Is sex too prevalent in the media?

http://las.alfred.edu/~egl/grove/1998/egl313/reports/thomashistory.html

Right, ebeth. When I was a boy I knew girls of fourteen getting engaged to be married. I don't know how far any of them got with it, though. Roy Orbison and Jerry Lee Lewis marrying girls so young used to be acceptable in the USA. I don't advocate going back to that time, but I am sure as you say many 13 and 14 year olds are having sex.

c.i. - that's precisely the kind of thing we learned in school. I can remember trips to early Canadian cemetaries, and the teachers pointing out that (in some cases) the women were only 18 or 19 years old and already had 2 or 3 living children. Some of the men (and occasionally women) outlived 2 or 3 spouses, and had children with each. Each marriage only seemed to last 10 or so years, because one of the partners would die of something that we see as a minor illness now.

At the same time we were being taught this in history, our Grade 9 home ec teacher was telling us that our parents were unreasonable if they expected us not to have sexual needs when we were 13 and 14 years old.

It seems to me that perhaps the age for socially appropriate sex does fluctuate through the years. In my grandmother's time the age was around seventeen, then in my parent's time the age was twenty or so, now it's down to seventeen again yet kids are having sex at twelve and thirteen. I know three kids that are planning their marriage when they are only sixteen. There is definitely a problem with this in my eyes. Not because of social acceptability, but because of the strain that society puts on those people if they have a child.

They have had very few other boyfriends of girlfriends than their fiancees which probably means a quick divorce or matrimonial disharmony. Then, if they have a child, they have the stress of at least five more years of school. Not only that, but they have a gigantic financial responsibility that could kill their college funds. No college equals a low paying job which means that they will have a very hard life with a growing child. On top of all of that, they have to deal with a live human being. It's tough enough to deal with a growing child when you have twenty years of experience let alone being a child yourself.

I won't even get into the whole disease issue...

Of course, there is an abundance of condoms and other contraceptives out there. But I'm afraid that many teens aren't smart enough to use them or think that they are ready for a child of their own.

I don't think sex in the media is too prevalent. Just think about the history of children's exposure to sex: Until about two centuries ago, most people lived on farms where they saw animals copulate on a regular basis. And since it was usual practice back then that whole families slept in one bed, it's inevitable that the children of these families witnessed their parents having sex on a regular basis too. And they witnessed it from a very early age, practically from the day they were born.

So in almost all history of mankind, children's exposure to sex was a lot greater than it is today, and I have never seen this mentioned as a problem for child rearing. When some pople say it is a problem now, this reflects an odd puritanic alliance of conservatives and feminists more than any real problem our young people might have.

my take is that the 'problem' (if there is one) is in the 'animal', not the society.
Humans being constantly 'in heat', and under the influence of instigating homones, are constantly preoccupied with sex.

[In evolution sexual success is the only thing that matters; reproduce, of 'FAIL'; nothing else matters]

So naturally our media will faithfully represent our 'mindset'.

Neutralization, perhaps?

[aside #2; the eunuchs, castrated servants, used in the ancient courts of China served to provide a staff of people who were not preoccupied with procreation with each other, or the boss's daughter, rendering them ideal servants to actually get the job done!]

BoGoWo, I was also surprised to learn when we visited Turkey many years ago at Topkapi Palace, that they had black eunuchs to serve in the harem. Before then, I thought black slavery was limited to the US.

There seems to be a general consensus here (best articulated by satt) that porn is bad.

I mean to raise a serious issue here...

What about porn is "bad"? Is all erotic imagery bad?

I would argue that erotic images have been around since the beginning of time and are a part of normal sexuality.

I am not sure how to distinguish erotic images from "porn" or if there is any benefit to this distinction.

Porn is bad because it makes us dream about closeness and love, warmth, appreciation, and somebody we can care about, to really be there.

The more we hope and dream for human company, the less we work and produce capital.



----------
Men are objects. We must pay to be human.

In Khajuharo in India, there are many temples with sculptures of erotica carved onto the buildings. Our tour group of 15 probably used more film here than any other place we visited in India or Nepal.

If that's the consensus, I'm not part of it. I see nothing wrong with porn, nor with exposing children to it.

Thomas wrote:

Yes, yes, and yes. I'm not sure what you mean by 'in person' though.

Thomas wrote:

Thomas,

I respectfully disagree with you. As a parent there is a lot of material that I simply don't want my young children to see. As a parent it is my right to protect them. I think that society has a responsibility to protect them as well.

First, there is no question that children are different than adults. Adults have the capability to make moral judgements on their own. They are expected to prevent themselves from being manipulated. They understand their place in society and have developed an identity of their own.

Children simply can not do these things. Graphic images of sex or violence can affect children in ways that they have no defence against.

If I see a disturbing (or titillating) image, I know what it means, I can provide a social context and can make a moral judgment based on my image of myself. If it really bothers me, I have the ability to dismiss it as untrue or as not important. My young neice has trouble processing some Disney cartoons. When she watches violent scenes, she gets upset. As responsible adults we do not provide these movies for her.

The role of parents, and of adults, is to protect children until they have time to grow and develop the social and analytical skills they need. Children need the guidance and protection from these images and ideas.

Secondly, Sexuality is very complex. There is constant tension between ones desires and the norms of society. Pornography stimulates ideas and desires without providing a healthy process of discovery and building relationships and a healthy sexual identity. For adults, this stimulation is enjoyable and perhaps "healthy". For kids it is damaging.

Thirdly, I know that adults often use pornography as a way to take advantage of children. This is easy to do since children have desires but lack an understanding or the restraint to know that a unhealthy sexual relationship, especially one where an adult partner has all of the control, can be very harmful.

I have big problems with any adult who shows pornography to a child.

I had a book when I was a kid, called "Show Me." I got it when I was maybe 7? It was a bunch of naked people, including some in states of sexual arousal, and it answered a lot of questions I had without being sensationalistic or whatever.

I have no problems with that, nor with showing it to my daughter.

The problems I have with some kinds of pornography are probably more properly problems with violence rather than sex per se, but because of that violence, there is pornography I would NOT want my daughter to see until she has gained some of the perspective ebrown speaks of. Where that line is, I'm not sure. I would definitely not want her to see it now. (3.) I'd probably be fine with it, if not exactly happy, at 18. Beyond that, I dunno.

I fully agree with ebrown.

There is a line, but it has a lot more to do with exposure to violence than with exposure to sex. Unless animals like bestiality, this line is crossed when it comes to bestiality and s&m. This is way beyond the level of hard-core-ness that is easily accessible to children on even with permissive internet usage.


What do you think of the idea that do what you feel is right for your children, I do what I feel is right for my children, and that we leave 'society' out of it? Given that you don't want my views imposed on your child-rearing and I don't want yours imposed on mine, I don't see what constructive role society could possibly play in this.


And once again, the wicked Sozobe has shamelessly posted my opinion before I did.

Thomas, I would be pissed off if I went Christmas shopping with the sozlet and (most types of) porn was playing on the TV's.

I'm already upset when they do it with "just" violent films, have complained. (That they happily play "Die Hard" but balk at porn is itself a topic for discussion.)

Unless you keep your kids in cocoons, society does come into it occasionally.

Oh, you edited!