PBS kids' show Sesame Street continues sexual messaging with pride post

iluvatar5150 said:

No, they've always been "woke." One of their earliest episodes in 1969 had Grover learning how to participate in civil disobedience and, in 1970, the state of Mississippi tried to ban the show because of its racially diverse cast.

Click to expand...

In line with what I've already specifically stated, the 'wokeness' of 1969 isn't the same as the 'wokeness' of 2026, and while I can acknowledge and appreciate the fact that different people can have a range of melanin levels and personal perceptions about life, this doesn't mean that anyone should refrain from applying Critical Thinking over Critical Theory, especially where the imprint of education upon children is a concern.

2PhiloVoid said:

In line with what I've already specifically stated, the 'wokeness' of 1969 isn't the same as the 'wokeness' of 2026,

Click to expand...

The battle lines have moved, but I don’t see how they’re substantively different.

iluvatar5150 said:

The battle lines have moved, but I don’t see how they’re substantively different.

Click to expand...

Everyone has their own meta-narrative about who, what, when, where, why and how the battle lines are drawn, but as long those of us who are on the Left or on the Right can all agree that the lifestyles and perspectives of a Hugh Hefner or an Epstein are morally obnoxious, then I feel I can I'll let others have the mic while I sit down and warm a seat.

durangodawood said:

Also, just for anyone who thinks that 16 year old paper you reference is meant to cast doubt on my assertions about human caused climate change, heres how it starts. (Im not talking about you here, of course, as you would have read it.)

Click to expand...

That’s a pretty neat trick, considering it premiered in November of 1969 and Grover, as a distinct character, didn’t exist until 1970. The episode in question involved the subversive act of standing in line.

Makes a nice story, though. I’m sure that this is what’s making the rounds.

Love doesn't mean affirming immoral acts.

JimR-OCDS said:

Love doesn't mean affirming immoral acts.

Click to expand...

Which gets into That Which Shall Not be Discussed. But to take a secular example, a doctor who tries to get a pre-diabetic patient to take action to prevent Type II Diabetes isn't display hatred toward diabetics.

For the supposed age group for Sesame Street, sexuality just isn't on the radar yet. It might rake in donations, but why draw attention to something that isn't a concern yet?

Tuur said:

Which gets into That Which Shall Not be Discussed. But to take a secular example, a doctor who tries to get a pre-diabetic patient to take action to prevent Type II Diabetes isn't display hatred toward diabetics.

For the supposed age group for Sesame Street, sexuality just isn't on the radar yet. It might rake in donations, but why draw attention to something that isn't a concern yet?

Click to expand...

I agree with you, but I think you misunderstood my statement which anti-Christians try to accuse us of.

Tuur said:

For the supposed age group for Sesame Street, sexuality just isn't on the radar yet. It might rake in donations, but why draw attention to something that isn't a concern yet?

Click to expand...

That just isn’t true. Loads of kids at that age are “playing house” and “having girlfriends” and “getting married.” Obviously, it’s absurd and not remotely realistic, but the concept is there. It’s become a running joke amongst my fellow kindergarten parents- none of us are encouraging it, but we are amused when betrothals change based on such things at projected birthday party themes.

Some kids even start self-pleasuring at that age, though that’s less common.

I’d also ask you why, if it’s the sexualization that’s a problem, I don’t see a similar pushback on heterosexual themes in children’s media. How many Disney movies, for example, involve a princess falling in love and getting married to a prince? Some of them are even what we’d consider to be underage now: getting married off at 16 is a central part of the story for both Princess Aurora and Princess Ariel. When Disney made the live action Little Mermaid, I only heard complaints about Ariel being black, not about her introducing sexuality to a bunch of little girls.

iluvatar5150 said:

That just isn’t true. Loads of kids at that age are “playing house” and “having girlfriends” and “getting married.” Obviously, it’s absurd and not remotely realistic, but the concept is there. It’s become a running joke amongst my fellow kindergarten parents- none of us are encouraging it, but we are amused when betrothals change based on such things at projected birthday party themes.

Some kids even start self-pleasuring at that age, though that’s less common.

I’d also ask you why, if it’s the sexualization that’s a problem, I don’t see a similar pushback on heterosexual themes in children’s media. How many Disney movies, for example, involve a princess falling in love and getting married to a prince? Some of them are even what we’d consider to be underage now: getting married off at 16 is a central part of the story for both Princess Aurora and Princess Ariel. When Disney made the live action Little Mermaid, I only heard complaints about Ariel being black, not about her introducing sexuality to a bunch of little girls.

Click to expand...

The article is referring to toddlers who are hardly involved sexually. Playing house once in a while may be on the mind of male toddlers. and more often, females, but it has nothing to do with LGBTQ+ ideology.

Kids don't start pleasuring themselves until they reach the age of puberty, and certainly not when they're toddlers.

Heterosexual themes in children's books have nothing to do with sexuality, but the living environment which most
come from.

JimR-OCDS said:

The article is referring to toddlers who are hardly involved sexually.

Click to expand...

No, the article is about Sesame Street posting a rainbow made out of puppet fur:



and then other people complaining about, among other things, the allegedly inappropriate sexualization of children.

Playing house once in a while may be on the mind of male toddlers. and more often, females, but it has nothing to do with LGBTQ+ ideology.

Click to expand...

It has to do with children pretending to be engaged in some sort of romantic relationship.

Kids don't start pleasuring themselves until they reach the age of puberty, and certainly not when they're toddlers.

Click to expand...

You are just incorrect.


I'm not going to go dig up a bunch more links on the subject, but you're free to explore it if you want.

Heterosexual themes in children's books have nothing to do with sexuality

Click to expand...

lol wut?

Ariel's swooning over Prince Eric and trying to get him to fall in love with her and kiss her inside of three days has nothing to do with sexuality? When she asked Ursula how she was supposed to win over Eric without being able to speak, Ursula suggested she use her "body language."

Prince Phillip's father says to Aurora's father that he wants the kids to hurry up and get married so they can start pumping out grandbabies.

Cinderella's ticket out of opression is marrying a prince via what amounts to winning a beauty contest.

How are those not about sexuality?

Less direct examples:
Prince Hans of the Southern Isles tries to manipulate Anna into falling in love with him so he can weasel/murder his way onto the throne. She then falls for and marries Kristoff. In the sequel, two of the tertiary characters also fall in love.

Merida rebels against her parents because they're trying to force her into an arranged marriage.

Jafar tries to con his way into marrying Jasmine.

Belle falls in love with the man who kidnaps her.

Tiana and her friend Charlotte are in a love quadrangle with a prince and his valet.

Rapunzel falls in love with the bad boy who rescues her from her tower.

These are all much more explicitly sexual than a pile of rainbow fur.

but the living environment which most come from.

Click to expand...

Oh okay, so, by that logic, if kids are exposed to gay people in their regular life, then it's okay to hit them with messaging like that in the Sesame Street post. Is that right? Well great, because Sesame Street is about urban life and there are loads of gays in the city.

My faith in humanity diminishes more and more. Even artificial intelligence knew this was inappropriate.

~bella

The thing about sexuality in works for juveniles is that much of it does indeed fly over their heads. I've written some that start out at the bottom of Middle School reader age and goes on up to High School. The earliest implies that if the protagonist's father did for her friend what she wanted, he would be accused of being her father. Test readers of that age failed to pick up on that, as intended. Basically, you want to keep explicit violence and sexuality off center stage. And that's for fiction.

Beware: the books have an overall heterosexual theme. Horrors! Oh, the humanity! Odds are the readers are going to encounter far more heterosexual couples than gay.

I've written exactly one instructional book. It has no sexual or violent material at all; the material doesn't call for it. Imagine that.

That gets into what Sesame Street covers. Should we have the Count say "How many mamas does Timmy have? One, two, three, four..." Clueless Bert asked to be the grand martial of a Pride parade without knowing what it is and why he was asked? Should we have "This episode is sponsored by the letter D. D is for Donation, and be sure to remind your folks to donate to PBS?" Maybe save that one for pledge week?

iluvatar5150 said:

No, the article is about Sesame Street posting a rainbow made out of puppet fur:

Click to expand...

From the original article; bold is my emphasis.

"Primarily geared toward toddlers, the PBS series — which was acquired last year by Netflix — drew the ire of pastors and other Evangelical groups on social media, including Turning Point USA, which criticized Sesame Street for its pro-LGBT messaging."

Tuur said:

The thing about sexuality in works for juveniles is that much of it does indeed fly over their heads. I've written some that start out at the bottom of Middle School reader age and goes on up to High School. The earliest implies that if the protagonist's father did for her friend what she wanted, he would be accused of being her father. Test readers of that age failed to pick up on that, as intended. Basically, you want to keep explicit violence and sexuality off center stage. And that's for fiction.

Beware: the books have an overall heterosexual theme. Horrors! Oh, the humanity! Odds are the readers are going to encounter far more heterosexual couples than gay.

I've written exactly one instructional book. It has no sexual or violent material at all; the material doesn't call for it. Imagine that.

That gets into what Sesame Street covers. Should we have the Count say "How many mamas does Timmy have? One, two, three, four..." Clueless Bert asked to be the grand martial of a Pride parade without knowing what it is and why he was asked? Should we have "This episode is sponsored by the letter D. D is for Donation, and be sure to remind your folks to donate to PBS?" Maybe save that one for pledge week?

Click to expand...

I'm going to put a finer point on this for the sake of clarity:

Folks are applying a double standard with regards to how they're defining "sexuality" or "sexual material". Showing a man and a woman in a heterosexual relationship, engaging in PDA's like kissing is no more or less sexual than showing the same thing with two dudes. What makes it sexual or not is the act and, more importantly, the intent behind the act, not the genders of the participants. If you have a problem with "sexual material" being presented to children, then the animated version of The Little Mermaid is, by any objective standard, far more "sexual" than this post by Sesame Street. I haven't seen every episode of the show, but of the ones I have seen, I can't recall PDA's or intense romantic pursuits being a thing at all, so it would not surprise me if The Little Mermaid is more sexual than the entire series.

My hunch is that this double standard arises from folks not recognizing homosexual relationships as relationships, but rather as merely hookups centered on deviant sex acts. To put it another way: straight couples love each other while gays are just indulging in a kink. If that were an accurate description of homosexual relationships, then framing the resistance this way makes sense. But it isn't accurate. Homosexual relationships are relationships just as heterosexual ones are.

I suspect there's a similar cause underlying the strong backlash to transgendered individuals - that cis folks are confusing gender identity with some sort of sexual fetish, which it's not at all. But I suppose that's for another thread.

Back on the subject of Sesame Street, if folks think that engaging in homosexual relationships is Biblically immoral and don't want their kids evangelized with a set of ethics with which they disagree, fine. You have that right just the same as a Hindu parent might object to their kid being bombarded with ads from Burger King. But if that's your objection, just say that. Don't invent some concern about this being overly sexual while turning a blind eye to hetero forms of the same thing.