|
Post by faune on Apr 18, 2014 11:25:34 GMT -5
You must have thought about it, then. Well indeed I have! In my local humanist group we have a booth at the local gay pride day. Its interesting to talk openly and honestly to people who are gay. I have repulsion to homosexual sex, and discovered many homosexuals have a repulsion to heterosexual sex! Each persuasion has their kinks, and degrees of sexuality. Because of getting to know them I no longer exclude someone as a possible friend because of their sexual persuasion, as I have come to understand it's not a choice.
For Christmas we are invited to a lesbian couples party. We are one of the few straight couples invited. A close friend of mine is openly gay. If I were still in the 2x2's I would have missed out on making these good friends - "because the bible told me so". Xna ~ I share you opinion above, which I highlighted. You would think after centuries of having homosexuals around and being able to observe them better and even get to know them through conversation , people would lighten up on their homophobia? Honestly, some of the prejudicial attitudes towards gays are so unfair and out of place in today's society!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2014 11:42:06 GMT -5
A better definition of sexualization ... Sexualization consists of an instrumental approach to a person by perceiving that person as an object for sexual use disregarding the person's dignity and personality traits, with the person's worth being measured in terms of the level of sexual attractiveness; sexualization also involves the imposition of the sexuality of adult persons on girls, who are emotionally, psychologically and physically unprepared for this at their particular stage of development; sexualization[note 1] not being the normal, healthy, biological development of the sexuality of a person, conditioned by the individual process of development and taking place at the appropriate time for each particular individual.[14] Reporter: Joanna Skrzydlewska, Member of the European Parliament That's definitely a bad thing. However, I'm not so sure that children are "sexualized" more today than in the past. Our experience with young girls is relatively recent (the last decade+ ) and I didn't see much, if any, of that. Most pre-pubescent girls wore some sort of jewellery from time to time but I can't think of any offhand of the scores we knew personally who seemed sexually provocative or out of place until pubescence. Even then, the girls we knew even at ages 15 and 16 were for the most part, reasonably modest. From what I can see, it's a very rare parent who tries to impose adult sexuality on a pre-pubescent child.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 18, 2014 12:44:03 GMT -5
A better definition of sexualization ... Sexualization consists of an instrumental approach to a person by perceiving that person as an object for sexual use disregarding the person's dignity and personality traits, with the person's worth being measured in terms of the level of sexual attractiveness; sexualization also involves the imposition of the sexuality of adult persons on girls, who are emotionally, psychologically and physically unprepared for this at their particular stage of development; sexualization[note 1] not being the normal, healthy, biological development of the sexuality of a person, conditioned by the individual process of development and taking place at the appropriate time for each particular individual.[14] Reporter: Joanna Skrzydlewska, Member of the European Parliament That's definitely a bad thing. However, I'm not so sure that children are "sexualized" more today than in the past. Our experience with young girls is relatively recent (the last decade+ ) and I didn't see much, if any, of that. Most pre-pubescent girls wore some sort of jewellery from time to time but I can't think of any offhand of the scores we knew personally who seemed sexually provocative or out of place until pubescence. Even then, the girls we knew even at ages 15 and 16 were for the most part, reasonably modest. From what I can see, it's a very rare parent who tries to impose adult sexuality on a pre-pubescent child. The primary negative influences are through the media and through consumerism. When our girls were in their early teenage years the Spice Girls were popular among their age set, and we weren't too impressed with that, not that I paid a lot of attention. Today it is Miley Cyrus that has everyone concerned. It's not just that though. Look at the evolution in women's bathing suits, from one piece to bikini, and now padded bikinis for eight year olds. How about beauty pageants for five year olds, as satirized in "Little Miss Sunshine"? I think that in the past the risks were quite different, and I'm not sure comparisons are meaningful. I grew up in a small prairie town where a significant percentage of girls were pregnant and married by shotgun by the age of 16. Surely that was no better than today, but so what?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 18, 2014 12:50:57 GMT -5
For example, read the section on television on page 5 - www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report-full.pdfIn their analysis of sexual harassment on prime-time programming, Grauerholz and King (1997) reported a similar focus on the denigration of women that alluded to their sexuality and lack of intellect and that objectified their bodies. Of the 81 episodes analyzed, 84% contained at least one incident of sexual harassment, with an average of 3.4 incidents per program.The most frequent acts were sexist comments (33.3% of the incidents) in which a wide variety of deprecating words were used to describe women (e.g., broad, bimbo, dumb ass chick, toots, fox, babe, blondie). The next most frequent occurrences were verbal sexual comments (32% of the incidents).These comments typically focused on women’s bodies or body parts, especially breasts, which were referred to as jugs, boobs, knockers, hooters, cookware, and canned goods. The third most common category was body language (13%) and generally involved men or adolescent boys leering at women or girls.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2014 13:44:10 GMT -5
That's definitely a bad thing. However, I'm not so sure that children are "sexualized" more today than in the past. Our experience with young girls is relatively recent (the last decade+ ) and I didn't see much, if any, of that. Most pre-pubescent girls wore some sort of jewellery from time to time but I can't think of any offhand of the scores we knew personally who seemed sexually provocative or out of place until pubescence. Even then, the girls we knew even at ages 15 and 16 were for the most part, reasonably modest. From what I can see, it's a very rare parent who tries to impose adult sexuality on a pre-pubescent child. The primary negative influences are through the media and through consumerism. When our girls were in their early teenage years the Spice Girls were popular among their age set, and we weren't too impressed with that, not that I paid a lot of attention. Today it is Miley Cyrus that has everyone concerned. It's not just that though. Look at the evolution in women's bathing suits, from one piece to bikini, and now padded bikinis for eight year olds. How about beauty pageants for five year olds, as satirized in "Little Miss Sunshine"? I think that in the past the risks were quite different, and I'm not sure comparisons are meaningful. I grew up in a small prairie town where a significant percentage of girls were pregnant and married by shotgun by the age of 16. Surely that was no better than today, but so what? It would be easy to focus on the extremes of society and use that as examples of normal. I seem to recall that Hanna Montana was the role model for young pre-pubescent and early pubescent girls and it was a reasonable image. Only when Miley tried to transition for an adult audience did the raunchiness start to come out. Similar with Bieber and a few other crash and burn teen actresses and singers like Speers and Lohan as they tried to re-invent themselves. The decent teen role models probably outnumber the really bad ones regardless. Still, I think most people, including teens, realize that lines between reality and fiction do exist. Again, I don't see much difference between Miley Cyrus and "Elvis the Pelvis", both of whom pushed the envelope for social behaviours.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Apr 18, 2014 14:33:01 GMT -5
My attitudes are probably somewhat prudish on these matters though. I was in France or Switzerland with my teenage daughter browsing a variety store card rack of picture post cards featured a significant selection of naked models in provocative poses in among the pictures of the Eiffel tower and other attractions. Around here there are bylaws against the open display of such material. But what's wrong with a naked body in the general sense of it? So in that case, the incident went by unremarked. I wonder who "consumed" these post cards? (I don't know the answer.) I think in the U.S. there is a forced association between nudity and sex. Plus, I think U.S. culture is at the same time prudish and obsessed with sex. I visited a friend in Germany and we spent a day at a Saunagarten walking around without clothes on. I was surprised at how comfortable I felt. I think it was because it was completely normal for the locals. In fact, it was "Family Day" and there were entire families - little kids through grandparents - walking around the facility making no attempt to cover up. Naked bodies everywhere one looked. Different shapes and sizes, a wide range of ages....normal, matter-of-fact, no big deal, no gawking, no ogling. no leering. (I can't imagine having a similarly positive experience in a public space in the U.S..) I think if a child has been brought up with a positive experience of nudity, then a stamp showing a man's bare buttocks may not warrant a second look.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 18, 2014 14:56:29 GMT -5
Matisse ~ I can remember when the Broadway musical "Hair" came out in the late 1960's and the uproar it caused nationwide. Although it was the sexual revolution here in America, it still got a lot of flack in the media due to a few nude scenes within the play.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair_(musical)
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 18, 2014 15:39:59 GMT -5
Quote - " How does one come across such info? What are you putting into your Google searches? What mailing list have you signed up for?"I got this article from my favorite slate.com
(as you can see from the URL.)
It's a mainstream online newspaper. First ownned by Microsoft and now, I think, it belongs to the New York timesWashington Post group.
A bit liberal, but very very intelligent. It covers the most amazing subjects.
Incidentally I didn't post this as a GAY ISSUE, I meant it as a SEXUAL MORALITY ISSUE.:(
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2014 15:45:39 GMT -5
My attitudes are probably somewhat prudish on these matters though. I was in France or Switzerland with my teenage daughter browsing a variety store card rack of picture post cards featured a significant selection of naked models in provocative poses in among the pictures of the Eiffel tower and other attractions. Around here there are bylaws against the open display of such material. But what's wrong with a naked body in the general sense of it? So in that case, the incident went by unremarked. I wonder who "consumed" these post cards? (I don't know the answer.) I think in the U.S. there is a forced association between nudity and sex. Plus, I think U.S. culture is at the same time prudish and obsessed with sex. I visited a friend in Germany and we spent a day at a Saunagarten walking around without clothes on. I was surprised at how comfortable I felt. I think it was because it was completely normal for the locals. In fact, it was "Family Day" and there were entire families - little kids through grandparents - walking around the facility making no attempt to cover up. Naked bodies everywhere one looked. Different shapes and sizes, a wide range of ages....normal, matter-of-fact, no big deal, no gawking, no ogling. no leering. (I can't imagine having a similarly positive experience in a public space in the U.S..) I think if a child has been brought up with a positive experience of nudity, then a stamp showing a man's bare buttocks may not warrant a second look. when ever nakedness is mentioned in the bible it is as a sign of weakness and shame. i could list some verses but i am sure you know them...
|
|
|
Post by xna on Apr 18, 2014 15:52:39 GMT -5
I wonder who "consumed" these post cards? (I don't know the answer.) I think in the U.S. there is a forced association between nudity and sex. Plus, I think U.S. culture is at the same time prudish and obsessed with sex. I visited a friend in Germany and we spent a day at a Saunagarten walking around without clothes on. I was surprised at how comfortable I felt. I think it was because it was completely normal for the locals. In fact, it was "Family Day" and there were entire families - little kids through grandparents - walking around the facility making no attempt to cover up. Naked bodies everywhere one looked. Different shapes and sizes, a wide range of ages....normal, matter-of-fact, no big deal, no gawking, no ogling. no leering. (I can't imagine having a similarly positive experience in a public space in the U.S..) I think if a child has been brought up with a positive experience of nudity, then a stamp showing a man's bare buttocks may not warrant a second look. when ever nakedness is mentioned in the bible it is as a sign of weakness and shame. i could list some verses but i am sure you know them... I looked them up; it starts in Genesis and keeps on going into Revelations. Clothes are a big deal.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Apr 18, 2014 15:58:30 GMT -5
I wonder who "consumed" these post cards? (I don't know the answer.) I think in the U.S. there is a forced association between nudity and sex. Plus, I think U.S. culture is at the same time prudish and obsessed with sex. I visited a friend in Germany and we spent a day at a Saunagarten walking around without clothes on. I was surprised at how comfortable I felt. I think it was because it was completely normal for the locals. In fact, it was "Family Day" and there were entire families - little kids through grandparents - walking around the facility making no attempt to cover up. Naked bodies everywhere one looked. Different shapes and sizes, a wide range of ages....normal, matter-of-fact, no big deal, no gawking, no ogling. no leering. (I can't imagine having a similarly positive experience in a public space in the U.S..) I think if a child has been brought up with a positive experience of nudity, then a stamp showing a man's bare buttocks may not warrant a second look. when ever nakedness is mentioned in the bible it is as a sign of weakness and shame. i could list some verses but i am sure you know them... I am sure you must know by now that I'm not much of a "For the Bible tells me so" kind of gal at this point. I really don't care what the Bible says about nakedness. What I experienced in Germany seemed like a healthy alternative to what I have experienced here in the U.S..
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 18, 2014 17:07:05 GMT -5
I am sure you must know by now that I'm not much of a "For the Bible tells me so" kind of gal at this point. I really don't care what the Bible says about nakedness. What I experienced in Germany seemed like a healthy alternative to what I have experienced here in the U.S.. Nakedness in the bible really depends on whether the original word was arowm, eyrom, or ervah. The first two were never said to be wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2014 18:19:42 GMT -5
ervah seems to be the one most used to convey shame the most times...
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 18, 2014 21:22:56 GMT -5
I am sure you must know by now that I'm not much of a "For the Bible tells me so" kind of gal at this point. A gal??? But you sound so logical...
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 18, 2014 21:46:30 GMT -5
I wonder who "consumed" these post cards? (I don't know the answer.) I think in the U.S. there is a forced association between nudity and sex. Plus, I think U.S. culture is at the same time prudish and obsessed with sex. I visited a friend in Germany and we spent a day at a Saunagarten walking around without clothes on. I was surprised at how comfortable I felt. I think it was because it was completely normal for the locals. In fact, it was "Family Day" and there were entire families - little kids through grandparents - walking around the facility making no attempt to cover up. Naked bodies everywhere one looked. Different shapes and sizes, a wide range of ages....normal, matter-of-fact, no big deal, no gawking, no ogling. no leering. (I can't imagine having a similarly positive experience in a public space in the U.S..) I think if a child has been brought up with a positive experience of nudity, then a stamp showing a man's bare buttocks may not warrant a second look. when ever nakedness is mentioned in the bible it is as a sign of weakness and shame. i could list some verses but i am sure you know them... I'm sure you could find a lot of verses. I am equally sure you could find lots of verses to the contrary -- I can think of one complete book of the Bible right off. There's a bit of nakedness goes along with rape, torture, incest, adultery, fornication, lots of things. It's not a condemnation of nakedness, it's a condemnation of violent acts. There is a lot of euphemism in the Bible. Nakedness is one of them. We use it today. We like to say that someone is sleeping with someone else. We don't mean that at all, need I explain? There is nothing wrong with sleep -- it is necessary, beautiful, and desirable. Did you know that in the Bible "washing one's feet" is a euphemism for doing the nasty? Time to start reading, guys!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 18, 2014 21:48:28 GMT -5
Matisse ~ I can remember when the Broadway musical "Hair" came out in the late 1960's and the uproar it caused nationwide. Although it was the sexual revolution here in America, it still got a lot of flack in the media due to a few nude scenes within the play.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair_(musical) Did I miss something? I thought cats were all covered all over with hair!!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 18, 2014 22:33:21 GMT -5
The primary negative influences are through the media and through consumerism. When our girls were in their early teenage years the Spice Girls were popular among their age set, and we weren't too impressed with that, not that I paid a lot of attention. Today it is Miley Cyrus that has everyone concerned. It's not just that though. Look at the evolution in women's bathing suits, from one piece to bikini, and now padded bikinis for eight year olds. How about beauty pageants for five year olds, as satirized in "Little Miss Sunshine"? I think that in the past the risks were quite different, and I'm not sure comparisons are meaningful. I grew up in a small prairie town where a significant percentage of girls were pregnant and married by shotgun by the age of 16. Surely that was no better than today, but so what? It would be easy to focus on the extremes of society and use that as examples of normal. I seem to recall that Hanna Montana was the role model for young pre-pubescent and early pubescent girls and it was a reasonable image. Only when Miley tried to transition for an adult audience did the raunchiness start to come out. Similar with Bieber and a few other crash and burn teen actresses and singers like Speers and Lohan as they tried to re-invent themselves. The decent teen role models probably outnumber the really bad ones regardless. Still, I think most people, including teens, realize that lines between reality and fiction do exist. Again, I don't see much difference between Miley Cyrus and "Elvis the Pelvis", both of whom pushed the envelope for social behaviours. Again, I'm concerned when I read about the number of young women overly concerned with their body image, and who suffer from depression or eating disorders as a result. Clearly we've gone over the top in sexually objectifying women. This has nothing to do with the degree of open-ness concerning sexual topics or just incidents of sexual expression. Read a few pages of the APA paper above to understand where the concern lies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2014 22:35:40 GMT -5
Matisse ~ I can remember when the Broadway musical "Hair" came out in the late 1960's and the uproar it caused nationwide. Although it was the sexual revolution here in America, it still got a lot of flack in the media due to a few nude scenes within the play.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair_(musical) Did I miss something? I thought cats were all covered all over with hair!! Not all of 'em. Some are quite, you know... n.a.k.e.d....
(well, "hairless" anyway...)
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 18, 2014 22:36:27 GMT -5
Did I miss something? I thought cats were all covered all over with hair!! Not all of 'em. Some are quite, you know... n.a.k.e.d....
(well, "hairless" anyway...)
Why didn't someone tell me? Perverts!!!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 18, 2014 22:42:30 GMT -5
My attitudes are probably somewhat prudish on these matters though. I was in France or Switzerland with my teenage daughter browsing a variety store card rack of picture post cards featured a significant selection of naked models in provocative poses in among the pictures of the Eiffel tower and other attractions. Around here there are bylaws against the open display of such material. But what's wrong with a naked body in the general sense of it? So in that case, the incident went by unremarked. I wonder who "consumed" these post cards? (I don't know the answer.) I think in the U.S. there is a forced association between nudity and sex. Plus, I think U.S. culture is at the same time prudish and obsessed with sex. I visited a friend in Germany and we spent a day at a Saunagarten walking around without clothes on. I was surprised at how comfortable I felt. I think it was because it was completely normal for the locals. In fact, it was "Family Day" and there were entire families - little kids through grandparents - walking around the facility making no attempt to cover up. Naked bodies everywhere one looked. Different shapes and sizes, a wide range of ages....normal, matter-of-fact, no big deal, no gawking, no ogling. no leering. (I can't imagine having a similarly positive experience in a public space in the U.S..) I think if a child has been brought up with a positive experience of nudity, then a stamp showing a man's bare buttocks may not warrant a second look. Yes, I think I was trying to tease out that the issue is not nudity or sexuality, per se. However, my personal "comfort zone" lies within the parameters of what is considered prudishness. As you indicate, prudishness can be concomitant with immature attitudes about sex and that may be part of the problem in the USA. Aside from that, the real issue is the sexual objectification of women, in general, and the sexualization of young women, in particular. On television and in the media, it's more about interactions between men and women being largely designed for the sexual titillation of the audience, and more meaningful social intercourse is sublimated. What does this mean for young women in school, in the social arena and at work? It appears that the results often aren't good. Now that I've arrived at that point in my thinking, the question of one man contemplating the penis of another on a postage stamp seems like a drop in the bucket.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 18, 2014 22:49:54 GMT -5
I wonder who "consumed" these post cards? (I don't know the answer.) I think in the U.S. there is a forced association between nudity and sex. Plus, I think U.S. culture is at the same time prudish and obsessed with sex. I visited a friend in Germany and we spent a day at a Saunagarten walking around without clothes on. I was surprised at how comfortable I felt. I think it was because it was completely normal for the locals. In fact, it was "Family Day" and there were entire families - little kids through grandparents - walking around the facility making no attempt to cover up. Naked bodies everywhere one looked. Different shapes and sizes, a wide range of ages....normal, matter-of-fact, no big deal, no gawking, no ogling. no leering. (I can't imagine having a similarly positive experience in a public space in the U.S..) I think if a child has been brought up with a positive experience of nudity, then a stamp showing a man's bare buttocks may not warrant a second look. Yes, I think I was trying to tease out that the issue is not nudity or sexuality, per se. However, my personal "comfort zone" lies within the parameters of what is considered prudishness. As you indicate, prudishness can be concomitant with immature attitudes about sex and that may be part of the problem in the USA. Aside from that, the real issue is the sexual objectification of women, in general, and the sexualization of young women, in particular. On television and in the media, it's more about interactions between men and women being largely designed for the sexual titillation of the audience, and more meaningful social intercourse is sublimated. What does this mean for young women in school, in the social arena and at work? It appears that the results often aren't good. Now that I've arrived at that point in my thinking, the question of one man contemplating the penis of another on a postage stamp seems like a drop in the bucket. Frankly, I can't see where a man contemplating the penis of another is as devastating to either the psyche or the community as the oversexualization of young women. first off, they're not doing it for society's expectations of entertainment.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 19, 2014 7:25:03 GMT -5
Yes, I think I was trying to tease out that the issue is not nudity or sexuality, per se. However, my personal "comfort zone" lies within the parameters of what is considered prudishness. As you indicate, prudishness can be concomitant with immature attitudes about sex and that may be part of the problem in the USA. Aside from that, the real issue is the sexual objectification of women, in general, and the sexualization of young women, in particular. On television and in the media, it's more about interactions between men and women being largely designed for the sexual titillation of the audience, and more meaningful social intercourse is sublimated. What does this mean for young women in school, in the social arena and at work? It appears that the results often aren't good. Now that I've arrived at that point in my thinking, the question of one man contemplating the penis of another on a postage stamp seems like a drop in the bucket. Frankly, I can't see where a man contemplating the penis of another is as devastating to either the psyche or the community as the oversexualization of young women. first off, they're not doing it for society's expectations of entertainment. I wonder if it's a general condition of our human existence that the effect at which we take umbrage is not nearly as harmful as the one that is widely prevalent and generally accepted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2014 9:18:31 GMT -5
It would be easy to focus on the extremes of society and use that as examples of normal. I seem to recall that Hanna Montana was the role model for young pre-pubescent and early pubescent girls and it was a reasonable image. Only when Miley tried to transition for an adult audience did the raunchiness start to come out. Similar with Bieber and a few other crash and burn teen actresses and singers like Speers and Lohan as they tried to re-invent themselves. The decent teen role models probably outnumber the really bad ones regardless. Still, I think most people, including teens, realize that lines between reality and fiction do exist. Again, I don't see much difference between Miley Cyrus and "Elvis the Pelvis", both of whom pushed the envelope for social behaviours. Again, I'm concerned when I read about the number of young women overly concerned with their body image, and who suffer from depression or eating disorders as a result. Clearly we've gone over the top in sexually objectifying women. This has nothing to do with the degree of open-ness concerning sexual topics or just incidents of sexual expression. Read a few pages of the APA paper above to understand where the concern lies. I had a quick look at the first part of the study and will skim the whole thing when I get a chance. There is no doubt that "sexualization" and body image issues occur through the media influence. However, when I compare my teen years in the late '60's-early '70's to teen years today, I see some big differences. While media is more ubiquitous today and therefore more influential, I see kids today growing up in an environment that is much more accepting to deviancy than when I grew up. Peer to peer pressure to conform was intense when I grew up, and the cliques were powerful influences. Peer to peer pressure still exists, but take one walk around today's high school and you see a wide diversity of students, not only evidenced by their diverse clothes and hair, but also their diverse and well developed interests. I grew up in a much more demanding and narrow-minded society even though the media wasn't as powerful then. I think that the influences of media today are not as powerful as demanding peers and demanding punitive parents were 50 years ago. That doesn't mean that the whole media question should be dismissed because it really is important, but I think we have actually progressed overall on these issues, not regressed, unless you narrow the focus and analysis on media only...... which has definitely regressed.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 19, 2014 10:20:38 GMT -5
Again, I'm concerned when I read about the number of young women overly concerned with their body image, and who suffer from depression or eating disorders as a result. Clearly we've gone over the top in sexually objectifying women. This has nothing to do with the degree of open-ness concerning sexual topics or just incidents of sexual expression. Read a few pages of the APA paper above to understand where the concern lies. I had a quick look at the first part of the study and will skim the whole thing when I get a chance. There is no doubt that "sexualization" and body image issues occur through the media influence. However, when I compare my teen years in the late '60's-early '70's to teen years today, I see some big differences. While media is more ubiquitous today and therefore more influential, I see kids today growing up in an environment that is much more accepting to deviancy than when I grew up. Peer to peer pressure to conform was intense when I grew up, and the cliques were powerful influences. Peer to peer pressure still exists, but take one walk around today's high school and you see a wide diversity of students, not only evidenced by their diverse clothes and hair, but also their diverse and well developed interests. I grew up in a much more demanding and narrow-minded society even though the media wasn't as powerful then. I think that the influences of media today are not as powerful as demanding peers and demanding punitive parents were 50 years ago. That doesn't mean that the whole media question should be dismissed because it really is important, but I think we have actually progressed overall on these issues, not regressed, unless you narrow the focus and analysis on media only...... which has definitely regressed. I have great difficulty with notions that we are either progressing or regressing in any general sense. You've probably heard me say that the world is always getting better and getting worse at exactly the same time. Certainly there has been progress in many respects since you and I went to school. When our own kids were in high school the ideas of multiculturalism, inclusion and acceptance of diversity were at an apex, but it seems we have slipped back down the slope since, although I don't know for sure. It's still a shock to my system that our own kids are talking about the next generation of kids as something different from them. Does life ever stop somewhere? I pay close attention to the views of 20 and 30 year olds. They've reached a point where they are not only in touch with the flow of society but are intelligently critiquing the world around them, at least many of them are. And not to say they all think the same. I think the problem with the sexualization of young women isn't the influence of media, but the attitudes of young men. I don't know enough young men to make any kind of general statement. I know many of them are gentlemen and acquit themselves well in terms of attitude and behaviour toward the fairer sex. But many don't, and media influence is sometimes just a mirror of the world around us. What is the world like for a young woman of 20 today compared to 50 years ago? It's too different to make general comparisons. While the world is more wide open and presents more opportunity to a young woman today, and that is good, there are also many more dangers and pitfalls. But I don't know enough to make any kind of statement as to whether things are better on the whole, or worse. I can hardly speak for the case of women in the general sense, let alone a younger woman today.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Apr 19, 2014 10:55:45 GMT -5
I had a quick look at the first part of the study and will skim the whole thing when I get a chance. There is no doubt that "sexualization" and body image issues occur through the media influence. However, when I compare my teen years in the late '60's-early '70's to teen years today, I see some big differences. While media is more ubiquitous today and therefore more influential, I see kids today growing up in an environment that is much more accepting to deviancy than when I grew up. Peer to peer pressure to conform was intense when I grew up, and the cliques were powerful influences. Peer to peer pressure still exists, but take one walk around today's high school and you see a wide diversity of students, not only evidenced by their diverse clothes and hair, but also their diverse and well developed interests. I grew up in a much more demanding and narrow-minded society even though the media wasn't as powerful then. I think that the influences of media today are not as powerful as demanding peers and demanding punitive parents were 50 years ago. That doesn't mean that the whole media question should be dismissed because it really is important, but I think we have actually progressed overall on these issues, not regressed, unless you narrow the focus and analysis on media only...... which has definitely regressed. I have great difficulty with notions that we are either progressing or regressing in any general sense. You've probably heard me say that the world is always getting better and getting worse at exactly the same time. Certainly there has been progress in many respects since you and I went to school. When our own kids were in high school the ideas of multiculturalism, inclusion and acceptance of diversity were at an apex, but it seems we have slipped back down the slope since, although I don't know for sure. It's still a shock to my system that our own kids are talking about the next generation of kids as something different from them. Does life ever stop somewhere? I pay close attention to the views of 20 and 30 year olds. They've reached a point where they are not only in touch with the flow of society but are intelligently critiquing the world around them, at least many of them are. And not to say they all think the same. I think the problem with the sexualization of young women isn't the influence of media, but the attitudes of young men. I don't know enough young men to make any kind of general statement. I know many of them are gentlemen and acquit themselves well in terms of attitude and behaviour toward the fairer sex. But many don't, and media influence is sometimes just a mirror of the world around us. What is the world like for a young woman of 20 today compared to 50 years ago? It's too different to make general comparisons. While the world is more wide open and presents more opportunity to a young woman today, and that is good, there are also many more dangers and pitfalls. But I don't know enough to make any kind of statement as to whether things are better on the whole, or worse. I can hardly speak for the case of women in the general sense, let alone a younger woman today. I will speak as one woman who would not want to turn the calendar back 50 years! There was all kinds of disrespect towards girls and women back then, just different forms, and not widely recognized as such by the powers that were. I'd rather have a shot at self-determination versus "Don't worry your pretty little head"!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2014 11:07:24 GMT -5
I had a quick look at the first part of the study and will skim the whole thing when I get a chance. There is no doubt that "sexualization" and body image issues occur through the media influence. However, when I compare my teen years in the late '60's-early '70's to teen years today, I see some big differences. While media is more ubiquitous today and therefore more influential, I see kids today growing up in an environment that is much more accepting to deviancy than when I grew up. Peer to peer pressure to conform was intense when I grew up, and the cliques were powerful influences. Peer to peer pressure still exists, but take one walk around today's high school and you see a wide diversity of students, not only evidenced by their diverse clothes and hair, but also their diverse and well developed interests. I grew up in a much more demanding and narrow-minded society even though the media wasn't as powerful then. I think that the influences of media today are not as powerful as demanding peers and demanding punitive parents were 50 years ago. That doesn't mean that the whole media question should be dismissed because it really is important, but I think we have actually progressed overall on these issues, not regressed, unless you narrow the focus and analysis on media only...... which has definitely regressed. I have great difficulty with notions that we are either progressing or regressing in any general sense. You've probably heard me say that the world is always getting better and getting worse at exactly the same time. Certainly there has been progress in many respects since you and I went to school. When our own kids were in high school the ideas of multiculturalism, inclusion and acceptance of diversity were at an apex, but it seems we have slipped back down the slope since, although I don't know for sure. It's still a shock to my system that our own kids are talking about the next generation of kids as something different from them. Does life ever stop somewhere? I pay close attention to the views of 20 and 30 year olds. They've reached a point where they are not only in touch with the flow of society but are intelligently critiquing the world around them, at least many of them are. And not to say they all think the same. I think the problem with the sexualization of young women isn't the influence of media, but the attitudes of young men. I don't know enough young men to make any kind of general statement. I know many of them are gentlemen and acquit themselves well in terms of attitude and behaviour toward the fairer sex. But many don't, and media influence is sometimes just a mirror of the world around us. What is the world like for a young woman of 20 today compared to 50 years ago? It's too different to make general comparisons. While the world is more wide open and presents more opportunity to a young woman today, and that is good, there are also many more dangers and pitfalls. But I don't know enough to make any kind of statement as to whether things are better on the whole, or worse. I can hardly speak for the case of women in the general sense, let alone a younger woman today. I have tried to observe young men as closely as possible but of course like yourself, the sample size is much smaller than when I was growing up. I can say that young men, when I was growing up, broadly objectified women as sex objects. In today's mind set, it was positively awful. Women were objectified and minimized, homosexuals were hated and beaten up, anti-semitism was rife, aboriginal prejudice was literally everywhere. I have gone so far as to indicate to my daughter that most young men are dogs with only one thing in mind and she has found quite the opposite. She is more comfortable around young men as friends and finds them mostly very respectful as an equal. By imposing my experience of 40-50 years ago as "wisdom" for today left me with egg on my face.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2014 11:09:57 GMT -5
I have great difficulty with notions that we are either progressing or regressing in any general sense. You've probably heard me say that the world is always getting better and getting worse at exactly the same time. Certainly there has been progress in many respects since you and I went to school. When our own kids were in high school the ideas of multiculturalism, inclusion and acceptance of diversity were at an apex, but it seems we have slipped back down the slope since, although I don't know for sure. It's still a shock to my system that our own kids are talking about the next generation of kids as something different from them. Does life ever stop somewhere? I pay close attention to the views of 20 and 30 year olds. They've reached a point where they are not only in touch with the flow of society but are intelligently critiquing the world around them, at least many of them are. And not to say they all think the same. I think the problem with the sexualization of young women isn't the influence of media, but the attitudes of young men. I don't know enough young men to make any kind of general statement. I know many of them are gentlemen and acquit themselves well in terms of attitude and behaviour toward the fairer sex. But many don't, and media influence is sometimes just a mirror of the world around us. What is the world like for a young woman of 20 today compared to 50 years ago? It's too different to make general comparisons. While the world is more wide open and presents more opportunity to a young woman today, and that is good, there are also many more dangers and pitfalls. But I don't know enough to make any kind of statement as to whether things are better on the whole, or worse. I can hardly speak for the case of women in the general sense, let alone a younger woman today. I will speak as one woman who would not want to turn the calendar back 50 years! There was all kinds of disrespect towards girls and women back then, just different forms, and not widely recognized as such by the powers that were. I'd rather have a shot at self-determination versus "Don't worry your pretty little head"!!! When I observe the world around my still-teen daughter and compare it to how young men treated young women 40 years ago, I would completely agree with you. The world is a completely different, and better place for her than for my sisters.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 19, 2014 11:28:32 GMT -5
I will speak as one woman who would not want to turn the calendar back 50 years! There was all kinds of disrespect towards girls and women back then, just different forms, and not widely recognized as such by the powers that were. I'd rather have a shot at self-determination versus "Don't worry your pretty little head"!!! When I observe the world around my still-teen daughter and compare it to how young men treated young women 40 years ago, I would completely agree with you. The world is a completely different, and better place for her than for my sisters. The observation I'd make based on both your post and that of matisse, is that for many women the world is a much better place today, but not for all. And I'd certainly include my own daughters in the number of those finding it to be better. I suppose the threats to the well being of women are very much the same as they were 50 years ago. In the small prairie town in which I once lived there were wife-beaters, alcoholics, misogynists and general derelicts, as there are today. At least today a woman can to a greater extent make her own way in society, and the quality of her life is not so dependent on choosing a good man. I don't think that men's attitudes to women were generally worse than today, although women were much more limited in what they were allowed to do. Rather, I think that my own relatives represented an expectation that you treated your wife, and women, in general, with kindness and civility. There seems to be more general boorishness around today. Men aren't uniform in their behaviour anyway. A boy who calls on your daughter may present quite differently than when he's in a bar with his loutish friends. Or he may present the same. Again, it's very difficult to generalize, but I'd have misgivings in saying that things are generally better, or that they are generally worse. An individual person may well say, it's better for me, or it's better for my family.
|
|