DVDizzy Forum

People should stop discriminating against interfruit relationships. It sickens me that in 2009 some people still think a lime and two cherries shouldn't go at it.

Those images do look like porn. They should be reserved for alcoholic drinks.

I also agree the images are a little... funny (strange, out of the ordinary). But- read below the pictures on that page. I think most people thought it was a joke. But someone actually said things like, "Mr. Simkins' ordeal," cried about this harming "innocent children" (I can't help but flash on Polyester with the screaming sad children going, "PLEASE! Show G-rated movies! PLEASE! Show Benji!"), and that this has lead them to need counseling.

Give me a break.

No, the images are not going to scar anyone. That doesn't mean they're appropriate. I wouldn't want my children to learn about sexual intercourse from something that absurd.

Okay now I have to be a little tough with you - don't be silly. (I hate myself for that )

If people think children learn anything from a single cartoon image, they're nuts. That's just the way it is. Some people are paranoid. And put ideas into childrens' heads for them. Maybe they're not appropriate because some people read into them- but who cares? I'm very sexually-minded, so of course I thought there was something a little kinky about those images. But before I saw the wrappers, someone put the idea into my head.

They are strange illustrations, I grant you; but I highly doubt kids will learn the ins and outs of intercourse by looking at them. Kids see the world with innocent eyes, it's only adults who'll make those assumptions when they look at the wrapper.

Cordy_Biddle wrote:They are strange illustrations, I grant you; but I highly doubt kids will learn the ins and outs of intercourse by looking at them.

Exactly.

I mean- granted I know some people are parents. But, does that mean they forget what it was like to be a kid? When kids started talking about sex and sexual images, they're not "oh wowie, golly gee! That's so gross or scary or sad!" Kids are nasty, filthy little brats. We can't change that by removing colorful cartoon images that may be sexually influenced. The real issue is people refuse to understand the human mind. They want life to be sweet and innocent and children not to be little-adults. Which they really are. It would be a problem if people encouraged them to have sex. But these images at worst are just suggestive. It's not the same as stores playing Jenna Jameson movies on TVs in public.

Kids aren't going to learn the intricacies from those wrappers, but they are going to ask about them.

Lazario wrote:When kids started talking about sex and sexual images, they're not "oh wowie, golly gee! That's so gross or scary or sad!" Kids are nasty, filthy little brats. We can't change that by removing colorful cartoon images that may be sexually influenced. The real issue is people refuse to understand the human mind. They want life to be sweet and innocent and children not to be little-adults. Which they really are. It would be a problem if people encouraged them to have sex. But these images at worst are just suggestive. It's not the same as stores playing Jenna Jameson movies on TVs in public.

I learned about sex by reading about it in a magazine. My parents never talked to me about it once. And I did react by thinking it was incredibly gross, saying that everyone who has sex is gross and that I never wanted to be around anyone that has sex. Of course I've changed my mind since. I'm not a virgin. But I'm a young adult now. As a little kid, I thought sex was revolting. Lots of kids think this way.

Prudence wrote:Kids aren't going to learn the intricacies from those wrappers, but they are going to ask about them.

So what?

Now it's not about the kids- it's about Parents Don't Want to Talk About Sex? Children shouldn't ask? It's better to ask about it and know, then to not ask and be embarrassed about not knowing.

Lazario wrote:

Prudence wrote:Kids aren't going to learn the intricacies from those wrappers, but they are going to ask about them.

So what?

Now it's not about the kids- it's about Parents Don't Want to Talk About Sex? Children shouldn't ask? It's better to ask about it and know, then to not ask and be embarrassed about not knowing.

Depends on the age and the level of comprehension for individual children. I edited my last post to reply to your second-to-last post, by the way.

Prudence wrote:

Lazario wrote: So what? Now it's not about the kids- it's about Parents Don't Want to Talk About Sex? Children shouldn't ask? It's better to ask about it and know, then to not ask and be embarrassed about not knowing.

Depends on the age and the level of comprehension for individual children. I edited my last post to reply to your second-to-last post, by the way.

I learned about sex by reading about it in a magazine. My parents never talked to me about it once. And I did react by thinking it was incredibly gross, saying that everyone who has sex is gross and that I never wanted to be around anyone that has sex. Of course I've changed my mind since. I'm not a virgin. But I'm a young adult now. As a little kid, I thought sex was revolting. Lots of kids think this way.

It's equally as immature for kids to think and say - sex is gross, as it is to say it's not. The real point is: we can't stop kids from thinking and talking about it. Which is the only real reason people overreact to things like this candy incident. Because they wish they could stop kids from being exposed to sex. But it's going to happen. Sooner than anyone can even anticipate. It doesn't help anyone to expend all this time and energy questioning the appropriateness of everything children are exposed to. It's more important to concentrate on the attitudes and feelings kids have about it. To promote healthy body image and private but responsible sexual attitudes. This candy incident may not be private, but making a fuss over it only causes more trouble than it alone would cause.

Like Corby said and I agreed with, most kids aren't going to think sex when they see images like those Maoam wrappers. Not without being coerced first.

Of course kids are going to say immature things. They're kids. I can't backtrack my mind and pretend this is my first exposure to sexual activity, so I can't say whether or not any children will see the pornographic implications without being coerced. Shit like this is just not necessary in the first place, and should be reserved for alcoholic drinks. Kids are not mini-adults. I was treated as a mini-adult throughout my childhood, and it screwed me up.

Again, not saying that something this silly could scar anyone, but it's just plain stupid.

I'm sorry but I found the close-ups of the actual wrappers hilarious, I honestly never noticed before.

But I do think this guy overreacted, his wife seemed even worse having to go and "sit down in the car park", which albeit did sound more like the result of stress from their "heated exchange" with the manager over.... sweet wrappers.

I mean the images aren't intentionally using sex to sell a product, it's just a funny little image on a wrapper, i bet most people never even noticed! I'm sure children certainly don't notice it very often and when they do i doubt they question it.

I think the designers of these wrappers had a pretty good idea of what they were doing.

As a parent, I think I have a pretty good idea on what kids notice....If a child KNOWS or THINKS is sexual....who's to blame really? My 10 year old doesn't know what sex is. If she sees them, she'll probably say they are playing. There are no sex organs. No sign they are male or female. Its just silly cartoons. And good marketing. Companies for years have been using subliminal messages to get people to buy their product. It catches your eye and you buy it. Doesn't mean the kids will learn about sex from it. I am far more worried about my daughter being exposed to sex by music videos and songs than a couple of cartoon fruit.

A classic example....

Your mind has to be less-than-innocent in order to see something "going on" here. Kids aren't going to see anything wrong with these wrappers unless they've already been exposed to much, much worse.

And I've drawn much, much worse.

It's the Daily Mail. A <strike>paper</strike> rag known for its s**t-stirring. Forget about it. Sigh, at least with Autumn coming, the UK News "silly season" will soon be over.

Siren - that was CLASSIC!

Prudence wrote:Of course kids are going to say immature things. They're kids. I can't backtrack my mind and pretend this is my first exposure to sexual activity, so I can't say whether or not any children will see the pornographic implications without being coerced. Shit like this is just not necessary in the first place, and should be reserved for alcoholic drinks. Kids are not mini-adults. I was treated as a mini-adult throughout my childhood, and it screwed me up.

Again, not saying that something this silly could scar anyone, but it's just plain stupid.

Yeah? And maybe you're overreacting.

And- what's the point of mentioning what screwed you up? There's nothing I or anyone else can do about it, it's not going to change my point of view on the issue of these candy wrappers, and it has nothing to do with potentially sexually explicit images. Illustrated ones at that.

In short: so what?

Oh... and kids are mini-adults in many ways. You can deny it all you want to, but children do horrifying things all the time. And will continue to. And many of them like doing them.

The worst thing is really the fact the fruit is in the guy's crotch.

Siren, wow, and it says "Laid by the best", too!

Lazario, doing horrible things, and liking it, doesn't make you adult. That is a factual, true statement.

Being treated like a mini-adult messed Prudence up. Another factual statement.

If we're going to think logically and make a conclusion, children should not be treated like mini-adults. And now, I will throw in what I think, that maybe adults should be treated more like grown children.