Kids Who Watch R-Rated Movies More Likely to Start Drinking

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Kids Who Watch R-Rated Movies More Likely to Start Drinking

image

According to a recent study, children whose parents let them watch R-rated movies were more likely to start drinking than children who weren't allowed to watch mature flicks.

Researchers at Dartmouth Medical School surveyed 2,400 children around the ages 10 to 12 on the amount of R-rated movies they were allowed to watch. The group was re-surveyed two years later, and the results appear to show a link between R-rated movies and underage drinking. About 3 percent of children who stated they had "never" seen an R-rated flick began drinking, while 19 percent of "occasional" R-rated movie-goers and 25 percent of "frequent" watchers began drinking.

Though one popular theory states that adolescents who watch R-rated films try to emulate the actors on the screen, Dr. James Sargent, a professor of pediatrics at Dartmouth Medical School in Hanover, New Hampshire, claims that the influence of movies goes even further than that. "We think seeing the adult content actually changes their personality," explains Sargent. Other research has suggested that children who watch R-rated movies are more likely to become thrill seekers and risk takers.

However, it can also be argued that parents who restrict access to R-rated media are also the type of parents more likely to be the keeping strict tabs on all of their child's activities.

Source: Science Daily

(Image)

Permalink

It's still retarded that you have to be 21 to drink in every single American state.

How the hell can the US Govt get away with such laws? Nothing against it in the constitution? (I know it's essentially blackmail of funding for interstate roads)

Treblaine:
It's still retarded that you have to be 21 to drink in every single American state.

How the hell can the US Govt get away with such laws? Nothing against it in the constitution? (I know it's essentially blackmail of funding for interstate roads)

It's hilarious really, especially from where I am standing(in Alberta(where I am), Manitoba and Quebec the drinking age is 18, and almost everywhere else in Canada is 19).

Bullshit.

Odds are, if you're even remotely "popular" in school as a kid/teen, you're going to start drinking. Be it because of your own choice or because of peer pressure, people of your own age are going to be the ones introducing you to alcohol. This has nothing to do with movies.

Treblaine:
It's still retarded that you have to be 21 to drink in every single American state.

How the hell can the US Govt get away with such laws? Nothing against it in the constitution? (I know it's essentially blackmail of funding for interstate roads)

I agree even though I'm in UK and they let you drink at 18. Even though again I'm 16 and I still get served in pubs... My point:

Funny how at 18 you can vote, go and die for your country in war but they still won't let you drink.

I can disprove this using a personal example. I watch some of the most horrific, violent and weird films out there. Like Cannibal Holocaust and August Underground, stuff like that. They aren't even R rated, they aren't rated at all.

And I don't drink. I'm quite responsible and levelheaded, actually.

And in case you think I'm just a freak example, none of the people who I watch those movies with drink or do dangerous things either.

I think their study is flawed.

Treblaine:
It's still retarded that you have to be 21 to drink in every single American state.

How the hell can the US Govt get away with such laws? Nothing against it in the constitution? (I know it's essentially blackmail of funding for interstate roads)

The Amethyst Initiative, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and similar groups basically lobbied the congress to death until they finally passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which essentially allowed the federal government to withhold funds until a state changed its policies to be in-keeping with the act (Which technically DOES fall within the bounds of the constitution. While directly banning the sale of alcohol to people <21 years of age is prohibited by the 9th amendment)

Citations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act

Furburt:
I can disprove this using a personal example. I watch some of the most horrific, violent and weird films out there. Like Cannibal Holocaust and August Underground, stuff like that. They aren't even R rated, they aren't rated at all.

And I don't drink. I'm quite responsible and levelheaded, actually.

And in case you think I'm just a freak example, none of the people who I watch those movies with drink or do dangerous things either.

I think their study is flawed.

They did say that there was only 25% who started drinking. Even though that's larger than the other two groups it is a rather small percentage. So really, it is possible that you and the people you watched the movies with fell within that 75% majority.

I do think that they need a little more evidence though. Those aren't very big percentages.

well if a parent let's them watch R-Rated movies, you cannot blame the kid, nor the movie. Ratings are there for a reason.

Hubilub:
Bullshit.

Well put, HUBILUB.

I watch R-rated movies all the time and I don't drink, I don't smoke and I am a virgin.

Therefore, ...

Hubilub:
Bullshit.

Hmmm... might this have ANYTHING to do with the idea that parents who let their kids go to R-rated movies that young might have more lax parenting standards when it comes to other things? That, combined with

Lauren Admire:

However, it can also be argued that parents who restrict access to R-rated media are also the type of parents more likely to be the keeping strict tabs on all of their child's activities.

this, would mean that this study tells us nothing but an idea that is already dictated by common sense. It's not the content: it's the way that the parents allow their kids to see the content. For example, I watched Die Hard as a kid and a LOT of the James Bond films, both of which contain glorious amounts of violence, drinking, and smoking. But I watched them with my parents, as a family activity. I don't seem to have turned out too badly for it either: I don't drink, I don't smoke (though more because I'm allergic) and I'm not violent.

Of course they are. Its the same deal that people who play violent videogames are more prone to be violent. The problem is that its not the games (or the movies) its just that statistically the same people who do X (play violent games, watch "mature" movies, whatever) are ALREADY likely to be violent, to drink, to do drugs.

It just so happens that kids who are likely to do those things are also likely to play/watch these things in the first place. Which doesnt mean those things CAUSE drinking/violence it just happen to mean that people who are already going to be violent drunken douchebags are also the same people who are likely to watch R rated movies while playing the No Russian MS2 mission over and over again.

PS: There is a huge hint to the cause in the title too "According to a recent study, children whose ~parents let them watch R-rated movies~ were more likely to start drinking than children who weren't allowed to watch mature flicks.

Quick hint. Kids who have parents who "LET THEM WATCH" R-rated movies are also kids who have parents who are more likely to LET THEM drink and/or laugh and wave it off when they hear they ARE drinking. It has nothing to do with the movies themselves, it has everything to do with what said parents are ALLOWING their children to do. Children will do ANYTHING if you don't stop them. Their brains literally haven't finished growing the lump of grey matter that tells them not to do fucking stupid potentially damaging and/or deadly things and if they have parents who aren't going to reign in the universal 'i am immortal' attitude of children, then you are going to have kids who get to watch R-rated movies, drink and get into fights (probably drunkenly and poorly) and then have few repercussions (because, come on, by this point its a bit late). Hard to blame the medium when, while certainly a part of it, it was by far not the cause.

Surprise!

Mray3460:

Treblaine:
It's still retarded that you have to be 21 to drink in every single American state.

How the hell can the US Govt get away with such laws? Nothing against it in the constitution? (I know it's essentially blackmail of funding for interstate roads)

The Amethyst Initiative, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and similar groups basically lobbied the congress to death until they finally passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which essentially allowed the federal government to withhold funds until a state changed its policies to be in-keeping with the act (Which technically DOES fall within the bounds of the constitution. While directly banning the sale of alcohol to people <21 years of age is prohibited by the 9th amendment)

Citations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act

That's what I can't accept. The idea that "oh, well we can't enforce it as a federal law, why don't we threaten them till they pass it at the state level"

I mean if the government collects federal taxes yet refuses to spend money on them... isn't that taxation without representation? Isn't that what the entire American War of independence was (started) over?

How could the Constitution have missed that out!?!?

And 9th Amendment is kind of a weak one, that basically says you have right even if they aren't actually listed (natural rights), but it's all too easy for a court to simply not see certain rights as inherent.

Aren't States guaranteed some certain and distinct amount of independence? Wouldn't the 10th amendment prevent the united States (federal) from forcing the states to change their laws?

Surely only a constitutional amendment could bring about something like enforcing a law for all states.

Only then it is less a case of "Bill of Rights" more a case of "Bill of restrictions"

Well this explains why my brothers turned out to be such fuck-ups, but I'm perfectly fine as far as drinking goes.

This is just like every other study trying to prove that violence is cause by M-rated video games. I watch plenty of R-rated movies and i actually laugh at them most of the time.

Oh crap
I'm screwed ;)

the group was re-surveyed two years later

unless the scientists controlled there whole lives, you can take this study with a pinch of salt.

since the stutdy is quite large i would say a large percentage of chance could also be involved.

oh and might i mention if a kid isnt allowed to watch a r rated movie by there parents... they are not likely to be allowed to drink. This is plainely obvious...

This is complete bullshit - my sister has been watching R-rated movies since she was 8 years old, and she's one of the most straight-edge people I know. There are other factors involved here, the movies have nothing to do with it.

Furburt:
I can disprove this using a personal example. I watch some of the most horrific, violent and weird films out there. Like Cannibal Holocaust and August Underground, stuff like that. They aren't even R rated, they aren't rated at all.

And I don't drink. I'm quite responsible and levelheaded, actually.

And in case you think I'm just a freak example, none of the people who I watch those movies with drink or do dangerous things either.

I think their study is flawed.

Not flawed, falsified.

Captain Schpack:

Hubilub:
Bullshit.

Well put, HUBILUB.

I watch R-rated movies all the time and I don't drink, I don't smoke and I am a virgin.

Therefore, ...

Hubilub:
Bullshit.

Furburt:
I can disprove this using a personal example. I watch some of the most horrific, violent and weird films out there. Like Cannibal Holocaust and August Underground, stuff like that. They aren't even R rated, they aren't rated at all.

And I don't drink. I'm quite responsible and levelheaded, actually.

And in case you think I'm just a freak example, none of the people who I watch those movies with drink or do dangerous things either.

I think their study is flawed.

More likely, not guaranteed to drink, just more likely to. The fact that one person bucks the trend hardly disproves that trend. It makes sense, though I think both are effects. A socially connected youth is more likely to drink and watch r-rated movies I'd theorise, I'd like to see both sets of figures plotted against social interaction with peers.

I'm sorry as well Furburt, normally I seem to agree with most of what you say but you're not a part of the survey's demographic (being 10-12 year olds) and even if you know fourty friends the same as you, you'd only be one percent of the sample. Your personal experience isn't relevant since they're purely studying preteens in America. Cultural differences to alcohol would account for some differences in data, as would age.

generic gamer:
Your personal experience isn't relevant since they're purely studying preteens in America. Cultural differences to alcohol would account for some differences in data, as would age.

How bizarre, surely the Irish would be more likely to drink!

Still, preteens are never a good choice for these kinds of things. They have a propensity to act irrationally. Perhaps the study is correct, but I get the feeling it was most definitely designed with a conservative viewpoint already in mind.

WHAT? I'm too busy drinking to understand that text. Now excuse me while I go play a video game and then go kill a family of four from Arkansas.

I started drinking before I had even watched my first R16 movie. Explain THAT Dartmouth Medical School.

Well I can safely say that I grew up on Terminator, Robocop (other violent films) and I don't drink, although I' am probably an exceptionn, however I fail to see the connection between watching violent films and taking up drinking, really astounding what people come up with.

Furburt:

How bizarre, surely the Irish would be more likely to drink!

Still, preteens are never a good choice for these kinds of things. They have a propensity to act irrationally. Perhaps the study is correct, but I get the feeling it was most definitely designed with a conservative viewpoint already in mind.

Well I know that in the UK we tend towards a more relaxed attitude to alcohol, i know that for myself i was allowed to drink very small glasses of wine, sips of beer and the odd half pint when I was younger. I know that this demystified alcohol for me and I didn't drink independantly until I was 16, for me alcohol and rebellion weren't linked. Half the fun of drinking underage is obtaining the alcohol and experimenting so it's possible that r-rated films and alcohol are jsut parts of the rebellion toolkit that American youths have.

Though if you want to continue the national stereotype idea my two favourite drinks are ale and a good gin & tonic, so maybe you do have something there?

Did they think that maybe, just possibly, the parents who take their kids to see R rated movies Don't Care if their kids drink.

God forbid people recognize that a lot of parents also drunk underage and maybe don't have an issue with underage drinking.

Whereas kids who live with parents who try to censor everything from them are more likely to batshit insane pussies whose kids will rebel much more outrageously in later years.

Also only 25%, really, that's an issue. You think maybe these were the kids who were going to drink underage anyway. It's stupid shit like this that is making me doubt some research colleges.

I'm 19, and I haven't had a single alcoholic drink in my life. I don't exactly plan to drink when I do reach 21, either. At the same time, I thoroughly enjoy a number of R-rated movies; in fact, some of my favorite movies have been deemed R-rated, such as Die Hard and V for Vendetta.

Drinking by 13 or 14? I find that ridiculously upsetting in a theoretical sense, and very sad because I know it to be the truth for some people.

Treblaine:

Mray3460:

Treblaine:
It's still retarded that you have to be 21 to drink in every single American state.

How the hell can the US Govt get away with such laws? Nothing against it in the constitution? (I know it's essentially blackmail of funding for interstate roads)

The Amethyst Initiative, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and similar groups basically lobbied the congress to death until they finally passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which essentially allowed the federal government to withhold funds until a state changed its policies to be in-keeping with the act (Which technically DOES fall within the bounds of the constitution. While directly banning the sale of alcohol to people <21 years of age is prohibited by the 9th amendment)

Citations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act

That's what I can't accept. The idea that "oh, well we can't enforce it as a federal law, why don't we threaten them till they pass it at the state level"

Before I begin my re-response, let me just say that I agree that the whole thing stinks to high heaven

Treblaine:
I mean if the government collects federal taxes yet refuses to spend money on them... isn't that taxation without representation? Isn't that what the entire American War of independence was (started) over?

How could the Constitution have missed that out!?!?

First off, no, it's not "taxation without representation." TWR is the act of taxing someone without giving them a representative in the government. In the case of the colonies, the British parliament placed taxes on them, regardless of the fact that colonies had no representatives in parliament. So this is not "Taxation without representation" it's "Taxation without...anything."

Second, the Constitution is by no means a perfect document, nor was it ever intended to be, and was written under dreadful circumstances (I'm writing my final term paper on the subject, hense why I know this). In essence, when the Constitution was originally written, the framers expected the United States to remain just that: united stateS. They never expected that the states would be reliant on federal funds for ANYTHING (They expected the opposite, that the federal government would always be supported by the states), or that the feds would work within the affairs of the individual states beyond inter-state relations. So, how did the Constitution not protect against this? It was not designed to.

Treblaine:
And 9th Amendment is kind of a weak one, that basically says you have right even if they aren't actually listed (natural rights), but it's all too easy for a court to simply not see certain rights as inherent.

...no arguments from me on this point!

Treblaine:
Aren't States guaranteed some certain and distinct amount of independence? Wouldn't the 10th amendment prevent the united States (federal) from forcing the states to change their laws?

Surely only a constitutional amendment could bring about something like enforcing a law for all states.

You'd think so but...no.

You've forgotten about another key piece of the constitution: The Supremacy Clause

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Translated to newspeak, that means that Federal treaties, policies, and laws, outweigh and overrule any and all contradictory state laws.

The 10th amendment talks about something completely unrelated

Amendment X to the United States Constitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What that means is that any power that the Constitution Does not give to the federal government, along with any power not expressly forbid to the states or general citizens, belongs to the states and general citizens exclusively. And, yes, before you or anyone else points out, this amendment HAS been violated innumerable times by the federal government, but at this point no-one with any power is doing or will do anything about it, as the government has long since stopped paying attention to parts of the document that clash with its agenda.

As for constitutional amendments, I believe I've already demonstrated why those are not necessary to enforce national will on the states: No one cares.

Brass tacks man, no one who has the power to make a difference cares about the violation of the constitution's checks and balances, mainly because there's no penalty.

Is the constitution going to break out of its display case at the national archives and beat up a politician breaking its rules? I think not.

Are other politicians, who themselves have no doubt completely ignored the constitution in favor of getting themselves another term in office by taking advantage of the fear of a bunch of alarmists, going to stop that politician and enforce the rules that THEY broke? I think not.

Will those crazy Tea-Party activists rise up in open rebellion to overthrow the government? Possibly...but...

Will they be able to stand up to the accumulated power of the US military, along with a bunch of other people who like the system JUST fine how it is: unenforced? I think not.

Citations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Convention
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

If the R-rated movies they watch mention drinking alot, then this is like saying a child who watches porn at a young age will masterbate sooner. They are just exposed to it before they should be

Yeah, I think it's just a case of irresponsible parents. Mine never let me watch R-rated films when I was young and I'm 22 years sober. I will also add I have the best parents anyone could ask for.

Captain Schpack:

Hubilub:
Bullshit.

Well put, HUBILUB.

I watch R-rated movies all the time and I don't drink, I don't smoke and I am a virgin.

Therefore, ...

Hubilub:
Bullshit.

You are also a member on a video game forum. Could that possibly be linked your lack of sexual experience and never going to any parties where the cool kids are getting laid and drunk at the same time?

Perhaps... Just like "perhaps R rated movies cause kids to drink". Just because there is a positive correlation doesn't rule out other factors. More research is needed before you can say anything for sure.

What if the kid's parents let them drink? The parents obviously don't have a problem with them watching film content that is potentially disturbing to children.

PS I don't mean to flame you, I don't go to those kind of parties either.

I was allowed to watch R movies, play M games, etc, and I don't drink alcohol (at all) or have sex indiscriminately. I think this "study" is BS, but that is just my personal opinion.

what the media consistantly fails to realize is that just because one thing is linked to another does NOT mean one causes the other.

I love how every one of these bullshit "studies" thinks that correlation implies causation, when it is just as much, if not more likely, that both are caused by a third factor, like, say, inattentive parents?

I watched my first R-rated movie when I was 12. And to this day....I don't drink.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here