L
La_Chiara
Guest
Very true. Very true.
- Status
L
Lilyofthevalley
Guest
Further than this, as I remember the wolf wears a nightie because he’s impersonating the grandma and the ugly sisters I have always seen in panto are always played by men…you going to boycott the panto’s this Christmas and New Year??
Um, dressing up to trick someone or be silly(as in Bugs Bunny) is a far cry from a dude running around wearing dresses for the heck of it.(as in "Lilo and Stick) I did not see Shreck but there some Disney movies which show this as a NORM. The character is wearing a dress for the hell of it, not to trick someone or as a joke.As for the gay thing, there is an agenda to normalize gay BEHAVIOR. It is okay to bash Catholics because they believe gay sex is a sin.
T
Teresa9
Guest
Dear friend
If you haven’t seen it, how can you comment on it?
There is one thing I know for certain, no gay man or woman will go to hell for being gay the state of being that is gay. This has been decreed by the church…IT IS NOT A SIN TO BE GAY…so where is the agenda in promoting gay lifestyle? what are you so worried about? Will suddenly all our children turn gay from watching shrek? Will all the children who have watched this shrek think being a practising gay will be acceptable by the church? If so, you have failed as a parent and a catechist to your children!
Who of you is without sin to decry another? You can state the truth of what a sin is, but you on the other hand do not know the heart of another, nor do you know where love exists between persons and if love exists, which is a supernatural gift from God, then God must be present, then where does this leave you with all of this homophobia? It leaves you judgemental and over what, a cartoon that does not promote gay relationships, it is nothing of that nature and if you see this as such, then maybe you should re-examine your own conscience as to how you treat others and especially how you treat sinners as one yourself and what mercy you have for them!
It is not a matter of someone being sexually explicit, it is not a matter of offensive material, it is a matter of people taking someting too far and using it as a tool to bang the hammer yet again upon a minority that probably come over as overly sexual because society has defined these people by their sexuality instead of the dignity of their humanity, a brother or sister in Christ and as a child of God.
God Bless you and much love and peace to you
Teresa
B
Brian
Guest
Teresa9-
Your point is charitable and well-taken; however, the depiction in Shrek 2 of Pinoncchio wearing red women’s thong panties is clearly an attempt to normalize “alternative” behavior.
I think the focus on the ugly step-sister and grandma-wolf sidestep the point. These studios spend billions of dollars bringing their product to the public. It is researched, placed on countless story-boards, and focus-grouped, ad naseum. They know exactly what they are doing, and what they are coyly presenting to a juvenile viewership.
Tell me again the fairy-tale rendering of Pinocchio with thong panties? It’s totally unnecessary, and totally calculated. With all of the material that ends up on a cutting room floor, for that scene to make it to theaters clearly illustrates an agenda. I’m no conspiracy theorist. This is just rational thinking.
Further evidence of this mentality is the recent national cel-phone commercial that offers free minutes when talking with one’s significant other. There are perhaps 10 couples of varying ages and ethnicities, and of course, a representation of a normal gay couple (one partner is shaving at their nicely appointed vanity, while his lover, a full foot taller, stands in the door frame, scrutinizing the phone bill). Why do my kids need to see that? Their relationship, as Lily correctly points out, is a depiction of the behavior of homosexuality.
The insertion of this scene into the commercial is no-doubt market driven (practicing homosexuals buy cel-phones too), yet the behavior is certainly not normal (around 2% of the population by most accounts). So is it simply benign?
Your point is charitable and well-taken; however, the depiction in Shrek 2 of Pinoncchio wearing red women’s thong panties is clearly an attempt to normalize “alternative” behavior.
I think the focus on the ugly step-sister and grandma-wolf sidestep the point. These studios spend billions of dollars bringing their product to the public. It is researched, placed on countless story-boards, and focus-grouped, ad naseum. They know exactly what they are doing, and what they are coyly presenting to a juvenile viewership.
Tell me again the fairy-tale rendering of Pinocchio with thong panties? It’s totally unnecessary, and totally calculated. With all of the material that ends up on a cutting room floor, for that scene to make it to theaters clearly illustrates an agenda. I’m no conspiracy theorist. This is just rational thinking.
Further evidence of this mentality is the recent national cel-phone commercial that offers free minutes when talking with one’s significant other. There are perhaps 10 couples of varying ages and ethnicities, and of course, a representation of a normal gay couple (one partner is shaving at their nicely appointed vanity, while his lover, a full foot taller, stands in the door frame, scrutinizing the phone bill). Why do my kids need to see that? Their relationship, as Lily correctly points out, is a depiction of the behavior of homosexuality.
The insertion of this scene into the commercial is no-doubt market driven (practicing homosexuals buy cel-phones too), yet the behavior is certainly not normal (around 2% of the population by most accounts). So is it simply benign?
L
Lilyofthevalley
Guest
Who of you is without sin to decry another? You can state the truth of what a sin is, but you on the other hand do not know the heart of another, nor do you know where love exists between persons and if love exists, which is a supernatural gift from God, then God must be present, then where does this leave you with all of this homophobia?
“homophobia” no, I am not afraid of homosexuals. I DO fear that the extremely vocal homosexuals who believe it’s their right to bash Catholics. Sounds like Catholiphobia to me. .I also fear a movement which is attempting to normalize unacceptable behaviors such as homosexuality, adultry, and other sins.
I have my sins, but I certainly don’t try to present them as natural or present them in the name of love. While it’s natural to WANT to sin, it should not be presented as “love” or an acceptable behavior. Which unfortunately is happening more and more with homosexuality.,
T
Teresa9
Guest
Dear friend
At the risk of sounding like arguing for arguings sake I will now have to agree to differ with you. What is sorely lacking in most of the posts I have read in this thread is LOVE.
You have stated that gay sex is a sin in the Catholic church…how many ways will you choose to state this before you are satisified you have laboured the point fully? If you don’#t like the cartoon don’t watch it, if you think it is promoting gay sex, go for it, break a neck and boycott the film. No-one is stopping you, but your opinion is skewed. No-one has bashed the Catholic stance, I am Catholic myself, though I bet now you are wondering about my sexuality seeing as I discuss this to this length with you. I will leave you wondering, I don’t see why I should do otherwise! A simple cartoon that does not promote gay sex has been discussed to death because of a what I only see as a false piety here.
Anything involving a slight amount of violence, anything involving a slight situation that could be read into as promoting sex etc you had better ban all kids programmes, as all of them have some point in it that is discussable, even snow white and the sevn dwarfs does from the 50’s…it’s called adult humour that a child will not understand but means the whole family can sit and watch it, but the level is not intrusive, usually because the kids don’t get it, you are viewing it as an adult with full knowledge and no innocence. Children are innocent, they do not see the world like you or I, that is why we are to become like children to receive the kingdom of heaven.
You keep reading everything in a negative light and I wish you good luck in that, because if your children are never equipped to face the world, they will never survive in it, if your children are over-beared by you, they will resent you and the faith…sure fire way to drive them from it. Sometimes we have to explain things to kids and show them why and that is done in reasonable terms without harming their development.
Good luck
God Bless you and much love and peace to you
Teresa
L
Lilyofthevalley
Guest
What is sorely lacking in most of the posts I have read in this thread is LOVE.
It does take love to state a behavior is unacceptable and sinful.As for children’s programs, I let my children watch the alien crossdresser. I just explain what the program is trying to do. A lot of children’s programs try to normalize unacceptable behavior. For example: “Braceface” is a Disney show. One episode included a mother leaving with her boyfriend for the weekend, leaving her teenage children behind with an incompitent baby sitter. In the end the children have a wild party.
Incidently, THAT’s the show I told my children they were no longer allowed to watch.
T
Teresa9
Guest
Dear friend
You have stated it and several times over and I have said I am Catholic, good grief do I need a hammer and a chisel?
I don’t agree with you that this cartoon promotes gay sex , I never will agree with you, we have to agree to disagree. Whatever it is you see in a cartoon you have never watched (???
), whatever point you see, your child does not see it, you are not innocent and they are. Do as you see fit, do as you like, we disagree.God Bless you and much love and peace to you
Teresa
B
Brian
Guest
Be careful Teresa. Who is being “holier than thou” on these pages? While I respect and value your opinion and participation, it would seem that you are being a tad judgemental.
Several individuals on this thread have simply illustrated the seemingly frivolous characterization of alternative lifestyles in Shrek 2. It is our right to do so, as this is a discussion forum. To my knowledge, no one has condemned individual homosexuals.
For my part, I am keenly interested and aware of the cultural and sociological impact of homosexuality on our popular culture. It is only natural that people sensitive to this issue will want to comment on its prevalence in the media (for example in the cel-phone commercial I referenced above).
No one is going to raise children who are ill-equipped for society because they indicate their displeasure with a gay agenda. I’m sure you would shield your children from inflammatory anti-gay propaganda, would you not? No one here would criticize you and claim that you are not letting your kids experience all views.
It is because I take my job as a parent so seriously that I am attuned to the homosexual agenda. You see, it is my job to instruct my children on human sexuality, not the producers of Shrek or the makers of cel-phone commercials. I don’t appreciate it when they try to do my job for me, and that is, in essence, the crux of this issue.
L
Lilyofthevalley
Guest
I don’t agree with you that this cartoon promotes gay sex , I never will agree with you, we have to agree to disagree.
I can’t say if Shrek promotes gay sex as being natural. I CAN state, certain cartoons such as “Lilo and Stitch” or “Braceface” promote cross dressing and wrong behavior such as adultry.I am not Catholic BTW. My family is/was. I am not.
T
Teresa9
Guest
Dear friends
My last post and last word on this and then you can discuss it between yourselves.
You cannot promote gay, you either are gay or you are not. It’s not something you can catch, it’s not something that lurks up behind you in a movie and then grabs hold of you and brainwashes you into believing in it. It is a state of human sexuality. It is not something that can be promoted.
What can be promoted is the condonation of a sexual act, that has not be promoted in this film, there is no gay sex in any of those children’s films…not one scene, not one reference.
The worse things I have seen are in adult films , that is the area to get most annoyed about in my mind, with gratuitous violence, explicit sex and pronographic material, those are the films that should a child ever get sight of young teenager or young adult, that can do harm!
God Bless you and much love and peace to you
Teresa
My last post and last word on this and then you can discuss it between yourselves.
You cannot promote gay, you either are gay or you are not. It’s not something you can catch, it’s not something that lurks up behind you in a movie and then grabs hold of you and brainwashes you into believing in it. It is a state of human sexuality. It is not something that can be promoted.
What can be promoted is the condonation of a sexual act, that has not be promoted in this film, there is no gay sex in any of those children’s films…not one scene, not one reference.
The worse things I have seen are in adult films , that is the area to get most annoyed about in my mind, with gratuitous violence, explicit sex and pronographic material, those are the films that should a child ever get sight of young teenager or young adult, that can do harm!
God Bless you and much love and peace to you
Teresa
A
Ana
Guest
I take an active role in what I allow my children to watch. I also review each incident that comes up selectively. I wasn’t thrilled with Shrek, just too much bathroom humor for my taste. But I could see why kids liked it, belchs and farts galore. I disagree that adult themed jokes that the child “doesn’t get”, are necessary so that an adult to sit through the movie. I know many adults that can sit through a movie that doesn’t have penis size jokes. To imply otherwise is a little insulting.
I have always been honest and discussion oriented with my children. They are told specifics as to why they are not allowed to watch particular programs, and thankfully they see the justice and fairness of it.
When Shrek 2 came out, I heard enough about it before hand to watch it with my husband before deciding whether or not to allow our children to watch it. My children knew we were doing this and were waiting to see what the verdict would be. Taking into consideration their ages, the oldest is six … we allowed them to watch it “with conditions.” The condition being that they could see it once, that we were not going to buy it. I felt the adult themed jokes were definitely over their head, so I didn’t sweat those. I was uncomfortable with the big LUST presentation. My kids don’t even know what sex is yet, so I didn’t want to put them in a position to ask me what it means. So, for that part my husband and I staged a “tickle fest” to distract them until it was over. The ugly stepsister I just let go, but planned on using the ole “it’s just a cartoon” response.
The Pinocchio thing I let go too. My son sees it as a joke already. In football, the coach would jokingly ask them if they were wearing women’s underwear when they played under par. The team would always snicker. It was meant as a good natured teasing.
I think ones relationship with the children and the age is the most important deciding factors. My children were happy to see it once, my husband and I were happy to discern what would be harmful or not and act accordingly.
I think if they were older, I would have let them see it uncensored and used it as a springboard of yet another discussion of our Catholic faith. I posted because I thought my answer was different. No I did not completely agree with the movie, and yes I did let my kids watch it … though not completely.
God bless
I have always been honest and discussion oriented with my children. They are told specifics as to why they are not allowed to watch particular programs, and thankfully they see the justice and fairness of it.
When Shrek 2 came out, I heard enough about it before hand to watch it with my husband before deciding whether or not to allow our children to watch it. My children knew we were doing this and were waiting to see what the verdict would be. Taking into consideration their ages, the oldest is six … we allowed them to watch it “with conditions.” The condition being that they could see it once, that we were not going to buy it. I felt the adult themed jokes were definitely over their head, so I didn’t sweat those. I was uncomfortable with the big LUST presentation. My kids don’t even know what sex is yet, so I didn’t want to put them in a position to ask me what it means. So, for that part my husband and I staged a “tickle fest” to distract them until it was over. The ugly stepsister I just let go, but planned on using the ole “it’s just a cartoon” response.
The Pinocchio thing I let go too. My son sees it as a joke already. In football, the coach would jokingly ask them if they were wearing women’s underwear when they played under par. The team would always snicker. It was meant as a good natured teasing.
I think ones relationship with the children and the age is the most important deciding factors. My children were happy to see it once, my husband and I were happy to discern what would be harmful or not and act accordingly.
I think if they were older, I would have let them see it uncensored and used it as a springboard of yet another discussion of our Catholic faith. I posted because I thought my answer was different. No I did not completely agree with the movie, and yes I did let my kids watch it … though not completely.
God bless
T
The_Hidden_Life
Guest
Actually, my only problem with my children watching this movie is that the word “sexy” is used several times (along with the tush-slapping Paul the fairy godmother’s driver). I read about the “gender confusion” stuff before seeing it and was concerned. However, after seeing it, my feeling was that the wolf was dressed appropriately to his character and my children aren’t going to know that “gender confused” is a real term. Also the ugly stepsister (looks like a man in drag) registered weird but not unacceptable. Pinocchio in women’s underwear also I saw as embarrassing to the character but not as sexual innuendo at this stage in my kids’ lives.
We have the DVD and I didn’t see the “I like big butts” song. Ours has “Livin la vida loca” which my kids thought was funny because it says something about taking your clothes off and dancing in the rain. Previously they had only heard the Disney kids version that says take your shoes off.
It’s not something I want my kids to watch every day and I do turn the captions off but mostly my kids think it’s funny. Personally, I love the giant gingerbread man assaulting the castle and the starbuck’s scene.
We have the DVD and I didn’t see the “I like big butts” song. Ours has “Livin la vida loca” which my kids thought was funny because it says something about taking your clothes off and dancing in the rain. Previously they had only heard the Disney kids version that says take your shoes off.
It’s not something I want my kids to watch every day and I do turn the captions off but mostly my kids think it’s funny. Personally, I love the giant gingerbread man assaulting the castle and the starbuck’s scene.
T
The_Hidden_Life
Guest
BTW my oldest (age 7) did ask “what is lust?” and I took the opportunity to explain that it is desire for something out of control, wanting something in a wrong way. That satisfied her curiosity plenty and set good groundwork for talking about lust versus love later in life I thought.
A
Ana
Guest
The Hidden Life:
Very well handled!!:clapping:
S
SilentRick15
Guest
I believe this movie was rated “PG” for a reason. How do you think it will pollute children’s minds if you’re there watching it with them?
Personally, I laughed my head off at Shrek 2. I’ve seen it twice now, and even the second time brightened my day. Personally, I was too engrossed in the jokes to notice any of the inappropriate stuff. Maybe that’s how other 15 year olds would react.
So, in closing, if you feel this movie is inappropriate, watch it with your kids and point out anything that you may find corrupt their minds. Some food for thought, ok?
P.S. My English teacher showed it to us in 9th grade English with no objection. It was part of our parody writing unit.
Personally, I laughed my head off at Shrek 2. I’ve seen it twice now, and even the second time brightened my day. Personally, I was too engrossed in the jokes to notice any of the inappropriate stuff. Maybe that’s how other 15 year olds would react.
So, in closing, if you feel this movie is inappropriate, watch it with your kids and point out anything that you may find corrupt their minds. Some food for thought, ok?
P.S. My English teacher showed it to us in 9th grade English with no objection. It was part of our parody writing unit.
A
Ana
Guest
That reminds me, a teacher at out local catholic school showed Shrek to first grade class, without parental consent!! My friend was quite upset because her daughter was in the class. To give the school credit, the teacher was reprimanded. I think sometimes people don’t think.
If I was in ninth grade I could think of no better way to spend English class than watching Shrek2.:yup: Our movies were so boring!!:yawn: I bet she won major “cool points” with the class!
Just curious did “gender confusion” or homosexuality come up in the class discussion and if so, how did it progress?
God bless!
- Status