« Let the Right One In | Main | Matthew Simmons' CAVES! »

February 21, 2009

Comments

Dan Wickett

I know, I know, there's going to be the whole "I have a novel to write" answer to this, but you need to have your own blog. The attitude coming out of these last two posts is one that I would absolutely read daily. If, however, you're not ready to start your own up, I'd implore you to make sure you're posting here 3-5 times per week.

Steph

You're on a roll! (And I mean that in a completely non-sexual way.)

Darby

devil's advocate.. is there no such thing as too young?

team HOBART

darby, too young for what? and whatever it is you're asking, ask the same of boys. i think what a girl/woman wears should be irrelevant. because there's nothing a boy/ man can wear that signals he's now "sexual." and child predators that like boys don't choose their victims based on what the boys are wearing or how they've styled their hair. they don't choose them because they look more "sexual" than other boys their age. yet many people would have you believe a girl is more likely to be molested because she wears "sexual" clothing or eye shadow. um...blame the victim?

girls get their periods at age twelve or thirteen, the age a lot of men i've talked to lost their virginity. this is the age when both sexes feel biologically compelled to think about and have sex.

but no one's writing books about the "sexualization" of boys.
and i think books like this do a great disservice to girls.
they take away their freedoms.

wait. what was your question?

-ee

Darby

You're saying it's okay to go purely on biological instinct, when a boy/girl feels sexual, they should just be sexual? I think the problem is our society, the progression of our society, is not conducive to that given we expect our children to learn a certain amount about our society before entering it. I'm probably opening up a whole can of something, but I don't think I've ever argued this before, or from this side, so here are some thoughts.

I wasn't implying boys don't deserve some kind of blame, or should be, I don't know, compared to in a similar way as girls, but why not. I'm thinking of blaming in that there is an action happening, decision making goings-on. Boys aren't making conscious decisions to apply make-up before going to school. Boys don't have any decisions to make, they just go to school. You can't blame them because there is no responsibility w/r/t sexual appearance attached to them. Girls are born with more cards in the deck of sex. They have to make more decisions about how 'sexual' they are going to appear, and with that there is more responsibility to shoulder, like it or not. I think the its-not-fair-that-girls-have-to-deal-with-this-and-boys-dont argument fails because we're talking about an incomparable biological difference. If there was some indicator that young boys were becoming 'sexual' too young, I'm sure there would be a similar discussion, but a boy's sexuality is not an open thing. It's not the same sort of sexuality. With a boy, it's sort of binary. It's a given that at a certain age, every boy is willing to have sex if someone lets them. They don't have to flaunt their sexuality, it's just there. With girls it's not so binary. Society depends on girls making the decisions that boys can't make, with saying no, with being sexual in a more variable and noticeable way. So we pay attention as to how they are going about it.

I'm not arguing about potential molestation, and I am in agreement with you there, it doesn't matter what a girl wears or does or what a boy wears or does. But that doesn't mean there isn't enough reason to consider girls becoming too 'sexual' too young as scary. My issue with it has more to do with can 13 year old boys and girls weigh the consequences of their actions. Boys aren't 'sexual' appearance-wise, but this is precisely why a girl being sexual appearance-wise becomes so relevant. They are all we have to look at. They are our only clue. They bare the brunt of sex appeal for both. Society sees young girls as having more sexual power than they realize or know what to do with. We feel like they are vulnerable, easily mistake-make-able if we don't have a sense they are able to make decisions soundly.

team HOBART

"Boys aren't making conscious decisions to apply make-up before going to school. Boys don't have any decisions to make, they just go to school. You can't blame them because there is no responsibility w/r/t sexual appearance attached to them. Girls are born with more cards in the deck of sex. They have to make more decisions about how 'sexual' they are going to appear, and with that there is more responsibility to shoulder, like it or not."

okay, i just have to call bullshit here. there's nothing inherently sexual about wearing makeup, darby. that's your interpretation and/or some members of society's interpretation. i can't even believe what you're arguing. because if we're arguing makeup, then it's about what makeup sends the "whore" signal and which makeup sends the "oh, she's just wearing a little blush so that's just means she wants to look nice but doesn't necessarily want to get fucked."

come on! are you for real with this line of argument? do you have a thirteen-year-old daughter? because mine's going to be thirteen in may. and i cannot even believe that men still think the way you do.

girls/women aren't sexual because they put on a pushup bra or wear makeup, darby. i could have put a pushup bra on my kid when she was four. would she then have been ready to have sex? pfffft. utterly ridiculous.

so according to you the old line of boys being accepted as ready to go at any minute and girls having to be the ones to decide morally when to fuck and when not to holds?

oh my god, i so had hoped for my daughter's sake that we were beyond this line of thinking. i'm really horrified.

-e.e.

team HOBART

"If there was some indicator that young boys were becoming 'sexual' too young, I'm sure there would be a similar discussion"

okay, where is the indicator that young girls are becoming sexual too young, darby? where? and what is "too young"?

-e.e.

team HOBART

and who are the girls becoming sexually with at this too young of age? if not BOYS?

-e.e.

Darby

hi ellen, I didn't mean to offend. I don't know what I believe here. I'm just devils advocating the argument to play it out, to find truths. Its what i do and is why everyone hates me. i can't believe how many people I pissed off yesterday. I am feeling regretful about it all.

I don't think we are thinking about sexuality in the same way. I am thinking about it from a human evolution point of view, where everyone is inherently sexual, and everything we do is meant on some level to attract the opposite species, therefore make-up would be inherently sexual (and isn't it though? I thought the red of lipstick was supposed to subconsciously send a fertility signal or something. I read that somewhere I think. I think that's what was in my head when I wrote that. I don't know.) I'm arguing from the point of view that sexuality just 'is' and all that's left is to make choices as to how to display it, and that girls 'display' in a more variable way in order to work around the binariness of boys' libidos.

You seem to be thinking about sexuality from a moral point of view, that women are labeled either whores or not-whores. I'm not talking about sex in this context at all. I'm not saying children showing signs of sexuality is 'bad' morally. I'm saying it might not be beneficial from a human evolution point of view, and since I've never considered this, I'm playing the argument out to see if there's something there. I'm hoping nothing I wrote implied that I think in terms of anyone being a whore. If it did please call me out on it. I'm pretty shaken that anyone may think I think like that. Other than the argument I'm making (which I'm realizing now is essentially the teen pregnancy case, can a sexually active person be too young to make decisions that have life-changing consequences), in spirit, I think anyone who's able and wants to ought to.

I won't say anything further because you seem really bothered and I apologize again. I didn't mean to offend.

-Darby

Darby

Also, something I'm noticing from your responses is that we are not distinguishing between being sexual and appearing sexual to others. I don't mean 'sexual' as in anyone is actually sexually active. I only mean they are beginning to display themselves in a way that one might think they are, which make-up and dressing provocatively would be signs (not to me, to others, but in this argument, it's 'others' who they are catering to, the very society they are trying to be accepted into). None of my argument is saying anything about unfairness or how *I* think it *ought* to be. How I think it ought to be is society should pull its head out of its ass. I'm simply looking at how it is and saying, okay, from the point of view of our society, a society that cares about its own kind and about that kind's progression, the idea that young people (girls in this case because girls are simply sending the more noticeable signals) becoming sexually active at an age where we're not sure they have the faculty to deal with the consequences of their actions (and I know there is something innately wrong about calling a baby a consequence of something, but that's a whole other can of something), then yes, we are going to be a little scared about that, about these children making decisions nonchalantly about our future generations. Whether they are actually sexually active, whether how they display themselves is meant to imply anything, or whether it ought to, is all irrelevant. I'm not thinking about any of that. That's all I'm saying.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Hobart Bloggers

  • Aaron Burch
  • Jensen Beach
  • Sean Carman

Send Tips, Pitches, Books to be Reviewed, Etc., to

  • seancarman@speakeasy.net

Currently Reading

Notable Past Entries

Blog powered by Typepad