good at hiding it, Jeff.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Oct 9, 2009)

Ah you guys


----------



## JBroll (Oct 9, 2009)

You're one of the few people around who seems to miss it so frequently. It's probably not a shortcoming on my end if that's the case...

Jeff


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 9, 2009)

Whatever you say, Jeff. I'm tired of arguing over stupid shit with you.


----------

