Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

May 03, 2025, 04:18:47 pm

Author Topic: Becoming an escort/stripper to cope with costs of uni (accomodation etc)  (Read 14480 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ninwa

  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 8267
  • Respect: +1021
0
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)

Quote
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?

Quote
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

Quote
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"?

Quote
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.

Quote
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]

Quote
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.
ExamPro enquiries to [email protected]

brenden

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 7185
  • Respect: +2593
0
48 in RaS: Makes sense.
✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️

QuidProQuo

  • Victorian
  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 72
  • Respect: 0
  • School Grad Year: 2013
0
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
« Last Edit: April 01, 2013, 11:34:57 pm by adam11095 »
2012-2013: VCE

2014-2018: Monash University

Russ

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 8442
  • Respect: +661
0
You linked to physiciansforlife as a reasonable source of evidence. Pardon me if I laugh derisively at that.

Quote

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.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2013, 03:19:05 pm by Russ »

QuidProQuo

  • Victorian
  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 72
  • Respect: 0
  • School Grad Year: 2013
0
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


« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 09:21:53 am by adam11095 »
2012-2013: VCE

2014-2018: Monash University

CaiTheHuman

  • New South Welsh
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 221
  • AstroBoy_
  • Respect: +6
  • School: RMIT VCE
0
Stripping sounds fun.
Bee leaf in your self.

Russ

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 8442
  • Respect: +661
0
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.



QuidProQuo

  • Victorian
  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 72
  • Respect: 0
  • School Grad Year: 2013
0
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) :)

2012-2013: VCE

2014-2018: Monash University

Russ

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 8442
  • Respect: +661
0
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.