Well I'll say this much - it's quite sad when I go to the mall with my friends and see kids who are 11-12 years old (my friends and I are all between 19 and 22) dressing FAR more provocatively than we ever would in public.
But a lot of this problem IS with the parents. A girl that age is not going to be buying things with her own money, it's money she gets from mommy and daddy.
Originally posted by Lana
Well I'll say this much - it's quite sad when I go to the mall with my friends and see kids who are 11-12 years old (my friends and I are all between 19 and 22) dressing FAR more provocatively than we ever would in public.But a lot of this problem IS with the parents. A girl that age is not going to be buying things with her own money, it's money she gets from mommy and daddy.
Agreed but the sexualisation of minors is more than just the products available, children or parents Lana, Society itself is blurring a dangerous line in the 80's Sam Fox was the youngest page 3 girl at 16. A few years ago a girl was in the "Sport" went topless on her 16th Birthday! The paper published this and lots of men purchased it. Peter Stringfellow had a 16 year old lover about 10 years ago. Priscilla Prsley was 14 and Elvis was 24. That's not so unusual in the history of rock and roll.
Jerry Lee Lewis married his underage cousin.
Bill Wyman of The Rolling Stones began his relationship with Mandy Smith when she was just 13.
Then there are all the stories of rock stars' liaisons with legions of underage groupies.
'It goes with the territory' seems to be the attitude and this has now started to pervade society at a deeper level. But is there a whiff of double standards here? Today many people are prosecuted for underage sex that occurred thirty or more years ago as a result of a combination of police trawling operations and the compensation culture. Perhaps if they were famous singers they would just be described as having had colourful and unconventional sex lives.
Then, of course, there are the allegations against Michael Jackson and, in Britain, the conviction and jailing of Jonathan King. These last two cases raise the question of whether even people in the pop industry are judged differently if the objects of their affections are boys rather than girls.
Two British pop stars who did fall foul of the law were Gary Glitter and Pete Townsend. In both these cases it was for looking at pornography rather than actually having underage sex. However Glitter is going about it now )allegedly).
Of course, it may be that Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis and Bill Wyman didn't have sex with their underage partners until they reached the age of consent. Or if the three of them had lived in Spain it wouldn't have been a problem because there the age of consent is 12. Then there are the Russian preteen and teen models. 🙁
Old but interesting here:
Originally posted by Cyber Ninja
Thats just sick Whirly yeah we are in the crap hole. Wait a sec i will just remember something AC said hmmm, It's none of our business on what they do and thats the parents and the girls business so we should not care and just stay out of it.
Oh for Christ's sake, do try to be not so whiney. I said it about abortions, either go and debate in that thread, or don't debate at all.
If you're going to continually and purposefully misinterpret my words, at least misinterpret them in the correct context, or just don't do it. I've made it clear to you on many grounds what I meant.
That said, it IS nobody's business what Pete Townshend looks at on his computer. You might be looking at things I don't personally agree with, vice versa for anyone, it doesn't give me the right to tell you what to do. Though it's clear you've already made up your mind and will continue on your blinkered path of purposeful misinterpretation.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriHow does that not apply here ? is it not there business ? or is it their business when you feel like it ?
Oh for Christ's sake, do try to be not so whiney. I said it about abortions, either go and debate in that thread, or don't debate at all.If you're going to continually and purposefully misinterpret my words, at least misinterpret them in the correct context, or just don't do it. I've made it clear to you on many grounds what I meant.
That said, it IS nobody's business what Pete Townshend looks at on his computer. You might be looking at things I don't personally agree with, vice versa for anyone, it doesn't give me the right to tell you what to do.
-AC
Originally posted by Cyber Ninja
Thats just sick Whirly yeah we are in the crap hole. Wait a sec i will just remember something AC said hmmm, It's none of our business on what they do and thats the parents and the girls business so we should not care and just stay out of it.
✅
There is a restaurant right down the street from where I work and the theme is ......................tada catholic school girls (all over 18 they serve alcohol) so they wear catholic uniform skirts and shoes.
At the end of the day we do become responsible for what is accepted and allowed it just so happens to much bong resin has slowed our judgements🙂
Originally posted by soleran30HA none of our business so lets stay out of it 😖hifty:
✅There is a restaurant right down the street from where I work and the theme is ......................tada catholic school girls (all over 18 they serve alcohol) so they wear catholic uniform skirts and shoes.
At the end of the day we do become responsible for what is accepted and allowed it just so happens to much bong resin has slowed our judgements🙂
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
It's a complex issue. Society seems to naturally oppose itself whenever this arises.The Brass Eye special is the best contemporary commentary on the subject, as well as being very funny.
The brass eye special was intersting and highly amusing (I will never forget Andy Peters lol), but dealt more with the moral panic aspect of pedophilia VVD.
I hate to say this cuz many will take issue, but a lot of the transformation of our society--particularly where sex is concerned--is profit-driven.
Prior to the 1960s, society was sexually repressive (TV couples sleeping in separate beds, for example). Then came the 60s "revolution" with the naive dream of beginning a whole new, free-thinking world, and a lot of good was accomplished (civil rights, eg). Our society became sexually progressive, and for a while this was good.
Then the flower children grew up and discovered the world doesn't change so easily, so fast. It became easier to "join them" rather than "beat them," and the Decade of Greed--the 1980s--was upon us.
Since then--especially with the fall of communism--the Favor of Capitalism has grown, and limits of decency and common-sense were gradually pushed back, more and more, using the time-honored message of sex to sell. The Almighty Dollar grew mightier; nearly anything was justified as long as it raked in profit. With regard to sex, in the last 25 years, we have become, increasingly, sexually obsessive.
The above, of course, is a very simplified account. Bottom Line: we think we've become sexually sophisticated as a society. But by pushing sex and youth, Big Business has brain-washed the population-at-large into thinking there is a Big Party going on out there--orgasms for all--if we pursue the illusion advertising throws at us through every medium: the illusion that everyone can be young, rich, good-looking, and free sex at every turn.
Again, I am presenting an overly simplified perspective, and many will nit-pick at it. Knock yerselves out. But things will get worse until people Wake Up.
Thanks for listening.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Indeed. With which aspect are you currently enamoured?
You see thats the problem this thread is not about pedophilia per se, it's about the pervasive sexualisation of children and its ramifications on children and adults. Objectification, avertisments obsession with youth, little girls choosing to wear thongs at 8 and manufacturers making them for them. Girls as young as ten aspiring to be Jordan etc. What this all means to society etc.
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
You see thats the problem this thread is not about pedophilia per se, it's about the pervasive sexualisation of children and its ramifications on children and adults. Objectification, avertisments obsession with youth, little girls choosing to wear thongs at 8 and manufacturers making them for them. Girls as young as ten aspiring to be Jordan etc. What this all means to society etc.
I think even here the moral outrage and hysteria element is a major aspect, because it's not as if thong use is endemic among children- although, it's definitely something that wouldn't have happened however many years back.
It's a strange issue. Obviously children can't manufacture their own thongs. I think it may be as simple as (I've just realised the following phrasing isn't that simple after all) an ascending dialectic between sexualisation and sexual repression.
Originally posted by soleran30
lets also not forget how the internet facilitates young girls like that Whirly! Everyone has heard of the internet predators and such which is another by product of these young girls trying to grow into their "images" alot faster then say 18.
Oh yes MSN and Yahoo, Faceparty etc undoubtedly provide dangerous avenues of exploration my friend.