Inappropriate content shown to a child. Help me deal with it.

[ThisHasToStop]

So, this evening my husband decides to show my 7y old daughter a new clip from Sia (elastic heart).

I am fuming. He's been known to do this before. Last time was on Christmas day, Avatar, in my absence (I was driving to bring family to ours). I previously said that I can reluctantly agree to the 10y old watching this with an adult (so my husband), but said clearly this is not OK for 7y old DD. Most upsetting similar example was Grave of the Fireflies, which he was showing to DD when she was 6. I stopped it after 15mins but even so she still had nightmares associated with the grim content.

But Sia for me takes this to a whole new level. Previous clip (Chandelier) was unsettling enough, and already had sexual subtext. But this one is just paedophilia.

DD didn't seem interested in the clip, so confronting there and then in front of the kids didn't seem like a good idea to me. Then I had to leave, and when came back, husband was already asleep. So the difficult conversation will happen tomorrow. Not a bad thing, gives me time to prepare.

For context, relationship is in a bad state anyway. But at this point I'm asking for help with framing the difficult discussion.

Also considering educating DD on what's appropriate. Even if she is not strong enough to confront daddy, then at least she'll have some nagging voice in her head about what's right. She already knows about movie ratings.

Sigh.

I have just watched the clip. I have deliberately not read any of the posts afterwards yet, because I wanted to give you my option, without being swayed.

To me it looks like a daughter and her father. They are playful & argumentative. Not remotely sexual.

I would have no issue with children watching this or doing this dance,

I do not see how you get anything sexual out of it at all.

They are not dressed to be sexually naked, the are dressed to be natural/raw.

It's not my kinds of music or video, but it's perfectly fine.

I'm interested to see what others have said now.

I watched the video, not having read anything about it, or any of the above comments, and I knew within a minute or so that it represented a father and a daughter.

I found it very moving indeed, and quite beautiful. Perhaps your husband was moved by it, too?

For the record, I have a 12 year old son and an 18 year old daughter, and I would have been fine about both of them viewing this video. In fact, I would have liked to have asked what they thought of it, and what they felt it was about/ how feelings were being expressed.

It is a gift for your daughter to see and try to make sense of art :)

I watched a bit of the Sia (elastic heart) and found it very troubling.

I find it very strange that people can call something 'art' and that somehow makes it OK in some people's eyes. Or because someone is a professional dancer it is OK.

I wouldn't want to watch it myself let alone show it to a young child.

What you choose to do is up to you but personally I don't think you are overrating to find this inappropriate to show to a 7 year old.

Avatar was a film I loved but it got a 12 rating. I think in the USA it got a PG13.

7 is a long way off 12.

Also if your dd had nightmares after seeing another film it is understandable you do not want her to watch scary films.

Looking at these www.commonsensemedia.org/movie-reviews/grave-of-the-fireflies and www.imdb.com/title/tt0095327/parentalguide I am not sure how anyone would think this was a film appropriate for young children.

• edit: meant either of my children seeing this video at age 7.

this one is just paedophilia
having watched the video i think you are seriously over-exaggerating and being melodramatic.

the female dancer (maddie) is 12, yes. she is dressed in the same way female gymnasts are dressed - both when in training and in public performances. the amount of 'bare' flesh and dance 'movements' are very similar to both gymnastics and figure skaters - are you saying female gymnastics and figure skating is paedophilia too?

personally, i think either you have underlying issues in your relationship and this is just a convenient 'excuse' to throw at him....or you've just read the article in the paper (like i did yesterday luckily) and are creating a bit of 'entertainment' for yourself.

here's the link: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/11/sia-video-pop-music-not-paedophilia

some quotes from link:

Sia says about her video: “I anticipated some ‘paedophilia!!!’ cries for this video. All I can say is Maddie and Shia are two of the only actors I felt could play these two warring ‘Sia self states’”, adding that her intention was to “create some emotional content, not to upset anybody”.

The writer of the article says: " I realised that the intensity (Sia’s “emotional content”) was the reason it was jarring – the mere fact that the video wasn’t carefully benign, cheaply titillating or just plain boring, like so much else in the genre. In Elastic Heart, the grown man and the young girl are alive with feelings for each other, running the gamut from amusement and play through to fury to despair. What isn’t there is sexuality. In fact, it baffles me how anyone could look seriously at Elastic Heart and claim to see any sexual content whatsoever"

As for Avatar (rated PG-13), ok maybe it isn't appropriate for her age but hardly traumatising and not that much more violent in content when compared to a lot of 'kids' cartoons and movies. i think it more inappropriate and worrying about the message it sends to teach your child to believe in santa clause - a stranger who bribes them with gifts and secretly enters the safety of a childs home in the middle of the night. (i don't really but you get the jist)

I can't believe there are fully grown adults around that think flesh-coloured leotard is automatically portraying nudity. In Chandelier, if she were wearing anything else (even a different colour leotard) it would distract from the dancing and be (at least a little bit more) about what she is wearing.

I'm with you, Smilla.

Miley Cyrus twerking on a bloke with her butt cheeks hanging out is intrinsically sexually suggestive.

Plain flesh-coloured leotards are not.

I think you are the one with the issue, OP.

Exactly, Smillas.

In dance, theatre and art (as in life...) colour is steeped in meaning. The nude outfits, in this case, could mean two things. Either they are meant to be utterly neutral to allow complete focus on the content of the dance and the moving bodies, or (and?!) they are intended to communicate the purity and 'naturalness' that is the father/daughter relationship - the first relationship with the opposite sex that a woman experiences.

This terminology may make some people uncomfortable, but the truth of human relationships is that we learn from our parents, and then form our own sexual relationships when we become mature. I had a good and fulfilling relationship with my own father, and I note that my husband has many similarities with him. This doesn't equal sexual attraction to one's parents! It equals a close relationship with deep love. That is what I see in this dance.

SmillasSenseOfSnow Apparently Sia herself said about her video: “I anticipated some ‘paedophilia!!!’ So it may not really come as such a surprise that people saw that in the video. Surely?

When the video starts it does (IMHO) look as if they are naked. The leotards could have been grey, black or white or any other neutral colour and not looked like flesh on these actors.

He is 28 and she is 12, I know that technically lots of people could be dad's at 16 but it doesn't automatically look like a father daughter relationship from the outset. I think it is intentionally ambiguous.

The article linked to contains this....

"The video is jarring. Famously troubled LaBeouf and Ziegler dance around, wrestling, attacking, playing. At one point, LaBeouf holds Ziegler aloft; at another, he tries to stroke her and she kicks and hisses to get away. Elsewhere, Ziegler wraps her tiny limbs around LaBeouf in a feral grip... In Elastic Heart, the grown man and the young girl are alive with feelings for each other, running the gamut from amusement and play through to fury to despair. What isn’t there is sexuality. In fact, it baffles me how anyone could look seriously at Elastic Heart and claim to see any sexual content whatsoever."

The fact that the writer above there doesn't see it is sexual is their own opinion and of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

But I think it is intentionally ambiguous. I am equally surprised anyone else watching a child and a grown man dancing in a big cage in flesh coloured leotards in this manner can't believe it could be viewed as sexual.

Grey, black and white are not neutral colours in theatre. White is often seen as virginal, good, pure. Grey can mean depression, drudgery...the villain is invariably in black...you get the idea.

Labeouf is portraying a character. He is not as himself. He has a full beard in the piece and could easily pass for 40. If he looked like that in a film, playing the girl's dad, I can't see it being unbelievable.

Isn't it a music video? Are people watching it working out what colour the leotard is thinking it has some big meaning? The cage is white!

ThisHasToStop I am off to bed now. I hope you find some answers that help you from others.

Obviously whatever you think of this particular music video or the other one or the films mentioned you and your husband need to work out the issues about what you both feel is appropriate for your children to see.

I know it is not always easy to agree on these things but hopefully if he understands how strongly you feel even if he does not agree with you, he can at least understand why you feel that way.

Lots of kids watched Harry Potter but my friend's kit saw it when he was young and had nightmares. It's not helpful for kids to see things that are too scary, it doesn't make them less scared of things (IMHO) it actually makes them wary. And all kids are different and will find different things scary. But figuring out what is right for your kids at whatever stage is a big task and whatever you do in your marriage you will both (IMHO) need to figure this one out.

All the best.

I googled the references you mentioned, and think you are massively over-reacting.

This, I do find more worrying than watching avatar or a pop video with a 7 year old. "Even if she is not strong enough to confront daddy, then at least she'll have some nagging voice in her head about what's right." Makes you sound a bit deranged to be honest.

Yes he was stupid, but it sounds as if you are looking for a reason to pick a fight with him...

I had not heard of Sia until I read this thread, so I have just watched the video

I totally agree with you OP that its inappropriate for your DD, infact I felt sick watching it as they did look naked at the start, and throughout.

I have just watched the Elastic Heart video. I do find it rather unsettling, and whatever Sia intended it to represent, there is no doubt whatsoever that if you were told it represented an adult male trapped/tormented by his sexual attraction to a prepubescent female who teases him and baits him' you'd go 'yeah, right, I can totally see that.' As a performance it's beautiful and powerful, but the message is definitely ambiguous and could be construed as something very sinister I think.

However, I am sure that angle would be totally lost on a six year old girl. I'm a bit concerned about why a man would want to 'show' his young child this though. Letting her see it without panicking is one thing, but actually proactively show it to her? Why would you do that? I'm not saying his motives are sexual, but his motives are slightly odd, don't you think?

Anyway, about Avatar you are being utterly ridiculous. And about the Grave of the Fireflies, I'll have to reserve judgment as I haven't seen it, but I take censorship ratings with a pinch of salt. They are incredibly inconsistent and based on a tick box formula that is a bit of a blunt instrument. I take the view that if in doubt, watch the film first, then allow your child to watch it if and when you think it's appropriate. I've seen many a PG film that should have been a 12 in my opinion, and vice versa.

Italiangreyhound - "I am equally surprised anyone else watching a child and a grown man dancing in a big cage in flesh coloured leotards in this manner can't believe it could be viewed as sexual."

I saw it as not remotely sexual, and only by reading from this thread have I understood it to be inspired by the musician's relationship with, and dealing with the MH issues of, her father.

I saw the 'struggle' at the start as something showing even a smaller opponent can have strengths and abilities to outwit another, using her flexibility to suggest how she could reign blows on him at almost any time in the piece. I've watched it perhaps 6 times now (and of course with 33m views in 4 days, any controversy from threads like this simply serve to make the hit count higher!)

I don't remember him 'overpowering' her, pinning her down, manoeuvring to exploit his strength and force her to do much... He showed he wanted to be a trusted, gentle, friend, when he dropped from the top of the cage, while she was still on her guard, and ready to hiss, snarl and fight him, and did so.

She was almost like a matador, with a bull, when she taunted him and then leapt out of the cage, ie she was the powerful one, despite his size.

I think there was one 15-20 second piece where he held and lifted her, and I saw that as being the acting of a child and parent, but I don't recall anything remotely sexual in nature, apart from him touching her chest (where he could perhaps have touched her cheek) in that portion after he dropped from the top of the cage - but in any case she reacted by moving away, and was soon into the snarling 'fight' character again.

Perhaps you could enlighten me on those problem pieces that you saw so clearly, as I'm 'blind' to an implied sexual aspect. Thanks.

I've just watched the sia video and I would definitely class it as art. I did expressive dancing from the age of about nine and often danced with males much older than myself (there were few males my age), and there was never anything sexual about it. Many other emotions were inferred, and the moves were often very similar to that video.

I'd say your problem is with your dh more than the pop video. Do you really think he would purposely show your dd inappropriate content? Because if you do, and you think his motives behind this are paedophilia, then I don't think your marriage has any future I'm afraid.

But please be careful before jumping to conclusions - it could be that your husband merely doesn't view these things the way you do and therefor has no ill intentions whatsoever.

So we seem to have a situation where most would, but some wouldn't, be OK with the Sia video.

I'm not sure that takes you anywhere further forward other than to appreciate that your conversation with your DH needs to be a more nuanced one than perhaps you were expecting.

Why do you think your DH has repeatedly shown your child content that is ambiguous in its suitability? Possibilities include (they will be many more than just these): he doesn't see any ambiguity; he sees the ambiguity but thinks she will enjoy them on a 7 year old's level and the adult messages will safely go over her head; she has asked him about (for example) the Sia video and he wanted to have a sensible conversation with her; he's careless in selecting videos but there's no malice; he's doing it go annoy you; he has some odd ideas that she needs to toughen up.

A lot hinges on his motivations, IMO.

TBH, I think this is all about your relationship. He is being disrespectful in not accommodating your concerns about content, even if he does this you're overreacting; you're being disrespectful about his parenting choices.

Cinnabar has hit the nail on the head.

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING sexual about Sia's video.

If you read the background to it, it is her interpretation of living with a father who suffers mental illness & how she can escape (when she finally leaves the cage, but he can't (bars are too close together to enable his exit) but how she tries (in vain) to free him, and her anger at him & his illness.

Please educate yourself before you shout paedophilia about something that is very innocent & in fact, heartbreaking!

This guy really doesn't look like her (girl's) father though, does he? And doesn't act like one. Which is the actual POINT of the video!! That he father didn't act like he was her father, because he was/is mentally ill. And how, despite everything, she was a little girl who wished beyond anything that she could free him.

It's heartbreaking. Especially if you can relate to it in some way!

Sia admitted she expected paedophilia comments, so association was obvious even to her, no? No, it just meant that she knew sick people would twist it into something is isn't! Which is actually very sad!

Arguing over their ages is stupid, Sia choose people to portray her & her her father, she choose people who she felt represented them well. Their ages actually have NOTHING to do with the parts they are playing.

It's ambiguous as the girl appears to be wearing a stripper wig. That's what makes you feel that the girl is being sexualised IMO.

The man is not supposed to represent her father. It's two sides of herself apparently.

Well done Sula on the free publicity for your (disguised as 'art') sick video...
You knew exactly what you were doing and the reaction it would get..

I don't know what paedophile videos look like. I just watched the video muted (kids still asleep) and it looked like a weird ballet type dance. Nothing inappropriate. Hella boring though.

You obviously haven't seen nicki MinAj's Anaconda video. Watch that and rethink about inappropriate videos.