[user104658]

Originally Posted by lostalex

But the point is, when my parents didn't let me watch the Simpsons, they explained it to me, they told me it's because it's about a boy who is misbehaved and who doesn't do well in school, and doesn't respect his teachers. so when i did actually watch the simpsons at my friends house, i saw exactly what they meant, and they were right, i should;'t want to be like Bart Simpson.

So even though i watched it at my friends house, at least my parents talked about it with me before hand, and i knew that bart simpson was a bad role model, and i shouldn't want to be like bart simpson. I was able to think about it, and realize that Bart is not a cool kid that i should emulate, he's just a comedy character on TV.

I get what you're saying here but it's exactly why I think its important to NOT outright ban watching anything, but instead, to be a present and active influence providing context and commentary and discussing these things as they arise. The thing is, a lot if parents don't say WHY they're saying no. It's just "no". And then when their kids inevitably encounter these things anyway, away from their parents, it's without that valuable opportunity to discuss it and learn.

I had this debate with someone recently, who was adamant that advertising should be kept away from children at all costs. I argued that, if you do that, they will be naive and unaware when they encounter advertising as an adult. Its important that they DO see advertising, and that their first experiences of it involve discussion, because the only way to be immune to advertising (and any other subliminal messaging, such as the vanity issue of this thread) is to be completely aware of it and have the ability to view it critically.