Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This is an interesting story, mainly due to the fact that I agree in many ways with the parents.

It reminds me a bit of an English ad I saw on Charlie Brookers show (can't remember which one), in which a kid died backwards after being hit by a car. I thought it was a particularly tasteless ad, point of bringing attention to the problem aside. Maybe the ad worked, I don't know; but maybe a bunch of people started having nightmares... then got insomnia, and totally did not pay attention while driving... totally a possibility, but anyway.

The AD itself was not particularly offensive, but the point the parent's made did make sense. Having the rape slapped on a billboard reminds me of some of the graffiti-taggers in the bigger cities.

The basic question is: How far is too far in advertising? I know that shows are scheduled in a way that supposedly keeps kids from seeing them. While I think that the billboard is somewhat of a lost art-form, it is most certainly in your face, and proud of it... Kinda like Wrex... but we can ignore that for now... ahem.

I am sorry that my views will not sit well with many people, but I think that many Americans are too conservative.

Having a bilboard like that to me is not a bad thing. It is like a very graphic ad campaign that one state in Australia had/has, warning, and showing the dangers associated with speeding.




two of the less graphic ones

I will only link to these ones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75GuzsGzoP0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctkqd6hYMy8&feature=related

these are used in road safety classes where I live, as well as being shown on primetime TV

Having kids ask about rape is ot a bad thing. Informing them that something is wrong if someone comes up and starts touching you is a good way to get the sicko caught.

You may be right about that, most imprinting takes place when kids are young.

With all of the violence that is accepted in the media, I would expect more of an acceptance of this kind of thing. Perhaps this is just an indicator of perspective.

I do know that most other countries are no where as "up-tight" about all of this, especially in Europe; but even in Europe, there are people that take offense to this kind of in your face advertising. I don't particularly take offense to it, and I would expect it to work regardless of some parent's think of it.

There is a very strange outlook on sex through the media out here, our rating system is a pretty strong indicator of that. The way that most movies are rated, I would think that there is a group of people using their seats to promote their views only... wait... I may be on to ... ummm, yep.

Yea, remember that AIDS Hitler poster campaign in Germany where Hitler was doing the nasty IIRC? Definitely more in your face.

As for the RAPE billboards I've got no problem with it and really could care less for the minds of the sheltering parents. In this world of pedobear teachers, molesting Catholic priests, and the internet where all sorts of fetishes is just a click away - kids need to be anything but sheltered since most cases of children being taken advantage of had the kiddo not knowing wtf was going or wtf to do about it. Like GI JOE says, Knowledge is Power.

You don't necessarily have to delve into graphic detail about rape but not telling your kids about the dangers and how to deal with them is potentially much worse. I follow one of the themes in Orson Scott Card's novel "Ender's Game" - kids are much more mature and intelligent than the populace gives 'em credit for and they can handle the information if its taught in a decent context.

I see nothing wrong with this. Society and young males in particular need to be taught that "She wanted it really" or "she was 'asking' for it" are not excuses. It was hard enough to get 'no' to be taken as 'no' it is time it is firmly established that a 'not-yes' is a 'no'.

If there is no direct consent then its not playtime. If there is no clear spoken consent by the person in her (or his) own good mind it's a sexual assault or rape, end the lame excuses.

OTOH, being ashamed when your boyfriend learns you're actually a nasty slut isn't an excuse to claim "rape", either.

JohnHwangDD wrote:OTOH, being ashamed when your boyfriend learns you're actually a nasty slut isn't an excuse to claim "rape", either.

Well, yeah, false accusations are horrible, but it has always seemed to me that men are
the nasty sluts who want to sleep around while women are held to a higher standard and
then hit with labels when they cannot meet that standard.

@malfred:

I'm just referring to this...

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/257058.page

Of course you are, but unless society has gone crazy, that's an anomaly compared
to the numbers of women who were victimized.

That girl is just stupid and evil for hiding behind an accusation when there are
actual victims out there. Very disheartening.

Why is it that we feel justified telling others how they should raise their children, or how they should teach their children, when it suits our own needs? I think all of you who see no problem with this should be ashamed. This sign spits in the face of liberty and freedom by causing fear and worry among the public. And what are their solutions? "We want to try and open a dialogue on how to solve this problem." What the FETH does that mean or do? So what if you think that Americans are too conservative, that doesn't mean that a parent's rights should be trampled on. To me this isn't about conservative or liberal, it is about the importance of an individual's, specifically the parent's rights, to raise their children how they see fit. It is no more yours our mine to tell them what they think is right or wrong for their children. And if they disagree with the sign, lets be honest an elementary school is a bad place to put this, then since they pay for it through taxes it should be taken down. There are much better ways to engage this issue, and I think they should utilize them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

malfred wrote:Of course you are, but unless society has gone crazy, that's an anomaly compared
to the numbers of women who were victimized.

That girl is just stupid and evil for hiding behind an accusation when there are
actual victims out there. Very disheartening.

I knew a girl in high school who did that with her ex-boyfriend. She slept with him one night, this is what HER sister told me, and came home, saved the semen and called the police the next day to report her "rape". The kid is still serving a 40 year sentence and is a registered sex offender. I think his life is pretty much ruined.

How is this trampling on the rights of parents? Its a sign, not mandatory course on sexual violence. If the parent doesn't want to answer a question posed by their child, then they can feel free to do that. But the existence of this campaign is no more offensive than the depiction firearms on movie posters, or violence in kid's shows.

Well this is government sponsored material that many obviously find offensive and not appropriate to have in plain view of their children. And since it is in plain view of an elementary school they will see it. Maybe you are right Dogma, this is not exactly a trampling of their rights, but it is certainly distasteful and should have been handled in a better manner.

Maybe. I suppose I just find it strange that someone could be moved to action by what is essentially a dictionary entry. I guess I could be biased in this regard, as I had sex-ed for the first time in 3rd grade. I may simply be out of touch.

Sex ed in third grade? When I was in kindergarten the year sixes would delight in telling us what sex was

Don't see the issue myself. Rape is a horrific crime and unfortuantly is almost impossible to prove. Most cases come down to a matter of one persons word against anothers. Anything that raises awareness can only be applauded and often shock tactics work best.

Honestly, I've often wished that someone would campaign for male rights with regard to hetero rape. It isn't quite as simple as most feminists claim.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Why is it that we feel justified telling others how they should raise their children, or how they should teach their children, when it suits our own needs?

Often through the use of Religion..but that's fine yeah ?

I think all of you who see no problem with this should be ashamed.

This would be the American form of Irony I'm assuming.

Whilst I'm here : what rights DO parents ahve in the USA, there's nothing related to this as such in the Cons. right ? I'm assuming they don't count as property.

The point about this campaign is that it deals with sex, which is a very touchy subject for a lot of parents, that is why people are annoyed.

reds8n wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:Why is it that we feel justified telling others how they should raise their children, or how they should teach their children, when it suits our own needs?

Often through the use of Religion..but that's fine yeah ?

Except for the fact that religion isn't payed for with taxpayer dollars, and doesn't tell people in other countries how this or that is best for their children.

reds8n wrote:I think all of you who see no problem with this should be ashamed.
This would be the American form of Irony I'm assuming.

Whilst I'm here : what rights DO parents have in the USA, there's nothing related to this as such in the Cons. right ? I'm assuming they don't count as property.

Not property in that sense no, but they are legally bound to the parent, and the parents have the right to privacy and to raise their children in a manner that they see fit, so long as it isn't physically or emotionally abusive. They have the right to instill morals, values, beliefs etc.

Except for the fact that religion isn't payed for with taxpayer dollars,

and ? Who does pay for it then ? cause no non believers contribute through rent to church owned properties ever right ? Right ? Oh.. wait...

and doesn't tell people in other countries how this or that is best for their children.

Hahah, you crack me up. Pretty much EVERY religious group does this.

Where's the Catholic Church based again ? Or the Church of England ? And they don't tell people in other countries what to do with their entire lives not just with regards to their children ? You're actually trying to claim that ?

parents have the right to privacy and to raise their children in a manner that they see fit, so long as it isn't physically or emotionally abusive. They have the right to instill morals, values, beliefs etc.

None of which is prevented or altered by the presence of a sign on a sidewalk.

For someone who "hates coservatives almost as much as he does liberals" you knee jerk like a epileptic palsy sufferer.

Kids may begin asking questions about something? We can't have that. My real question is, why would a kid not ALREADY know about "bad touches?" Almost one third of the people I know (not an exaggeration) had some form of sexual abuse as a child. There needs to be a hell of a lot more dialogue.

Sex without consent is rape

This is helpful. Next on the list: "purposefully killing people without legal justification is murder" and "taking stuff that is not legally yours is theft".

reds8n wrote:and ? Who does pay for it then ? cause no non believers contribute through rent to church owned properties ever right ? Right ? Oh.. wait...

Oh wait, rent is not comparable to taxes! Taxes are mandatory for EVERY citizen, rent on the other hand is not mandatory. If you own your own house you don't pay rent. If rent a place then you pay up. It doesn't matter who it goes to because that is part of their income, so its private sector. Public sector is not on the same plane, nor is it comparable. Your logic is decidedly lacking on this point....

reds8n wrote:Hahah, you crack me up. Pretty much EVERY religious group does this. Where's the Catholic Church based again ? Or the Church of England ? And they don't tell people in other countries what to do with their entire lives not just with regards to their children ? You're actually trying to claim that ?

Wow, have you even read the statements of faith for the Church of England? Probably not, and I doubt you have read the entire catechism for the Roman Catholic Church. There are no "requirements" for child raising, from the Catholic Church and especially the Anglican Church. Furthermore the Church of England has NO authority, neither does the Archbishop of Canterbury, outside of England. There is the Anglican Communion, but that has no real power, and each member church governs itself. So your ignorance shows when you try and make that point....You crack me up too!

reds8n wrote:None of which is prevented or altered by the presence of a sign on a sidewalk.

Not for you or I to decide, that is for the parents judgment.

reds8n wrote:For someone who "hates conservatives almost as much as he does liberals" you knee jerk like a epileptic palsy sufferer.

Thanks for the class, I have a cousin with epilepsy and another with cerebral palsy.

Sex without consent is rape

Did you know that if you jump out of a hiding spot, yell 'SURPRISE!' then have secks with your victim, it's not rape, it's Surprise Secks.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Wow, have you even read the statements of faith for the Church of England? Probably not, and I doubt you have read the entire catechism for the Roman Catholic Church. There are no "requirements" for child raising, from the Catholic Church and especially the Anglican Church. Furthermore the Church of England has NO authority, neither does the Archbishop of Canterbury, outside of England. There is the Anglican Communion, but that has no real power, and each member church governs itself. So your ignorance shows when you try and make that point....You crack me up too!

Proselytism is a major component of the Christian religion. All significant branches of the Church practice it. The fact that there are Anglican Churches in other nations speaks to the transnational reach of religious establishments. If there literally was no connection those churches would not refer to themselves as Anglican.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Not for you or I to decide, that is for the parents judgment.

Rights are social constructs; meaning both parties must take an active role in the formulation of a conclusion.

dogma wrote:Proselytism is a major component of the Christian religion. All significant branches of the Church practice it. The fact that there are Anglican Churches in other nations speaks to the transnational reach of religious establishments. If there literally was no connection those churches would not refer to themselves as Anglican.

There is a difference between being in communion with each other and practicing authority over each other. A good example is the current relationship with the Church of Nigeria and the ECUSA, or even the CoE for that matter. To claim that Canterbury has any authority over any of the other national churches is completely false. That is the nature of the Anglican Communion, each national church has its own set of rules, the only thing they must maintain in order to be considered Anglican is to use a version of the Book of Common Prayer, which has nothing to do with authority, it just sets down the order of the service, and to adhere to the articles of faith which basically is the definition of what the Church believes in regards to the Bible and to God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, etc.

JEB_Stuart wrote:There is a difference between being in communion with each other and practicing authority over each other. A good example is the current relationship with the Church of Nigeria and the ECUSA, or even the CoE for that matter. To claim that Canterbury has any authority over any of the other national churches is completely false. That is the nature of the Anglican Communion, each national church has its own set of rules, the only thing they must maintain in order to be considered Anglican is to use a version of the Book of Common Prayer, which has nothing to do with authority, it just sets down the order of the service, and to adhere to the articles of faith which basically is the definition of what the Church believes in regards to the Bible and to God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, etc.

There is a distinction between communion and authority, but that distinction can be discarded when the point of contention is based on advice with respect to child-rearing. It doesn't matter that adherents to the faith are permitted to ignore any advice given from overseas. What matters is that the advice is given with the intent that it will have an affect on those who hear it.

Wait so the Catholic Church doesn't actively campaign against the use of condoms and birth control devices in countries outside Rome ? Really ?

American churches weren't withholding $ unless abstinence was taught as the only form of contraception.

We'll leave the affects of the child sex scandals alone here. They didn't instruct anyone at all to hush it up and keep it quiet.

But remember everyone :

Religion doesn't tell people in other countries how this or that is best for their children.

Oh here we go, it' another one of your pick and mix approach to debating. Again.

let's carry one

There are no "requirements" for child raising, from the Catholic Church

...coummunion and baptism and confession. And the whole "believeing in jesus thing too" I'd argue.

Not for you or I to decide, that is for the parents judgment.

Rubbish. Explain how a sign would prevent them from doing so. Is it a magic sign that overrides ALL forms of communication or soemthing ? Wow must get me one.

Oh wait, rent is not comparable to taxes! Taxes are mandatory for EVERY citizen, rent on the other hand is not mandatory. If you own your own house you don't pay rent. If rent a place then you pay up. It doesn't matter who it goes to because that is part of their income, so its private sector. Public sector is not on the same plane, nor is it comparable. Your logic is decidedly lacking on this point....

it's more you just won't see the logic. I'll dumb it down for you.

The churches have many form of income, much of which is through the renting and leasing of properties. Money from that, whther you like it or not, goes to the churches.

Plus all those donations (tax free too !) they can claim that people give.. where do they get their money from again ? Cause no poor people donate right from their welfare cheques ? Or state employees ? Or anyone else who is able to earn a crust due to the fucntioning of the state. Don't even try and say that who pays for a non denominational sign has any relevance.

Your talking out your arse again with regards to the CoE as well.

Again.

Deja vu.

The Archbishop can, for well publicised example, remove individuals, or indeed groups/churches from the CoE 's "rule" if they do something the synod doesn't approve of. Like gay priests for example.

Technically at a synod they can pass a legislative measure which the Monarch via Parliament can approve and therefore become law.

You really don't know what youre talking about it seems.

Thanks for the class, I have a cousin with epilepsy and another with cerebral palsy.

I neither believe you nor care.

Does feeblemindedness run in the family as well ?

Modquisition ON:
Gentlemen, politeness and common courtesy are required on this forum, at least once in a while. Lets uplift ourselves from the sewer of feeblemindedness cracks et al shall we?

JEB_Stuart wrote:

dogma wrote:Proselytism is a major component of the Christian religion. All significant branches of the Church practice it. The fact that there are Anglican Churches in other nations speaks to the transnational reach of religious establishments. If there literally was no connection those churches would not refer to themselves as Anglican.

There is a difference between being in communion with each other and practicing authority over each other. A good example is the current relationship with the Church of Nigeria and the ECUSA, or even the CoE for that matter. To claim that Canterbury has any authority over any of the other national churches is completely false. That is the nature of the Anglican Communion, each national church has its own set of rules, the only thing they must maintain in order to be considered Anglican is to use a version of the Book of Common Prayer, which has nothing to do with authority, it just sets down the order of the service, and to adhere to the articles of faith which basically is the definition of what the Church believes in regards to the Bible and to God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, etc.

The A of C has a moral authority. That's why the Nigerian Church keeps banging on at him to stop the American Church from appointing gay bishops.

Only in states like Iran do religions have legal authority.