Oversexualisation doesn't exist.

[SillyBear]

Like many of you, I have been hearing over and over again in the media, the internet and in day to day life about the horrendous "oversexualisation of teenage girls". It seems to be becoming a part of our collective conscious, with everyone in society having their 2 cents on the issue.

The thing is, it clearly doesn't exist.

Any sociologist will tell you that the existence of a new social trend always must result in bi-products. For example, the "planking" trend has resulted in deaths, injuries and a severe police reaction.

So, if "oversexualisation" exists, what are the bi-products?

We can all look at music videos like Jenna Rose's "OMG" and say "Look! That is a 13 year old girl being suggestive!"

But let's think a bit deeper. What are the societal reactions to this?

There hasn't been an increase in sexual assault involving young teens. Human beings are actually having sex later than ever before. Children and the rights of children are more severely protected and worshiped than ever before.

So I'm asking you, what is so bad about this "over sexualisation". What is happening because of it?

You know what I think? I think this is just a change in pop culture and fashion. I don't think it is harmful at all and I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest it is.

If you want to look at over sexualised teens, look no further than the 1800s. Sure, the girls back then were wearing full length dresses but they were working by the time they were 12, married by the time they were 14 and having babies straight away.

Kids today are fine, and lots of this outburst has been based on the way things seem. In reality, I can't think of any proof that suggests this is even a problem. Is this all just pop culture and fashion? I think so.

Thoughts?

 

[gigastrike]

Why exactly does it have to result in by-products? Just because girls are being dressed in clothing that's unnecessarily sexual doesn't mean anything has to change because of it. The only thing that having no by-products means is that it doesn't matter.

 

[SillyBear]

Why exactly does it have to result in by-products? Just because girls are being dressed in clothing that's unnecessarily sexual doesn't mean anything has to change because of it. The only thing that having no by-products means is that it doesn't matter.

Because without consequences of it it is meaningless and therefore doesn't really exist as a social trend. It's purely a change in pop culture and fashion and doesn't result in anything worth talking about.

But people talk about it all the time.

 

[Inkidu]

Why exactly does it have to result in by-products? Just because girls are being dressed in clothing that's unnecessarily sexual doesn't mean anything has to change because of it. The only thing that having no by-products means is that it doesn't matter.

Because without consequences of it it is meaningless and therefore doesn't really exist as a social trend. It's purely a change in pop culture and fashion and doesn't result in anything worth talking about.

But people talk about it all the time.

Everything has consequences though. Any first grade sociology major knows that it's the consequences versus the established mores and norms. So if people are having a reaction, then yes it's happening. It might not be over-sexualization per se, but it's something. There are always byproducts, what has to be determined is what they mean for the status quo. You have obviously not looked deep enough into how it rates against the culture.

Sure, in the 1800s girls were married off early, but when you only live to be forty and by sixteen you're considered a spinster, what other choice was there in society?

Try looking at the ramifications of teen over-sexualization in the terms that we now live longer and do hold children at a higher level of protection.

 

[Jubbert]

Because I don't want to see 13 year old girls running around wearing thongs in music videos?

 

[BabyRaptor]

I don't care how kids dress. My only concern in the entire deal is what happens to said kids when a sick pervert gets involved. Our society has a massive problem with blaming the victim in sexual crimes, especially if the victim is female.

 

[EBsessed]

You're saying people are having sex later than ever before, but I'd like to see your source on that information. Compare today to the 1950's and try to make that point when you look at the average age of lost virginity (I know people who lost their virginity and got pregnant at 13 years old), or the increasing rate of underage pregnancies.

 

[Shio]

Because I don't want to see 13 year old girls running around wearing thongs in music videos?

There is an easy solution to your problem: don't watch the music videos.

Problem solved.

 

[Shio]

You're saying people are having sex later than ever before, but I'd like to see your source on that information. Compare today to the 1950's and try to make that point when you look at the average age of lost virginity (I know people who lost their virginity and got pregnant at 13 years old), or the increasing rate of underage pregnancies.

Actually, most women were sold off to be wed before they reached puberty.

 

[Jason Danger Keyes]

You're saying people are having sex later than ever before, but I'd like to see your source on that information. Compare today to the 1950's and try to make that point when you look at the average age of lost virginity (I know people who lost their virginity and got pregnant at 13 years old), or the increasing rate of underage pregnancies.

I think he was talking about a little earlier than that, when girls were married off between 9 and 13.

 

[EBsessed]

Really Shio? And all along I was thinking the 1950's were all Leave it to Beaver.

 

[LTAshler]

Where are you pulling your statistics from?
Also, saying that everything that affects society produces a visible byproduct without supporting your statement makes it a dubious claim at best. Put up some supporting evidence with sources, then we'll talk.

 

[Shio]

As an aside: you all realize wearing any clothing at all is unnatural, right? I'm no nudist, but last I checked, there are a shit ton of nudist colonies and families and their children are nude from day ought to day dead. If you've sexualized something in your mind such as children being natural, shouldn't some of that blame (if not all of it) be your own?

Of course, I don't think someone running around just barely wearing a mini-skirt/tissue and a top that would indeed cover someone half their size to be expressing the natural state of their form. I think I could safely assume they are simply following the trends. But it's still odd how being nude is perfectly natural, and yet having a little clothing on is overtly sexual. I don't get it. I feel the same way, but I don't get it. Must be some primal anamalistic urge to covert and seek what we can't see or have.

EDIT: NOT that I'm saying we want underage children, for the love of god! I see how that might sound that way, but I was referring to nudity and clothing. Just making that very, very clear.

 

[Shio]

Really Shio? And all along I was thinking the 1950's were all Leave it to Beaver.

So, so, so glad they weren't. I hate that show.

 

[Inkidu]

Really Shio? And all along I was thinking the 1950's were all Leave it to Beaver.

So, so, so glad they weren't. I hate that show.

Oh but that was such a dirty show.

Seriously, dirtiest line on network T.V. to date, "Ward, don't you think you were a little hard on the Beaver last night?" His brother's name is Wally.

If that ain't a middle finger to the freaking FCC I don't know what is.

 

[SillyBear]

As an aside: you all realize wearing any clothing at all is unnatural, right?

Whaaaaaaaaaat?

If we didn't wear clothing we would die. Clothing is incredibly natural.

Where are you pulling that claim from?

 

[Shio]

Really Shio? And all along I was thinking the 1950's were all Leave it to Beaver.

So, so, so glad they weren't. I hate that show.

Oh but that was such a dirty show.

Seriously, dirtiest line on network T.V. to date, "Ward, don't you think you were a little hard on the Beaver last night?" His brother's name is Wally.

If that ain't a middle finger to the freaking FCC I don't know what is.

That is just pure genius right there.

 

[Shio]

As an aside: you all realize wearing any clothing at all is unnatural, right?

Whaaaaaaaaaat?

If we didn't wear clothing we would die. Clothing is incredibly natural.

Where are you pulling that claim from?

Die? I'm pretty sure those nudist are doing okay.

 

[viranimus]

Well in a sense you are right. There is no oversexualization, because all that boils down to what society deems appropriate at any given time. Simple fact is weve long been coddling children and sheltering them. Hell setting the bar at 18 is actually pretty much a recent development within the last 100 years as a societal norm.

If I want to dig down to my deepest conspiracy theory nerve I would say the biproduct your suggesting would be that of a concerted effort to increase the population, out of fear of other nations surpassing 1 billion people and watching our growth rates plateau and actually invert. This being done as a governmental conspiracy launched by the baby boomers who realize the inherent flaws in social security because their generation is too numerous and there are not enough Gen Xers and MEs to cover their social security payment. So by increasing the population they increase the social security pool.

Seriously... I doubt its anything quite that malicious and more likely just an issue of looking back on trends when you were growing up and comparing them today they seem more aggressive and provocative than you remember. Honestly, the problem isnt with the fashions, its with the individuals placing entirely too much social context on them.

 

[Velvo]

Why exactly does it have to result in by-products? Just because girls are being dressed in clothing that's unnecessarily sexual doesn't mean anything has to change because of it. The only thing that having no by-products means is that it doesn't matter.

Because without consequences of it it is meaningless and therefore doesn't really exist as a social trend. It's purely a change in pop culture and fashion and doesn't result in anything worth talking about.

But people talk about it all the time.

Everything has consequences though. Any first grade sociology major knows that it's the consequences versus the established mores and norms. So if people are having a reaction, then yes it's happening. It might not be over-sexualization per se, but it's something. There are always byproducts, what has to be determined is what they mean for the status quo. You have obviously not looked deep enough into how it rates against the culture.

Sure, in the 1800s girls were married off early, but when you only live to be forty and by sixteen you're considered a spinster, what other choice was there in society?

Try looking at the ramifications of teen over-sexualization in the terms that we now live longer and do hold children at a higher level of protection.

The ramification is early teen pregnancy. There is the issue of choice to be accounted for. When you are 13 you don't really have much say in your life. You are under the influence of hormones which make you act in idiotic ways, you say and do things you might regret ten minutes later, you are, in a word, immature.

At this tender age, you shouldn't have to worry about sexuality on top of everything. It's an added pressure and an added risk to an already pressured and risky time in a young persons life.

Much better it seems to me to allow an individual time to process their life and understand the ramifications of their actions. Maybe this time is different for everyone. Maybe 18 is a little late for some, and maybe 21 is a even and bit too early for others, but there are certainly ramifications for oversexualization.

Women throughout history have had very little control over their lives, due in large part to the dominance of men and the children they were saddled with. Being wed at 14 certainly puts you in your place, doesn't it? Youngsters are impressionable and naturally submit to authority (until the late teens that is). Just because it was a regularity in the past doesn't make it right.

I'm not saying that we should jerk our collective knees over this issue, but we have to understand that with maturity comes freedom (political, legal, and sexual), and it's for a good reason. It's only that maturity is hard to judge in all cases.