Society's going to hell

[Baradakas]

The action of adultery say, is not bad in any way in and of itself.

Oh, dear. Now you've opened a can of worms, and you've handed me a rather large hook. Shall we go fishing?

I have to ask, and without sounding critical, how can you say that? Perhaps in the realm of cause and effect, you would be right. If no one ever finds out, then there is no "effect", no consequences. But does that diminish the "moral wrong" that has been committed? If you are married, or even in a committed relationship, have you not "made" a commitment to be faithful, just and right to that very construct? Mind you I realize we are entering the nebulous realm of what is "good" and "evil", rather than the practical mores of law, but does not the existence of "concience" instinctively demand justification for our actions? I suppose that you could easily say that if you no longer "love" the person you are with, then the unwritten committment that you have made no longer applies, but where does that leave your partner? Where is the personal "law" of our concience? Is there no moral compass that designates what we "should" do and what we actually commit to?

For example; here in the states, "child-sex crimes" are at an all time high. Is this because we have suddenly experienced a massive upsurge in pedophiles? No, of course not. But along with the decline of our society's mores i.e. little girls dressing like hookers, and being taught by their peers that sex is an acceptable method of acceptance and respect, and not a parent to be seen for guidance (calm down parents, this is only an example, and not a reference to you) , comes a dip in our concience. We (men) know that it is wrong to indulge in this kind of destructive behaviour, we know of the consequences. But if we aren't caught, is it not still bad? Does not infidelity by adults teach children that such actions are acceptable? When a child sees teens having sex on TV, do they not view these characters as role models? To say that adultery in itself is not bad seems a bit shortsighted, as the impact of these actions are always felt by those who are affected apart from the instigators. Is sex with a minor bad? Absolutely. Is teaching a child that these actions are acceptable evil? Without a doubt. Should punishment be levied for such teachings? I think so. But then, how can we possibly punish TV, the movies, and parents that refuse to share their childrens lives and responsibility?

Good luck Av.

-B

[Avatar]

Are you even allowed to use the emoticon?

The only moral law that exists is the one inside ourselves. I don't dispute that it is morally wrong, indeed, I believe strongly that it is. But only because I believe it is wrong to hurt others unnecessarily.

Conscience itself is a function of society. It's nothing that's inborn, nothing that exists as a function of anything but the indoctrination of cultural and social identity.

Perhaps rather than saying that it is not bad in and of itself, I should have said that it was only bad in terms of the injury it does to somebody else.

As for the second part of your post there, I pretty much agree with the majority of what you're saying about the example that is being set, and the lack of guidance, and the impact of "role models" and socialisation.

My own point is simply that, although we agree these things are bad, we may differ on the reasons they are bad. (Or perhaps not.) I see them as bad only in terms of the harm they cause. Edging, as you say, into the subjective nature of these issues, we experience a greying I think.

We can only punish actions. We cannot punish the TV or magazine, because, much as we would like them to be, they are not responsible for the reaction, only for their action. Certainly the "right" things should be taught. But it's one person's idea of right.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

Let's say you're a woman.

Damn, Av, you're HOT!!


Anyway, adultry... You know what I think? The problem is monogamy. We meet someone, we fall in love, hormones go wild, and we can't imagine ever feeling otherwise. So we vow to never love another for the rest of our life.

How's that working out for us? My personal family history is like this: As of a month ago, my kids have a half-sibling; I have a half-sibling (same father, and she has half-siblings on from her mother); my ex has a half-sibling; my father has half-siblings; my ex's father has a half-sibling; My full-brother's kids have a half-sibling; my full-sister's kids have half-siblings... None of these were the result of adultry, just serial monogamy. But how many people throughout history were the result of affairs by married people? None of us would likely be here if a parent/grandparent/great-grandparent/great-great... hadn't had an affair while married.

Half of all marriages in the US end in divorce. I've never heard any statistic, and truthfulness might not be easy to get in this case, but I'd be willing to bet more than half of those that don't end in divorce have adultry at some point. Many times the other spouse knows about it, and there's lots of counseling. Many times the other spouse never finds out.

What I'm getting at is that polygamy, whether serial or not, is more the norm than monogamy. Some people manage lifetime-monogamy, even happily. That's fantastic, and I couldn't be happier for them. But it's not an overwhelmingly typical human condition. Even a couple of US presidents - men who clearly have more important things to do, men who are so much in the public eye that they can't possibly expect it to go unnoticed - committed adultry. The "sin" of it is difficult to pin down, as it would be difficult to find the sin in many other typical human qualities.

Yes, murder is an exception. It's easy to find the wrong there. Someone's life ends against their will. Harm was done. And one spouse's marriage ends against his/her will, because the other cheated. You could say harm was done to them against their will. But what if society never told them that lifetime monogamy was the only respectable thing? What if we were given an accurate picture of human behavior instead, and didn't attempt things that nearly never happen? We could tell our children that they can fly on their 10th birthday, if they just jump off the roof. And when they do, and die, the sin is with us for having told them they could.

And yet, I'm caught up in the who monogamy mindset these days. So maybe it is a normal human emotion also.

[Plissken]

For example; here in the states, "child-sex crimes" are at an all time high. Is this because we have suddenly experienced a massive upsurge in pedophiles? No, of course not. But along with the decline of our society's mores i.e. little girls dressing like hookers, and being taught by their peers that sex is an acceptable method of acceptance and respect, and not a parent to be seen for guidance (calm down parents, this is only an example, and not a reference to you) , comes a dip in our concience. We (men) know that it is wrong to indulge in this kind of destructive behaviour, we know of the consequences. But if we aren't caught, is it not still bad? Does not infidelity by adults teach children that such actions are acceptable? When a child sees teens having sex on TV, do they not view these characters as role models? To say that adultery in itself is not bad seems a bit shortsighted, as the impact of these actions are always felt by those who are affected apart from the instigators. Is sex with a minor bad? Absolutely. Is teaching a child that these actions are acceptable evil? Without a doubt. Should punishment be levied for such teachings? I think so. But then, how can we possibly punish TV, the movies, and parents that refuse to share their childrens lives and responsibility?

Good luck Av.

-B

Or, it could be that Child Sexcrime convictions are at an all time high. Victorian literature suggests that children were experimenting with sex, and that it was considered fairly natural. Right through the 50's, incest was one of the crimes that was treated as something best left untalked about - and unprosecuted.

This may be an instance in which sensationalistic journalism (and diminishing cultural taboos) may've done something good.

EDIT: And I do get tired of the "they larned it from that MTV videos" argument. Consider: Back in the "Good Old Days" children's only source of information came through their immediate surroundings and environment, with no distractions from "Evil Outside Media Influences." I'm guessing that everyone was having sex, and affairs, and morally questionable actions, even back then - and that the "Little Pictures" had their "Big Ears" unflinchingly, undistractedly, and completely focused on all of it. Otherwise, how would Lot's virgin daughters known what they were doing and why?

[[Syl]]

www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=96504228

[Baradakas]

And I do get tired of the "they larned it from that MTV videos" argument.

Without sounding like a jerk, how old are you Plissken? I am only 28 years old, and despite Av's jabs to the contrary, I am no innocent. In my 28 years I have seen death despair and miracles. Pain, love and betrayal.
Had someone told me ten years ago that I would one day say, "Girls didn't dress like that in my day" or "Our society's values are sinking" I would have laughed in thier faces. I may be a decent human being now, but I wasn't always. I can tell you, without a doubt in my mind, that many things you see on tv today would have sparked massive outrage and HUGE FCC fines ten years ago. I live in a conservative state (Iowa), and ten years ago, 13 year old girls didn't dress like whores. They may have been experimenting with sex, but hesitantly. MTV and ALL the other channels might have been a bit risque, but videos like "Hips Don't Lie" would NEVER have made it on the air. They would have been BANNED, as several videos like it were in those days. Nowadays, 13 year old girls have promiscuous sex often, and often with multiple partners for fun. This is not an opinion. I mentor many young people. A few months back one young lady admitted to me she had sex with three men at the same time, because she was hungry, and they offered a McDonalds value meal in exchange for sex. These men were all over 25. Most girls today feel that sex equals respect. When asked what woman they consider thier highest role model, most girls will say Shakira, Gwen Stefani etc. Not Hillary Clinton, Condoleeza Rice, or any other "respectable" woman. I saw a girl no older than 12 last week wearing a shirt that said Porn Star in bright pink glitter. I asked her why she was wearing it, and she said that it made boys pay attention to her. I asked her what her favorite TV show was, and she said, "The Simple Life". She admitted to having at least TWELVE partners since she had lost her virginity 2 months before. To say that television has no influence on the sexual proclivity of teens is shortsighted. Ten years ago, teen sex was rarely if ever mentioned on tv, and now it is the norm. Music videos are no longer "suggestive", they are "explicit". Television shows now have sexual innuendo regularly, such as the OC, One Tree Hill etc. These shows are directed at young teens, not adults. Don't tell me that tv does not influence children, because thats just ridiculous.

When parents allow tv to direct children's lives, we all lose. We lose integrity, values and worst of all, our moral compass sinks even lower.

-B

[variol son]

Um, how is Hips Don't Lie objectionable? And what's wrong with wanting to be like Gwen Stefani or Shakira?

[Cail]

Good post Baradakas. How many of you are old enough to remember the PMRC hearings? The government decided (bipartisanly, btw) that objectionable stuff should be limited by way of the "Tipper Sticker". Look at the list of songs on the "Filthy Fifteen" list....They're all unbelievably tame by today's standards.

So we started labeling records, and that gave us the filth we've got now. Great, so that obviously wasn't the answer (and odd how Tipper's so quiet about it now too, but that's a different can of worms).

As the father of an 11-year-old girl, I'm appalled at the stuff out there directed at kids. I find it abhorrent that kids are sexualized to the degree they are now.

On the other hand, as someone who believes in small government, I hate the idea that the government is going to tell me what I can and can't see or hear.

It'd be nice if people stopped creating the demand for all this crap, but that's not going to happen.

[Avatar]

Good posts folks. Much as I hate to come off on the moralising side here with Barad, I have to agree with he and Cail pretty much, (although maybe not as emphatically ).

While Plissken is absolutely right that people were having sex and affairs and doing "morally questionable" things long before MTV or any other evil media influences, what Cail refers to as the sexualisation of children is a fairly new phenomenon.

It makes me feel old to echo Barad's "they didn't dress like that in my day" but it's still true. And it's a big change in the relatively short time since it was "my day."

While I equally agree with Pliss about the importance of unveiling and making discussable things like rape, incest and molestation, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about those 13-year olds who, not to put too fine a point on it, do dress like prostitutes, who do engage in casual promiscuous sex.

And while in itself there may be nothing wrong with wanting to be like Gwen Stefani, (some singer, right?), it's not that on its own which is the issue, but the crass and rampant materialism that goes along with it. That is apparently inseperable from the cult of celebrity.

I'm even less willing though to have government control what we may or may not see or hear though. It's not governments responsibility to limit something because some people may be harmed.

It is our responsibility to see to it that, like Plissken does with his own daughter, our (not mine, just a general our) children are taught to make the right choices in the midst of all this.

MTV doesn't teach children to be promiscuous, but it normalises social sexuality as the image of coolness or something.

We can't stop it, and we probably shouldn't even try. We should however be paying attention to what we are teaching our children (or failing to teach them). Because they live in the current reality, same as everybody else. And to try and shelter them from it is as foolish as abandoning them to it.

It's a question of finding the middle ground I think.

Self-respect, pride, dignity, all things so nebulous that to teach them is difficult, and yet such important lessons.

the image that's being portrayed as positive by media/whatever is often actually not all that positive. And unless we teach our children how to be discriminating, they have a good chance of not being able to tell the difference.

I certainly don't say that MTV or whatever is causing it, but I'm not blind to the contribution it makes either.

--A

[Plissken]

The "sexualization of children" isn't new, though. Again, our literature is replete with examples of children's sexuality - to say nothing of historical works. At one point in the Victorian age, it was the very innocence of children that was considered their justification for sexual exploration. (Go ask Alice. I think she'll know.) Our Favorite Vestal Virgin was somewhere between 12-14 when she married Old Joe, who was 30-70 (depending on how badly the historian needs to believe that Jesus didn't have younger siblings), and it isn't commented on by even the most ardent advocate of statutory rape laws.

Children, being human, are sexual. The only thing that relatively new is our ability to stick our heads in the sand about it, only to pop up occasionally and express our disbelief when kids start acting it out. A better course might be to accept the fact that children are human, and that they've got just as much interest in their naughty bits as we do. Then, we could teach them what is appropriate and what is not, why not to engage in sex and sexual behaviour at early ages, etc, without first having to wade through the pretext that they've been somehow corrupted by something if they have shown any interest in sex.

[Cail]

I agree with you up to a point, but the simple fact of the matter is that a 12-year-old shouldn't be wearing a T-shirt that says, "Do Me" on it. That would have rightfully caused a furor in the '80s, and rightly so.

Yeah, kids are curious about sex, I certainly was. But it would have been completely inappropriate (oh who's kidding who, it was inappropriate) for me to act out on it, or wear a shirt that said, "Pimp" on it.

Yes, absolutely, parents have abdicated a lot of their responsibility, but the media and the fashion industry have completely taken advantage of it.

[Plissken]

I think that we agree that parents have abdicated responsibility, but I think I'm finding a new reason or way of looking at the problem here. (Bear with me.) All media is about selling advertising. All advertising is about selling goods and services. Everything that is sold is bought with cash. And, when you're kid, all cash comes from adults. In short, the media isn't selling sex to kids, it's selling it to adults - or at least the idea that kids should be allowed to spend their parents cash on "Pimp" T-shirts.

I'm thinking that this pervasive idea that kids weren't sexual until MTV told them to be, in tandem with the idea that it's "cute", or "unavoidable" (or something, I really can't imagine what motivates some parents) to send 11 year-olds out in belly shirts and micro minis, is the real problem. Maybe it's collective guilt at being titallated by Britney videos (on the part of adults) that causes this head-in-the-sand behaviour. I'm not sure, but I'm thinking about it.

[Cail]

Well yeah, ultimately it's the parents buying these clothes and allowing their children to wear them.

[Plissken]

Right, but it's the "Why?" of it that's interesting me here. I'm thinking that it's the assumption (no matter how many toddlers we've encountered that are constantly running around with a hand down their diaper) that children aren't naturally sexual beings that has a big something to do with it.

[kevinswatch]

Hm... I could use a "Pimp" t-shirt...

-jay

[Cail]

Jay, the next time I see you, I shall buy one for you.

Pliss, there's a difference between natural curiosity, playing with your wee-wee 'cause it feels good, and dressing an 11-year-old like a whore. One of those things is not like the others.

[Xar]

Also remember that sexual behaviour in children is a function of puberty... young children don't distinguish between boy people and girl people, except insofar as society teaches them that boys behave in a certain way and girls in another. But they have little conception of the sexual differences and their meaning. Sexual advertisements and other such things exploit a prepubescent or pubescent child's discovery of sex and turn it from a normal, healthy curiosity to a belief that it is the only way to be accepted and respected, especially by peers and adults.

[SoulQuest1970]

Wow.... this is a firey topic. I am seeing a whole lot of sad stuff here. I came from a family where people stay together despite the ups and downs of life. I would have kept my husband despite his problems, but he chose to leave because he knew he was holding me back and hurting the kids with his depression, etc. My parents have been married 44 years. My mom is the ONLY woman he even dated. He has never had an affair and despite mom's Alzhiemers he sticks right beside her. His life is not easy. His parents stayed together until his dad died at 59 years old of a heart attack. I have 1 aunt that got a divorce on my mom's side and it was a huge deal. I never had sex until I was engaged at 24 years old. Parents are the problem. Kids are allowed to grow up way too fast. In fact they are ENCOURAGED to grow up too fast. My oldest is 11 and she has no plans to have sex at all until she is an adult... she emphantically states after she finishes college. Part of that may have to do with her being present for her brother's birth. That is a great way to teach kiddos what sex and do to you lol. My kids only watch PBS, Animal Planet, Disney and Nickelodian. I keep up with thier favorite shows and make sure the content is appropriate. When Alex has come in and seen something while I am watching SVU, I take the time to explain it to her. She will come right out with what she sees that is not ok... like she loves to watch "House" with me and inappropriate things she points out before I can point it out to her. I've trained her well. We do NOT watch MTV. Brittany Spears is frowned on in our house. I'm sorry, but "I'm not that innocent"?! You better be! I do not buy thier clothes at Wal Mart because they sell shorts that are WAY too short. They have some stuff that is ok, but a lot of it is way too grown up for a little girl. Target tends to sell more modest clothes so I shop there. Parents simply need to pay better attention to thier kids. Our society says both parents need to work (and in some cases they do need to in order to survive... another can of worms you don't want me to rant on)... many are single parents like me (again... let's not go there). Even me, a single mom, can find the time to teach my kids right from wrong, how to enjoy being a kid while you are one (I had to grow up so I could be one ). I do not care how busy parents are, thier kids are thier greatest investment for the furture of the world so they need to put thier priorities in order, wake up and pay attention. As for fidelity, I never cheated, I will never cheat. Does cheating affect the other person even if they don't know about it? YES! If the cheater is stupid enough to get an STD then it most definitely impacts thier spouse. So it is ALWAYS wrong.

[Plissken]

Pliss, there's a difference between natural curiosity, playing with your wee-wee 'cause it feels good, and dressing an 11-year-old like a whore. One of those things is not like the others.

Yes, and the difference is parental involvement - I'm not arguing against that. What I'm doing, I guess, is having a (for me) new thought.

What I'm thinking is this: NOT being up front with your kids about their sexuality, and pretending that the only reason kids are interested in sex is because of media bombardment, may be dangerous to kids welfare.

It's like telling kids not to drink, because only adults get to do it (and then complaining that the kid broke into your liquor cabinet because they saw it on TV), except that the consequences are arguably worse: Children will become easier targets for the media, peers, and even pedophiles - anyone who will tell them that they're normal because they like touching their naughty bits.

(I'm still working this out, so bear with me.)

[Cail]

What I'm thinking is this: NOT being up front with your kids about their sexuality, and pretending that the only reason kids are interested in sex is because of media bombardment, may be dangerous to kids welfare.

Sure. This is due dilligence as far as I'm concerned. By the same token, you can't deny the increased media pressures of the last 20 years.

It's like telling kids not to drink, because only adults get to do it (and then complaining that the kid broke into your liquor cabinet because they saw it on TV), except that the consequences are arguably worse: Children will become easier targets for the media, peers, and even pedophiles - anyone who will tell them that they're normal because they like touching their naughty bits.

Well, that's why it's not the same, although drinking kids will arguably do more with their naughty bits than they otherwise would.