Listening to NPR this morning, some latte drinking, chai tea toting, liberal was trying to explain off the Miley Cyrus controversy, concerning her half-nude (though covered by a satin sheet) picture for Vanity Fair, as being a boring and non-sexy picture that people are unjustly making a big deal about. Another liberal of the same stock said that Miley's years as being Hannah Montana are numbered and that her and her dad are trying to show her as "an emerging woman."
[Hold on a second as I take a hit off of my hookah pipe]
Who are they trying to fool? Feminists push that women should be treated equally with men and that they shouldn't be viewed as being "pieces of meat," so to speak. And I agree with them. Yet, on the other hand, women (who very much consider themselves to be feminist) condone pictures such as these as showing that they are emerging women!
Let's think about this. Since when do boys have to stand nude with a satin sheet around their waist in order to show themselves as "emerging men?" That, is one of the lamest excuses I have ever heard.
Miley, is 15 YEARS OLD. How is her sitting half-naked around a bunch of cameras and adults not illegal? If I, a common person, were to have my daughter sit topless in a studio in order for tasteless photos to be taken, I would be in jail. You may say that these photos of Miley were tame, and not tasteless. The commentator this morning on NPR said just that. But I think any half-nude photos OF A 15 YEAR OLD are tasteless! But because she's a "star," it's not considered tasteless, but "artsy."
Liberals are supposed to be socially-minded people who want to stand against oppression. Can anyone seriously say that it is not oppressive to Miley that her parents take her to studios to have half-nude photos taken of her? SHE’S 15 YEARS OLD!!!
Vanity Fair isn’t interested in “artsy” photographs. And the people who read Vanity Fair are not Miley’s general audience. Vanity Fair is having risqué photos taken of a 15 YEAR OLD GIRL, photos that are meant to be “sexy,” in order to sell more magazines. The sad part is that there are millions of Vanity Fair readers who will pass the newsstand, see a half-naked 15 YEAR OLD GIRL, and by the magazine to see more. I’m disgusted!
I’m so disgusted I cannot even write about this anymore! I feel bad for Miley. I hope that her parents start to consider the well-being of their child before agreeing to photo shoots and the like. I hope that far left loons will wake up and smell the latte. Showing the public images of half-nude 15 YEAR OLDS is never a kosher thing to do!
mulgere-hircum posted on Apr 29, 2008
| views: 316
Comments
-
SeanRenaud said on Apr 29, 2008....
1. It is boring and stupid nd shouldn't even be newsworthy.2. Equal or not guys aren't girls and girls aren't guys. So your comparison about boys with a sheet aroudn their waste is rather rediculous.3. Its too bad you're such a prude that you don't realize she is infact a woman and it is time that she realizes it, and that the rest of the world realizes it. you're supposed to look at her like she's a woman because she is.4. The rest of the world (and much of the country) understands this. -
mulgere-hircum said on Apr 29, 2008....
"Its too bad you're such a prude that you don't realize she is infact a woman and it is time that she realizes it, and that the rest of the world realizes it. you're supposed to look at her like she's a woman because she is."
Prude? No, I'm a father who has lived long enough to know better. I am also not naive enough to think that Vanity Fair, Disney, Miley's parents and all else involved aren't in it for the money. Why does she have to bare herself to prove that she is a woman? Why? If she is a woman, why does she have to prove it? Come on! I mean seriously. Oh and by the way, using all of America and the rest of the world as a reason to believe that something is right or true is a logical fallacy. Ever hear of Argumentum ad Populum? Look it up and avoid being fallacious.
-
SeanRenaud said on Apr 29, 2008....
She doesn't have to bare herself. She doesn't need to prove herself, if she so chooses though she should have that right.Duh they are all in it for the money. Money really is the main motivation for most of the actions taken by everybody.We could prove that the rest of the world have lower ages of consent, more sex in their media, more liberal opinions on abortion.But they have lower rates of abortion, less people with STDs, less rapes, less pedophiles (or rather since there are less falsely accused the show less)In short we are actually hurting our children by blinding them to sex after puberty when they ARE going to be active. It's a proven fact but we don't care, we'd rather cling to our silly puritanical roots.Of course just because something works is no reason to do it either. -
mulgere-hircum said on Apr 29, 2008....
"Equal or not guys aren't girls and girls aren't guys. So your comparison about boys with a sheet aroudn their waste is rather rediculous."
This simply does not follow. I am speaking of equal rights man, not equal in all ways. Obviously guys aren't girls and girls aren't guys, but that does not prove your point that the comparison doesn't work. The issue is this if Sexuality is the determination of a what makes a woman, a woman; the sexuality is what determines a man as being a man. That a young woman should have to define herself as a woman by marketing her sexuality completely goes against the grain modern liberal feminism. This is so be cause both men and women are sexual beings. What is ridiculous is that you would even think it possible that a woman needs to flaunt her sexuality in order for her to realize that she is a woman.
-
SeanRenaud said on Apr 29, 2008....
1. I didn't say that, I said she has it as an option.2. Men become men (according to society) when they become able to care for a woman. Hense jocks, cops, military, or rich.The rules are different for men and women and always will be. Just like sluts and players. Well until we wake up in a world where a man can get pregnant women need to be more careful about sex than men do. It's just a fact.The equal rights movement effectively ended long ago. Women have equal rights and in some places superior privelege.Claiming a woman doesn't have the right to flaunt herself if she wants would be taking away her rights.Bottom line if she wanted to do this it was her call. -
mulgere-hircum said on Apr 29, 2008....
Sean, there's a stat you forgot. Most, if not all of the countries you are talking about have less people as well.
First, you named no examples of such countries. Are you thinking of Sweden, where there is a higher rate of teen suicide perhaps?
Also, I am not saying that it is healthy to "blind" our children from understanding sex after puberty. I am saying that flaunting it on the covers of national or international magazines for grown men and women to look at and salivate over is not healthy either.
Also, children are confronted with a lot of things, many of which they will do. For instance, it natural for kids to want to follow what their friends are doing in order to feel included. Many such kids end up doing drugs, beating other people up, and other things that should be deemed reprehensible. Are you suggesting that because kids are going to do it anyway, that we as parents, should sit by and condone.
-
SeanRenaud said on Apr 29, 2008....
How bout virtually the entire continent of Europe. I mean not one, or two of them. Only two or three of them actually set the age above 16. Many of those countries allowed not only provocative photos of their women at those ages but were able to star in pornographic movies until pressure from the US (we won't import your stuff and there is no money in your shit hole country) forced them to change their laws.Heck even in the states its rare for the AoC to be above 16.Unless you can link teen suicide solidly to teen sex I'm not sure that's a valid thing to bring up in the debate. I mean I could mention that the Japanesse spend more hours in school but it's irrelevant.I'll see if I can dig up the per capita results, we still lose. -
mulgere-hircum said on Apr 29, 2008....
Sean, I have two, perhaps three, simple questions for you. Do you have children at or around the average AoC, and would you let them star in porn movies? Do you find that to be healthy? If so then you are fundamentally on a different plane than the one I exist on.
-
SeanRenaud said on Apr 29, 2008....
1. I don't have children. Course you're having children means you are too close to the situation to be rational in it. I have a feeling you wouldn't let your 30 year old daughter star in porn movies.2. Again I don't have children but as long as they were making an educated decision I wouldn't stop them. Course talking to you I understand why it was okay to send me to Iraq in 2003 even though I couldn't legally drink until 2005. Logic doesn't enter an equation with you.3. Educated people making educated decisions is healthy. Of course we are straying from the subject. The subject is wether Miley Cyrus's photo is deserving of half of the thit it's getting. -
mulgere-hircum said on Apr 30, 2008....
Sean, I have no control over a "30 year old child." Once my children reach 18 and are adults, they can make decisions for themselves. But as long as I am responsible for them and they are living at home, they are living under my supervision and my rules. If they want independence at 18, so be it. But until then, I am responsible for my children, and that is the way IT SHOULD BE.
An educated decision, in regards to [underage Teen pornography, would be not to engage in it. It exploitation, which no matter what spin you put on it, is oppressive. Porn causes people to have degrading images of women and men become props. There is nothing "artsy" about it. There is nothing socially constructive of it. And again, Argumentum ad Populum. Just because other countries, even a lot of other countries, do it, doesn't make it right, just or true.
Miley is fifteen years old and half naked pictures of her is deserving of people being concerned. The media is probably making things worse in that the images of her are on TV endlessly, but the concern is warranted.
-
anonymous said on Apr 30, 2008....
Mulg - I'm with you on this one. Pedophilia is rife, and it's just crazy to let a child (and at 15 you are a child, whether you think so, or not) be photographed in anything close to a suggestive manner. I think a lot of adult men justify their attraction to young girls in terms of biological readiness. That way they don't have to feel like perverts. It's a crock. -
SeanRenaud said on Apr 30, 2008....
Anon, going after 15 year old isn't pedophilia. -
mulgere-hircum said on Apr 30, 2008....
Sean, regardless it is wrong. Too many teens get exploited by adults. Teens are not known for making educated decisions. They are impulsive, they are trying to find out who they are, they don't understand all of the ramifications for being sexually active, and if any of those ramifications come true for any given teenager, they have no means of taking care of themselves. Let's take pregnancy as our example. If a teen girl gets pregnant she either has to rely on the guy who impregnated her (there are plenty of examples to prove the success rate of that), her parents, or if she doesn't have parents to rely on she may run away from home and end up God knows where. And those are just the beginning of the consequences, not mentioning the consequences the baby has to experience as a result of the decision to be sexually active. I am sure you will try to reply to this example with some European stat or what not...but stats can say what you want them to. The problem I have with the Miley Cyrus photos is that it is exploiting a 15 year old to entice the fantasies and sexual desires of older men, perhaps some older women as well, in order to make money. I am not saying this as if this is new and is in need of one of your "duh" comments. But exploitation, which always leads to the destruction (in some form or another) of the weak in order for the benefit and gain of the few strong. The photos are not being taken for Miley Cyrus' sexual self-awakening, they are not shot with her well-being in mind, they are shot to further her career. She is not making a fully educated decision because her decision is made by her parents, agents and others who advise her of what she should do to keep a career post-Hannah Montana. They all profit from her success and wish to keep her successful. That is the bottom line. No pie-in-the-sky talk about her coming to terms with her womanhood cuts it. -
SeanRenaud said on Apr 30, 2008....
I wasn't arguing the rightness of it, it's simply not pedophillia, an pedophile isn't interested in Miley Cyrus and it's important to keep that distinction there.Most of what you've mentioned as reasons why 15 year olds shouldn't have sex could accurately (and scientifically) be applied to anybody below the age fo 25, that seems to be about when the brain develops actual impulse control.I really hate to agree to disagree but we aren't making progress or really saying anything new here at this point. -
mulgere-hircum said on Apr 30, 2008....
Sean, I am cool with agreeing to disagree...but I did find another logical fallacy in an earlier statement. I must have missed it earlier...but I cannot let this one go.
You said: "Course talking to you I understand why it was okay to send me to Iraq in 2003 even though I couldn't legally drink until 2005. Logic doesn't enter an equation with you."
It seems like Logic doesn't enter the equation with you. This is a non sequitur. There is nothing I said that logically follows to the conclusion that I believe you should have been sent to Iraq in 2003 but not be able to drink until 2005.
I actually detest that law because it represents a double standard. People are old enough to shoot guns and be shot at and killed, but not old enough to drink. Either up the age of adulthood to 21 or allow eighteen year olds the full privileges of being an adult.
But, that is a non-point and has no relevance to the argument at hand. Not to mention it is a non sequitur.
-
SeanRenaud said on Apr 30, 2008....
No no, that's a fair shot.I hate agreeing to disagree because to me that's like saying that there is soemthing about your argument that is right, wether its on this, on the legal drinking age or on Bush as president and one person is right and the other is wrong. I just hate going in circles more, and you seem like someone who I'll get to debate again soon enough and nearly two years on Soul Cast has taught me that the same people will have the same debates over and over and over again. -
mulgere-hircum said on Apr 30, 2008....
Sean, clarify yourself...what's a fair shot? If you are talking about your original point of being in the service and not being able to drink then you are wrong. That's not a fair shot.- I stated, clearly, that 18 and older, I have no say as to what my children do
- I stated, clearly, that I hate double standards and that the government should make up their mind on what is the official age, socially speaking, of adulthood and stick with it, giving all adults equal rights and privileges.
-
mulgere-hircum said on Apr 30, 2008....
Also Sean, you may think you have me pinned down with the rest you have debated with on Soul Cast for the past 2 years...and maybe that's true...but anyone who knows me knows that I am unpredictable in my views. So don't get too sure of yourself off of one post. Also, I may not have been on Soul Cast for two years, but I've been blogging for more than two years...I'm a newbie here, but not a newbie to blogging or debating. I could make judgments about you and "your type", but that is ignorant being that aside from this one debate, I don't know you. So, I won't do that, but I do look forward to hearing from you on other things that I blog, whether you agree or disagree. I actually like disagreement because it expands my perception and understanding. Anyway, talk to you soon. -
SeanRenaud said on Apr 30, 2008....
Stick around, I like you.1. I was actually acknowledging your non-sequiter as a valid point. It was a fair shot and I acknowledge that. Relax and smile.2. I didn't say you were a newb, infact I wasn't at all attacking your credentials when I stated I'd been here a while. I was more saying that I don't feel the need to beat a dead horse here. I figure in the next six months or so some eighteen year old will get sentenced to 15 years in jail for screwing his seventeen year old girlfriend. Or one of the other young starlets will flash their crotches.3. I think i have a pretty good peg on what kind of person you are, but that'll wait until I've seen a bit more of you. -
mulgere-hircum said on May 01, 2008....
Sean, fair enough. That's why I was asking for clarification. I am smiling ;^) though the relaxed thing is kind of hard as of late. -
briannacarline93 said on Aug 24, 2008....
As a 15 year old teen girl,and a mother, i have to agree with mulgere-hircum. exposing a 15 year old girl on a magizine that her fans are probably not allowed to read is a discusting ploy to make money. When the magizine first came out I was shocked that she would agree to it in the first place. She is a child and putting her in those pervocitive pictures is wrong. I would never let my daughter take part in something as exposing as that. Everyone knows that she WILL be a woman. they don't need to see half naked pictures of her to confirm it. She is 15 and therefore a child and not woman,she is a young woman, and i feelbad for her knowing that older men bought the magizine to see her pictures -
mulgere-hircum said on Aug 24, 2008....
I couldn't agree more Brianna. It is a clearly disturbing fact that older men have gotten off while looking at a half-naked fifteen year old. And the sad part is is that this is somehow legal...because she is a superstar. No other parent would get away with having provocative pictures being taken of their kids...but somehow, because Miley Cyrus is a star, everyone looks the other way. It's just crazy.
-
SeanRenaud said on Aug 24, 2008....
She has hips and breast. Sorry she biologically a woman already. As I've pointed out earlier the vast majority of the world already understands this. *The pictures aren't even that sexy anyway*Yes plenty of parents have and would get away with having pictures like this taken of their children, and considerably worse. Her being a superstar has less than nothing to do with anything other than why we are hearing about it rather than ignoring it like we do the other zillion teen models in the country.It's like people don't understand that a sheltered 15-16 year old makes for an idiot 17-18 year old. You can keep somebody emotionally stunted pretty much as long as you want, in the case of celebrities it's probably doubly hard because if you let go too completely they can fuck up really bad really early but if you don't when they move out on thei 18th birthday they become Britney Spears. -
mulgere-hircum said on Aug 24, 2008....
Biologically, is not the same as financially, socially, emotionally or psychologically Sean. You know this, I know this. In other countries, kids are raised to be adults by 12...that is not the case in our culture...Disney was awesome by the way! ;^P If we were to do a complete overhaul of our society right now and made it viable for a 15 year old to be sexually active and capable of the consequences/rewards (depending on which way you look at it) of being sexually active...that would be one thing. But, that will take time to evolve, if it ever happens in this culture. And with that said, there is nothing Biological about a photograph. That is Sensational, not Biological. We weren't born with cameras or printing presses. I am not telling Miley what to do sexually...that is her decision. Biologically, sure, she's ready. I am not arguing that. What I am saying, is that plastering her half-naked (even if not altogether sexy) body on every newstand for 50+ men to gawk at is not okay. It is sensational, it is done to make money not art, and in my opinion, it is morally objectable. That is not saying that I think sex is morally objectable...but sensationalizing it and exploiting women (any age) or men (any age) to make money is morally objectable...now and always. -
SeanRenaud said on Aug 24, 2008....
1. The problem MH is nature wins out over civilization nearly every single time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_incidence_of_teenage_pregnancy America has a problem with teen pregnancy, the highest in the civilized world (We aren't going to discuss third world nations for obvious reasons. So ask yourself what major things are different between us and Europe, Canada and Japan? It obviously isn't our age of consent which I've already displayed to be out of step and higher not lower. If your going to claim sex in the media I'd say maybe you should rethink that. A quick glance at your at your local Spanish Broadcast will show you that Mexican Seasame STreet would need to be censored to get on MTv in America, Sailor Moon and Dragonball (and many other cartoons) involve full nudity. Sometimes even homosexual relationships. So it isn't that our media is to blame.So what is the problem? It's terribly obvious that this is the result of what happens when sex is strictly forbidden, and hidden from someone until they turn eighteen. Of course biology throws a monkey wrench in that plan and we end up where we are now. On a side note if abortion numbers are any indication lower sex age+more sex in the media=lower teen/unwanted pregnancy=lower abortion rates. For some reason though despite every bit of evidence that this works there is this stubborn and utter refusal to alter our current course for one that isn't counter productive.Fifty year old men were gawking at her before I'm sure, she looks like a woman. if you saw her in public you wouldn't think there goes a girl you'd think there goes a woman.The idea of exploiting women or men is laughable.Of course this is sensationalism not biology. Biology is well, I don't want to use the word boring when I'm the geek recording every episode of Evolve and who's probably forgotten more about sharks, dinosaurs, evolution than most people will ever know, but I also wouldn't call it sexy.This divide from reality is obviously hurting us as a nation. Just like our stubborn refusal to understand that just like prohibition created the Mob, a problem we're just now getting under control, the War on Drugs created modern street gangs (now going international) and funds terrorists. -
briannacarline93 said on Aug 24, 2008....
If I dressed in a mini shirt and tank-top. The only thing people would say as I passed by them would be " There Goes a teenager who has no self respect and has parents that don't care that their daughter is trying to look older than she actually is". When my friends would dress like "Woman" they would get honks from older men, They would be treated with disrepect from the people that they talked to in public. And they would get men pulling along side the sidewalk to be asked if they would like a ride. I'm pretty sure if they looked the same but they were 10 years older, No one would be so shocked and discusted. Just because miley has hips and breasts does not make her a full grown woman. It makes her a young woman that just happens to be developed physically for when she becomes a woman. Just because you are developed does not make you mentally prepared to act like a woman (I know this from personal experience). In reality there are consequences for your actions but in hollywood land, All you have to do is apoligize to the public or go to "rehab". I am not saying to hide your daughter from reality, because we all know that this world is very much sexualized. But to tell your daughter that your mind doesn't become prepared for sex or nudity when you grow breasts and hips. People that sexualize their children young will regret it when they can't hold real relationships or end up like lindsay lohan and her 13 year old sister that looks like she should be 25. -
mulgere-hircum said on Aug 24, 2008....
Sean, I am not sure what you are proving with the stats. This article was not on sex, but on unnecessary exploitation of people. Just because someone thinks they know what they are getting into doesn't mean they aren't being exploited. Many sexually abused children (I am talking about children, not teens, though they should not necessarily be excluded from this) are not forced to have sex, but are wooed into having it. They think that the adult "loves them" and that they should be allowing the adult to touch them and have his/her way with them. This is a reality...not all abuse happens forcefully! Now, anyone would say that those children are being exploited...and those children think they know what they are doing, but clearly they don't. They don't really know what the adult is doing in terms of the damage that is being done. Exploitation is not a joke nor is it laughable. Miley may have thought she knew what she was doing. (I am not equating her picture with sexual abuse, so don't go there). She thought she was arriving on a photo shoot that would cause the public to look at her in a more mature way in order to jump start her career once the Hannah Montana thing is done. And sure enough, that may be what such a picture would do. But it is sad that a person is judged, or deemed, valuable because of the shape or look of her body. And it is no joke that her womanness, and her sexuality, and her body, is being used as a means of furthering careers (Not just hers). If she took the photos herself and put them online for the world to see, then I wouldn't call this exploitation, but that is not what happened.exploitation:Now, Sean, are you suggesting that the lower rate of Teen Pregnancy and the like is due to countries not restricting sex? That's funny, because America does not truly restrict sex. Go to countries where sex is truly restricted (punishable by death) and you will find a quite low teen pregnancy rate. Now, I am not for restricting sex...but I am all for educating teens about sex. In that regard, perhaps America hasn't done a good enough job. But as far as sex being in our faces, America has done plenty good with that. Name one mall, one department store, one magazine, etc. that doesn't some sort of sex advertisement. What is the purpose of underwear? According to alot of ads, it is what makes or breaks you getting a man, or a woman, into bed. Why drink a beer? Well, because the more you drink the more women flock to you. They did it at one time with Cigarettes as well. Why by an ultra-strong sound monitor, so you can hear what your neighbor thinks of your ass as you run around the block. No, I am not blaming that alone for the problems we have in this country. Nothing is that "black and white" (I couldn't resist).NOUN:- The act of employing to the greatest possible advantage: exploitation of copper deposits.
- Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes: exploitation of unwary consumers.
- An advertising or a publicity program.
I think we don't educate the kids well enough, neither conservatives or liberals or moderates or independents or whatever, have offered any sort of comprehensive sexual education program. One side says just have condom dispensers in the bathrooms...it'll be discreet and at least it will be safe. Well, discreet yes and safe, mostly, but not all the time. Firstly, people don't wear condoms on their tongues and lips when performing oral sex. Herpes, and other stuff can be contracted orally as well as through intercourse. Secondly, condoms are never 100% efficient. So, even with the usage of them you can still contract STD's and conceive babies.
Birth control is very, very effective.."Birth control pills are considered nearly 99% effective at preventing pregnancy when taken correctly. However, studies have shown up to 20% of teens using birth control pills forget to take them at least twice a month." Also it is risky to the women taking it. My wife is a nurse, and she has heard many doctors talk about the risks women have taking such pills. Not just older women either. Heart attacks, Deep Vein Thrombosis, High Blood Pressure, Stroke, etc. are all side effects and there is a rise in younger women experiencing these types of health issues. My wife had to stop taking birth control herself as a result of extremely High Blood Pressure (which normally, as it is now with her off the medication, her Blood Pressure is on the lower side of normal). So, there is a costly effectiveness in taking the pill. There is of course abstinence...which is the MOST effective way of not contracting STD's and pregnancy, but then again you'll probably find that very boring. Masturbation (laugh if you will) is a healthy way of engaging in intimacy with one's self without the consequences of unwanted pregnancies and STD's. I could go on, but I won't. Here is what I found on teen pregnancy in Europe and why it is thought that such teen pregnancy is going down in most of Europe (not the U.K. which has the highest teen pregnancy rate out of all of Europe).From the never too reliable Wikipedia:There are a high number of sexually active 15 year olds in the U.S. then there are in say the Netherlands, Germany and France. In the U.S., of women ages 15-19, 15.8 is the average age for a woman to have intercourse for the first time. In the Netherlands, the average age is 17.7. Germany, the average age is 16.2. And in France, the average age is 16.9. So, these are the stats. But you cannot be serious in saying that the Netherlands Red Light District or that crazy ads in France are responsible for fewer problems. If that were true, one would expect places like California to have the lowest teen pregnancy rates in the country, being that it is ultral liberal on a lot of these issues. But actually, it has the highest rate. "California has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the nation, with nearly 65,000 teens giving birth each year."
The overall trend in Europe since 1970 has been a decreasing total fertility rate, an increase in the age at which women experience their first birth, and a decrease in the number of births among teenagers. The United Kingdom, which has the highest teenage birth rate in Europe, also has a higher rate of abortion than most European countries. In contrast, most continental Western European countries have very low rates. This is varyingly attributed to good sex education and high levels of contraceptive use (in the case of the Netherlands and Scandinavia), traditional values and social stigmatization (in the case of Italy and Spain) or both (in the case of Switzerland).
But this is a digression from my article...because I am not talking about teen pregnancy or whatever. I am talking about the blatant exploitation of a 15 year old who is not fully informed of all the possible consequences of such a photo shoot (after all she is 15 and not as fully experienced in consequence as some of us who are older are).
Sean, prohibition didn't create the mob...a corrupt police force (making it necessary for people to organize and protect themselves) in Sicily did. The prohibition just gave the mob something extra to get rich on and they did exploit that opportunity. But they are by no means gone.
Look I am not calling for the banning or prohibition of sex, sex related ads, porn, etc. Who am I to call for that? What I am upset about is the refusal to set up a line and stick to it. We should be guiding the youth to smart, healthy choices, not leading them to potential pitfalls and dangers. So many teens girls' lives are ruined because they slept around with some guy who was after only one thing, and left the second "I'm p..." was uttered. There is a huge dilemma in this country and taking half-naked photos of 15 year olds is not the answer to it. We need to better educate, offer more resources (yes even making forms of birth control available with the proper education of the side effects and dangers) and the like. But I still cannot understand you when you say that it is perfectly okay for a 15 year old to be flaunted on a magazine cover or that that is a healty expression of a 15 year old's womanhood and/or sexuality. Focusing on High School, dating, enjoying the few years left before real responsibility hits and planning for the future should be the expressions of an emerging woman...not how big her tits are or how well she rides a guy or how she looks splashed up on Vanity Fair. It is degrading to women that they are viewed as women by their sexuality as opposed to their intellect, or their ability to achieve, etc. I know many women, many of whom are sexually active, who would disagree with your take on what an emerging woman should look like.
-
mulgere-hircum said on Aug 24, 2008....
Brianna, again, you are right on. And, you are also a 15 year old teen mother who knows the consequences of being sexually active. There is nothing wrong with you being a mother...heck, my wife was 19 and I was 20 when we conceived our first child. We weren't married, and we actually planned the baby. Now, I wouldn't trade my two daughters for anything...but our choices to have kids at that age (a prime age, biologically speaking, for baby making) made life a bit rockier for us. I was lucky to have the resources to pull through those times that we faced way back when. My wife, then fiance, had a partner who was true to her and still is. I didn't run off, nor did I want to. I was excited to be a Dad. But not everyone has such resources and/or luck. Another person I know impregnated his ex-wife when they were both teens and they did get married. But the marriage ended up in divorce and the situation for the kids is tenuous to say the least. It is a bad situation for him and it is because of the unintended consequences of being sexually active. He now has five kids, four with his ex-wife...one with her sister. That is certainly not a biological issue...but certainly a moral one and we cannot forget the damage that the kids will go through as a result of the choices. I am not sure what your circumstances are but I am sure you are a great mother and are doing whatever it takes to care for your child. But you, more than Sean or anyone who has their head in the clouds on this issue, know what it is like to have to raise a child at the age of 15. Thank you Brianna for your existentially informed Point-of-View and comments on this subject. -
SeanRenaud said on Aug 24, 2008....
If you hadn’t bee so articulate with your words I would just laugh you off but you are at least articulate so you deserve a response. Yes there are many children who are exploited, and doubtless many adults as well that are taken advantage of sexually. A large part of this is because of the tools they have developed and the sooner they develop these tools the better they will fair.
Miley likely knew EXACTLY what she was doing. If she’s stuck in the Hannah Montana phase here career will die with the show and Disney likes to dump shows every three years so she’s up against the wall right now.
Of course people are (and in many ways SHOULD be deemed valuble on the shape of their body make perfect sense. It’s thinking like this that has America as an overweight nation. She’s a model and an actress of course how many men she attracts is a large part of her career. Don’t be droll.
Judging by the dictionarly definition of exploit it’s not a bad word. I mean by this definition anytime you go to the grocery store and don’t leave your change your exploiting Vons. So lets be grown ups and not stick to the dictionary.
America doesn’t restrict sex? Are you serious or is this some kind of joke? In comparison to the rest of the Western world we are down right draconic. Once again our advertising is sexy compared to what? Not Canadian, not Europeans, not the Japanesse.
You quote the same European studies that I did. You don’t educate people on things they aren’t going to come into contact with. Hense you don’t educate teens on sex because according to us they aren’t supposed to have it. Europe proves it, you quote it and then say uh no. Your closest thing to an intelligent argument is that California bucks the trend. I could show you the same charts for level education, and intelligence running inverse to religion but America ignores (partially) that trend. Does a single glaring acception make a rule different? Beside California has a HUGE Mexican population and a larger than average African American population so you’ve got two large religious groups who tend to be undereducated and highly religious (ie against birth control.)
Whatever prohibition didn’t create the mob, that statement is so patently false (even by your own statement) to be unworthy of discussion.
I’ll skip over your last paragraph other than to say this. Those last few years of “no responsibility) must by necessity be shifted earlier. Your high school years should prepare you to live without further guidance. We are gimping our children and we are seeing the results and honestly I can’t believe that someone is going to flaunt Saudi Arabia’s lack of teen pregnancy.
Again I’m about as chauvinistic as you get. You want to put women back in hijabs and make them second class citizens and effective slave to be bought traded and sold. Honestly? The world will be a better place for it. But I don’t think that’s what you’re meaning so I highly suggest that your example of the Middle East has really low teen pregnancy rates. . .you know hat I’m gonna be polite and pretend you never said that.
-
mulgere-hircum said on Aug 24, 2008....
I am not supporting the Middle East, nor promoting their methods of "birth control." I am saying that, America is not strict on sexuality. The middle east is draconic, America is moderate (over-all...there are always extremes), Western Europe has fallen off the cliff. No stats, at all, prove that what you support is the morally right direction for America to take. In fact, I am glad that America isn't like Western Europe. If I liked Western Europe so much, I'd move there. But I like America and don't want it to become defined by what Western Europe does. Now, that is not to say that I don't want certain changes in America. Look, the heartland is not the whole of America. I am not sure, Sean, if you will ever have a kid (intentionally or unintentionally) but if you do, I almost guarantee your position will change.
Now, again, I am no Saint. I am not one of those "faint of heart," don't talk about sex, "a blow what" type of people. I have had a good share of sex and have had a damn good time enjoying it. I am not some self-righteous prude who never had sex until he was married. I am not some guy who pretends he never looked at porn, or what-not. I am just saying that, as a parent, you want your kids to make the best decisions in life. Sure, they have to learn on their own; however, so long as I am legally responsible for my children, they will obey me and listen to me. I know parents that have gone to jail for "befriending" their children and letting them do things that they are legally old enough to do. I also don't think that teaching the kids to be as sexual as they like is the appropriate teaching method. I don't find it appropriate to place sexuality in Sesame Street...how utterly ridiculous. It doesn't need to be there. I don't have a problem with nudity (so long as it isn't underage nudity)...but the glamorization of SEXUALITY does not help to inform people of the consequences that can arise from irresponsible sexuality. I just don't see how the stats support that. You have not adequately shown me that the stats support your claims. I think it is NAIVE to say that she new EXACTLY what she was doing. She knew why she was doing it. But I highly doubt someone sat down with her and educated her on all of ramifications of that decision. Also, teens tend to do what is "cool" as opposed to what is right.
Sure Sean, blame it on the Mexican and African Americans. Californian policies have nothing to do with it at all. Listen, if they were as "religious" as you say, to the point of no birth control...they would also be against premarital sex. But if a teen has premarital sex in a community that ostracizes people for having premarital sex, it would make sense to USE birth control in the hopes to not get caught. Something tells me that the teens breaking the premarital rule aren't holding on to the no birth control rule for religious purposes. Rather, a lack of education (perhaps) and the mentality of "it won't happen to me," or embarassment of someone seeing you buying contraceptives are the probable reasons for not using them. I am all for confidentially passing out contraceptives...but not without the right education about them and their proper usage and the ramifications of having a child as an unprepared teen with little to no resources.
Being chauvinistic is not the way to liberate women from being in hijabs and second class citizens. This is where you've lost me. The logic that the more chauvinistic I am, the better treated women are, is not there. This is laughable and sad if you believe it. The liberation many women want is the liberation from chauvinism. The liberation from being viewed as a sex object, a piece of meat to be skewered on a male shish-ka-bob stick. The porn industry is largely in business to feed men's fantasies about women. Most of those fantasies aren't real, and women shouldn't have to live up to them because the majority of men want their partners to be more like Jenna Jameson, Asia Carrera or Mary Carey.
On the mob...dude, check your history. Of course, I am recounting the history of the Italian Mafia because they were largely the ones behind the bootlegging of liquor during the prohibition, which was a point you brought up. The origins of La Cosa Nostra (Mafia) are highly debated and one of the speculations is that they might have started out as a sort of organized Robin Hoods. Not everyone agrees with that hypothesis and some have argued that that could have been Mafia propaganda to win over the goodwill of the sicilian people. Either way, it is possible that they date back to Medieval Europe which places them long before the prohibition. Either way, your prohibition statement is what is patently false. But I am finding, yet again, that it is pointless arguing with you on this Miley Cyrus issue. You aren't going to see it my way, and I am not going to see it your way. Of course, there is hope for you...lol ;^)
-
mulgere-hircum said on Aug 24, 2008....
One other thing, Sean. The UK, unlike the rest of Western Europe, has a high number of teen pregnancies and so I am not sure that there are unified stats that support that what Western Europe does is the universal answer to the problems we've been discussing. -
SeanRenaud said on Aug 24, 2008....
Whatever. Western Europes opinion on sexuality is clearly healthier than ours. If having kids means that ignore facts in favor knee jerk politics then we deserve the Mafia and we deserve 18th Street and MS13 because we would rather pay the consequences than do things intelligently.
Whatever ignore the reality that Catholics and strong Christians who are anti-birth control are still human and have sex.
Whatever. The Mafia was a huge powerhouse previous the prohibition. Prohibition had no negative consequences and was repealed because there were a lot jerks in the world.Gods at least ALIEN admits when he’s wrong then backpedals to the safety zone of no matter how bad things get if you are a follower of Christ you’ve made the right decision.
-
SeanRenaud said on Aug 24, 2008....
Added (to your 7minutes cus I was typing when you entered that one) England also seems to be the prudish one of the Western Europeans which lends further creedence to the hypothesis. The fact is clear that whatever they are doing is working better than whatever we are doing.*Though I've long hypothesised that socialism leads to less children since I do try to play fair* -
mulgere-hircum said on Aug 25, 2008....
Dude...I have family that lives in England. I've been there multiple times. I've seen the Penthouse quality ads splashed on every inch of their phone booths. They are not prude by any stretch of the imagination. I have also seen, as my family is witness to as well, the crazy number of teens pushing strollers. Look, anyone can make stats say anything. Stats do not always speak toward actual reality, but projected reality. There is a difference. Of course, you'll probably say that is laughable or cry out "whatever." The point is, if Catholics or "strong" (whatever that means) Christians are having sex in their teens...they are not not using birth control because of their prudish religion. That is simply silly. Let's see, I won't prude out on sex itself...but fuck birth control, because the Church tells me it's bad. I mean come on Sean. That is asinine. And again, the stats do not clearly favor that it's the European Glamorization of Sex that is causing numbers to drop (I am not sure they quite glamorize it the way the US Media does...being open about sex does not necessarily equate to glamorizing it...but perhaps they do). Regardless, the stats reflect that there is a higher age of first time sex and a lower number of teen pregnancies. Again, I will quote the wikipedia article: "This is varyingly attributed to good sex education and high levels of contraceptive use (in the case of the Netherlands and Scandinavia), traditional values and social stigmatization (in the case of Italy and Spain) or both (in the case of Switzerland)." Nowhere in there do I see: "This is attributed to plentiful amounts of 15 year olds getting half-naked pictures taken of them..." or, "This is due to a high volume of ads, shows, music and commercials that glamorize sex." By the way, glamorizing something usually means making it into something its not, or at least, making it into something it's not entirely. Listen, I am with you when it comes to having our country become more open with sex and sexuality. Having them become more open and less reserved would be a healthy thing because it would open up discussion and present possible solutions to the current problems we are facing. I am with you on that. But the Miley Cyrus thing is not on par with that. It is whole different creature, its sensationalism, not constructive. You know that, as you have said above, and I know that.
Listen, being a parent means taking responsibility. It means taking on the role of nurturer, protector, guide, and discipliner. It is not a game. It is not some social experiment. It is the way of nature. Sure, just like a mother bird, we parents have to be willing to push the baby bird from the nest in order for it to lear not fly. But never when there is a wolf at the bottom of the tree with its drooling mouth agape. This is the way of nature. Humans are not above nature. A mother bear doesn't just leave her cubs to fend for themselves. Wolves themselves have social codes that are adhered to by the entire pack. A wolf's way of living is not the same as a bear's, etc. and so on. It is instinct when a parent defends his or her child, against any perceived threat (including preMATURE sex), as a means to insure the survival of the young. Now, you could say that sex isn't deadly. That isn't necessarily true, but I'll accept that. But it can be seriously life altering and it can hold consequences that can completely hinder the well-being of the people having it. When I say well-being, I am speaking of more than biology. I am speaking of emotions, finances, psychology, socially, and yes, even spiritually (regardless of religion, or no-religion). This is the job of a parent. It is called love. A parent loves their child and wants the best for them. They don't ignore the facts, but when the facts are not clear (on all grounds), choices have to be made. Of course there is not one single perfect parent, and mistakes are often made, but they are made with the right intentions and instinct behind it. Of course, there is not one single perfect human being, so it is just natural that there aren't any perfect parents.
Of course, prohibition had negative consequences...and I did say that the mob more than took advantage of it. But you already know I said that...unless you forgot.
But prohibition is not a good analogy. First, it was taking something away from socially perceived adults. Second, the majority of adults liked alcohol and were pissed it was taken away. So, naturally, the prohibition had negative effects. But sex is not prohibited. Firstly, there is no federal law against teen sex. There are laws against adults having sex with minors (as it should be...there is a power issue there. Even if not in every case, saving kids and teens from adult sexual prowess and manipulation is a good thing. So the feds, made a law trying to discourage adults from having sex with minors). Now with that said, there are problems with that law. Should an 18 or 19 year old go to jail for having sex with a 17 year old. No! I think that is ridiculous and there are issues that need to be worked out. But, the law itself is there for a good reason...it just isn't narrow enough. But sex, otherwise, is not prohibited. You could bring up stupid sodomy laws or what not, but that is not nationwide, nor is it the majority of the country. There is not a federally sponsored, nation-wide, prohibition on sex. There are restrictions, yes. For instance, no prostitution. This I feel, from a secular point of view, is a mistake because Nevada has a working prostitution system that seems to be proven to remove a lot of the "evils" in the prostitution business. Their are no pimps, their are mandatory STD tests, licenses, etc. It reduces crime and stops unnecessary arrests which are almost always (in ever other part of the country) the harmless prostitutes and hardly ever the abusive and corrupt pimps. Yes, I would be with you in saying that our policy on prostitution is causing more harm than good and needs to be changed. But I would also want in place more opportunities for education. A system that doesn't ignore th poor (who often resort to things like prostitution). But I digress.
To say their is a prohibition on sex, in general, is absurd. Sex is not banned, it is practiced by most sexually capable people of all types of statuses. And there is no team of "untouchables" knocking down doors doing sex raids. So, I find the prohibition to be a false analogy.
Comment on "Miley Cyrus: An emerging woman?"
Related Posts:
justjaymeson
posted 8 days ago
| views: 32
|
FINALLY HEARD!!!!jaymeson jiles: Legend-in-Waiting - My Life as a COLORED Girl... read entire post