Children, Violence and Sex

Dennis Prager’s commentary “Our Kids’ Innocence, Unprotected” (Oct. 1) asserts that some forms of violence are harmful, others are harmless because they are “fanciful,” and others are actually good.

However, he offers not the slightest bit of substantiation to any of his claims while presenting his personal views as facts. Certainly, concerns about how violence on TV affects our children are worth exploring, but masquerading opinion as fact to support one individual’s personal agenda only serves to confuse the issue further.

JOE POWER

Ventura

*

As an alternative to exposing children to sex, even when it’s within a loving context, Prager accepts acts of “ubiquitous” violence. He states: “Some degree of violence is ubiquitous in even the most healthy child’s life. But none of this is true with regard to sex. A healthy young child never sees sex, never play-acts it, and does not fantasize it in any conscious way.”

Would Prager rather see a young boy kiss a girl or point a toy gun at her and pretend to kill her?

LATRICE MURRAY

North Hollywood

*

“Parental control” in this day and age is akin to pouring water out of the Titanic with a shot glass--it’s essentially a losing battle. Parents (at least good ones) have been trying their best for a long time; it’s time for the government to step in and protect children, particularly those without parents who care, because they are the most likely to be affected by what they see.

Our country can provide nutritious breakfasts to children in need of physical nourishment. Why are we allowing their minds to feed on only junk food?

MAUREEN BLOCK

Alta Loma