Talk:Family-friendly

message: This section should be reworded for clarity. All necessary information is present, it is just rather hard to understand.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.221.179 (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity 

message: I was wondering, when a restaurant or business considers itself family friendly, does that allow for more misbehavior for children? See, I've run into parents who feel if a restaurant or business is family friendly, anyone suggesting they should control their child or see that their child doesn't misbehave shouldn't be there. Maybe there should be a section clarifying this issue, as I'm rather tired of parents throwing out that a place is family friendly, so it means their kids can run around like it's a Chuck E Cheese arcade. Violet yoshi (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  In regards to misbehaving children 

message: hi  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.224.10.221 (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi 

message: The construction seems to be influenced by German.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.127.218 (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  German 

message: I think the subjectiveness of this label needs to be more clearly spelled out in the article, at least with regard to fictional entertainment (Movies, TV, Books, etc.). A movie, TV show, or book,  with gay characters or dealing with the occult is automatically not going to be viewed as family-friendly by Christian conservative members of society. In the U.S., we have seen protest of gay characters in "family-friendly" programs and book/movies series like Harry Potter due to it's occult nature by Christian conservative media watchdog groups such as "Focus on the Family". Over time, the definition of "family friendly" has also changed over times as views by the majority in American society have change on certain issue such as race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Family friendly" is a somewhat subjective label. 

message: I personally revile the FCC nanny state of the 1970s which framed my own childhood (see Family Viewing Hour) and it's later outgrowth as the smug Moral Majority. 
Often, depiction of nudity, sex, horror, profanity, racial slurs, innuendo, drug use, blasphemy, and racism are declared to be worthy of censorship.
But this isn't entirely about censorship for many parents. It's about lack of balance. It's about presenting one side of something, without providing enough context about the other side of things.  
For myself, the context of human sexuality is life, so my feeling is basically: get on with it. Often the sheltered child turns into a foolish adolescent—and from there it's not a big leap to a buffoonish young adult. But then again, there's no Latin word at all that makes me blush in any company, so I admit that maybe I'm also wired differently. 
I occupy the other extreme concerning racism and drug use: these are social constructions that are highly contextual, which young children are woefully unprepared to consume as half a story.  
This was an even bigger problem before television had time shifting, for a variety of reasons (one of these being that you couldn't interrupt the show to discuss what was happening without missing what came next). 
Let's suppose in my household I oppose drinking alone (and there are consequences to support this), but I serve wine with every evening meal. Would that make me a prohibitionist? To go by the way that many people mindlessly bandy the word "censorship" around, it would indeed. — MaxEnt 20:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not just about censorship 

message: child friendly school Itz Barney (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  child friendly school