What Can Be Done To Stop the Sexualization Of Children?

[Shadow Wolf]

We could have better role models than rich, spoiled, dumb whores.

And scary enough, I think people with a similiar POV, and people who miss the old MTV will agree, MTV needs to go.

 

[Ðanisty]

I'm going to bow out for now since people view my comments as sexist. This is the exact problem I see with the feminist movement - you're driving away the very men who could help.

Thanks for proving me right. I knew you were still out there.

I don't even support the feminist movement! I just want to know what the difference is. Why does that strong support and great role-model have to be a traditional man? I especially don't understand it since we're talking about girls who have only about a million times more things in common with their mother than their father when it comes to this issue.

 

[Nanda]

I don't even support the feminist movement! I just want to know what the difference is. Why does that strong support and great role-model have to be a traditional man? I especially don't understand it since we're talking about girls who have only about a million times more things in common with their mother than their father when it comes to this issue.

Ditto. And you know, nutshell, if you're really trying to be the voice of helpful male reason here for us womenfolk, maybe it would be wise not to immediately leap to fingerpointing and implying that anyone who questions your statement is some sort of ultra-liberal feminazi (my words, not yours, obviously, but I can't help but feel that that's what you're implying here).

 

[Nanda]

The OP stated that in a store they had things for pre-pubescent girls. So they are how old, no older than about 9 I guess. i was using the age 5 as an example. I find it interesting that not many posters addressed that part of the OP about the thongs to young girls. WHat business have they got wearing that anyway? Women wear thongs and sexy lingerie to look and feel sexy. So a girl not even in puberty is looking and feeling sexy for whom?

When I hear pre-pubescent girl, I think 11, not 5. That's just me.

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

Most girls reach puberty at 10 or 11. Even so an 11 year old is wearing a thong because......?

Anyway I think what nutshell is trying to say is that a strong father in a girls life makes a difference to her sexuality and the way she views things in a number of ways. When a girl starts dating, her father is the ultimate litmus test to see if a guy is no good. If a guy can't stand communication with an adult male who has been a young man, and thusly knows what young men are thinking, he's probably up to no good. A no good boyfriend might be able to charm your mom, but it won't work with your dad. The father can give his daughter a heads up about guys that mom can't because she has never been a young man before. Fathers aren't just important for their boys, just like moms aren't only important for her girls. Mom can tell her daughter what she knows about relationships, but two heads are better than one. Mom will give her view obviously, but dad will give his from the other side of the spectrum. This is even so for grown men. I have dumped plenty of guys because they had no trouble meeting mom, but whenever I mentioned dad they had a big problem. Mnay couldn't stand up to simple questioning and light conversation. From that I surmised they were weak, so I can't be with a weak guy. My current husband had no qualms meeting my dad. They got along famously from the start. My dad gave me positive feedback after meeting him, and I married the guy. Mom hated him as a mother-in-law will do.

I think if a girl grows up looking at her father, respecting him, and seeing what good responsible, intelligent, and strong men act like, they can identify those characteristics in a potential mate. I think these girls have a better chance of picking a good guy, or at least knowing how to, even if they do fall for the "bad boy". But you can't identify what you've never seen.

These girls nowadays don't really get that image growing up, then get reinforcement that they don't need to see or have strong men in their lives. The boys meanwhile get reinforcement that they are unnecessary, and let the women handle themselves. This has breeded a group of males who are weak whoremongers, who are lazy and don't have or want responsibility. They are taught that they are dispensable for the most part as women can work, physically protect themselves, they don't need anyone to help them with child rearing, don't need anyone to assist with any problem solving, and the way things are going don't really need them for sexual purposes either not even to make a baby (sperm donor clinics). So what use have men got? Not much when you look at it, and that's the message.

 

[CRB]

There are lots of ways and they're painfully obvious. The "how", the mechanism, isn't the difficult part. It's the self-discipline to do it that's (always) the hardest.

 

[Nanda]

fullyveiled muslimah - I don't think you and I are going to be able to see eye to eye on the issue of strong male role models, because honestly, I'd prefer my world genderless.

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

fullyveiled muslimah - I don't think you and I are going to be able to see eye to eye on the issue of strong male role models, because honestly, I'd prefer my world genderless.

Yeah but the world ain't genderless. There are men and women and we are different. I'm not saying you have or haven't recognized that.

What I wish though is that the general idea that man=authority=bad thing automatically would be revised. Or woman=authority=a good thing automatically when that isn't true either. I'm not directing this at anyone particularly just in general. If a man is the head of the household, that doesn't automatically mean he is a subjugating, controlling, sexist jerk. A woman allowing her husband to be in that position doesn't automatically mean she is stupid, submissive, weak, overly emotional wreck who needs a man to control her in order to live.

This is off topic for the most part, but ties in I think. Nutshell gave a strong male role model as one possible solution among many, and I support it. I just wish his comments didn't garner an automatic accusation of being sexist. I think anytime someone mentions gender roles it is associated with sexism before it is given due consideration.

 

[michel]

Most people would agree that children are increasingly sexualized these days. For instance, not too long ago, a major department store was selling thongs to little pre-pubic girls with phrases like "eye candy" embroidered on them. So, what, if anything, can be done to halt the sexualization of children?

Goodness knows! All I can say is that I am so glad I never had a daughter (though both of us did hope.......).

Personally, I think it would be impossible to de-sexualise Children; sex is one of the major foci in society. Years and years of sexualization of our entire culture - since the 1950's - have wreaked the mess into which we are bringing up our children.

Strangely enough, sex and sexualisation is one of the subjects where I (personally) admire Muslims.............

 

[Nanda]

Yeah but the world ain't genderless. There are men and women and we are different. I'm not saying you have or haven't recognized that.

The world ain't exactly fair or peaceful, either, but we still strive for it.

What I wish though is that the general idea that man=authority=bad thing automatically would be revised. Or woman=authority=a good thing automatically when that isn't true either. I'm not directing this at anyone particularly just in general. If a man is the head of the household, that doesn't automatically mean he is a subjugating, controlling, sexist jerk. A woman allowing her husband to be in that position doesn't automatically mean she is stupid, submissive, weak, overly emotional wreck who needs a man to control her in order to live.

Why couldn't they be equal partners in the relationship instead?

This is off topic for the most part, but ties in I think. Nutshell gave a strong male role model as one possible solution among many, and I support it. I just wish his comments didn't garner an automatic accusation of being sexist. I think anytime someone mentions gender roles it is associated with sexism before it is given due consideration.

What nutshell initially said was "stop the feminization of men." That's what I personally took issue with. As though there were such a thing as a "real man."

 

[MaddLlama]

This is off topic for the most part, but ties in I think. Nutshell gave a strong male role model as one possible solution among many, and I support it. I just wish his comments didn't garner an automatic accusation of being sexist. I think anytime someone mentions gender roles it is associated with sexism before it is given due consideration.

Someone said his statements sounded "a little sexist", nobody actually accused him of being sexist. That was his own interpretation. People just asked for clarification. Frankly, I would have liked to have seen it, and personally I see bowing out instead of explaining and giving examples as proof of a weak assertion.
Like Danisty, I would like to know why a male influence would fix the problem. Nobody seems to be able to answer that question.

What is it about a "male influence" above any other influence (be it family or peer influence of any gender) that prevents or halts some sort of negative sexual development in girls?

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

Why couldn't they be equal partners in the relationship instead?

Who said that having a different job to do in the relationship means inequality in it? Women who chose to carry out their marriages like this ARE equal partners in them. As a matter of fact we are the ones who actually control the whole situation anyway. It needs to be recognized that the actual role of a leader is to serve not subjugate.

Thing is that any group of people or organization, or institution (including the institution of marriage) has a leader and chain of command. You name for me the system or group that has no leader that lasted. Every business has an owner, every company has a CEO, every job a boss or supervisor, every country a presdent/prime minister, and on and on. So why would relationships be any different. Having a leader need not mean domination and dictatorship. A good leader always is in a position of servitude and seeing to the needs of those he/she leads, or else they won't be leaders for long.

We see things differently obviously which is fine by me. I have no problem with gender roles, because when done correctly the benefit much outweigh the harm.

 

[Dr. Nosophoros]

Nothing- I think it was Nietzsche that wrote "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster" let's be honest- who would buy this for their kids? it's just another "enemy" to be afraid of, a fire stoked by a media paid to present controversy but overall it means nothing.

Fear has always been the true enemy, and it will be our doom unless we can see past it, it is the controlling factor in a lot of cases.

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

Like Danisty, I would like to know why a male influence would fix the problem. Nobody seems to be able to answer that question.

Well I guess only nutshell can truly state his own intentions. I did however give my opinion on why a father is a good idea to have around a couple posts ago. Obviously I can't speak for him, but I thought he made a viable point anyways. I also wish he would come back and say what he meant.

 

[Nanda]

Who said that having a different job to do in the relationship means inequality in it?

I didn't, actually. It might interest you to know that I'm a stay-at-home mom. A "housewife" if you will, though I hate that expression, and I'm fully aware that women who choose this role are not weak or powerless. That said, I still don't agree with you that there should be a "leader" in any marriage, and I certainly don't think that my husband should/would get that role by default. This is probably just an arguement of semantics at this point, though.

 

[Ðanisty]

What nutshell initially said was "stop the feminization of men." That's what I personally took issue with. As though there were such a thing as a "real man."

This is what bothered me too. He said he used the wrong word, but obviously he has some feeling to that effect.

Who said that having a different job to do in the relationship means inequality in it? Women who chose to carry out their marriages like this ARE equal partners in them. As a matter of fact we are the ones who actually control the whole situation anyway. It needs to be recognized that the actual role of a leader is to serve not subjugate.

If there is a leader, then there is not equality. The leader is given more power than the follower.

Thing is that any group of people or organization, or institution (including the institution of marriage) has a leader and chain of command. You name for me the system or group that has no leader that lasted. Every business has an owner, every company has a CEO, every job a boss or supervisor, every country a presdent/prime minister, and on and on. So why would relationships be any different. Having a leader need not mean domination and dictatorship. A good leader always is in a position of servitude and seeing to the needs of those he/she leads, or else they won't be leaders for long.

Marriage is a partnership. There are businesses that are partnerships.

We see things differently obviously which is fine by me. I have no problem with gender roles, because when done correctly the benefit much outweigh the harm.

The same could be said about a lack of gender roles.