On Sunday the X Factor had its final.

The warm up acts were Rhiannon, fairly raunchy but also Christina Aguilara, in my view a step and a half across the Pale.

I don't watch the programme so caught up with the act on U-Tube.

The problem being it was shown before the watershed, a so called demarkation zone before 9pm, excessive sex, swearing or lewd behaviour should not be shown.

Now the X Factor for those of you who live in caves and islands and don't watch TV is an entertainment programme with 20million in the UK viewers from 4 years old to 1o4 years old, with that in mind, should it be shown before 9pm, bearing in mind, the specific watershed cut off.

I believe the US and Australia have similar guidelines.

I agree, anyone who sings that badly should be on after midnight.

I agree, anyone who sings that badly should be on after midnight.

So true.

Maybe charged with excessive noise too.

I agree, anyone who sings that badly should be on after midnight.

So true.

Maybe charged with excessive noise too.

Was she singing ? Funny I didn't notice.............

I agree, anyone who sings that badly should be on after midnight.

I used to enjoy 'The Old Grey Whistle Test'.

I agree, anyone who sings that badly should be on after midnight.

I used to enjoy 'The Old Grey Whistle Test'.

I think you'll find Ian has an old grey whistle

I agree, anyone who sings that badly should be on after midnight.

Agreed. She doesn't turn me on for the very reason I met too many of those types in my dating days...my early twenties. Most often they were a disappointment... all floss and gloss but no substance.

I'm anything but a prude, but I sometimes wonder what image it displays for the little girls of 8 or 9 who are impressionable from movie star images.

In response to Moss' original post :

I do not watch any of these so-called talent shows, nor the other 'reality TV' thingies such as 'Amazing Race' spin-offs, Big Brother spin-offs, people getting marooned in teams on desert islands and so on.

That means that these days I have very little to watch, excepting only the 23rd re-run of some film on HBO.

Some sport on Saturdays, but at inconvenient times here in Vietnam.

So TV is very much a waste of time. Now if I wish to relax, a good book suits me fine.

With regard to the 9:00 pm 'watershed' - when I was a lot younger something called rock 'n roll entered the British music scene. I was by then a teenager and so watershed may not have applied, but my parents were horrified that I should watch such shows as 6.05 Special and similar. Never did me any harm - what would have affected me more, I believe, is the sort of thing on Thai TV at all hours of the day and night - from their supernatural ghosts and ghouls to the daily helpings of gang-kids shooting each other.

The responsible countries that impose 'watersheds' would usually also not transmit these type of programmes.

The 'sexy' bits don't really seem to be as bad as violence (to me, at any rate) and showing domestic violence, or violence against kids is the worst type of thing that I can think of on TV (except for all this 'reality' TV which is absolutely mindless).

The 'sexy' bits don't really seem to be as bad as violence (to me, at any rate) and showing domestic violence, or violence against kids is the worst type of thing that I can think of on TV (except for all this 'reality' TV which is absolutely mindless).

I agree with that, Humphrey. For some odd reason, sex is bad but killing and mayhem is okay. I won't even have a TV in my room in Thailand. It's not worth my time. I'm either busy writing or reading, or taking a break on the internet. I don't watch Youtube because it takes too long to load on the intermittentnet here in Chiang Mai.

The 'sexy' bits don't really seem to be as bad as violence (to me, at any rate) and showing domestic violence, or violence against kids is the worst type of thing that I can think of on TV (except for all this 'reality' TV which is absolutely mindless).

I agree with that, Humphrey. For some odd reason, sex is bad but killing and mayhem is okay. I won't even have a TV in my room in Thailand. It's not worth my time. I'm either busy writing or reading, or taking a break on the internet. I don't watch Youtube because it takes too long to load on the intermittentnet here in Chiang Mai.

I like that........

The Intermittentnet.

Sounds like most of the LoS that I have visited.

If you don't like it, change the channel. 9pm watershed, bah, nanny-BS.

If you don't like it, change the channel. 9pm watershed, bah, nanny-BS.

I think it might be best if you reread the OP, perhaps more slowly this time.

The 'sexy' bits don't really seem to be as bad as violence (to me, at any rate) and showing domestic violence, or violence against kids is the worst type of thing that I can think of on TV

I agree with that, Humphrey. For some odd reason, sex is bad but killing and mayhem is okay.

Because one is more wrong than the other, it doesn't somehow make it right, both are still wrong.

But to show scantily clad women, simulating sex, just to promote their new song to impressionable pre-teens and adolescents is unacceptable.

Because one is more wrong than the other, it doesn't somehow make it right, both are still wrong.

But to show scantily clad women, simulating sex, just to promote their new song to impressionable pre-teens and adolescents is unacceptable.

I think you misunderstood Humphrey and I. We are commenting on the media, not our own opinions. We don't condone either violence or explicit sex on family time TV. It's the media that somehow condones any sort of violence but gets all upset with anything sexual... like a bared breast.

see my post below

Ian Forbes quote from post #7

I'm anything but a prude, but I sometimes wonder what image it displays for the little girls of 8 or 9 who are impressionable from movie star images.

I haven't misread your posts, I am not exactly disagreeing with them, I am just adding and putting further content.

Yup. I don't consider the Britney Spears / Christina Aguilera / other minor pop-singers exhibitionism to be laudable. I don't think it does anything to promote any form of culture. It is solely to make money from sales of videos and so on.

But my 2-year-old daughter likes to imitate them.

When she's older it will be a problem. But that is up to me as a parent to tackle and to overcome. I hope I do. And for that I welcome the 9.00 pm watershed. It will help me to an extent.

But I also know what I was like as a teenager and, when that time comes, I will have to let my daughter have a certain amount of freedom. I am just hoping that the time between now and her future teens can be spent instilling enough good sense into her that she thinks before she leaps. But it's hard - was with the other daughter too.

I still maintain that the sexy dancing thing is a natural human attribute that should be allowed, but controlled. The violence and killing that is also shown on TV is not necessarily natural, and must be strongly controlled. Never should it be shown as a reasonable solution to any problem.

Yup. I don't consider the Britney Spears / Christina Aguilera / other minor pop-singers exhibitionism to be laudable. I don't think it does anything to promote any form of culture. It is solely to make money from sales of videos and so on.

But my 2-year-old daughter likes to imitate them.

When she's older it will be a problem. But that is up to me as a parent to tackle and to overcome. I hope I do. And for that I welcome the 9.00 pm watershed. It will help me to an extent.

But I also know what I was like as a teenager and, when that time comes, I will have to let my daughter have a certain amount of freedom. I am just hoping that the time between now and her future teens can be spent instilling enough good sense into her that she thinks before she leaps. But it's hard - was with the other daughter too.

I still maintain that the sexy dancing thing is a natural human attribute that should be allowed, but controlled. The violence and killing that is also shown on TV is not necessarily natural, and must be strongly controlled. Never should it be shown as a reasonable solution to any problem.

My girls , 14 and 15 are as susceptible to pop music influences as anyone of their age. By the time of their musical aweareness Britney Spears had already changed over to the slutty side and they seemed to more enjoy the output of the "girl next door" marketing packaging of Hilary Duff and Miley Cyrus. I remebering commenting at the time that musically their output wasn't very good and there was nothing original about it but the test would come when they got a little older.

My girls didn't understand what I was talking about so I told them. I told them we live in a society that devalues women and the reason for that is that so often women devalue themselves. I said watch your pop idols and see what happens when the come of age. If they have any talent or ever did they will continue to develop along the same lines. If they don't they will re-package themselves as bad girl sluts. They didn't understand all the "marketing" and "packaging" talk. They didn't know we were talking about a "product"., but now they do. They'd never credit me with knowing anything of course but maybe they won't ignore everything the old man (who is thought to be so "old fashioned") has to say quite so vociferously in the future.

http://bumpshack.com...exy-not-slutty/

http://perezhilton.c...ory/miley-cyrus

In contrast to what many of you here think, I actually believe Christina has one of the better voices of all this genre of slutty singers around these days. Gaga, Spears, etc.

As far as the performance being put on tv after 9pm to protect the little chillrun from corruption, have you guys seen the Saturday morning MTV, Video hits, type shows that the kids lap up all the time?

Are you aware of what they see on their PCs, phones, etc, every day?

Have you seen the magazines they read?

The dancers on that clip are pretty well dressed exactly the same as the performers in circuses where kids have been taken for a treat for many years.

If you think putting something on tv at 9.05 instead of 8.45 will protect the youth of today from the horrors of sexy performances, I've news for you. That boat sailed long ago!

In contrast to what many of you here think, I actually believe Christina has one of the better voices of all this genre of slutty singers around these days. Gaga, Spears, etc.

As far as the performance being put on tv after 9pm to protect the little chillrun from corruption, have you guys seen the Saturday morning MTV, Video hits, type shows that the kids lap up all the time?

Are you aware of what they see on their PCs, phones, etc, every day?

Have you seen the magazines they read?

The dancers on that clip are pretty well dressed exactly the same as the performers in circuses where kids have been taken for a treat for many years.

If you think putting something on tv at 9.05 instead of 8.45 will protect the youth of today from the horrors of sexy performances, I've news for you. That boat sailed long ago!

Agree with you entirely.

In fact today I seem to agree with everyone.

But as parents we have to try to moderate what is available to our kids. It won't always work, but with enough effort and understanding most kids turn out OK.

And just because it's hard - should we put our hands in the air and say "Can't do it - it's too hard"? Never been my way.

In contrast to what many of you here think, I actually believe Christina has one of the better voices of all this genre of slutty singers around these days. Gaga, Spears, etc.

As far as the performance being put on tv after 9pm to protect the little chillrun from corruption, have you guys seen the Saturday morning MTV, Video hits, type shows that the kids lap up all the time?

Are you aware of what they see on their PCs, phones, etc, every day?

Have you seen the magazines they read?

The dancers on that clip are pretty well dressed exactly the same as the performers in circuses where kids have been taken for a treat for many years.

If you think putting something on tv at 9.05 instead of 8.45 will protect the youth of today from the horrors of sexy performances, I've news for you. That boat sailed long ago!

I guess I wasn't very clear. I don't watch TV at all but am well aware of what is coming into the house in the other room at all hours of the day and night. Neither myself or my girls are what I would call prudes (though they are shockable). My wife, she's a bit of a prude. Anyhow my approach isn't so much to judge the material but to take the view that the producers (my wife was a music video/movie producer BTW) have so little regard for the intelligence/ discernment of their audience that they think they can foist anything on them and call it entertainment. I tell the girls as consumers they don't have to watch such garbage and be taken for a sap.

All peoples reactions will be different I suppose and in keeping with the circumstances of their family. Both of my girls are models, one with 2 TV spots at present for "whitening" crap. They were taking it all a bit too seriously in my view but I think now they see it much more as a biz used to manipulate others. They still do it and they still see the raunchy videos aimed at them from time to time, but I'd like to think they're just a bit more aware of the "marketing" at work. Hey, let's face it, if GM could sell Chevy's by showing a stripper humping a pole, they would.

In contrast to what many of you here think, I actually believe Christina has one of the better voices of all this genre of slutty singers around these days. Gaga, Spears, etc.

As far as the performance being put on tv after 9pm to protect the little chillrun from corruption, have you guys seen the Saturday morning MTV, Video hits, type shows that the kids lap up all the time?

Are you aware of what they see on their PCs, phones, etc, every day?

Have you seen the magazines they read?

The dancers on that clip are pretty well dressed exactly the same as the performers in circuses where kids have been taken for a treat for many years.

If you think putting something on tv at 9.05 instead of 8.45 will protect the youth of today from the horrors of sexy performances, I've news for you. That boat sailed long ago!

I guess I wasn't very clear. I don't watch TV at all but am well aware of what is coming into the house in the other room at all hours of the day and night. Neither myself or my girls are what I would call prudes (though they are shockable). My wife, she's a bit of a prude. Anyhow my approach isn't so much to judge the material but to take the view that the producers (my wife was a music video/movie producer BTW) have so little regard for the intelligence/ discernment of their audience that they think they can foist anything on them and call it entertainment. I tell the girls as consumers they don't have to watch such garbage and be taken for a sap.

All peoples reactions will be different I suppose and in keeping with the circumstances of their family. Both of my girls are models, one with 2 TV spots at present for "whitening" crap. They were taking it all a bit too seriously in my view but I think now they see it much more as a biz used to manipulate others. They still do it and they still see the raunchy videos aimed at them from time to time, but I'd like to think they're just a bit more aware of the "marketing" at work. Hey, let's face it, if GM could sell Chevy's by showing a stripper humping a pole, they would.

I was addressing the OP in my reply, not your post, Lannarebirth.

Nothing I said had anything to do with your family. I'm embarrased to say I skipped over your post in my haste to commit my thoughts to print. Any resemblance was purely co-incidental.

If you don't like it, change the channel. 9pm watershed, bah, nanny-BS.

I think it might be best if you reread the OP, perhaps more slowly this time.

What is hard to understand with 'change the channel'? Any parent worried when the act came on could have changed.

I don't see the danger in their act - try to have some communication with your child...

I don't think we should get entirely tangled up with the water shed cut off point, as has been said, you are able to show something unsuitable at 21.05 but not at 20.55, which is a nonsense in itself.

But I think these type of programmes should have a sense of responsibility, they are huge role models, whether they deserve to be or not and impressionable youngsters are going to be influenced.

Of course there are other media sources and you can't control your off springs activities all of the time, nor should you, but you can try and limit exposure of the more damaging and influencing criteria, X Factor and its ilk are one.

With a simple instruction the programme makers could either have just as 'good' performers or limit their act to a more suitable routine.

I have an issue with the arguement that it is everywhere, you cannot control it, so do nothing, that is tantamount to turning a blind eye to murder, to give it an outrageous parallel.

'Someone was murdered on our street corner last night',

'Don't worry about it son, we had two others just round the corner the other week, forget it, you can't stop the killing so forget you ever saw it'.

The next road is anarchy.

Instead of pontificating, what have you ( or in fact i ) have done to make a difference ?

20.15

Kylie Minogue is on tv, thigh high boots, red, a red mini dress an inch above the boots.

switch channels :cheesy:

The problem is, it's not only on TV Mossy, sexual images, mainly through advertising, are offered in virtually every retail outlet.

Day time movies and soap operas serve them up to all comers.

There's no short term solution but I believe social conservatism is on the rise as the religious, both Christian and Muslim, right wing become more politically involved and it may go full circle.

You might remember that Hitler enjoyed a good book burning; it seems sad that there's no such thing as striking a happy medium, you're always going to offend someone.

Now that I have no children in the house, it doesn't matter too much to me, but when I did, it was nice to know that at 9:00 the programming moved to a more adult theme. At that time, it wasn't just about sex, because TV was already pretty conservative, but just dramas and other programs that children weren't particularly interested in.

Nowadays, children spend way too much time in front of the television starting at a young age. Not good for their development. A lot of the sex stuff is more uncomfortable for adults who might just have to answer their children's questions.

Just on the subject of cut off points for what's acceptable and what's not:

I find it faintly amusing that a young girl, 17 years and 364 days of age, can be considered a minor, and completely forbidden to be thought off in any sexual manner with a penalty of imprisonment if you do so, and yet two days later it is acceptable for her to show off her tonsils from the inside, on the WWW.

(Before the usual attackers show up, I don't associate with girls anywhere near this age personally.)

I'm reminded of the Italian PM (in his 70's) who frequently throws sex parties replete with 18 yo girls and the electerate finds this completely acceptable. When it was discovered one girl (who looks like Megan Fox) was actually 17, only then did the parliament take a vote of no confidence in him. He still kept his job.

Who's Megan Fox?

(On TV I watch the news, most sports, some cops+robbers programmes. Never go to cinema, it's all in Vietnamese.)

Who's Megan Fox?

(On TV I watch the news, most sports, some cops+robbers programmes. Never go to cinema, it's all in Vietnamese.)

Do you have Google in Vietnam?