The Pornification of a Generation

[Samurai Waki]

I've thought on some of this, and as my daughters near their 2nd birthday in a couple of months, it seems to be that this proliferation of sexuality might be purely a societal "bump" in the road from decades of sexual repression. When I go to the store and see mothers toting around their ten year old daughters like they were some kind of brothel house madam trying to make a quick buck, I nod my head, take note and remind myself that this situation is beyond my control. At least they aren't getting stoned to death after the rape, because the site of them made a man feel like he needed to commit heinous adultery. And hey, maybe the mother of this child had a lot of fun in her early years, and now that shes a dried out burlap sack, believes her daughter should have fun being the village bicycle when she comes of age.
It doesn't mean that I will parent my daughters in the same way, I understand that children absorb everything they see, which is why my wife as well as myself believe that they need to get out as much as possible, away from the TV. And when they're actually old enough to understand whats on TV I'd rather have them watch Law and Order and have them watch Geico Commercials with funny neanderthals rather than Dora the Explorer, which runs Crack Whore Barbie Ads and so forth during commercial breaks.
I also believe in discipline, maybe as a natural extension of my own childhood. Yeah, I probably won't use the belt like I got, but ten minutes in the corner seems to be working well enough, other than that its kind of wait and see at this point and I hope to god that this really disturbing cultural trend passes sooner rather than later.

[Mouzafphaerre]

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 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.

.

.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Please define slut.

Not responding directly to Strike, but on the topic of "sluts";

Men who engage in non-monogamous and copious sexual activity are not shunned by society, and their activities rarely gain them such a negative label. In fact it is seen as a positive and healthy normal thing in most circles. Unless men are willing to hold themselves to the same standard (example: not having sex with anything that walks) then they are hypocrites for using such a term.

I would argue that I would rather live in a world populated by "sluts" to some extent, than a world populated by nuns. Rather than shunning sexuality, I would prefer we teach self-respect, self-restraint, moral lessons, maturity, safe sex, birth control, and the difference between lust and love to both men and women, instead of hold women to a higher standard whilst simultaneously demeaning them.

Ironic signature line.

[Fragony]

Why use words such as sluts, sex is a positive thing can't start early enough it's good for body and mind. Just teach them how to put on a condom and let them seek out their own way. If they want to have sex with a lot of partners so what really?

[Shaka_Khan]

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

How dare you dress her in attention-attracting colors! Dress her up in black and cover her face.

[Lemur]

How dare you dress her in attention-attracting colors! Dress her up in black and cover her face.

I know, I know, I dress her like a slut. I'm a bad dad, that's all there is to it.

[Papewaio]

I would argue that I would rather live in a world populated by "sluts" to some extent, than a world populated by nuns.

"I am a celibate monk, like my father and his father before him."

Kind of hard to have a world populated by just nuns for more then a generation.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Good band name: Nun Sluts

[Thermal]

lentil soup is vile!


oh and hi everyone


oh and i think all the little girls that are plastered with make up are doomed! mainly because over time make up ruins the skin so while they look good in there youth they be wrinkled to hell by the age of 40, oh and as always! 'I BLAME THE PARENTS!'

[The Celtic Viking]

(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.

One thing here interests me: what exactly do you mean when you say "sexual education"? It sounds to me like you're talking about abstinence education in particular, and that fails quite miserably no matter what society you live in for one simple reason: it goes against human nature. Our strongest instinct is the one that tells us to pass on our genes, which is done through sex, and it's so strong that it can even override our own survival instincts. What chance do you then think some religious nutjobs screaming "SEX IS EVIL!!!!" have to stop them?

What kids should be taught is to always use protection, and condoms should be given out for free, no questions asked. Why? Because teens will always have sex, and it's cheaper and better for the society at large to make sure they use the proper protection so they don't get pregnant or catch STDs. That works.

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).

I had action figures and played war with sticks as rifles all the time when I was a kid. I also watched a lot of action movies, played FPS games and killed tons of imaginary people. However, I can guarantee you that unless some country actually invades Sweden (hah!), you won't be seeing me doing anything like that for real any time soon.

What I'm saying is that sure, they can be influenced by people on the TV and people around them, but if the parents actually spend some time with their own damn kids and actually do some parenting, that could be eradicated, or at least limited to a negligible degree. The responsibility here lies with the parent, not to "shield" them from anything, but to explain things like sex properly to them.

What it all boils down to in the end is that children, just like puppies, need training. If you spend proper time with them and train their mental facilities, guess what? They won't fall for marketing that easily, because they will be smarter and they will be able to critically examine them for themselves. This will also make them, amongst other things, better able to withstand peer pressure, which would be another factor in this.

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?"

I don't really care, to be honest. People can dress up anyway they want. What's wrong with showing some skin anyhow?

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.

They are only likely not to understand what it is if you haven't explained it to them. Since they will come in contact with it sooner or later, you should do that, and then there will be no problem. In fact, I don't think it's a problem even if they see it without understanding it. I mean, seriously, what are we talking about here? Naked bodies? Sex? That's not harmful for a child to see. The objection to this really comes down to the grown-up being scared that the kid might lose what the grown-up idealizes as the "innocence of a child", not for any actual danger posed to the child itself.

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.

Good to hear, and that's what parents really should do. Mine did the same, although they didn't care about sparing any of that graphical stuff. Guess what? I wasn't hurt by that, either.

[AlexanderSextus]

One thing here interests me: what exactly do you mean when you say "sexual education"? It sounds to me like you're talking about abstinence education in particular, and that fails quite miserably no matter what society you live in for one simple reason: it goes against human nature. Our strongest instinct is the one that tells us to pass on our genes, which is done through sex, and it's so strong that it can even override our own survival instincts. What chance do you then think some religious nutjobs screaming "SEX IS EVIL!!!!" have to stop them?

What kids should be taught is to always use protection, and condoms should be given out for free, no questions asked. Why? Because teens will always have sex, and it's cheaper and better for the society at large to make sure they use the proper protection so they don't get pregnant or catch STDs. That works.

I had action figures and played war with sticks as rifles all the time when I was a kid. I also watched a lot of action movies, played FPS games and killed tons of imaginary people. However, I can guarantee you that unless some country actually invades Sweden (hah!), you won't be seeing me doing anything like that for real any time soon.

What I'm saying is that sure, they can be influenced by people on the TV and people around them, but if the parents actually spend some time with their own damn kids and actually do some parenting, that could be eradicated, or at least limited to a negligible degree. The responsibility here lies with the parent, not to "shield" them from anything, but to explain things like sex properly to them.

What it all boils down to in the end is that children, just like puppies, need training. If you spend proper time with them and train their mental facilities, guess what? They won't fall for marketing that easily, because they will be smarter and they will be able to critically examine them for themselves. This will also make them, amongst other things, better able to withstand peer pressure, which would be another factor in this.



I don't really care, to be honest. People can dress up anyway they want. What's wrong with showing some skin anyhow?



They are only likely not to understand what it is if you haven't explained it to them. Since they will come in contact with it sooner or later, you should do that, and then there will be no problem. In fact, I don't think it's a problem even if they see it without understanding it. I mean, seriously, what are we talking about here? Naked bodies? Sex? That's not harmful for a child to see. The objection to this really comes down to the grown-up being scared that the kid might lose what the grown-up idealizes as the "innocence of a child", not for any actual danger posed to the child itself.

Good to hear, and that's what parents really should do. Mine did the same, although they didn't care about sparing any of that graphical stuff. Guess what? I wasn't hurt by that, either.

I'm not saying that young children would be "hurt" by hearing about or seeing the more "graphic" parts of sex, Just that they would probably think it was really gross and they would probably be really disturbed by it for a while. Then when they got older they would probably laugh that it bothered them at all.

[Strike For The South]

Not responding directly to Strike, but on the topic of "sluts";

Men who engage in non-monogamous and copious sexual activity are not shunned by society, and their activities rarely gain them such a negative label. In fact it is seen as a positive and healthy normal thing in most circles. Unless men are willing to hold themselves to the same standard (example: not having sex with anything that walks) then they are hypocrites for using such a term.

I would argue that I would rather live in a world populated by "sluts" to some extent, than a world populated by nuns. Rather than shunning sexuality, I would prefer we teach self-respect, self-restraint, moral lessons, maturity, safe sex, birth control, and the difference between lust and love to both men and women, instead of hold women to a higher standard whilst simultaneously demeaning them.

Ironic signature line.

While that works in theory I don't think it will ever work in practice.

Don't get me wrong I wish we could reach that point but I believe it's impossible with the way we teach girls to be girls and boys to boys

Not to mention girls get a much sweeter deal.

[Fragony]

Americans are going to have a heart attack. Always fun reading about your country through other people's eyes.

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/l...cle5208865.ece

[Reverend Joe]

Americans are going to have a heart attack. Always fun reading about your country through other people's eyes.

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/l...cle5208865.ece

That actually sounds like a good idea. I think giving children a "normal" view of sex would really help to combat the incredibly warped views of it they get in marketing: if sex is just a normal, everyday part of life, it's a lot harder to exploit it.

[AlexanderSextus]

That actually sounds like a good idea. I think giving children a "normal" view of sex would really help to combat the incredibly warped views of it they get in marketing: if sex is just a normal, everyday part of life, it's a lot harder to exploit it.

REAL TALK!

[Fragony]

That actually sounds like a good idea. I think giving children a "normal" view of sex would really help to combat the incredibly warped views of it they get in marketing: if sex is just a normal, everyday part of life, it's a lot harder to exploit it.

Some parts of the article are exaggerated mind you, showing pappa's sperm isn't something that would be considered to be normal here, and the netherlands is mostly atheist but the general attitude is described pretty well. The dutch are hardcore calvinists when it comes to family and working ethics, and extremely relaxed when it comes to sex, enjoy but keep your cool.

[Reverend Joe]

Some parts of the article are exaggerated mind you, showing pappa's sperm isn't something that would be considered to be normal here

I... missed that part.

[Thermal]

it does seem silly how sex is seen as the 'unmentionable' subject, and that we should wait for eternity before intercourse, if this was 'gods' will then why would he give 13 year olds the ability to make babies?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

the netherlands is mostly atheist

Really?

[Thermal]

goodness people rely on facts and figures for everything, they can't accurately no how many belivers and atethists there are in every european country