ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Rants and Debate => Topic started by: curry_bro on December 11, 2012, 10:06:20 pm
-
What are your thoughts? Is it justified or not? If so, in what situations? If not, why?
I think its justified, moreso because a person who is financially impoverished doesnt really have all that much choice in terms of profession, but still must have a job to cope with the costs of living as a uni student. And at the end of the day, it is up to to individual choice, and a person shouldnt be condemned for living life in an unconventional fashion.
-
What are your thoughts? Is it justified or not? If so, in what situations? If not, why?
I think its justified, moreso because a person who is financially impoverished doesnt really have all that much choice in terms of profession, but still must have a job to cope with the costs of living as a uni student. And at the end of the day, it is up to to individual choice, and a person shouldnt be condemned for living life in an unconventional fashion.
You'd be very surprised at how many people end up doing this. Happens far less in Australia, though. Blissfully. Can be a very sad case when what they do to finance their future career ends up destroying any prospect of succeeding in that career.
-
One day I want to go to a red strip and talk to an escort or a stripper, hopefully one that has some sort of a story as to why they decided to pursue that way of life. After an hour of casual conversation, I'll pay them whatever their hourly rate is, but it's just something I've always wanted to do. Just understand the reasons why some do this.
P.S. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiESfkYop4E
-
definitely, especially when society alienates such people, labelling them as vulgar 's**t*' merely because they had to take matters into their own hands when noone else was there to help them.
-
I know a girl who topless waitressed to help save. It just requires a certain attitude to yourself and your body and it certainly doesn't (shouldnt) devalue you
-
One day I want to go to a red strip and talk to an escort or a stripper, hopefully one that has some sort of a story as to why they decided to pursue that way of life. After an hour of casual conversation, I'll pay them whatever their hourly rate is, but it's just something I've always wanted to do. Just understand the reasons why some do this.
P.S. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiESfkYop4E
and you wonder why you are permanently friendzoned by every woman ever...
-
and you wonder why you are permanently friendzoned by every woman ever...
whoops, but honestly though, i do like to sit around and talk about feelings x0x0x #foreverfriendzoned
so, i should change that :(
-
Justified? Absolutely. Being a stripper isn't a fucking crime lol. Anyone who wants to say that's immoral, come at me. I'd have sympathies for someone who didn't truly want to do it but felt like it was his or her only option, however.
-
Justified? Absolutely. Being a stripper isn't a fucking crime lol. Anyone who wants to say that's immoral, come at me. I'd have sympathies for someone who didn't truly want to do it but felt like it was his or her only option, however.
+1 i agree completely. but i thought it would be interesting to see what everyone else thinks about it, moreso because a friend of mine (with no religious affiliations) strongly opposed it. i just wanted to get a public census, if you will.
-
I don't see anything wrong with it. Sure the choice would raise a few eyebrows but it's a personal decision.
-
There's really nothing wrong it at all and these are the people I sympathize for and yes definitely Justified
-
There's nothing wrong in choosing to become an escort/stripper to meet demands of university. It's just that in society it would be looked down upon...
Can be a very sad case when what they do to finance their future career ends up destroying any prospect of succeeding in that career.
And this can also become a very worrying thought. If everything turns out fine and there is no need to continue working as an escort/stripper, then the last obstacle would be when finding work as if others have found that they have worked as an escort/stripper, then their company may not want to employ them thus ruining their chance in getting a job that they have wanted through university.
-
It seems a general consensus has already been reached.
Here's a more difficult question:
Is it okay for a mother to work as an escort/stripper to cope with costs of a child's upbringing?
One day I want to go to a red strip and talk to an escort or a stripper, hopefully one that has some sort of a story as to why they decided to pursue that way of life. After an hour of casual conversation, I'll pay them whatever their hourly rate is, but it's just something I've always wanted to do. Just understand the reasons why some do this.
P.S. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiESfkYop4E
I was about to link that video, until you already did it. Heh.
-
It seems a general consensus has already been reached.
Here's a more difficult question:
Is it okay for a mother to work as an escort/stripper to cope with costs of a child's upbringing?
I was about to link that video, until you already did it. Heh.
If there's no other way as this would be a last resort then yes it's okay although society will look down upon it..
-
Lol wasn't anymore difficult; certainly okay so long as she doesn't do something fucking stupid like strip from someone in her own living room with the kid around.
-
If there's no other way as this would be a last resort then yes it's okay although society will look down upon it..
It shouldn't though, what someone chooses as a profession should not be judged by society. Monogamous relationships may not even be natural. Should we (the society) be so prudish?
-
Lol wasn't anymore difficult; certainly okay so long as she doesn't do something fucking stupid like strip from someone in her own living room with the kid around.
Why is that wrong? Is there a moral problem with exposing children to sex? (Let's say, assuming the 'client' doesn't harm the child in anyway)
-
There is a potential for the child to experience psychological trauma (do we need to establish this or is this accepted as true?) and in that potential lies immorality.
There is nothing wrong with exposing children to sex as a concept in regards to sex education, where babies come from and how et al, but -literally- exposing them to sex is immoral.
-
I know we live in a world where you are judged for everything you do. Exactly right we shouldn't be judged, we should be able to pursue whatever job available with the freedom of not judged by others.
-
I kind of respect them. They are providing a valuable service to the community or if one could put it community service. I know a prostitute who is trained to provide sexual services to the disabled. They have needs to do and don't deserve to suffer for all of their life :P.
It is relatively circumstantial though to ascertain if it's okay for a mother to work as an escort to cope with costs of a child's upbringing in the eyes of society. If other individuals in the community find out about the mother occupation, the interactions and relationships that child can form with other members of the community may be severely affected. Putting the child at risk of social isolation and what not.
-
If they're forced into it, simply because of their debt and don't want to be a stripper or prostitute, it's quietly obviously bad (and could even technically be a form of wage/debt slavery or something).
If they want to be a prostitute or a stripper and its incidental to paying their bills, theres no problem for the particular person there (putting aside all the ethics and morals other people hold about being one of these things in the first place).
Seems like a real no brainer.
/thread over
[The monash uni student paper had a weekly column written by a student who was a prostitute - http://lotswife.com.au/ ]
-
being a stripper is cool as hell. they seduce men into giving them money. what part of that isnt badass
-
>would love to write for lot's wife
-
Yes - a job is a job. What gives it a bad image is all that unregulated sex trafficking/exploitation in many countries - even in Melbourne.
But if it's all legal and good, whatever.
-
What gives it a bad image is all that unregulated sex trafficking/exploitation in many countries - even in Melbourne.
As opposed to regulated exploitation and trafficking? It isn't black and white, legalising it isn't some left wing nirvana for womens rights or freedom, it comes with it's own problems and can cover up dodgy stuff (this isn't some right wing whack job paper either, it's der spiegel).
-
wowowowowow wait, i just read that article in the monash uni student paper, is prostitution legal in victoria?
-
wowowowowow wait, i just read that article in the monash uni student paper, is prostitution legal in victoria?
Have you never seen the escorts section in the yellow pages?
Yes, prostitution is legal in Victoria. However, there are tough laws governing it and I believe that street prostitution, however, is not legal.
-
The laws governing prostitution in Victoria really aren't that tough. It's legal via brothels or escort services but solicitation is illegal.
-
It shouldn't though, what someone chooses as a profession should not be judged by society. Monogamous relationships may not even be natural. Should we (the society) be so prudish?
The problem is that it IS judged by society, and it would take a helluva long time for societal attitudes to change. For now, one would have to work within it if they care about what society thinks of them.
-
The problem is that it IS judged by society, and it would take a helluva long time for societal attitudes to change. For now, one would have to work within it if they care about what society thinks of them.
What does "what society thinks of them" actually mean? I'm assuming that different "societies" will probably have different general views and even within each society, there will be many of differing opinions.
Example - I accept and you accept that homosexuality is OK and that it's not a mental illness, however, there are still people out there, in our society, who believe that it is a mental illness and it's not OK - so which is the view of the "society" - is it our view, is it their view, is it the view of the majority, is it the view of the government, or is it an average of those views?
-
The society that matters to them. To some people, it's the general public. To others, it could be their ethnic community. To yet others, it could be their age group.
-
Yes, but what I'm trying to say is that in the end, you can't always please everyone, you can please yourself, you can please your future employers, you can please your family, you can please your ethnic group, you can please XYZ, but in the end, if you please someone, you end up displeasing another - which might include yourself.
Think about it this way, if I became an escort to help pay for uni, I could be pleasing myself - because I'm getting an education, I could be pleasing my family - because I'm getting a uni degree, I might please future employer A - who respects that I've gone out of my way to make sure I get my uni degree, I might displease employer B - because they think that prostitution is a dirty thing, I might displease my ethnic group, who are against it...etc.
At the end of the day, you have to make decisions which you think will lead to the best future for you. No matter what you do, there's always going to be people who hate on you. Even if you're perfect, there's going to be people who hate on you cause they're not perfect themselves and are just jealous...etc. You can't really run around pleasing everyone, because sometimes it can be mutually exclusive.
-
Yes, but what I'm trying to say is that in the end, you can't always please everyone, you can please yourself, you can please your future employers, you can please your family, you can please your ethnic group, you can please XYZ, but in the end, if you please someone, you end up displeasing another - which might include yourself.
Think about it this way, if I became an escort to help pay for uni, I could be pleasing myself - because I'm getting an education, I could be pleasing my family - because I'm getting a uni degree, I might please future employer A - who respects that I've gone out of my way to make sure I get my uni degree, I might displease employer B - because they think that prostitution is a dirty thing, I might displease my ethnic group, who are against it...etc.
At the end of the day, you have to make decisions which you think will lead to the best future for you. No matter what you do, there's always going to be people who hate on you. Even if you're perfect, there's going to be people who hate on you cause they're not perfect themselves and are just jealous...etc. You can't really run around pleasing everyone, because sometimes it can be mutually exclusive.
You think so...compartmentalised. Anyway, that's what I mean - the people who matter to you. Some people go to the extent of not putting themselves in situations where other people may talk - for instance, a woman letting a plumber into her house to fix a toilet when her husband is at work. Very innocuous, but if one person sees and they're jealous, they can make a story that the woman is having an affair with the plumber. And aunties thrive on dirt...so the woman may find herself bullied and ostracised by the people who matter to her - her community let's say. Society is unforgiving sometimes.
-
wowowowowow wait, i just read that article in the monash uni student paper, is prostitution legal in victoria?
There's actually a brothel close-ish to Monash too. The first year of uni i thought it was a shitty bar or billards hall or something.
Monogamous relationships may not even be natural.
Doesn't matter. I think what you're essentially trying to say here is that polygamy is natural so it isn't as bad as we think. If we extend that out - X is natural, therefore, X is better or good. You could make the case murder or rape is natural so there's clearly something wrong with that formula.
-
Doesn't matter. I think what you're essentially trying to say here is that polygamy is natural so it isn't as bad as we think. If we extend that out - X is natural, therefore, X is better or good. You could make the case murder or rape is natural so there's clearly something wrong with that formula.
I don't think that argument applies. Polygamy (so long as safe sex is practiced) doesn't involve causing any physical pains or restricting anyone's liberties or any other moral system you choose to subscribe to. Murder and rape on the other hand does.
What I was trying to say was, a learned behaviour is not necessarily better than a harmless natural behaviour.
-
If Zyzz did it you can too brah
-
Zyzz also did a lot of things I wouldn't do.
-
Is there a moral problem with exposing children to sex? (Let's say, assuming the 'client' doesn't harm the child in anyway)
It's not so much exposing children to sex that is morally incongruous; it's the exposure to sexual activity that is underpinned by values that are opportunistic, exploitative and therefore immoral. Of course, sex education is vital to the healthy development of children - but when we say 'sex education we surely mean a graduated and heavily moderated scheme through which children can come to understand sexual anatomy and the role of sex in society i.e. to conceive :P But a full exposure to promiscuous sexuality like stripping without a comprehensive psychological basis is dangerous to the development of the child, because - yes, even if the client doesn't harm the child or the stripper doesn't actively engage the child in any way - it perverts their perspective on sex, and foregrounds the promiscuous in their understanding of what sex means as a fundamental human pursuit and how to approach sexual activity, particularly as they reach puberty. In turn, it's this hollowed conception of sex that leads to teenage promiscuity, complete with unprotected sex, undesired pregnancies and traumatic experiences such as abortions, which are sure to have - especially in such a tender developmental stage - dire consequences of the person's worldview, and prospects both socially and professionally. Moreover, when the psyche breaks down, as it usually does with these instances of underage strife, one often lands up in situations involving substance abuse or violence, breaking the law and so basically ruining their prospects of a stable, healthy lifestyle. Of course, this will not always happen, and probably would only happen to an unfortunate minority - but if it is plausible - which it is - then we must act to prevent it.
So in a word, exposing children to sex is not in itself an immoral action - it's the degree to which it is done and the implications of such an exposure on the child's development that make it something to be avoided.
-
the role of sex in society i.e. to conceive
Erm...I have some news for you...
-
True...but, that I think that would be a misplacement of articles rather than a faulty assessment of the role of sex - a usage of the definite 'the' rather than 'a'. Obviously it is to conceive (unless we're in stork theory hehe) - also, if pleasure/reprieve/escapist mechanism is what you're thinking, then yes of course. In fact, sex for pleasure is religiously sanctioned - Jewish law states that its a mitzvah (commandment) to sleep with your wife on the Sabbath...
Also, sex has become largely an instrument of power - the attractive can become very empowered by it - sad really. But is that better than a 1984 situation, where sex is suppressed to the point where its sole purpose is recreation of Party members - 'the abolition of the orgasm' chapter, for instance? (disturbing stuff, too).
-
I think there are too many opinions to be able to come to a resolution of whether this is right or wrong. Obviously, it's wrong, but in a way its right because "gotta do what you gotta do".
If I was to input my opinion on this, it'd go on for 5 pages, however I'm going to have to say that I'm equal sided for this. It's difficult to debate about actually.
-
It's not so much exposing children to sex that is morally incongruous; it's the exposure to sexual activity that is underpinned by values that are opportunistic, exploitative and therefore immoral. Of course, sex education is vital to the healthy development of children - but when we say 'sex education we surely mean a graduated and heavily moderated scheme through which children can come to understand sexual anatomy and the role of sex in society i.e. to conceive :P But a full exposure to promiscuous sexuality like stripping without a comprehensive psychological basis is dangerous to the development of the child, because - yes, even if the client doesn't harm the child or the stripper doesn't actively engage the child in any way - it perverts their perspective on sex, and foregrounds the promiscuous in their understanding of what sex means as a fundamental human pursuit and how to approach sexual activity, particularly as they reach puberty. In turn, it's this hollowed conception of sex that leads to teenage promiscuity, complete with unprotected sex, undesired pregnancies and traumatic experiences such as abortions, which are sure to have - especially in such a tender developmental stage - dire consequences of the person's worldview, and prospects both socially and professionally. Moreover, when the psyche breaks down, as it usually does with these instances of underage strife, one often lands up in situations involving substance abuse or violence, breaking the law and so basically ruining their prospects of a stable, healthy lifestyle. Of course, this will not always happen, and probably would only happen to an unfortunate minority - but if it is plausible - which it is - then we must act to prevent it.
So in a word, exposing children to sex is not in itself an immoral action - it's the degree to which it is done and the implications of such an exposure on the child's development that make it something to be avoided.
This post needs so many citations it's not funny
-
But a full exposure to promiscuous sexuality like stripping without a comprehensive psychological basis is dangerous to the development of the child, because - yes, even if the client doesn't harm the child or the stripper doesn't actively engage the child in any way - it perverts their perspective on sex, and foregrounds the promiscuous in their understanding of what sex means as a fundamental human pursuit and how to approach sexual activity, particularly as they reach puberty.
Yes. You are the one to judge that promiscuity is inherently a bad thing, because it cannot possibly work in society.
-
This post needs so many citations it's not funny
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2194503/Children-exposed-sex-screen-promiscuous.html
http://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/11-facts-about-teen-dating-violence
Here's a start.
-
Yes. You are the one to judge that promiscuity is inherently a bad thing, because it cannot possibly work in society.
Promiscuity has it's place, perhaps - for adults. But I'm against exposing children to promiscuity before they are exposed to stable sex. They have to know what sexual and marital conventions are, and what a long-term relationship is before they start breaking these by entering into open relationships.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2194503/Children-exposed-sex-screen-promiscuous.html
http://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/11-facts-about-teen-dating-violence
Here's a start.
Please don't quote the Daily Mail, that's just insulting.
Your second source does not support any of your contentions. I'm not even sure why you put that there.
Abstinence-only education (i.e. education that avoids all exposure to sex) drives teen pregnancy rates higher
The factors resulting in higher rates of teen pregnancy are far more complex than you think
Now let's actually go through your unnecessarily verbose post. (Protip: using big words does not add credence to your arguments)
It's not so much exposing children to sex that is morally incongruous; it's the exposure to sexual activity that is underpinned by values that are opportunistic, exploitative and therefore immoral.
And what is so "opportunistic, exploitative" about making a considered decision to go into stripping?
Of course, sex education is vital to the healthy development of children - but when we say 'sex education we surely mean a graduated and heavily moderated scheme through which children can come to understand sexual anatomy and the role of sex in society i.e. to conceive
Yeah I don't know what religious brainwashing you've been subjected to but that's patently untrue
But a full exposure to promiscuous sexuality like stripping without a comprehensive psychological basis is dangerous to the development of the child, because - yes, even if the client doesn't harm the child or the stripper doesn't actively engage the child in any way - it perverts their perspective on sex, and foregrounds the promiscuous in their understanding of what sex means as a fundamental human pursuit and how to approach sexual activity, particularly as they reach puberty.
This sentence makes very little sense. What is "promiscuous sexuality"? What's the difference between promiscuous sexuality and (what I assume is) chaste sexuality? Assuming you actually manage to explain what that even means, What is so bad about promiscuity and why is it so contrary to "what sex means as a fundamental human pursuit" (what does that even mean)? And what is a "comprehensive psychological basis"?
In turn, it's this hollowed conception of sex that leads to teenage promiscuity, complete with unprotected sex, undesired pregnancies and traumatic experiences such as abortions, which are sure to have - especially in such a tender developmental stage - dire consequences of the person's worldview, and prospects both socially and professionally.
Hollowed conception? What? What is so "hollow" about seeing sex as a vehicle for pleasure?
You need to learn the difference between correlation and causation. Teen pregnancy is caused by teenagers participating in unsafe sex, not teenagers particpating in high levels of sexual activity. Teenage pregnancy is a far more complex issue than just "this kid saw her mum stripping therefore she'll have 3 kids by 18". Maybe that kid's mum was also responsible enough to take her to a doctor and get her on birth control.
Your "sources", at the very most (and that's being generous), show that exposure to sex = higher sexual activity. It's missing that link between higher sexual activity = unsafe sex = teen pregnancy / abortions.
Additionally, please explain how abortion negatively affects social and professional prospects. If I had an abortion, I wouldn't tell my employer about it because it's none of their business.
Moreover, when the psyche breaks down, as it usually does with these instances of underage strife, one often lands up in situations involving substance abuse or violence, breaking the law and so basically ruining their prospects of a stable, healthy lifestyle. Of course, this will not always happen, and probably would only happen to an unfortunate minority - but if it is plausible - which it is - then we must act to prevent it.
[Citation needed]
So in a word, exposing children to sex is not in itself an immoral action - it's the degree to which it is done and the implications of such an exposure on the child's development that make it something to be avoided.
So... "exposing children to sex is not bad... but it is because it affects a child's development"? Kind of contradicting yourself there.
-
48 in RaS: Makes sense.
-
Yeah I don't know what religious brainwashing you've been subjected to but that's patently untrue
I think that was a misplacement of articles rather than a wrong argument. 'A', not 'the' role of sex is obviously to conceive (unless you're into stork theory) - and as I said in another response, pleasure/power also.
What is "promiscuous sexuality"? What's the difference between promiscuous sexuality and (what I assume is) chaste sexuality? Assuming you actually manage to explain what that even means, What is so bad about promiscuity and why is it so contrary to "what sex means as a fundamental human pursuit" (what does that even mean)? And what is a "comprehensive psychological basis"?
Yes, acknowledged. In simpler terms, here's what I mean:
- I'm not arguing, having established the difference between promiscuity and chastity, that promiscuity is in itself a bad thing - I'm arguing that it is bad when a child's first encounters with sex are through promiscuity, which stripping or other professional sexual jobs imply (even though it is not necessarily so since it is a profession and not all - I assume a large proportion - of these workers are promiscuous outside of their job). A comprehensive psychological background would be the kid having an understanding of how sex works, what sexual conventions are and what a stable relationship means. Among adults, who have experience with long-term relationships, promiscuity - as long as its consensual - is fine. I don't see anything wrong with it.
- I think you took that 'fundamental' comment out of context. I'm not making comments about sex/promiscuity in themselves - I'm only judging them when children come into it. So here, I argue that exposing children too early to promiscuity negatively affects them because their understanding of sex and sexual relations is more likely to be focused around the promiscuous acts that they have been exposed to. I mean, a 6-year-old boy who is exposed to stripping is far more likely to be looking at adult stuff on the net at a young age than say, a kid who hasn't been allowed to watch M-rated movies until he's 12 or 13 (I don't want to generalize there, but it has to be true)...the environment of one's upbringing plays a major role in the development of their personality. Every kid becomes hormonal, sure, but that does not mean that every kid becomes promiscuous when they hit puberty. And agreed, the problem is not so much high levels of teenage sexual activity as unprotected teenage sex - but still, I can't accept that it is morally okay for a 13 year old to be having - even protected - sex on a regular basis. Remove the drug influence from there, but we surely do not want a Brave New World-type situation where juvenile promiscuity has become an accepted norm.
Hollowed conception? What? What is so "hollow" about seeing sex as a vehicle for pleasure?
Misplaced word; thanks for the pickup. Change that to 'warped' conception. Again, nothing is wrong with seeing sex as a vehicle for pleasure - it's only wrong when children know about promiscuity before they know about a stable boy-girl relationship. When they know about these things before they have a decent sex education, they are surely more likely to land themselves in tricky situations like unprotected sex and perhaps, not always, abortions. Consequences may include alienation from community, school community, family, self-alienation, depression etc.
Pages 19-24:
http://ul.netd.ac.za/bitstream/10386/325/1/Research%20Dessertation%20of%20Edzisani%20Egnes%20Sodi.pdf
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2134267?uid=3737536&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101959628051
And I never said that promiscuity is an inherently narrow lifestyle when practiced consensually among adults.
Teenage pregnancy is a far more complex issue than just "this kid saw her mum stripping therefore she'll have 3 kids by 18". Maybe that kid's mum was also responsible enough to take her to a doctor and get her on birth control.
Perhaps, and kudos to her. But I would think that the mother is still at least partially responsible for her kid's promiscuity - her stripping etc. would have played a key role in causing the kid to start exploring that stuff too soon. I won't believe that the fact that a teenager is having safe sex makes teenage promiscuity completely acceptable - it's taboo; it's unnatural - the body is barely able to do that stuff yet. Most parents wouldn't be exposing their kids to casual sex in their pre-adolescent years.
Additionally, please explain how abortion negatively affects social and professional prospects. If I had an abortion, I wouldn't tell my employer about it because it's none of their business.
Not literally, as in including it in a CV. As in, the psychological effects of a teenage abortion are traumatic. Those who undergo an abortion as a teenager are likely to have reduced confidence, education and skills to guide them through the tertiary and professional sector. They may experience alienation from their local community, school community and family; there have been reports to suggest that those who undergo teenage abortions are likely to have dysfunctional relationships, both within their family and with their peers; thoughts of suicide, committing suicide, substance abuse and the like.
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/1475/26/
So... "exposing children to sex is not bad... but it is because it affects a child's development"? Kind of contradicting yourself there.
That was taken out of context again - I'm arguing that:
- Exposing children to sex within healthy boundaries, and in a gradual way, is good - they need sex education. Then, in the phrase omitted above, I argue that too much exposure to sex and/or exposure to sex in an inappropriate way, e.g. through seeing stripping, or showing them sexual media content (see link below), can have dangerous consequences on a child's development because it makes them more likely to develop a hyper-sexualized personality and point-of-view, increasing the risk of teenage promiscuity and a general loss of focus in these important years.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/117/4/1018.full.pdf+html
-
You linked to physiciansforlife as a reasonable source of evidence. Pardon me if I laugh derisively at that.
it's only wrong when children know about promiscuity before they know about a stable boy-girl relationship.
Nothing you linked supports this idea. The article by Brown et al. doesn't assess "promiscuity", it just assesses presentation of material that has sexual connotations (incidentally, they say nothing about a "hyper sexualized personality", so I have no idea where you got that from.) Also, what about same sex relationships?
You're not necessarily wrong but your evidence is pretty weak.
-
You're not necessarily wrong
Firstly, I'm slightly astonished by the number of people who seem to think it's morally acceptable to expose young children to sexual activity directly or to content depicting or implying sexual activity. Not sure about other people, but personally I wouldn't be too happy to show my 6-year-old Internet pornography. Hell, why then do we have a film classification system? What's the difference between a G-rated film and a PG-rated film - often a single innuendo.
You linked to physiciansforlife as a reasonable source of evidence. Pardon me if I laugh derisively at that.
Yes I did, because the information given that I was referring to was reputable studies conducted on the subject - you can discard the site's original stuff if you want.
The article by Brown et al. doesn't assess "promiscuity", it just assesses presentation of material that has sexual connotations (incidentally, they say nothing about a "hyper sexualized personality", so I have no idea where you got that from.)
The Brown article assesses the impact of sexually-oriented material on the sexual development of adolescents, and it concludes that indeed, (at least white) teens who are exposed to that stuff from a young age can have an accelerated sexual growth and earlier initiation into sexual activity. How is this not 'hyper-sexualised'? Hyper-sexualisation isn't an original concept I put in there - 'hyper-sexualised' is an adjective which is clearly linked to the above studies...I don't need to give citations for a lone adjective.
Also, what about same sex relationships?
What about same sex relationships? As in, how do the effects of early sexual exposure differ if both parents are the same sex? Nothing -the determining factor is the age at which the kid is exposed. Or do you mean generally what the impact of gay parenting on a child's sexual growth is? As to that, the vast majority of studies have concluded that the impact is virtually nil - one in every handful. In the same vein, what about single parents? The child of a single mother isn't any more likely to become lesbian because she has had too little interaction with her father...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1986.tb01182.x/abstract
-
Stripping sounds fun.
-
Firstly, I'm slightly astonished by the number of people who seem to think it's morally acceptable to expose young children to sexual activity directly or to content depicting or implying sexual activity. Not sure about other people, but personally I wouldn't be too happy to show my 6-year-old Internet pornography. Hell, why then do we have a film classification system? What's the difference between a G-rated film and a PG-rated film - often a single innuendo.
Nobody here is advocating we sit down and show kids porn. We're just somewhat concerned by all the proselytizing you're doing. I'm also pointing out the fact that you haven't really presented evidence for childhood exposure to promiscuity leading to a spiral of drugs and suicide but whatever.
Yes I did, because the information given that I was referring to was reputable studies conducted on the subject - you can discard the site's original stuff if you want.
What makes you think they're reputable?
The Brown article assesses the impact of sexually-oriented material on the sexual development of adolescents, and it concludes that indeed, (at least white) teens who are exposed to that stuff from a young age can have an accelerated sexual growth and earlier initiation into sexual activity. How is this not 'hyper-sexualised'? Hyper-sexualisation isn't an original concept I put in there - 'hyper-sexualised' is an adjective which is clearly linked to the above studies...I don't need to give citations for a lone adjective.
The article never defines any state of hyper sexualised children. They address a possible connection between exposure to sexually significant material and an earlier age of first sexual activity. They don't address a grander problem (and in fact they acknowledge this, pointing out that their construct of SMD is flawed). You're reading into it something that was never there.
-
Okay, I think I'll stop there.
If there are holes in my citations etc, I concede. (was just a bit surprised by the notion, but didn't mean to be too moralistic) :)
-
That's fine. I agree that in several instances that children will benefit from a rigorous and structured introduction to matters of a sexual nature, I just disagree about the wider implications.