Well, Mister and Master are derivatives of each other, we could start using both of those titles.
Humor aside a young man before the age of 12 can use the title master in front of his name, after 18 he becomes mister.
I am sure if one is uncertain if a woman is married or not using the title Ms. is fine unles she does not like that title due to the feminist attachment to it and then, as things seem to be going today, use her first name if she prefers. People like to hear their names being said in a nice way, otherwise Mrs. typically refers to a married woman.
Well turn off or mute the ads - or use streaming or DVDs which are usually blessedly ad-free. I haven’t even switched on my actual television since the World Cup soccer last year.
None of this changes the fact that, kids being kids and the world being the world, they are going to see sin of different sorts portrayed or actually happening, be it in front of their eyes or on the screen. Can any of us seriously say we were never exposed to problematic concepts as children? Children’s cartoons have certainly always been violent, see my Road Runner reference above. Doesn’t mean violence became normalised or we suddenly started thinking it was OK, or were ever at any stage confused about the matter. This is due to the guidance our parents gave us in our day to day lives - whether or not we were watching the cartoons - about violence being wrong.
I don’t think there is really any age at which a parent cannot, with a little thought, have age-appropriate discussions about pretty much anything that a child might see on screen. Death, crime, taxes, politics, the basic facts of life, be they between married or non-married, heterosexual or homosexual. Doesn’t mean the moral quandaries have to be avoided necessarily.
Actually, I cut off most television and radio broadcasts many years ago.
Specifically over ads run on a morning radio program that I disagreed with.
At this point, only EWTN and specific movies are allowed in my house.
I remember being in seventh grade history class. We watched the movie “Nicholas and Alexandra”. The teacher asked us if we knew what was being implied about Rasputin and his followers. Many of us were dumbfounded and shocked at what the teacher told us about homosexuality. Literally, – it was something many of us knew zero about. That was the early 1980s.
Fat chance of kids being so innocent now. Now they have to have immorality presented to them in glowing terms in kindergarten…
There once was a time in America where showing an interracial couple in a commercial was considered “too political”. Not saying it’s the same but again I ask how much we should expect advertisers to respect minority religious views. If they ban showing gay couples (not even being explicit at all), should they also ban commercials for alcohol on the grounds that Mormons and Muslims consider its consumption immoral? Or pork products that could offend Jews and Muslims? Serious question.
Nope, I can always not buy the product. I have little problems with gay couples in shows to return to the central point of the thread. I do have a problem with badly written couples who are shoehorned in and appear ‘forced’ into the narrative.
@Rozellelily you know, at least your ad has the gay couple front and center where there’s little ambiguity whereas mine has the two guys tucked up in the neck of the bottle where you might not notice them at first (sneaky).
I don’t generally like spirits much in any case it should be said. The best vodka I’ve ever been given was strangely enough Japanese but shockingly expensive. I rarely drink spirits. To be fair as pointed out above manufactures advertise to make money and anyone who is ‘being made gay’ by adverts by Tifanny or Absolut must be a rare beast indeed. Sure it raises social acceptability, but as a choice I’d rather have that than gay people hiding in corners or frightened to admit they are gay.