Goodbye to Girlhood

And then the authorities toss some poor sod in the clink for making passes at them. Uh-huh.

Hm. I'm not really certain much has changed in the last 30 years. When I was a teeny bopper, we all wore similarly tasteless clothing and people were making the same tut-tutting noises.

About that throwing in the clink thing -- aren't adults supposed to know better?

One generation's gripe about the new generation's moral degeneration. It will happen again.

"Damn kids. T'ain't like they was back in MY day."

People fretting about youngsters: why is this news all of a sudden?

lfraser said:

Hm. I'm not really certain much has changed in the last 30 years. When I was a teeny bopper, we all wore similarly tasteless clothing and people were making the same tut-tutting noises.

Click to expand...

A LOT has changed in the last 30 years. Yes, we were wearing tasteless clothing but we definitely did not have the obsession with looks and sexuality that today's 11, 12, 13 year olds have. And this time it's not just the older generation tut-tutting at the younger. This time, it's a rapid slide into total loss of control. We were silly, but utterly and comletely childlike. We weren't even THINKING of having sex when we were 15 or younger. That's not the case these days.

It's not just in the US - in Britain it's probably worse. Last week the British media was freaking out because British kids came out bottom in a study of industrialised nations - British kids have the most underage sex, do the most drinking and smoking and drug taking, have the least communication with parents, and are the unhappiest. US kids came second to the bottom. Holland was top, with the Scandinavian countries not far behind.

That's reason to be seriously alarmed. Any parent with children, especially girls, growing up into that situation needs to open their eyes and not just make excuses a la "kids will be kids".

Bmwhtly said:

People fretting about youngsters: why is this news all of a sudden?

Click to expand...

OK. So there's no problem. Just let them be. It's the people who are concerned who have a problem.

Cheez.

I don't know - when I was about 11 or 12, I remember all the girls suddenly sneaking around putting loads of makeup on and carrying hairspray for their Farrah flips and wearing designer jeans so tight they couldn't really sit down. (I wasn't allowed to wear makeup at the time, my hair wouldn't stay flipped and no way was my mother buying me a pair of $100 jeans I'd probably outgrow before they wore out, anyway ) And all at once, all my girlfriends were suddenly boy-crazy. It may not be that it's now so much as people are suddenly noticing it...

you weren't thinking about sex before you were 15? or you thought about but didn't do anything about it? i somehow doubt there are tons more kids having sex now than they were when i went to school (graduated in '88).

it's not about them having sex, it's about sexualizing girls at a younger age. i can't even say that's entirely true, either, because i remember all those girls back in the day dressing up like madonna when we were in ninth grade, back when she was a serious hooch. it's not even about dressing sluttier, imo, it's about adopting the same attitude as your role model, in this case a weirdo who liked to do books called 'sex,' but now writes children's books. in other words, madonna's attitude was completely about sex and shock value, and if she wore a garbage bag that makes no difference, it's when your 12 year old wears one, too, in imitation of that sexual attitude that matters. just my opinion. so, imo, this is hardly a new phenomenon as if the sexualization of girls hasn't been going on for decades. this suggests that were the internet around when i was a kid that things would be different. hogwash. there'd still be as many jailbaits around on myspace wearing bikinis and talking like whores, and just as many dirty old men salivating over every image and word. as if things have drastically changed.

as if we *just now* started dressing cheerleaders up in skimpy tight outfits. or girls haven't stuffed their asses in jordache jeans. or we haven't been having child 'beauty' pageants for 30+ years. or let them wear tight bellbottoms and a halter top. or in tight angora sweaters and poodle skirts (come on now). or....

but, i guess if you limit your focus on just the media, and promptly forget real life, one might forget what it's like out there. i used to live near the juniour high school and i'd always say to people that the girls dress entirely inappropriately. that was 15 years ago. styles change, but the attitude remains the same. so what if they're easily able to locate some semi-pornographic image of a ten year old (in terms of proving their conclusion, that is, which sounds a bit like they already had before they researched thing one. why do i have the suspicion this study was started by some father flipping through his daughter's 'teen beat'?)? that's saying that they couldn't do the same from material available from twenty years ago?

oh, and it wasn't totally off the wall to hear a girl sing 'like a virgin' when i was a kid, either, so that example has no validity whatsoever. the barbie line has always reacted to fashion trends. didn't they make barbie with mini-skirts ever? oh, of course they did, probably back in the 60's.

i think admitting to 'looking for funding to prove' it (whatever it is) about says it all, eh? hey, i'm looking for funding on the effects of dogs and cats living together. maybe if i said 'the sexualization of puppies' that'd get more attention? i mean, you've seen the kind of clothes people put on their dogs, haven't you? and in comic strips and cartoon shows you can see where things are getting warped and out of hand!

not that the sexualization of children is okay. no, it's not. i just find it humourous that suddenly it's a problem that needs funding, something that's been happening, oh, my lifetime at least. once you add 'internet' to it doesn't make it a 'new problem.' what's this funding going to cost taxpayers and what beside the obvious is it supposed to show that can't be determined from picking up some magazines off the newstands and watching some t.v.? that it's hurting young girls? it's hurting young girls. conclusion is right there. how is funding going to help the issue? 'we need to stop sexualizing girls.' okay, another mystery solved right there. have fun telling that to multi-billion dollar corporations, i'm sure they'll get right on that.

kudos to making people think we lived as puritans up til this point. maybe attitudes are skewed by advertising and such. maybe the attitude dictates the advertising (a concept i'm sure never even reached the table, and if it did probably lasted as long as a cream pie in a pie eating contest). maybe it's a bit of both... but there's only one way to make quick decisions and a fast buck, and that's to blame advertisers. i mean, it's hard to extort money out of parents who are oblivious to any problems but their own, eh?

the real title of this study should be 'how to get lazy parents off their dead asses and monitor their girl's intake of crap in an effort to infuse the idea that they don't have to be skanky wannabe sluts just because their friends are pretending to be that because their parents suck at parenting and crappy media sources tell you this is what you need to be.'

that's a long title, though. sticking with 'sexualization,' 'girls,' 'internet' and 'media' are the keys to funding here.

preyer said:

you weren't thinking about sex before you were 15? .

Click to expand...

Oh, we were interested in sex all right, like looking for words like "breast" in the dictionary when we were 10 and giggling about it. But the thought of actually HAVING sex myself before the age of 15? Or even two years later? No. Not a bit. I didn;t want it. I knew it was an adult thing, and that I was too young. Today's kids in Western society have lost that knowledge.

I don't believe in funding. What's that going to do? Society is going the way it has to go. It's a parenting issue entirely. If parents throw up their hands and say, "Oh well, she's going to do it anyway, just as long as she uses a condom it's OK" then what do you expect? If you let society bring up your kid then that's what's going to happen.

aruna said:

A LOT has changed in the last 30 years. Yes, we were wearing tasteless clothing but we definitely did not have the obsession with looks and sexuality that today's 11, 12, 13 year olds have. And this time it's not just the older generation tut-tutting at the younger. This time, it's a rapid slide into total loss of control. We were silly, but utterly and comletely childlike. We weren't even THINKING of having sex when we were 15 or younger. That's not the case these days.

Click to expand...

Actually, teenage sex is on the decline, at least in the US and Europe. Last I heard.

Children want to look sexy and attractive and wanted -- they just want to be accepted by others. They look to their role models, be them Bridget Bardot, Madonna, Britney Spears or Paris Hilton. It doesn't necessarily translate to sex.

I think lfraser's point is that this argument has been around for decades -- what about the 50s (rock n roll, skinny bikinis, swinging hips, red hot lipsticks), the 60s (all that sex and drug stuff), the 70s (sexual liberation), etc. etc. Teenage pregnancy was at its height in the 80s and 90s.

I'm not saying there is no problem so let your 12yo daughter dress like Paris Hilton. I don't think we're saying "let the girls be girls and let them wear fishnet thongs to school if they want to. Don't be a prude." But I also don't think it's anything new, and definitely not news worthy.

We were all young and foolish before. Then we become parents, and suddenly we can't stand how young and foolish our kids are. It happens in every generation. 10 years from now, we'll see the similar articles again. "How we wish kids were more like us in the 90s!"

maestrowork said:

Actually, teenage sex is on the decline, at least in the US and Europe. Last I heard.

.

Click to expand...

Not in Britain. The age for first sex is now 14 there. I can confirm that it happened to all my daughter's friends. She's the only one who held out - and still is not interested. Sex at 14 is. quite normal in the UK now.

maestrowork said:

I think lfraser's point is that this argument has been around for decades -- what about the 50s (rock n roll, skinny bikinis, swinging hips, red hot lipsticks), the 60s (all that sex and drug stuff), the 70s (sexual liberation), etc. etc. Teenage pregnancy was at its height in the 80s and 90s.

......

We were all young and foolish before. Then we become parents, and suddenly we can't stand how young and foolish our kids are. It happens in every generation. 10 years from now, we'll see the similar articles again. "How we wish kids were more like us in the 90s!"

Click to expand...

Your last paragraph is exactly what I mean.... it's been a constant slow slide down into laxity, and since the 60's a fast slide. I was around in the 50's and sexual imagery was not at all prevalent then. Every year, the barrier is getting lower. That's just the way society is - OUR society at least.

I say this as someone who grew up with an extremely "progressive" mother. I ws allowed to do whatever I wanted, whenever I wanted. Thank goodness, society itself was very prude at the time, otherwise I'd have been a wreck by the time I was 20. I was a wreck anyway. I had to pull myself together the hard way. Now I prefer the more traditional societies - at least as far as the raising of children is concerned.

But I know we can't change society. We can only influence the way our own children are raised, and we have to be clear and strong and help our children swim against the tide. Trouble is, most parents want to appear cool and hip and free, and are afraid of any kind of "moral" lessons. For me it was never about morals. It's about happiness. I was not happy with all my freedoms. Like I said - I was a wreck. Fun is not the same as happiness.

Where the heck are these parents? The last time I checked, ten yo girls can't drive themselves to the store and they don't have their own jobs and money. Who buys these things for them? Who lets them wear them?

I remember trying to get away with too reavealing clothing as a teenager. My parents said "no" and refused to let me.

My boys would eat pizza and ice cream for every meal if I let them. Being a parent means saying "no" to things your child wants when you know it isn't good for them. Girls will be girls and boys will be boys, but parents should be parents.

The parents are there, and they think it's cute.

Have you seen Little Miss Sunshine? Hilarious but sad.

That is very sad. It makes me think of the Dishwalla song, "All the Pretty Babies."

Soccer Mom said:

My boys would eat pizza and ice cream for every meal if I let them. Being a parent means saying "no" to things your child wants when you know it isn't good for them. Girls will be girls and boys will be boys, but parents should be parents.

Click to expand...

Ah, SoccerMom - the crux of it. When I was 11, it was 1960, still an age of innocence. And later, in my high school, only the "bad girls" - 3 of them , I think - had sex. By the time I got to Woodstock, I was 20 and old enough for the sexual revolution happening around me.

Children today have a technological revolution happening around them that includes bombardment by sexualized images, news, songs, etc., in a way very much different from the past, even the more recent past of the 1980s and early 90s.

Without parental guidance, kids just don't have a chance.

so you're saying it's rock n' fault? lol.

i'd say that in the 50's the media was more about domestication of women, particularly once women discovered as a result of WWII that, hey, we don't *need* men as much as we thought we did. hm, i shouldn't say 'particularly,' as women in advertising have always been thin with huge boobs and in their natural habitat, over a stove or a washing machine, having multiple orgasms at the mere thought of owning a fridge with an attached ice box. and lest one think they didn't sell vibrating pieces of equipment under the heading of 'massage masters' or whatever, think again. (yes, i grew up in a household where mom collected old magazines. torpedo boobs were the height of arousal, apparently. also, seems women didn't shave their bunnies quite in the same fashion, thank you mr. hefner for that insight.)

i'd have to do the research, but i'm sure the same idea in a broad sense could be applied to the girls from the roaring 20's (forget what they're called off hand). jazz was the devil's music back then, too, lol.

has the american attitude towards keeping little girls as virginal as possible gotten tremendously more lax? i don't think so. (and as an argument that pregnancy rates have dropped, first, i don't trust any gov't study that shows anything (studies are, imo, inherently full of bullshit anyway), and second, this doesn't say that girls aren't participating in sexual activities at all, just not what they consider 'sex.' oral and anal sex keeps them 'virgins,' while at the same time it's not really anything outrageous to be a lesbian anymore. maybe girls aren't getting as pregnant as they used to (well, you know what i mean, lol), but what are those reasons?)

is the 'evidence' more blatant now than at any other time in modern american history? i dunno, probably, sure, why not? seeing as how it's been around for quite a while now, i'm just not getting at what this study is supposed to prove. even if it had a point, i don't know why we should throw money at it.

the funny thing is that girls know they're dressing like trash. and believe me, the boys know it, too. hey, don't dress in pants where you can see your thong and 'tramp stamp' tattoo if you don't want people to immediately jump to conclusions about you, right or wrong. don't put it out there for the world to see if you don't want someone to look, lol. you're right, that's a result of lousy parenting.

now's the time when i add more bullshit onto the head and say it's also corporations' fault in part, making people work overtime to save themselves a buck, forcing people to spend more time with co-workers than their families. gee, think they'll start screwing around? ohmigosh, mommy and daddy are getting a divorce! okay, i'll stay here one week, there another, and discipline is completely out of control. i may not know which house my training bras are and my step-mom will have to teach me about my period when she's not drunk (true story, not about me obviously, don't ask, lol), but, hey, i know exactly where my cell phone is just in case i get in trouble, and what are the chances of that?

i mean, there are so many *other* things you could whip up a study about, why something so stupid? because it's easy? because when it happens to black people it's a problem, when it happen to a white kid it's an epidemic? (okay, that's got nothing to do with things, per se, i just love that analysis.)

let's play a game: come up with two completely different topics or subjects or whatever, then give me the conclusion you want me to prove and i'll 'prove' it using actual, honest to goodness facts. be forewarned, i may use the phrase 'have been linked to' here and there.

studies? bullshit.

surveys? bullshit x 2.

funding? cha-ching, baby!

Preyer, sorry, I have to say it: your lack of capitilization gives me a headache!

oo, i just thought of a great study. 'females have always been, is, and likely will be for a very long time seen as sexual objects.' i will prove this epiphany with one word:

DUH.

anyone want to fund that?

sorry, aruna, for the lack of capitals. i'll work on that.

...hm, am i sensing another study?

How to Lie with Statistics . I can bring that book up perfectly in any converation, I think. it applies here too. You can skew any set of numbers any which way you need to.

There's a joke in a comic strip...

Surveyor: Do you believe Bun-Bun is having an affair, OR is a rabbit the size of Godzilla?

Person: Well...uh....bunnies are small....right?

Surveyor: Check. Now. Do you believe this is a decline in moral standards, OR do you currently have blood shooting out your eyeballs?

...

As a soon-to-be-parent (i.e. a terrified guy who isn't sleeping well) I'd like to say that yeah, it bothers me. But I won't freak out about it, because it does matter how you raise your kids.

And, to an extent, there's only so much you can do. They're going to discover the world eventually, and they have to find their own equilibrium out in it. Sometimes they balance, sometimes they don't. Usually, they spend their teenage years bouncing from extreme to extreme and being embarrassing as they try to figure things out.

You can be there. You can be supportive. You can be a friend (when you're not being a parent) and mostly, you just have to wait it out.

Letting them know that if they're too stupid they'll get kicked out of the house doesn't hurt either.

aruna said:

Preyer, sorry, I have to say it: your lack of capitilization gives me a headache!

Click to expand...

You know, I've been talking and listening to Preyer so long, I don't even notice anymore...

PeeDee said:

As a soon-to-be-parent (i.e. a terrified guy who isn't sleeping well) I'd like to say that yeah, it bothers me. But I won't freak out about it, because it does matter how you raise your kids.

Click to expand...

ooh! Congrats! Now you can join the Baby Talk thread!