Question 4:
In the course of this discussion many of you have pointed out the rhetorical inadequacy of vague notions like artistic intention, media influence and child sexuality. At the same time some of you have identified general problems that presumably can be solved -- Naomi, in her valediction, noted the need to protect children's privacy; Judith Levine decried the predominance of sexist, ageist, violent images in the media; Michael Medved suggested that our popular culture seems perversely determined to rob its young of all shreds of innocence. Let's put semantics aside for this final question and enumerate the more specific modifications you would make to the way sex is presented in the public and private sectors, if you could change things as you wished, to make this country a better child-rearing environment ( . . . realizing, of course, that child-rearing is not the only purpose of our culture).

Several steps could help this country provide a more effective and sympathetic environment for child-rearing.

     First, we should consciously turn away from our national obsession with adolescence. Commentators frequently complain that our kids grow up too soon, but that's not our principal problem. The main problem is that their parents never grow up. Adults want their own adolescence to last forever, and want their children's adolescence to begin immediately. That approach absolves parents of the need to behave like grownups, with mature responsibilities -- including protecting the innocence of their young. Consider, for example, activities and indulgences which this society misleadingly labels as "adult" or "mature." There is nothing even vaguely adult about an "adult book store," or remotely mature about most entertainment for "mature audiences." This material is incurably adolescent, and the refusal to accept true adulthood (and its inevitable burdens of deferred gratification and self-sacrifice) undermines the possibility of childhood for our children.
     Part of a new emphasis on grown-up behavior and standards and a rejection of adolescence as a permanent ideal would inevitably lead to less sexual exploitation of children -- as it would to less sexual exploitation of all human beings, regardless of age.
     Concerning television, perhaps the most destructive message for kids isn't the sexualization of childhood (and the palpable impatience to enter that golden age of adolescence), but rather the enshrinement of the young as the source of all wisdom and sensitivity and authenticity. The message of the pop culture endlessly suggests that kids know best -- a message that victimizes kids most, by destroying their ability to rely on adult authority.
     As I've argued before, however, the main problem with mass media isn't the low quality, it's the high quantity. Parents who worry about their kids consuming too much junk food and taking in too many calories need to become similarly vigilant concerning the popular entertainment that our kids consume in such staggering quantities. The most negative influence on the younger generation isn't too much media sleaze or violence or rude language -- it's too much TV, period. A national campaign to reduce TV viewing among our young should become just as important a social priority as the urgent campaign to reduce smoking.
     Another significant step would involve a reduction in governmental interference in the parent-child relationship. Of course, authorities must and should step in when faced with situations of chronic abuse or neglect, but that is no excuse for the consistent message in so many curricula that schools represent some safe haven of compassion, condoms and enlightened attitudes, while parents remain benighted, dangerous and generally suspect. Concerted attempts to undermine parental authority and efforts by governmental institutions to usurp parental roles do no favors for most kids. One of the major benefits of school choice -- ending the inefficient government school monopoly and allowing parents to use the tax money they've paid to the system to educate their own children as they see fit -- would be a vast enhancement of parental control of and involvement in educational decision making.
     Finally, and most obviously, children will benefit enormously by a recognition that child-rearing remains the most important task on anyone's agenda. Can anyone doubt that all-consuming careerism hurts kids just as much as it damages marriage? Unfortunately, such careerism now afflicts females nearly as commonly as it plagues males, and both need to return to more child-centered priorities. Work and money-making possibilities will always be there, but our children will not. Career may seem incomparably urgent, but children remain vastly more important. Instead of devaluing nearly everything associated with kids (movies for children, children's TV, teachers of young kids, stay-at-home moms) we should exalt and emphasize such undertakings and roles as the most significant focus for our future.

Question 1
A. M. Homes
James Kincaid
Judith Levine
Michael Medved
Stephen Schiff
Celine Texier-Rose
Naomi Wolf

Question 2
A. M. Homes
James Kincaid
Judith Levine
Michael Medved
Stephen Schiff
Celine Texier-Rose
Naomi Wolf

Question 3
A. M. Homes
James Kincaid
Judith Levine
Michael Medved
Stephen Schiff
Celine Texier-Rose
Sally Mann

Question 4
A. M. Homes
James Kincaid
Judith Levine
Michael Medved
Stephen Schiff
Celine Texier-Rose