The Pornification of a Generation

[Kekvit Irae]

(wow, my first backroom thread all to myself)

In my university's Humanities & Human Rights class, the topic of tonight was on sexuality and sexual education. The problem arose of why sexual education is not effective and/or why teens choose to be sexually active. The problem is not the lack of sexual education, but rather the capitalist need to market to any consumer base anything that will generate profit. Being part Marxist and part Fascist (a contradiction, I know), I tend to see the bad side of capitalism and the effects on society. Because of this, I have long since read several articles relating to this one subject.

Three articles which are required reading for any concerned parent or soon-to-be parent are So Sexy, So Soon: The Sexualization of Childhood in Commercial Culture, The Pornification of a Generation, and the report of the American Psychiatric Association's Sexualization of Girls. These articles argue that girls, as young as four to five, are exposed to sexual themes in every day living, from the slogans on the clothes they wear ("So Many Boys, So Little Time"), to the toys they play with (Bratz), to the cultural influences on TV (Madonna, Britney Spears, Hannah Montana), to the websites they visit (MySpace and Facebook).

Remember this when you go into the local Wal-Mart next time. Stop and look around, and try to find all the little things that work toward the sexualization of children. Now ask yourself, "Should my child even own this?" Or an even better question is, "Have I become desensitized to this to the point where I haven't even noticed it until now?"


The Pornification of a Generation: http://www.newsweek.com/id/162792/output/print
So Sexy, So Soon: The Sexualization of Childhood in Commercial Culture: http://www.tellinitlikeitis.net/2008...l-culture.html
Report of the APA Task Force of the Sexualization of Girls: http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/sexualization.html
The Porning of America (book): http://www.amazon.com/Porning-Americ...6631319&sr=1-1
So Sexy, So Soon (book): http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/d...345505064.html

[seireikhaan]

I fail to see how capitalism is the only factor here. Capitalism has existed for hundreds of years, in some function or another. Its more that, with information so readily available and easily transferable, parents have less and less of an impact as more sources of information are available to young(er) children. Not to mention, people used to marry off kids at ages most people would consider to be far to tender nowadays. Frankly, I think people tend to like to dramatize events and situations in their own lifetimes because they either don't fully comprehend fully the historical context of it, or because they like to feel like they are a part of an important movement. Color me nonplussed.

[Reverend Joe]

This is not just Captialism; true, it is caused by Capitalism, but in reaction to an opportunity. Capitalism has a disgusting habit of commercializing and destroying the meaning behind revolutionary social trends, and one of the two worst examples is listed here; the Sexual Revolution. The original ideals of individuality and strength in this movement have been subverted by Capitalism to market crass pornography, itself a part and reinforcer of conservative society. In a word, it's "Sexploitation."

Society can be real twisted.

[CrossLOPER]

Capitalism is bad because companies make what people want.

[Lemur]

I'm not going to get into what's capitalism's fault, 'cause I think it's much more important to ask where the hell the parents are?

I'm the father of a two year old girl, and as you can see, I dress her like a slut:

But seriously, I see the Bratz dolls, and I see the inappropriately sexy clothes on sale at Old Navy, but I always wonder: What idiot buys that stuff? Remember, kids have no credit cards or cash. They can't vote or hold a job. Anything they want has to come through you. So what kind of brain-dead nerf-catching drool monkey do you have to be to think it's a good idea to buy all of this sexualized **** for your little girl?

I guess you can't blame some people for being complete idiots ... oh, wait, you can.

[Strike For The South]

I fail to see how capitalism is the only factor here. Capitalism has existed for hundreds of years, in some function or another. Its more that, with information so readily available and easily transferable, parents have less and less of an impact as more sources of information are available to young(er) children. Not to mention, people used to marry off kids at ages most people would consider to be far to tender nowadays. Frankly, I think people tend to like to dramatize events and situations in their own lifetimes because they either don't fully comprehend fully the historical context of it, or because they like to feel like they are a part of an important movement. Color me nonplussed.

This. There really is a faux outrage over sex in this country. The age at which people marry are up. The number of teens having sex is down as are teen pregnancies. I fully back my corn fed friend here.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Capitalism is bad because companies make what people want.

Instead of the best path, which is, of course, making what the people should want, and don't?

This is obviously a problem. But the fault of capitalism? I disagree. Maybe to a certain extent, but the obvious problem is, as Lemur essentially stated, the idiots who buy the things for their children. Remember, no market, no merchandise.

[CrossLOPER]

Instead of the best path, which is, of course, making what the people should want, and don't?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_Systems

[Strike For The South]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_Systems

Explanations are fun

[CrossLOPER]

You didn't read at all, did you?

[Strike For The South]

You didn't read at all, did you?

Ea made a bad business decision what does this have to do with capitalism as a whole?

[CrossLOPER]

Ea made a bad business decision what does this have to do with capitalism as a whole?

It was a response to EMFM's post....

People SHOULD want to play games like System Shock. They WANT to play games like Halo.

[CountArach]

It was a response to EMFM's post....

People SHOULD want to play games like System Shock. They WANT to play games like Halo.

yep, because that is what our Corporate Ovrelords tell us.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I'm not going to get into what's capitalism's fault, 'cause I think it's much more important to ask where the hell the parents are?

I'm the father of a two year old girl, and as you can see, I dress her like a slut:

But seriously, I see the Bratz dolls, and I see the inappropriately sexy clothes on sale at Old Navy, but I always wonder: What idiot buys that stuff? Remember, kids have no credit cards or cash. They can't vote or hold a job. Anything they want has to come through you. So what kind of brain-dead nerf-catching drool monkey do you have to be to think it's a good idea to buy all of this sexualized **** for your little girl?

I guess you can't blame some people for being complete idiots ... oh, wait, you can.

Keep your name calling to yourself Lemur. My little sister is 8, and my parents have plenty of control of the "sexuality" aspect of her life (if there is such a thing). They've bought her a Bratz doll, which has little impact on her overall mentality. They're not idiots and have longer parenting experience then you. Remember to think before you insult people...especially as a mod.

[Strike For The South]

Keep your name calling to yourself Lemur. My little sister is 8, and my parents have plenty of control of the "sexuality" aspect of her life (if there is such a thing). They've bought her a Bratz doll, which has little impact on her overall mentality. They're not idiots and have longer parenting experience then you. Remember to think before you insult people...especially as a mod.

I dont think he meant your parents in particular man. If your parents are instilling good values (which Im sure they are) Im sure Lemur would be proud.

[Yoyoma1910]

Keep your name calling to yourself Lemur. My little sister is 8, and my parents have plenty of control of the "sexuality" aspect of her life (if there is such a thing). They've bought her a Bratz doll, which has little impact on her overall mentality. They're not idiots and have longer parenting experience then you. Remember to think before you insult people...especially as a mod.

No need to get so irate about a Bratz doll. It's just an obvious example of an oversexed marketing campaign aimed at youth.

[Crazed Rabbit]

yep, because that is what our Corporate Ovrelords tell us.

So you're not a free-will man, or a pre-determination man, but a believer in fate chosen by corporations? A corporationist?

Seriously, man, everyone's got free will. Yea, EA gets some big ad campaigns going. But that doesn't subvert free will. It just means the defenders of good gaming and good games have to make their case more forcefully. Similarly, parents shouldn't buy this stuff for their kids.

In response to the OP, I don't see capitalism as the problem, but the constant loosening of moral standards. A lot of it has gone hand-in-hand with the rise socially liberal views. Selling these products is the reaction to that, not the cause.

CR

[AlexanderSextus]

i agree that kids younger than 11 shouldnt be exposed to sexual stuff, but that's only because they are likely to not understand what it is, and if they are exposed to that kind of thing, it may mess with their head because it would seem strange to them and/or disgusting and would not have a good impact.

On the other hand, i do not agree with parents who try to shield their kids from sex as if it's such a horrible thing, like telling them babies come from the "stork" and such nonsense like that. My parents told me the truth about procreation the first time i asked them about it, when i was like 4 or 5. Of course this was done in the least graphic way possible without discarding the main idea of it, but my point is that it didnt cause any problems in my life or anything, and i didnt have to deal with eventually learning that my parents were lying to me the whole time.

I think that actually, once kids hit puberty, It's a good thing they are exposed to sex. Take for example, the idea that Catholic School Girls are actually usually easy to hook up with (i know this from experience... a bunch of my friends went with girls who went to an all-girl catholic school.) They dont get to see boys the entire day, most likely the school ONLY teaches abstinence, and their parents probably dont want them to have sex until they get married. This makes Sex into such a "forbidden fruit" type of thing, that they end up having sex more often than most girls their age would.

The easiest way to make someone do something, is to tell them they are not allowed to.

You know what's funny? My friend named Henry (who coincidentally was my Wing Chun Kung Fu teacher's son) works at an all girl catholic school, and he was getting off right after lunch that day. His friends came to pick him up, and they sat down for lunch in the cafeteria. As soon as they sat down to eat, they heard a bunch of girls say "BOYS?!?" And then they all started laughing.

The point here is that it's not such a bad thing if kids like 13 and up, watch porn, or engage in safe sex practices, because, 1. They will know how to be safe, use condoms, birth control pills, etc. and 2. Sex wont be such a big deal so most likely they wont do it as much.

[Xiahou]

But seriously, I see the Bratz dolls, and I see the inappropriately sexy clothes on sale at Old Navy, but I always wonder: What idiot buys that stuff? Remember, kids have no credit cards or cash. They can't vote or hold a job. Anything they want has to come through you. So what kind of brain-dead nerf-catching drool monkey do you have to be to think it's a good idea to buy all of this sexualized **** for your little girl?

I guess you can't blame some people for being complete idiots ... oh, wait, you can.

I agree. If people buy small children 'sexually charged' clothes and toys, they have no right to complain about children being over-sexualized. Parents have to take responsibility for their children- it's their job. No one is forcing them to buy that crap and if no one bought it, they wouldn't sell it.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Whilst I agree in principle with Lemur and Xiahou, I think we are in danger of ignoring the impact of modern marketing techniques.

People do have choices, but they are subject to immense marketing pressures from corporations and governments. Remember, our entire economic concept in the West is based on naked consumerism. Modern marketing uses very powerful techniques to manipulate desire, and when the ordinary person is surrounded by peer pressure to achieve status not contentment, and government pressure to consume not save, they will be a strong personality not to be influenced by the psychology.

I also find myself in agreement with Crazed Rabbit's morality argument. (I do not however, place the blame entirely on the liberals. ) We are a society which angers itself to apoplexy at the mere mention of paedophiles, yet daily our children are exposed to imagery and role models - particularly in popular music - which glorifies meaningless, abusive sexual relationships. At base, it is the parent's responsibility to moderate what the child sees and experiences, but how does one do this in the modern world? Deprive them of television, friends, the toy of the moment, the music of their generation etc? What happens when one's iron control is not present and they are out in the world?

Instilling moral values is a powerful defence, but the constant bombardment they experience is a deep concern.

Excellent thread, Kekvit.

[HoreTore]

More sex, eh?

How is this a bad thing?

As Jesus himself (almost) said; "Let all the sluts come to me."

[CountArach]

So you're not a free-will man, or a pre-determination man, but a believer in fate chosen by corporations? A corporationist?

Seriously, man, everyone's got free will. Yea, EA gets some big ad campaigns going. But that doesn't subvert free will. It just means the defenders of good gaming and good games have to make their case more forcefully. Similarly, parents shouldn't buy this stuff for their kids.

In response to the OP, I don't see capitalism as the problem, but the constant loosening of moral standards. A lot of it has gone hand-in-hand with the rise socially liberal views. Selling these products is the reaction to that, not the cause.

CR

I do believe that Corporations determine some of our future and our life that we can't even conceive, in fact in ways that Corporations don't even intend. However, my Corporate Overlord comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek... I guess the sort of thing people would expect me to say

The problem with large game corporations such as EA is that their relatively high income (compared to, say, Independent developers) means that they can throttle all the other competition regardless of how good their games are. Indie developers also have no outlet to "make their case more forcefully". How would you suggest they do that? Internet forums and free media? That is only ever going to reach a very limited audience and most of those it reaches will not be able to buy it because these Indie developers must either:
1) Only sell online OR
2) Price their games higher to make up for the fact they only have a small, dedicated, following.

That is where I believe the free-market has failed.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Whilst I agree in principle with Lemur and Xiahou, I think we are in danger of ignoring the impact of modern marketing techniques.

People do have choices, but they are subject to immense marketing pressures from corporations and governments. Remember, our entire economic concept in the West is based on naked consumerism. Modern marketing uses very powerful techniques to manipulate desire, and when the ordinary person is surrounded by peer pressure to achieve status not contentment, and government pressure to consume not save, they will be a strong personality not to be influenced by the psychology.

I also find myself in agreement with Crazed Rabbit's morality argument. (I do not however, place the blame entirely on the liberals. ) We are a society which angers itself to apoplexy at the mere mention of paedophiles, yet daily our children are exposed to imagery and role models - particularly in popular music - which glorifies meaningless, abusive sexual relationships. At base, it is the parent's responsibility to moderate what the child sees and experiences, but how does one do this in the modern world? Deprive them of television, friends, the toy of the moment, the music of their generation etc? What happens when one's iron control is not present and they are out in the world?

Instilling moral values is a powerful defence, but the constant bombardment they experience is a deep concern.

Excellent thread, Kekvit.

First off, great thread topic Kekvit. My family has been discussing this same subject in the aftermath of my step-daughter's recent 16th birthday. I find that the older I get the less I'm sure of anything as absolute. However, in answer to BQ's questions I'd have to say that communication with and listening to your children is crucial on topics such as these, especially the listening part. Lead by example, be the role model. Nothing closes a thinking child or teen's mind faster than a "Do as I say, not as I do" parental attitude. If they know they can come to you when they do screw up, and when asked "who their hero is" and they reply "my Mom & Dad".....you know your doing it right.
Gray hairs & some sleepless nights are part of the job.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I dont think he meant your parents in particular man. If your parents are instilling good values (which Im sure they are) Im sure Lemur would be proud.

Was more appalled about the fact that a seemingly mature mod was throwing insults this way and that. Directed at my parents or not they fall under his "idiot" category for buying a doll.

[Kekvit Irae]

It just wouldn't be a backroom topic without a healthy capitalism argument.

[Lemur]

Alexander, I assure you I was not singling out your parents as nerf-catching drool monkeys. If you would take another look at the post to which you responded, I said:

"I see the Bratz dolls, and I see the inappropriately sexy clothes on sale at Old Navy, but I always wonder: What idiot buys that stuff? Remember, kids have no credit cards or cash. They can't vote or hold a job. Anything they want has to come through you. So what kind of brain-dead nerf-catching drool monkey do you have to be to think it's a good idea to buy all of this sexualized **** for your little girl?"

So I listed three elements: Bratz dolls, inappropriately sexy clothes and sexualized ****. I don't much like the Bratz dolls, but they were the lesser part of the equation.

As for my being a "mature mod," I was posting in the Backroom long before I donned the robes, and I only have mod powers in the Frontroom, so don't go throwing my status in my teeth to try to shut me up. I would much rather abandon being a mod than give up the rough and tumble of the Backroom.

Going back to the overall topic ...

Capitalism? Only tangentially to blame. Liberalism? Only tangentially to blame. The biggest problem has been the re-definition of marriage and parenting over the last forty years, and for that all political parties are to blame. Crazed Rabbit, didn't you ever notice that the average Republican politician is on his second or third wife? What kind of message does that send? More importantly, what kind of damage has that Senator/Congressman/State Representative done at home by discarding his first wife like a used bike?

And the sexual revolution of the '60s bears a good bit of blame as well, for de-stigmatizing divorce and de-emphasizing responsibility.

Another problem is the "everybody holds down a job" economy. My wife and I have made the sacrifices necessary to make sure one of us is always home for the kids. Warehousing your children in a day care system is not the best way to ensure that they have high self-esteem and self-reliance. Having one parent at home, especially in the early years of development, is a good thing.

Gotta run, but I'll post more and defend the indefensible later.

[LittleGrizzly]

Being part Marxist and part Fascist

thats got to be complicated...

These articles argue that girls, as young as four to five, are exposed to sexual themes in every day living, from the slogans on the clothes they wear ("So Many Boys, So Little Time"),

That seems a bit much for a 4-5 year old to be wearing, i would say it would be ok for a teenager, it doesn't nessecarily refer to sex but having boyfriends...

In terms of the way they dress....

Having slogans such as the one above seems a bit much for anyone under the age of about 13 or 14 to me... but general slogans to do with having boyfriends rather than having sex is ok for me... i wouldn't really want my daughter wearing slogans that contain sexual innuendo until they were at least 16 or 18

Then things like tops which show off your belly button aren't too bad i think, i remember my 14 yr old cousin arguing with her parents that she should be allowed to wear such a top, i agreed with her then and i agree with her now... that being said i wouldn't my 14 year old wearing short skirts and things which show a bit of cleavage, but belly showing tops aren't so bad...

What exactly is wrong with bratz dolls ? from what i have seen they don't seem to different to barbie... which being more famous i would've assumed would be brought up instead, the clothes they wear don't seem to bad to me, the inclusion of ken not really a sexual things more just making it all a more realistic game of house, girls like to play homemaker well boys like to play fighting (generally) so girls are going to have the types of toys they dress up and get boyfriends... this is unless bratz dolls are especially slutty (i think i have seen one once...)

In terms of music and idols, not sure on this one, whereas i would say most pre teens wouldn't really get the messages in the music i suppose they would understand the images somewhat...

[naut]

Thank you Banquo, you put it much more eloquently than I ever could.



I don't see capitalism as the only reason behind the current growing trend of sexualisation. Though marketing, and cultural noise/pollution, can play a major, major role in decision making. After all that is what it is designed for, to get consumers to make purchases, to choose one product, or benefit, over another. A key question has to be whether pornification, or porn culture, is a fashion or a style? Is it something like bell-bottom jeans, something that lasts for a couple of years and fades away. Or does it linger, like tuxedos or cigars. My inclination is that it'll linger, because it is so profitable. Hormones and emotions are effective marketing. How does Michelin sell tyres? Not by advertising the quality of their product, but by instilling the fear that if you don't you risk the lives of your loved ones. How does Clearasil market itself? By telling you that without it you'll never get a date. The industry(ies) know they have a powerful tool at their disposal, so why wouldn't they use it? If I was to run a advertising campaign for my product, and I had to choose between emotional or cognitive marketing, I'd choose emotional marketing every, single, time. Simple.

But to blame it on the system is far, far to easy. Hell, I'd call that cultural suicide. Yet, isn't that what our society, this society, does anyway? They always find someone else to blame. Parent's should hold themselves more accountable. At the end of the day who spends the money, and makes the purchases, the parents. So why don't they ever stop and think, "Hmm, this is not exactly appropriate for my little Princess, I think I'll get something else." Yes, cultural pressure is being exerted on them, yes, they feel the need to satisfy a want. But, what want is it? It's not true want, it's a want for status, for acceptance. And again we come back to emotions. And yet, besides the fact that the parents control the money and the purchases their children make, (or at least they should), why is it that they aren't acting as influencers in their children's lives. Shouldn't they be working to be role models for their children? Perhaps they lack the time, or the effort, or they plain don't know how to. Yet, look at other issues, there are political movements for pretty much anything. But, before this thread I hadn't noticed much cuffufle at all. That's not to say that I advocate such an idea as parent's forcing their ideas on their children, or to quote Samuel Goldwyn, "If I want your opinion, I'll give it to you." Because in the end that's just as dangerous. But, parents should teach their children to question, to question and seek no matter who or what they hear something from. Sad though, it seems, that parents fail to do so, and misunderstand that it is their job to do so.

From personal experience you don't need to go to a shop to see the extent. Simply walk into a school. Walk in and look around. Here, at least we have uniforms. But, non-uniform days, you'd be lucky to see 20% of the girls wearing what my parents would label "respectable clothing". I'm not saying that every girl was wearing high heels and a miniskirt. But, short skirts and midriff "tube tops" are pretty much the norm. I remember hearing stories of the girls several years below myself being sexually active at the ages of thirteen and fourteen, and it was fairly obvious in the manner in which they acted and portrayed themselves that they were. I remember friends complaining that they were still virgins at the age of fifteen and sixteen. Complaining that it was some sort of disadvantage to them. Which, is complete rubbish, since at that age, for all the porn you may have seen, you are hardly able to have sex, let alone good sex. I lost my virginity young, and looking back it is fairly obvious that I was desensitised to it all. And, a lot of it has to do with the pressure from peers, and the lack of understanding by my role models, my mentors, that for us kids it was a big and confusing issue. I don't think they really grasped what it was we were facing. They didn't listen, or perhaps, rather they didn't want to listen. It wasn't until later, when I got some more adept mentors, who had lived a little, that I started to understand.

But, it's not just that. I've noticed how hard it is to get a lasting relationship. Yes I'm young, and yes I should be living a little. I get it. But, of the relationships I've had there's only three that I'd bother to label the girl involved as being my girlfriend. Three. People always say it's guys that don't want commitment, but is that really true? From personal experience girls, since the time I started being interested in them, seem to not want a real relationship. One example, my friends were trying to set me up with this girl they knew from Uni, an attractive girl sure. But, it's not that they thought we were a good match, or that we'd like each other. Their reasoning, and I quote one of my friends, "You'll have awesome sex." But, guess who said that, it wasn't a male friend it was one of my female friends. And who was doing the majority of the forcing, my female friends. Odd that we always assume that it's just the males who objectify women.



Oh, and I'm considering doing a Marketing Major, so in essence it's all my fault.

[yesdachi]

Sex is everywhere. Long before TV and the capitalistic movement of sexual imagery, a little girl saw mom kissing dad and went to school the next day and tried to kiss little Timmy. It doesn’t take a corporate marketing plan to get people, even children interested in amorous behavior. It doesn’t help that we are bombarded by sexually charged advertising but what does it really hurt if we are good parents and friends and raise our kids right. Little girls are going to watch Sleeping Beauty and want to have a little boy kiss them or they are going to watch Bratz and want to have a little boy kiss them. There were sluts and prudes 50 years ago and there are sluts prudes now, I think our animosity towards sex is half of what makes kids want to explore it once an opportunity arises. They always say it’s the Preachers daughter that is the wildest (I have meet a couple).

A relatively open attitude about everything keeps you and your kids balanced, try and shut something out and that will be the first thing your kids go after, just ask Pandora.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yes, "forbidden fruit" is a component in sexuality. A parent ends up having to balance this factor with all of the others.

There are, I believe, two issues which exacerbate this "sexualization:"

1. The tone/character of pop music (notably hip-hop/rap), and

2. The nearly ubiquitous nature of internet porn.

Both have their place in the milieu of expression.

Nothing is inherently wrong with a song that addresses, with specificity, the sexual character of relationships. It his a "realness" to it that earlier songs did no more than allude to. Challenging norms and exploring the "gritty" side of reality has long been a component of artistic expression.

Pornography is accepted as a norm of sexual entertainment in many cultures, with members of both sexes perusing such material. As art, it generates a mostly visceral response, but in some instances can appeal to "higher" level artistic expression even while being explicitly sexual.


But the internet, the television, and the airwaves mean that these influences are a constant component of almost every child's life from the moment they reach an age where they can begin to comprehend the subject of sex (7-10 for a start?). It is almost impossible for a parent to completely divorce their children from exposure to such influences and NOTHING is more interesting to children than those things that are interesting to their older sibs and parents.


What to do about it is the 64k question....and I don't think I have a better answer than those put forward.