Cultural decline: Teens broadcast nudity to compete for attention
posted at 12:25 pm on May 5, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Bare midriffs and piercings apparently haven’t made teenagers provocative enough to compete with celebrities for local attention. According to the University of Minnesota, teenage girls have begun using personal-networking technology to send nude pictures of themselves to their friends, emulating the sexualization they see in the national media. One local case has already resulted in arrests:
Using her cell phone, a high school girl sends nude photos of herself to boyfriends that wind up printed and distributed in the boys’ locker room at Hudson (Wis.) High School. Two boys accused of doing it are charged with defaming her character. The girl tells police she is devastated.
More teenagers today are feeling pressure to create larger identities for themselves like the celebrities they see depicted in national media, said Laurie Ouellette, a communication studies professor and reality TV expert at the University of Minnesota. In an era where teens aim to increase their list of “friends” on social networking sites, that can mean flashing nudity in an effort to compete for attention.
“The price is that you have to define yourself in the same kind of terms that celebrities are defined,” said Ouellette, who thinks the emphasis on misbehaving celebrities bodes poorly for teens who see them as role models.
Whether it’s photos of singing sensation Miley Cyrus shirtless and draped in a sheet for a magazine shoot or images of Twin Cities high school students drinking at a house party, more teens are discovering the enduring — and unforgiving — nature of technology.
Observers of young people who show their skin on cell phones and social networking websites say parents and schools should be alarmed at the trend. The Hudson case, they say, is an example of a larger problem sweeping the country that involves girls and boys pressured into sexuality, made easy by fingertip technology that turns their bodies and behavior into public information.
Gee, I wonder where teenage girls get the idea that they have to shed their clothes for attention? It didn’t start with Miley Cyrus; Brooke Shields made an unforgettable commercial almost 30 years ago at the age of 15, saying, “You want to know what comes between me and my Calvins? Nothing.” The sexualization of teens and pre-teens continues today with the execrable Bratz Girls dolls and a national media that cannot let children have a childhood.
The latest trend shows that teenagers listen and respond to the deluge of messages that pressure them into cheapening their sexuality into a brand. The technology itself isn’t the problem. Its easy access allows for more compulsive decisions, but it’s the decisions themselves that prove so worrisome.
That’s why the response from the Minnesota researcher really doesn’t address the underlying issue. Ouellette wants schools to teach about the dangers of the technology and how broadcasting one’s peccadilloes can come back to haunt them. The real lesson should be that one’s sexuality should be considered private, and that the exploitation of it for attention — regardless of the technology used — will damage the girls far more than any potential attention will boost their fragile egos. Unfortunately, the popular culture wants to continue to define deviancy down and sell trampiness as liberation at younger and younger ages, and the popularity of the Bratz Girls and the rest of the promiscuity industry shows that parents haven’t taken much responsibility for teaching that lesson themselves.
Update: South Park had a rather trenchant take on the pseudo-feminist rationalizations used by those who patronize these products (mildly NSFW):
Unfortunately, they dilute their moral message by having this episode sponsored by Grand Theft Auto IV. Otherwise, it perfectly skewers the supposedly liberating experience of exploitation. (h/t: Jim Rose)
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
Grand Theft Auto IV is also guilty. The big problem with these things is adults don’t have a second thought before making the purchase. We have a society full of irresponsible behavior. And that behavior is celebrated.
kirkill on May 5, 2008 at 12:31 PM
In my younger years, we TP’d houses for attention.
Now, nudity seems to be the way to get it.
How sickening.
madmonkphotog on May 5, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Parents.
If you don’t have ‘em, or they aren’t good, life is exponentially tougher.
That sums up most of the problems in our society today.
VolMagic on May 5, 2008 at 12:35 PM
It’s puberty that sexualizes teens. The problem is the pornification and whorification.
exception on May 5, 2008 at 12:35 PM
That’s because she’s horribly naive. What made her think those pictures would stay private?
I don’t even understand the charges against the boys. How is it defamation to show a picture that was willingly taken to other people?
She’s learning this lesson the hard way, and hopefully other girls will pay attention.
Sexual morals tend to go in cycles. With all of this filth disgusting normal Americans, I fear we’re headed for a Puritanical revolution.
Esthier on May 5, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Esthier on May 5, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Lets hope she actually learned her lesson!
I am betting she really didn’t.
upinak on May 5, 2008 at 12:37 PM
We were rebels!
Mom and Dad are too busy getting titillated by TV and Hollywood. Easier to let the kids do their own thing. What are best friends for anyway?
Limerick on May 5, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Nail on Head Ed. I guess the only thing you can do is hope that your kids respect your opinion of them more than their peer’s. Either that or pack up and move to Montana…
blankminde on May 5, 2008 at 12:39 PM
This again.
It’s a video game that isn’t sold to children. If children have it, then their parents bought it for them.
Blaming this game for the pornification of children makes as much sense as blaming Playboy or alcohol.
Esthier on May 5, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Why do you “fear” that? It won’t ever go as far as “Puritanical”, but a bit of Prudence as a positive thing would go a LONG way to stem the tide of social ills created by the current course we’re on.
kirkill on May 5, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Pretty sure I at least implied that Adults do buy it and let under 17 kids play it. If you think that’s not happening, A LOT, then your head is in the sand.
kirkill on May 5, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Could be wishful thinking on my part. The fact that they’re charging the boys makes me wonder if she’ll just make herself a helpless victim in all of this instead of realizing the part she played.
I respectfully disagree. Good parents do more than hope they’re taken seriously. They tend to know, because they actually know their children and are involved in their lives.
It shouldn’t be so easy for a girl to send nude pictures of herself. She doesn’t need a cell phone, let alone one with a camera, and she certainly shouldn’t expect that her parents don’t look at what she’s taking pictures of with the phone they’re likely paying for.
Some of these things are easily prevented.
I understand that good parents can be fooled as well. My brother got away with so much, but it wasn’t that easy for him.
Esthier on May 5, 2008 at 12:45 PM
My 9 yr old daughter knows to not even ask for Bratz crap.
DerKrieger on May 5, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Bingo… its the mental connection that society has made that turned a lack of clothing into sexual allure.
I had a freind who owned a strip club in San Diego… he was surrounded by beautiful naked women all the dang time… and he quickly reached the point where the sexual connotation of being naked was lost…
WE make things dirty, and shocking.
I might add, that our weird age disconnect with kids and puberty is pretty stupid. At 17 years and 364 days having sex with one makes you an EVIL person… but a day later not?
Oh, and by the way… Single Parent, 17 year old twins… so trust me, this is a subject I’ve thought about a lot.
Take the mystery away… bring it out into the light… and it will loose much of its allure.
Romeo13 on May 5, 2008 at 12:48 PM
I’m not saying it isn’t, but again, that’s the fault of the parents, not the game.
Because it’s not good for this country. There’s nothing wrong with sex. Married couples shouldn’t sleep in separate twin beds.
I’d support society finding some morals, but we need not go that far. Historically speaking though, societies generally do.
Then after a few generations, or maybe just one, the “shackles” of Puritanical society are forced off in a sexual revolution which proceeds until society is too deeply sickened to continue it any further, which starts the cycle all over again.
It’s unnecessary if we could just practice moderation.
Esthier on May 5, 2008 at 12:49 PM
oh I could say “victim” mentality comes into play. What cracks me up is how the kids have learned how to manipulate the adults and parents with the, But “This” happened crap.
I am one of those in between generations… X and Y. I act more like an X though. My Bother is a Y and acts it to a “T”, uses the victim tactics, etc. I really do not understand the end of my generation or the new ones. I guess I am an old spirit.
upinak on May 5, 2008 at 12:49 PM
The situation with the Bratz girls (I believe James Lileks several years ago dubbed them “Hookerz”) is unlike something like Grand Theft Auto, in that they’ve supplanted a lot of the traditional toy merchandising for young girls in many stores, even taking shelf space away from Mattel’s Barbie in some cases.
Doing that makes it impossible for parents to avoid when their kids are toy shopping, even if the parents are smart enough not to buy their child an age-inappropriate game like GTA, and goes hand-in-hand with the pre-teen shorts stories have on their racks, with words like “hotty” or the always-charming “bootylicious” printed on the bottoms. People who let their daughters buy that stuff should be given a free matching “Ask me next year about my grandchildren” T-shirts to wear while they’re out with their kids.
jon1979 on May 5, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Good thing they took down the 10 Commandments from in front of the courthouse.
Akzed on May 5, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Their butts are their gods. They want fame and fortune, just like their HighlyWeird, California role models.
Without a real God at the center of their lives, these kids are doomed, parents or no parents.
saved on May 5, 2008 at 12:49 PM
I’m actually surprised that it took this long for anyone to notice.
As a Web Denizen, I regularly troll the darker backwaters of the internet and the more common teen hangouts (which, more often than not, are one and the same places.) just to keep a grip on the popular web culture (or sub-culture, if you prefer).
One thing I have noticed is the all-too willingness for young girls to expose themselves on camera and webcam. It takes no effort at all to find video of girls as young as 12 exposing themselves to the camera. Keep in mind, these are not girls being FORCED to get naked, they are VOLUNTARILY doing this, often alone in their rooms or bathrooms. They are exploiting themselves, for reasons I can’t begin to fathom.
In addition, one can quite easily find instructions for would-be Larry Flynts or Joe Francises on how to get young women to either send you nude pictures, or to expose themselves on live webcam. Along with software necessary to capture that webcam stream and encode it into video for later viewing. Whole communities and web boards exist for the express intention of posting and sharing pictures and videos of so-called “Cam-whores” of all ages.
Part of me wants to not feel THAT bad about the girls doing this, as they are indeed doing it voluntarily and without assistance. However, that is overridden by the great concern I have for what these girls are doing to themselves just to get the cheap approval of some strangers that they will never know. These pictures will circulate on the Internet forever, and the poor reputation they are engendering will follow them for the rest of their lives.
Parents, it is up to you to ensure that your daughters aren’t doing this, and that your sons aren’t encouraging it. Do not think that your child is above being influenced into becoming involved in this subculture. Keep the computers in the main rooms of the house, and DO NOT get your child a phone with a camera! Remind them daily that the Internet is forever, and show them the stories of people that lost jobs and livelihoods based on something stupid they did online.
Protect your kids. God knows the Internet won’t.
wearyman on May 5, 2008 at 12:50 PM
No cell phones for teens???
Crap, my kids don’t leave home WITHOUT theirs. 911 is on speed dial… I consider it a saftey issue.
And yes, they both have cameras in them so IF somthing weird is going on around them, they can film it. Once again… its a saftey issue.
Romeo13 on May 5, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Hey, I got an idea. How about handing out condoms in school. That will solve everything.
BohicaTwentyTwo on May 5, 2008 at 12:51 PM
No one would think of dropping their children off in Times Square and leaving them unsupervised and unprotected. Yet, the internet is just that. It’s the big world and everything in it good and bad. I think in the near future we will look back at allowing children unfettered access to the web with the same horror we feel for when we used to let children smoke.
ronsfi on May 5, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Yeah me too, but I just read the articles.
Akzed on May 5, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Also there is no better reason to kill your TV.
ronsfi on May 5, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Oh I totally agree with you on age. It irks me to the point where I have asked why to some people.
upinak on May 5, 2008 at 12:54 PM
I’m going to pick apart the “either that or pack up and move to Montana…” part. You think we just got TVs and Cars here or what? We in the Great State of Montana have exactly the same problem. Now with the Cell phones, computers, internets (thanks, Algore), and satellite TV, this is happening in every corner of the US.
Don’t offend those who don’t live in big cities, sweetcheeks.
mjk on May 5, 2008 at 12:55 PM
My grandkids (13-16) have cells. Restricted to 10 numbers (all programmed by mom), no cam. I’m sure they scheme just like we all did, but woe be unto them if the mom-andant finds out.
Limerick on May 5, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Are we forgetting basic economics again? The industry sells sex because that’s what people want.
Parents are not instilling any values in their children that would keep them away from such behavior. Of course, you have to have values to instill in the first place. One wonders where those are supposed to come from in our secular culture. But I digress.
The point is that there isn’t any grand scheme to pervert our culture. Our culture is already perverted and all you’re seeing in the various adds is market forces responding to that. Moral decline is to be expected when there are fewer and fewer reasons for people to be moral.
And seriously, the thing with the Bratz dolls? The only thing more irritating than these “execrable” dolls is listening to conservatives rant about them ad infinitum. The dolls are a symptom of our own culture’s problems (as are the girls being stupid). Haranguing the dolls and the adds is like blaming snot for a cold.
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 5, 2008 at 12:57 PM
The second you start blaming video games, you lose. Don’t underplay the parent’s role. If all parents prevented kids from having these games, there would be no problem with the game existing.
MadisonConservative on May 5, 2008 at 1:01 PM
I think we need to start airlifting these dolls for drops over Iran, much like the Canadians did with candy over Holland during WWII.
Naked Iranian girls running around will signal the end of the the Islamic movement.
Hening on May 5, 2008 at 1:01 PM
My collie says:
CyberCipher on May 5, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Not living in a perfect world, and having a basic understanding that we are STILL animals with needs and drives that some can’t or won’t overcome???
I’d rather hand out birthcontrol at Highschool, then have them driving kids to abortion clinics.
Romeo13 on May 5, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Tony Zirkle, is that you?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on May 5, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Now who says that shari’a does not have its good points?
/sarc
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on May 5, 2008 at 1:09 PM
How prophetic are the South Park gang? Remember “Stupid Spoiled Whore?”
Jim-Rose on May 5, 2008 at 1:11 PM
What does this have to do with anything? There is no correlation between access to contraception and increased sexual activity.
I agree that today’s youth shouldn’t be so sexualized, but I don’t see the problem with pragmatic steps aimed at combatting teen pregnancy and STDs.
If anything, maybe people should be willing to take more of a look at the effects of greedy marketing executives and unrestrained consumerism on young girls. Don’t go blaming everything on condoms.
AJB on May 5, 2008 at 1:11 PM
And yet we still wipe our noses rather than let the snot run down our faces. We still cover our mouths rather than sneeze on other people.
The point is, while the Bratz dolls are, to a certain extent, a symptom of the problem, they (like snot) assist in CARRYING the social illness to a new generation. They are a form of subtle indoctrination into overt sexuality for girls too young to fully comprehend what that truly means.
We conservatives understand that there isn’t some dark and shadowy group of evil men hanging out in a large room decorated in the Haute Couture of Evil Organizations Inc. However, we still think it appropriate to fight cultural rot wherever we see it. Be it on the Internet, or elsewhere in pop culture, we MUST stop the sexualization of our children and the decline of our society.
We owe it to our children to try, else we leave them with the same broken legacy of corruption the 60’s generation left us.
wearyman on May 5, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Abso-friggin-lutely. It’s insane how many social ills are created or advanced by the breakdown of the family. Yet liberalism requires a broken family, so these social ills will only get worse and worse.
Grafted on May 5, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Girls tend to equate sex with love - even in today’s rather promiscuous society. They cannot shut off the part of their brain that releases the chemicals equating the two, no matter how often “society” claims it is possible to enjoy sex for the sake of sex. Little girls are searching for love, always searching for love, for acceptance, and they are told that through sex they will find love and acceptance. It isn’t a decline in morals, the problem is much deeper and much more basic - a desire to connect with other people - a desire that is found in everyone. We have the technology to connect with the world - but never leave our house. he can chat with people half way across the country but do not know our neighbors. Plugged in and tuned out, desperate to be loved and afraid to be yourself.
Humans are sexual beings but we are not animals. Sexuality is only one aspect of what we are and way too much emphasis is placed on it - whether in a promiscuous society or a Puritanical society.
Blight on May 5, 2008 at 1:22 PM
How did I ever survive my childhood without a cell phone. I won’t even use one now. My kids and grandkids don’t have them either. Guess we are out of the loop.
Glynn on May 5, 2008 at 1:23 PM
We really are a VERY generous state, with our tax dollars.
MNHawk on May 5, 2008 at 1:23 PM
I’d like to request an office done in Evil Organizations Inc. style. That would be awesome. Anyway.
To put it plain, only market forces will truly get rid of the dolls. Only parents can significantly shape those market forces.
Until that happens, all the yowling we do here just make us look like overly screechy versions of “The Church Lady.” It’s not “fighting cultural rot” so much as posturing and … well … hot air. /rimshot
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 5, 2008 at 1:24 PM
I could not have said it better.
Glynn on May 5, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Baby showers for pregnant teens. Child care centers in High Schools.
My Goddaughter related how there was an ooing and ahhing over a girl who announced at lunch she was pregnant.
I remember when there was shame over shameful things. The word “divorce” was one that was talked about in hushed terms, pregnant girls were sent away to unwed mothers homes.
And it isn’t media. If we rejected the media message, the media would go broke in a business quarter.
It’s obvious that the message is not rejected.
Amendment X on May 5, 2008 at 1:25 PM
This report underscores a recent conversation I had with a co-worker regarding the recent Miley Cyrus non-controversy. I remarked to him that the photos in Vanity Fair were NOTHING, and furthermore, that parents - who are the ones supposedly up-in-arms about the Miley pics - would be ready to have kittens if they knew what their little teenage girls were really doing behind their backs (of their own volition).
Wearyman seems to know, as I do. We live in the days of digital cameras and Myspace and free Photobucket accounts. Teenage girls take racy photos of themselves, in various degrees of dress or UNdress, and put them up on the internet ALL the time. It’s why I find this false outrage over Miley’s photoshoot to be so ludicrous.
Vyce on May 5, 2008 at 1:31 PM
THIS is what I mean. Thinking like this rationalizing incorrect behavior and incorrect solutions.
Just like rationalizing that Grand Theft Auto IV is totally innocent. I agree the BIGGER problem are the adults that buy it, rationalizing that it’s okay. But GTA IV is complicit in promoting the cultural decline.
kirkill on May 5, 2008 at 1:32 PM
You are correct. Conservatives have, to some extent, lost the culture war in this regard.
And not to point fingers here, but part of the reason for that is because you have people who want to blame video games like GTAIV. No, sorry. You’re missing the point altogether.
Vyce on May 5, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Believe it or not, there was a time when children didn’t have them, and we somehow survived.
I’m not arguing against your parenting decision. A cell phone can help keep a child safe, potentially anyway. Though I’ve yet to see how a cell phone video has saved anyone.
I’m only saying that they aren’t necessary.
Esthier on May 5, 2008 at 1:38 PM
No, as has been pointed out, it’s merely meeting a demand.
Oddly enough, there’s just no demand for a game free of vices.
Esthier on May 5, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Hmm… I take it your Christian?
If so… GOD MADE US THIS WAY! He created puberty and the drives that go with it. It wasn’t until MODERN times that we have tried to change the age at which Sex is “correct”.
Used to be that folks got married a LOT earlier than today, why? Because they were MADE to become sexual active then.
Now, we try to force young people, with raging hormones to have good sense and overcome what GOD or Evolution or Mother Gaia put into them (take your pick, I’m an equal opportunity realist).
YOU ARE NOT GOING TO STOP KIDS FROM DOING SOMTHING THAT THEIR BODIES TELL THEM IS NATURAL!! (yes, I’m yelling).
I consider abortion very close to murder… so, with human nature being what it is? Yes, I’d rather have my kids on birth control than being faced with that decision…
So YES, my daughter is on birth control, and my son has access to Condoms.
Romeo13 on May 5, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Yes, and the Quakers survive with their buggys and horses too…
Gonna give up your car?
Romeo13 on May 5, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Forget about religion, this is simply not true. And the fact that so many adults by into it actually supports this culture of overly sexualized teens who think they’re doing what’s natural.
I agree with your statement. I too would rather they had birth control than an abortion, but you’re setting the bar way too low for your children if you sincerely believe they cannot control their sexual impulses.
Kids do it all the time. It wasn’t that long ago that they were in the majority.
Esthier on May 5, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Believe it or not, there was a time when we didn’t have penicillin and somehow we survived. Bad argument.
Having access to parents and authorities in an emergency via cell phone has already saved lives. If you’re worried about your kids using it poorly, restrict the account. Again, responsible, thoughtful parenting for the win.
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 5, 2008 at 1:50 PM
Don’t be a dick. I’m not telling you to take away their phones.
Esthier on May 5, 2008 at 1:50 PM
Sadly, this clip is not that far from the truth. My daughter somehow managed to avoid dressing and acting like a street-whore, but a few of her friends are very much in that vein. This fall my daughter’s headed to a good college (Chapel Hill), but her trampy friends are so messed up that they lost their once high GPA’s and couldn’t compete. One is going to a tech school to “get her head together” and the other is paying a fortune to go to a nearby private college that specializes in pampering the spoiled idiots of the upper middle classes her in North Carolina… the kids there don’t try very hard, party a lot, and skip class, yet still manage to pass and graduate. Very Nice. She’ll fit right in.
Gartrip on May 5, 2008 at 1:51 PM
I don’t even understand the charges against the boys. How is it defamation to show a picture that was willingly taken to other people?
They are not stupid. If they resisted what is (on its face a ridiculous, counter-factual charge) they would be charged with spreading child porn.
Also, it may have been an invasion of privacy tort, rather than defamation.
daryl_herbert on May 5, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Penisillin almost killed my mother. That’s not your best argument.
That was my original point. I didn’t see a reason to make it twice.
For the record, I don’t have children, but I do know that cell phones without a contract can still call 911 for free. You don’t need to buy kids their own. If all you’re worried about is their safety, your old one will do just fine.
Esthier on May 5, 2008 at 1:54 PM
My stepdaughter was (and I think still is) into the Bratz dolls. I didn’t think anything of it when I first met my husband (just thought it was just another doll fad), but now I am seeing what it is doing to her in small doses. Neither of her parents thought of it until later — shes ten now, and she’s very much into fashion and makeup, and wants to do it up like these dolls. I’m hoping that when she gets to be old enough to be allowed to wear it to school she’ll allow me to teach her how to put it on so she doesn’t look like one of them.
It is still the parents’ responsibility to take care of what their kids do and teach them right from wrong. Although we have movies for adults (not porn) in our home, we don’t let his kids watch them. Hubby and I have both played GTA games, but we don’t play them when the kids are with us for the weekend. We watch “South Park,” but don’t watch it when the kids are here (although my stepdaughter has a Cartman t-shirt that says “I Love Chocolate” which her mother bought for her — I chalk that up to ignorance because they don’t have cable).
ScoopPC11 on May 5, 2008 at 1:55 PM
If those are your values then its your right as a parent to teach them to your kids. As long as you are doing your job instead of letting pop culture or public education try to do it for you.
BohicaTwentyTwo on May 5, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Really? citation? I’ve never studied it, but I sure remember my puberty in the 70’s. There was a LOT of sexual active folks then.
I actualy had this discusion with my Father a few years ago… and he told me that when he was a kid, it was about the same…
Prior to his generation… we’re back into the gettin married young times… my grandparents were married when they were 16, on a Farm, in Nebraska… my maternal Step Grandmother was basicly kicked out of Serbia (she was minor nobility) and sent to America when 17 to have a child…
Don’t have numbers… but anecdotaly I don’t see this generation gettin any more, or less, frisky than past generations.
Romeo13 on May 5, 2008 at 1:59 PM
That would make more sense, but the article doesn’t list her age, which seems odd. She could be of age, as could the pictures.
Esthier on May 5, 2008 at 2:00 PM
WHat I do not understand is how GTA is supposedly complicit when the GTA titles are rated M, as in, 17+ to purchase the title. I work at a gamestore and we have a mandatory policy to card anyone who looks under 30 whenever they buy M rated titles. M rated titles are not meant to be played by children, but we do not live in a socialist country (just yet) that allows the government to dictate what a parent will allow their child to play. So if a parent buys GTA IV for their 12 year old son, despite the warnings clearly labeled on the package and most likely given by the clerk, then there is nothing more to be done.
While the Bratz line IS aimed at young girls, trying to allocate blame onto GTA is off base.
EMalachi on May 5, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Romeo13
You are right about one thing… past generations were active sexually. Both of my granmothers were married at 16, and each had a kid by 18. That was common in most parts of the country prior to the depression. HOWEVER, I think we forget 2 things:
1) society has created a state of “extended adolescence.” My 17 yr old daughter is mature, but nothing like my wife or mother were at 17. We’ve allowed our kids to enjoy childhood much longer than they should be enjoying it.
So they have these adult bodies, but no sense of personal responsibility. Their sex organs are just toys to a lot of them.
2) As a culture, we have stopped punishing our kids. I’m the only parent who “grounds” his children on my block. My daughter went for a month without a cell or a car because she missed curfew twice in one weekend. She got the message. My neighbors just shrug their shoulders when their kids misbehave… or they run down to the school with a lawyer and threaten to sue if little Booby or Betty is suspended for pills or cussing at the teacher. I blame THE PARENTS for the craziness I see in my neighborhood. (I’m one of the few conservatives as well… I doubt it’s a coincidence.)
Gartrip on May 5, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Sure.
A few relevant portions…
For some reason, teen sex and teen pregnancy began to go down in the 90s, but it’s started to go back up again.
Esthier on May 5, 2008 at 2:12 PM
“Brooke Shields made an unforgettable commercial almost 30 years ago at the age of 15, saying, “You want to know what comes between me and my Calvins? Nothing.””
Does anyone recall Brook Shields’ first movie in 1978 at age 12? She played a hooker in Pretty Baby–something that actually could probably not be done today.
daledamos on May 5, 2008 at 2:16 PM
You have a parenting culture that has never matured to adulthood… what in the world would you expect?
MNDavenotPC on May 5, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Oh noes! I bought GTA IV and played it for several hours this weekend. Please forgive me for corrupting our youth!
Master Shake on May 5, 2008 at 2:22 PM
If you ask, ScottMcC, it’s actually much worse than that, because you’re giving people money who “want to kill you” for your ideals.
Esthier on May 5, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Romeo13 recites the common canard about rampant sexuality:
This is easily disproved by the facts. Look at numbers of teen pregnancies, out-of-wedlock births, and especially look at rates of venereal diseases. All of the above are a function of the number of sexual contacts and the number of sex partners. The numbers for the past few decades have been at least an order of magnitude higher than for prior generations. This could only be true if modern kids were having more sex with more partners.
Even anecdotally, I can’t possibly imagine what you’re talking about, unless you’re completely unfamiliar with modern teens. I substitute at the local high school. I frequently hear girls in their mid-teens talking casually about having routine sex with their boyfriends — not doing it once, but doing it routinely. I never ONCE heard a conversation like that when I was in high school; we guys talked about girls who “put out,” but it they were rare and out of the mainstream. The culture was very, VERY different back then.
The pattern of casual sexuality has produced an epidemic of venereal diseases in the modern world; you should Dr. Meg Meeker’s book “Epidemic” if you don’t believe it. In the 1960s, there were 3 basic types of VD, and occurrences were mostly limited to seaports; today there are more than 50, and everybody gets them. The epidemic would have occurred back in the 60s if people behaved then as they do now; the spread is simply a function of the number of contacts.
Romeo13, don’t believe it. It simply isn’t so.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, “Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture,” at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
philwynk on May 5, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Thanks… thats very interesting…
One thing that, on the surface, I find hard to fathom though, as someone who uses statistics in his job (Failure analysis of electronics and software…)…
In 1910 61% of men had premarital sex, but only 12% of women??? Either that 12% was really “Gettin Busyyyy”, or, I suspect the numbers do not relect reality, but what people would admit at the time. Remember, there used to be much more of a social stigma for “bad girls” than there is today. I think this could drasticly scew the numbers.
Romeo13 on May 5, 2008 at 2:41 PM
I question the reliability of self-reported data when it comes to sex in this country.
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 5, 2008 at 2:44 PM
I recently had an opportunity to teach a two-week unit on “living a principled life” to seniors who will be graduating from the local tech high school. I was impressed that the stuff I was telling them about — the cardinal virtues, how nihilism and postmodernism stunt the formation of principles, how principles affect one’s ability to lead a meaningful, and ultimately a happy, life — was stuff most of them had never heard in their entire lives. I wrote about this on my blog a week or so ago.
Social progressives flooded the culture over the past several decades with a series of attacks that marginalized every source of moral instruction in the culture. Entertainment, education, parenting — some excuse was offered in every arena to refrain from teaching moral virtue to children, to let them “make up their own minds.” The result was that children now grow up hearing not one word about proper behavior. Into that vacuum flow thousands upon thousands of messages touting violence, sex, wealth, or fame as a source of happiness. The result is an utterly shallow culture with no hope.
Check out these two reviews by John Walker, the founder of AutoDesk, who currently lives and teaches in Switzerland. John calls the current crop of kids, born after around 1984, “Hate Kiddies,” because of the blatant nihilism they exhibit, in stark contrast to the more hopeful attitudes of earlier kids. They’re the consequence of leftist social experimentation in the culture.
Nothing could be more imperative than rescuing education from the hands of social progressives, who are literally unmaking Western Civilization.
philwynk on May 5, 2008 at 2:46 PM
The Puritans often get a bad rap from the people who want NO limits on any kind of morality. It was probably the Victorian era that had the most obsessiveness about sex, to the point of redefining words that had been part of the English language for centuries, but were considered too “salacious.” At one point, some tried to change the practice of referring to “chair legs” or “piano legs,” replacing them with “char limbs” and “piano limbs.”
As odd as the Puritans would seem to us today, I seriously doubt they would have been concerned about sex within the bounds of marriage. After all, they were fruitful, and multiplied.
tom on May 5, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Romeo13 wrote: “Remember, there used to be much more of a social stigma for “bad girls” than there is today. I think this could drasticly scew the numbers.”
Um… you don’t think there was a social boost from having “gotten some?” Why would you assume it was the female number that was skewed, and not the male?
Or, perhaps the “premarital sex” most guys had had was with a prostitute. I recall stories about the young men of certain ethnicities who generally received a gold piece from their father on their 13th birthday with instructions where to find the town trollop, a sort of a rite of passage into manhood.
I suspect the bias we’re seeing here is yours.
philwynk on May 5, 2008 at 2:50 PM
A fact not in dispute is the marriage age moving up over the past 50 years. By prolonging the number of years that someone is both physically sexually mature and also single it certainly drives an increase in pre-marital sex. Also, with people’s 20’s increasingly becoming a decade of dating rather than establishing a family it must have a ripple effect on high school teens.
dedalus on May 5, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Sure, that’s entirely possible. However, when I was in junior high, I imagine the stats for my school were somewhat similar, with maybe 20-30% of boys having sex but only a single digit percentage of girls having sex.
At that stage, only certain types of girls would have sex. They got a reputation early on, and kept it by being the girls guys knew they could sleep with.
My father and older brother both took advantage of that situation at one point in their lives, which is why I have my older brother and my niece (his oldest daughter).
Those girls don’t get boyfriends. They just get passed around.
Esthier on May 5, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Let’s just say I have some recent personal experience with this sort of thing. It is not much fun being a parent of a teen nowadays.
Modern technology is allowing kids to do stuff now that we only talked and giggled about when we were in school. And Gartrip is right, these are children with adult bodies and feelings. It’s all just a big goof to them - until somebody ends up pregnant or gets a STD.
rockmom on May 5, 2008 at 2:52 PM
philwynk on May 5, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Oh, STDs are definatly on the rise… people are more likely to be single, and more likely to have many more sexual partners than in the past. Add in just plain more people overall… and STDs will be on the rise.
Your right… but a lot of the Sexual Activity stems from two things…
With Birth Control we have taken some of the consequence of sex away… making it more “recreational” (and thats society wide).
While at the same time trying to tell our kids not to do it… thus making it somthing they can do to “rebel” and show how adult they are… By making it an “adult” thing, then treating them as children, we add to its allure.
Its like teenage drinking. My kids know that they can drink IN my house. Once they have alcohol they can’t leave the house… but here? Sure… I’ll even pour. But ya know what? They very seldom take me up on it, and we’ve never had a problem with them drinking with their “freinds”. Took the mystery and “adultness” right out of it…
Romeo13 on May 5, 2008 at 2:59 PM
I’m surprised at the charges brought in the other states. We had a similar incident nearby in Franklin County, Virginia. Nude pics being distributed via cell phones throughout the high school. Several boys were charged with distributing child porn, as the girls were under 18.
TugboatPhil on May 5, 2008 at 3:00 PM
I didn’t mean to make a specific dig at Puritans. It was just the group that best represented in America the idea I was trying to convey.
Feel free to replace Puritan with Victorian if you find it a better fit.
This is true, but the sexual activity is also beginning at a younger age, making the gap between sexual activity and marriage even longer, implying that it isn’t just the effect of the marriage age going up.
Esthier on May 5, 2008 at 3:02 PM
How would you know?
Esthier on May 5, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Wait, we haven’t ‘progressed’ enough to have x-rated programs on regular TV or open sex under the table yet. The europeans seemed to think more exposure will desensitize people (including youngesters) that “IT” is no big deal anymore.
A segment of our society also think we can not ape the europeans enough. People who disagree are just to ‘quaint’.
Sir Napsalot on May 5, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Very true. Girls are having their periods at much younger ages than decades ago.
dedalus on May 5, 2008 at 3:06 PM
It shouldn’t be so easy, but it is. If you refuse to buy her a cell phone, she can borrow a friend’s. Virtually no cell phones anymore come without a camera. Supervision is more do-able, but if she knows you’re going to be checking, she can just become very good about hiding the evidence.
Ultimately, nothing else works as well as moral instruction. Parents must make clear to girls especially that boys can want and have sex without ever being in love. You can call it a double standard, but it’s girls who bear the biggest consequences for sexual immorality, from explicit pictures up to and including pregnancy.
There has always been some level of sexual activity, but girls standards of behaviors have radically changed over the last few years. Whether it’s the result of over-sexualization, desire for peer approval, or the tolerance our culture now has for virtually anything sexual.
If even half the stories I’ve been hearing are true, girls not only send nude pictures to boys today, but also will kiss other girls to get boys interested. Oral sex is almost a commonplace. In fact, girls seem way too interested in pleasing boys. The boys sure don’t deserve that much attention.
I’m not convinced about the “Puritanical Pendulum” theory, but we may well reach a point where a move to Puritanism would be a mercy.
tom on May 5, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Wow, you call bias when I question a really strange statistic… and then say that all those men musta been having Sex with Hookers???
different data sets… Junior High vs. Total of premarrieds if I read the thing correctly.
As to the drop in Sex and such in the 90s? Aids scare. Then Aids was new, and very very scary. It was played up like the end of the world… even when statisticly it was much less likely to kill you then getting in a car… this generation has pretty much grown up with it as a fact of life…
Romeo13 on May 5, 2008 at 3:13 PM
I wouldn’t argue that there’s necessarily a correlation.
Then I must be an anomaly. Mine doesn’t have one, and neither does the one my husband’s currently using for work.
I don’t think it’s necessary to teach girls that boys can essentially be pigs. That’s a message as tried and true as the message being sent that it’s OK for teens to be promiscuous.
What I would teach is that my children respect themselves enough to wait so that they can enjoy sex freely inside the only bond strong enough to contain it.
That’s what I was taught, and while I wasn’t a virgin when I got married, I did wait for my husband and have only been with him.
Esthier on May 5, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Because I’m up when they get home? Because they KNOW if they are out and someone, including themselves, drinking they get a free ride home with no consequence… except for me telling them they are smart for staying safe?
Once again, taking the stigma away from somthing they are going to come across anyway… being REALISTIC about whats going on out there…
Romeo13 on May 5, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Really? Evolution? Maturing faster due to better nutrition? Interesting… is it worldwide? or mainly in the West?
Romeo13 on May 5, 2008 at 3:19 PM
I’m hardly a defender of Puritans per se. But people do tend to throw around the “Puritan” label as if anything short of orgies in the streets is going to lead to “Vice and Virtue” squads running around enforcing the Sabbath.
I’m actually with you on this one. Surely there’s a decent middle ground.
tom on May 5, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Aids scare my left buttcheek. I graduated from HS in 1989, and I remember hearing about AIDS ALL THE TIME. It was on T.V. it was in magazines. There were even movies made about it. AIDS and the fear of thermonuclear war were two of the biggest scares around in the 80’s. I know, I WAS THERE. and I grew up in a suburb of Buffalo, NY. Hardly the progressive cultural center of the US.
I don’t know why there was a drop in promiscuity in the early 90’s (Although the first Iraq war and the economic downturn might be related) But I can assure you it wasn’t an AIDS scare.
wearyman on May 5, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Right. I was just making a guess about my own junior high and thinking the situation could be similar if the questionable stats are correct.
That certainly makes a lot of sense. I do remember hearing a lot about AIDS during the 90s. It was on nearly every drama TV show, generally it was some kid who had done nothing wrong, making it even scarier.
Of course, statistically speaking, driving in a car is more dangerous than most things people are afraid of. It’s just so common an activity.
Esthier on May 5, 2008 at 3:26 PM
I disagree just based on my own experience with kids who had parents with similar philosophies, but if it works for you, then that’s your business, not mine.
I hope so, but the more society keeps pushing the limits on common decency, the more I’m convinced the final backlash will be brutal (and by that I don’t mean literally, though I won’t rule that out either).
Esthier on May 5, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Really? Because I was single and sexualy active BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER that period.
May not have impacted the kids… but it sure impacted a lot of people I knew.
First Iraq War? Ummm… was married during it, but got divorced a year after… didn’t seem to affect the single scene.
Ecomomic downturn??? Can’t see it affecting sex…
Romeo13 on May 5, 2008 at 3:32 PM
“Two boys accused of doing it are charged with defaming her character.”
They didn’t commit defamation of character, but rather definition of character.
nerdbert on May 5, 2008 at 3:32 PM
I gotta head back to work and didn’t read all the comments, but i raised 3 daughters, at times a joy and at times, mini-hell..
My husband and i did without many comforts and conveniences so that i could be a stay-at-home mom until we got your youngest in school, and the job i took then had hours that ensured my kids weren’t “latch-keyers”.
I lay many of today’s cultural ills solidly at the door of the advent of feminism.
I never needed to be a feminist or be pressured by feminists to know what was right for my children…and what was right for my children was what was right for me.
surrounded on May 5, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Wisconsin police got it half-right. They should also be bringing charges against the girl for taking and distributing sexually explicit photos of a minor. An ounce of deterrence, and problem solved.
JMHO - have a little faith in the fairer sex. It doesn’t take long for most women to figure out they can get a lot farther by holding something back. The sexual revolution is burning itself out, and I think we’ll see a counter-culture of modesty and class emerge from the ashes. Again, problem solved.
RightOFLeft on May 5, 2008 at 3:34 PM
There is better data for the United States than worldwide. Some attribute it to diet, increased weight, possibly chemicals. Ages also vary by ethnicity.
dedalus on May 5, 2008 at 3:36 PM
I’m with you on that one. It’s the cheapest thing you can do if you already have a partner. It might make it more difficult for you to get one, maybe.
I’ve heard that explanation for some time. A friend claims it has to do with the chemicals they give cows. She was a vegan up until just a few years ago and is still a vegetarian, and she didn’t start her period until at least a year or two later than most girls our age.
Esthier on May 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM
“…intellectualism is looked down upon”
Since when? One more reason why I think South Park sucks.
Darth Executor on May 5, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »