A Growing Threat

[MA-Caver]

This article talks about what seems to be a taboo subject.

<snippet of article> According to a study released on Thursday, more than half of America's teens know friends who have experienced physical, sexual or verbal abuse in their dating relationships.

Among those surveyed, 13 percent of teenage girls, admit to being physically injured or hit and one in four report being pressured to perform oral sex or engage in intercourse, according to the survey by the private research group Teenage Research Unlimited.

"There is a lot to be said about the cycle of violence and there's a lot of research that shows that violence is a learned behavior," said Jane Randel a vice president at Liz Claiborne Inc., the company that underwrote the study.

According to Randel, while research has shown that patterns of domestic violence among teens parallel those among adults, little is being done to educate America's youth.

I found it disturbing though not surprising. Increase in youth violence and personal encounters with past abuse victims (via AA meetings and the like) tells me that this will continue, until something can be done to educate and train these victims in doing the right thing. Mainly (and IMHO) learn either a MA or SD so to better protect themselves should this event occur.
As a dutch uncle to over half-dozen young girls, I would be mortified (and very vindictive to their abusers) to learn that this happens to them. Some of the parents I've talked to haven't considered enrolling their daughters (and some cases sons) in a MA type school for their future protection. Some are willing to do so for they know the odds of it happening in the future.
All the more reason to encourage some type of awareness and physical training so that they don't become a statistic... but thinking again... even if it does happen and they still manage to defend their honor... they become a statistic anyway. Better that they become the statistic that reads "#of girls who fought back against their attackers/abusers".

Opinions, thoughts, concurrances, disagreements??

 

[TonyM.]

I've been watching this trend for a while. Welcome back to the fifties. As Studs Turkle said "The fifties @#$%ed." I think making the "B" word acceptable in popular music and culture has a lot to do with this. Wonder how long it will be before I'm stuck listening to someone elses music and I rage out on them over the use of the "B" word and the "N" word and break their boom box AGAIN.

 

[Gin-Gin]

It is bad news, & unfortunately not suprising. As I mentioned in the "Self Defense for Girls Should be Mandatory" thread, I believe that until we incorporate MA/SD training into our culture, especially in schools (as it is in Asian countries) more kids/teenagers/young women will be victimized because they do not have the mindset to defend themselves & resist peer pressure. For example, a woman who works in my office building whose son is a schoolteacher told me that her son had a girl in his 6th grade class who was crying because her girlfriends were pressuring her to have oral sex with the boy she likes! :angry: :disgust: 6th grade--can you believe that?!? When I was in 6th grade, my biggest worry was getting my homework done in time to watch "MASH" or "Charlie's Angels"...

In a time when it is much more acceptable for girls/women to be in MA & girls are being taught to be more aggressive academically, I find it deplorable that some parents are not enrolling their kids in MA/SD--they want their kids to have computers, go to college, & get high-paying jobs, but not be able to defend themselves???? It just doesn't make sense to me. And no, I'm not a parent, but if I were I would make it a priority to make sure that my child, boy or girl, would have some MA/SD training, even if it was just basic escapes at the elementary school level. Is it because the parents are too busy working full time jobs & can't afford MA classes, or for some cultural reason don't think their kids "need it"? :idunno:

My older cousin, who has 4 kids & lives in California, has started teaching his youngest child (who is about 4 or 5 yrs old) how to first say "you'd better stop that" to a bully or a stranger who is trying to hurt him, & THEN if they still try to hurt him, he kicks them! Believe it or not, the little one has already had to use his training--my uncle told me that some older kid (who was a yr older) was bullying my little cousin in the park one day & wouldn't stop--Little Carlos first warned him, "You better stop it!" & the kid wouldn't stop, so he got kicked in the groin! [according to what my uncle told me, my little cousin's grandmother was watching him play, but the boys had gotten a few yards away, so while she saw what happened, she didn't get there in time to stop the bully] Some may think it's too young to start that kind of training, but I can't say I blame my cousin for doing it--his kid is having to deal with bullying at age 4! Can you imagine what the kids will be like when Carlos gets to Jr. High?!?

I just remembered that I saw a PSA about "respect" on TV & that the local news station briefly mentioned presentations being given to elementary/middle schools about "treating each other with respect." I think that's great; however, IMHO the kids still need MA/SD training in addition to that. :asian:

 

[silatman]

Myself and most of my friends are at the age where we are having kids, My boy is 13 months old.
This topic has been discussed and we are all of the agreement that as soon as they want to or are able to we are going to start to show them the basics of self defence, how to throw a punch, kick, basic throws etc. We're thinking about 3 years old.
We figure to start the whole process out as a fun 'game' if you will but get them doing the right things asap, no bad habbits.
In my line of work I have had the task of surpervising alot of 17 - 21 year olds and their attitude for the most part is appalling, rude, disrespectful and lazy are words that immediately spring to mind and judging from the next crop things are going from bad to worse.
All we can do as parents is to give them the tools of self defence and decent morals and values and hope that when they do come across a situation such as the ones described they are equipt mentally and physically to meet the challenges head on and win! :jediduel:

 

[sgtmac_46]

Worry less about the culture and others (it's not likely you can institutionalize changes that will prevent it happening to others) and concentrate prevention activity with your own children and loved ones. The sad fact is, this trend isn't going to slow down any time soon. As our children embrace extremely destructive social role models who promote the idea of treating young girls like hookers and promote and endorse (and even glorify) male on female violence, we can expect a lot more of this.

I had a 15 year old punk kid the other day at a hearing where we sent him to juvenile detention. We confronted him with one case where he assaulted a teenage girl. He cussed indignantly that it wasn't true. He said, "That's not true, I didn't hit her, I just slapped her a few times. She deserved it anyway." What kind of man is this piece of garbage going to become? No kind, that's what. Teach your daughters that this kind of boy is a human parasite, simply bidding his time until prison, and that there is no future with a cockroach like this.

 

[silatman]

Worry less about the culture and others (it's not likely you can institutionalize changes that will prevent it happening to others) and concentrate prevention activity with your own children and loved ones. The sad fact is, this trend isn't going to slow down any time soon. As our children embrace extremely destructive social role models who promote the idea of treating young girls like hookers and promote and endorse (and even glorify) male on female violence, we can expect a lot more of this.

I had a 15 year old punk kid the other day at a hearing where we sent him to juvenile detention. We confronted him with one case where he assaulted a teenage girl. He cussed indignantly that it wasn't true. He said, "That's not true, I didn't hit her, I just slapped her a few times. She deserved it anyway." What kind of man is this piece of garbage going to become? No kind, that's what. Teach your daughters that this kind of boy is a human parasite, simply bidding his time until prison, and that there is no future with a cockroach like this.

Unfortunately aren't young gilrs attracted to this scum to rebel against the parents wishes.
I think the courts (at least in Australia) need a dose of reality and lock these people away from law abiding citizens and stop preaching the old "its not their fault it was the environment they were bought up in" routine.
Where are the victems rights in all of this, whos protecting them.

 

[Bammx2]

Somewhere along the way,someone decided to label people born between 1965 and 1976 were known as "generation X".

The Ones born after were called "generatation next".
Now I don't know about the rest of you,but the X'ers where I come from would have never made it to court or even the police as kids if we would have treated ANY female of any age like that no matter how much we begged!
In my family (in the deep south) if something like that happened,there would be a family BBQ to go along with the "family whoopin" that was commin!
And the girls family would be invited too!
Kids might not fear the law anymore because of all these bleeding heart civil liberties groups,and to some extent we didn't fear the law that much either.......we feared mom and dad when the police got involved!

My dad used to say..."to a true gentleman,they are ALL ladies".
My mom used to file her fingernails into points so she could get a better grip when I tried to run!

Believe it or not friends and neighbors........
Parents need to resume a proper parenting role in thier childrens lives instead of letting society do it for them!

 

[hardheadjarhead]

My question is whether this is a "trend." Note too the article states that research indicates this teen violence reflects the behavior found among adults.

Justice Department statistics also show that the median age for sex offenders below the age of eighteen is fourteen. The median age for victims below eighteen is also fourteen. Some of those victims are molested by older people, of course...and some of those young perpetrators molest children far younger than themselves.

We ought to note here the myth of the "innocence of youth." We view people under the age of eighteen (or sixteen or seventeen, depending on the criteria) as "children." While there is clear evidence that neurological maturity doesn't take place until the early twenties, we still fail to recognize that they're physically mature in their mid...if not early...teens.

When they hit their teen years they go insane with the influx of hormones (and this is not too light a word in describing my own adolescence). We who are well past that age still project innocence onto them...and in some instances demand innocence. Those flaming libidos, however, are not to be ignored.

The number of teenagers in America is on the rise, and will soon outnumber the Baby Boom generations peak of the fifties/sixties. They're recognized by corporate America now as a huge source of potential revenue. They're the "wired" generation as well. Given that retailers are marketing sexuality to them, and the internet is what it is...can we honestly expect to shield them from issues of the flesh and maintain their "purity?"

At some point we're going to have to sit down with them and have a frank discussion about issues of sex, sexual abuse, and the dynamics of sex in interpersonal relationships. As a nation we're blowing it...both liberals and conservatives alike. I think a large part of this failure is due to our delaying the "birds and bees" talk until that time when they're awash in testosterone. By then they're fully into their phase of rebellion, and it is far too late.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Rich Parsons]

This is sad news.

My brother and I made sure that my Niece knew how to hit and or defend herself. She is no Martial Artist, but she knows enough until her interest grews.

While in 9th grade this guy would not leave her alone, and he finally grabbed her butt in the hallway. She turned and put a solid punch into the center of his chest. He went down gasping for air. She said she did not have any problems from him or anyone else after that. It is sad that this is the case, and I do not know how else to solve the problem.

:idunno:

 

[MA-Caver]

Unfortunately aren't young gilrs attracted to this scum to rebel against the parents wishes.

It is a something that I see... though not on a large scale. I recall a few days ago waiting for a bus and seeing this lovely young girl walk up and stand near by. A few moments later this guy with spiked hair, black torn t-shirt, and other Gen X punked out (or whatever it's called these days) comes up and puts his arm around her waist (and she around his) then publically begins to fondle her ***. The girl wasn't "unusually dressed; plain colored t-shirt and jeans and clogs. Was thinking how could this really nice looking girl go for a guy like THAT? Then a voice in me head says: "Because it would piss off Mummy and Daddy."

I think the courts (at least in Australia) need a dose of reality and lock these people away from law abiding citizens and stop preaching the old "its not their fault it was the environment they were bought up in" routine.

And those folks are about as naive as you can get. It ain't the environment... well it is... the HOME environment.

Where are the victims rights in all of this, whos protecting them.

Where indeed? With ANY crime this particular detail is continually overlooked. Not as bad as before but it's still prevalent.

Somewhere along the way,someone decided to label people born between 1965 and 1976 were known as "generation X".
The Ones born after were called "generatation next".
Now I don't know about the rest of you,but the X'ers where I come from would have never made it to court or even the police as kids if we would have treated ANY female of any age like that no matter how much we begged!
In my family (in the deep south) if something like that happened,there would be a family BBQ to go along with the "family whoopin" that was commin!
And the girls family would be invited too!
Kids might not fear the law anymore because of all these bleeding heart civil liberties groups,and to some extent we didn't fear the law that much either.......we feared mom and dad when the police got involved!
My dad used to say..."to a true gentleman,they are ALL ladies".
My mom used to file her fingernails into points so she could get a better grip when I tried to run!
Believe it or not friends and neighbors........
Parents need to resume a proper parenting role in thier childrens lives instead of letting society do it for them!

Well here's the thing... yes, majority of the responsibility of rearing children in this and ANY time lies with the parent. But society also plays a huge role. How can a parent teach and maintain values of being a gentleman/lady to their children when we are seeing lax morals in our day to day advertising? In PG-13 movies I'm seeing and hearing stuff that would've been called R when I was a kid... and I would've never been able to go NEAR them in a theater.. with or without my parents.
It would seem that Gen X-ers are a lazy lot that they don't want to take the time to teach their children the proper morals and values so that these incidents (of the article) are few and very far between. But who is establishing these morals and values? By who's standards are we measuring them against? Society decides that. Remember in Thailand it's okay for an adult to lay down sexually with a minor. Here in the U.S. our society says it's wrong! But our society doth not protest too much when a 14 yr. old girl wears short-short cut off jeans and a loose fitting tank top with no bra, because it's a hot summer's day. Nor does our society protest too much about minors going to see R rated movies that have at or just below B-level pornographic scenes. Same with television. I'm starting to hear words on TV that used to be on George Carlin's list. Same with video games (X-box and the like) where i.e. Grand Theft Auto has scenes of loose women and randy men sprinkled in there amongst the violence. Music as well. At work, the guys I work along side listen to hip-hop and rap... (drives me farkin NUTS!) and 90% of the time all I'm hearing is M-F, M-F, F-that ***** and so on and so on. What is the message that these young guys are getting from such constant exposure. Something more powerful than a nice quiet heart to heart talk of "Son, it's proper to be a gentleman when you're out on a date..."
Society HELPS the parent to establish these values, morals and standards in our children, or is at least supposed to. And yes, even a 16 yr. old is still a child though physiologically they're able to reproduce and have children of their own. Mentally and emotionally they're not ready to cut it.

My question is whether this is a "trend." Note too the article states that research indicates this teen violence reflects the behavior found among adults.

Justice Department statistics also show that the median age for sex offenders below the age of eighteen is fourteen. The median age for victims below eighteen is also fourteen. Some of those victims are molested by older people, of course...and some of those young perpetrators molest children far younger than themselves.

Well just because it's a 14 yr. old boy doing it to a 14 yr. old girl doesn't make it right by any means. And yes, these young perps are doing it to children far younger because it's easier. They don't have to worry about any resistance or much of a fight. Younger children are more easily swayed and intimidated. They're also less likely to tell because they're too young to really understand what just happened is WRONG! Why? becuause they're too young to be taught the birds and the bees. Which IMO alot of people mis-interpret.
A child of 3-6 yrs old can be taught the diffrence between "good touch" and "bad touch" and should be taught to tell if someone "bad-touches" them. 7-12 can be taught about upcoming hormonial changes and what to expect and what will be happening to them and why they're feeling something they've never felt before. And so on til they reach that age where they're capable of reproduction and then the birds and the bees talk.
The younger a person is when first talked about "sexual matters" (appropriately of course ) the easier it will be when they hit the dating age and make the appropriate choices of conduct, thus reducing the risk of STD's and pregnancy. Likewise reducing the risk of getting so worked up that a date-rape happens.

We ought to note here the myth of the "innocence of youth." We view people under the age of eighteen (or sixteen or seventeen, depending on the criteria) as "children." While there is clear evidence that neurological maturity doesn't take place until the early twenties, we still fail to recognize that they're physically mature in their mid...if not early...teens.

Yes, but we know (as adults) that mentally and emotionally they're not. Our present age and experiences tells us this is a fact. Why do you think we built a above 18 section here on MT? Because those who are responsible know this fact with every fiber of our beings. The "innocence of youth" isn't so much a myth but a misaligned fact of life. Kids today are wiser because of the exposure by media (movies, TV, radio/music, etc.). Parents have to keep up. It's their responsibility to keep up and keep ahead. Parents should be wiser than their kids right? But kids are so well informed that we mistake the idea that they're not so innocent. They know this stuff... but do they really understand it? It's up to the parent to make sure that they do. If they don't then make the corrections where needed... then, then take the opportunity to instill personal values and morals that you wish your child to have. Tell them peer pressure be damned.

When they hit their teen years they go insane with the influx of hormones (and this is not too light a word in describing my own adolescence). We who are well past that age still project innocence onto them...and in some instances demand innocence. Those flaming libidos, however, are not to be ignored.

Exactly. So who's responsible for making these kids understand and learn to cope with these raging hormones? And when? Parents and society. Those of you who are Martial Arts instructors and have children's classes, should take advantage of the situation at hand. I love the school where a friend sends their kids to Kenpo classes. The instructors there not only teach Kenpo techniques and practices but they also take the time to instill good values of respect and honor to adults (parents and instructors and others). To teach an understanding that they techniques they are learning are for defense only and not to be used for offensive maneuvers. Because when you think about it, as martial artists, we learn techniques, pressure points, holds, etc. to be used not only as defensive weapons but also (if we choose) offensively. To control and subdue an opponent. In context a young teenage couple parked in a car: young guy is trying to make a "conquest" either with making out or petting or whatever. He, who is a MA student could use a particular hold or pressure point to get what he wants. I'm not saying that they all will, but it's a possibility and we have to face and accept that random possiblity. I recall a quote from Masters and Johnson: There is no guarantee that a child raised in a good environment will turn out good, just the same that there is no guarantee that a child raised in a bad environment will turn out bad... in fact when it comes to children there's no guarantee period... good luck!

The number of teenagers in America is on the rise, and will soon outnumber the Baby Boom generations peak of the fifties/sixties. They're recognized by corporate America now as a huge source of potential revenue. They're the "wired" generation as well. Given that retailers are marketing sexuality to them, and the internet is what it is...can we honestly expect to shield them from issues of the flesh and maintain their "purity?"

I think you can call these kids the wireless age but that's nit-picking. Yes retailers are marketing sexuality to them, media and everything else. Used to be that gays were shunned and replused in society, now they're more welcomed and it's OK. "Times", Bob Dylan sang long ago, "they are a changing." Can we honestly expect to shield them? Yes we can, but we cannot do it alone, American (and elsewhere) society has to put it's collective foot down and ban these suggestive marketing techniques and suggestive material. But again you're going to get those freedom of speech folks to say hey, we've a right to say (read: advertise) what we want, how we want, where and when we want. Remember shows about pioneers where the most racy thing out there was a Montgomery Sears catalog with ladies bloomers? Now we have all nude advertising by Victoria's Secrets hanging in the malls. In one case the society protested enough that the particular store took down that advertising. So it is possible. Just have to get enough voice to make it happen.
Adults have a right to buy suggestive clothing for private use. But children do NOT have the right to see the things they don't understand completely. They keep seeing the same thing over and over and think... well it's okay to see a naked body posed that way.
Society and environment plays a huge role along with the parents to what our children learn and don't learn at appropriate ages. Changes in morals and values (degrading changes that is) is so subtle that unless you step outside and actually LOOK you won't see them. Just a shrug of the shoulders and say wow don't remember that when I was a kid and shake our heads and walk away focusing our minds at whatever else we were thinking of. Not exactly ignoring the consenquences but just not even "thinking" of them because we've got other stuff to worry about. Mortages, car payments, career advancements, next week's anniversary, and so on.

At some point we're going to have to sit down with them and have a frank discussion about issues of sex, sexual abuse, and the dynamics of sex in interpersonal relationships. As a nation we're blowing it...both liberals and conservatives alike. I think a large part of this failure is due to our delaying the "birds and bees" talk until that time when they're awash in testosterone. By then they're fully into their phase of rebellion, and it is far too late.
Regards,
Steve

I would disagree here a wee bit. I think it's NEVER too late to catch and head off rebellion at any age. It's a matter of wills. Being able to contest a haughty teenager takes a lot out of one I'll admit but it's possible to get through "that thick skull" of theirs and make them T-H-I-N-K! To make them change?? That's still up to them. But if they see an example that they think is a good one and one that they can admire and understand and if they see consistency in it then perhaps it's likely.
As far as sitting down and having that heart to heart... how many actually want to do that. You've got the (for-real) stereotype of "honey, you talk to him/her" and "Awww Dad/Mom pluzzzeeezzeee" and the total uncomfortableness of the "talk." Why? Because (IMO) it's not done soon enough and regular enough where it IS comfortable. One advice I heard (and liked) was when talking with kids about sex/morals/values is to find out what they DO know about it and then find all the errors they have. How many of you remember the "locker-room" talks about "doing it"? How many of you recall ... how badly mistaken it all was?
I remember sometime ago there was a (local/national??) protest about having sex-ed in schools. About how it should best be left at home. Well.... read the article again.
It is the parental unit's responsibiltiy to teach proper conduct as dictated by society. Society has to maintain the standards of proper conduct. It ain't easy... witness the picture below and the implications...

My brother and I made sure that my Niece knew how to hit and or defend herself. She is no Martial Artist, but she knows enough until her interest grews.
While in 9th grade this guy would not leave her alone, and he finally grabbed her butt in the hallway. She turned and put a solid punch into the center of his chest. He went down gasping for air. She said she did not have any problems from him or anyone else after that. It is sad that this is the case, and I do not know how else to solve the problem.

You solved it in the best way possible... her body is her own *** and all. She dictates when someone can touch/grabs it and when they cannot.
This IMO is not sad but a triumph because enough is enough dammit!

 

[arnisador]

More and more schools and groups are treating bullying more seriously (and hazing, and so on). People are using the law to help themselves. That's all good. But, I can't see it being erased.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

MACaver in bold:

Kids today are wiser because of the exposure by media (movies, TV, radio/music, etc.). Parents have to keep up.

Kids today aren't necessarily any wiser than they were in the eighteenth century. Back then the age of consent laws for marriage, if there were any, went as low as ten years of age, with averages of 12 to 14. Youth of that era weren't even called "teenagers." They married young, and childhood was but a brief time. Adulthood came quickly and by necessity.


Parents should be wiser than their kids right? But kids are so well informed that we mistake the idea that they're not so innocent.

Innocence and ignorance ought not be confused.

They know this stuff... but do they really understand it? It's up to the parent to make sure that they do. If they don't then make the corrections where needed... then, then take the opportunity to instill personal values and morals that you wish your child to have.

We're in agreement here. The age I propose talking to them about it is around nine and ten. At that age a parent can still catch a child's ear. At that age a child can read and appreciate news articles on a recent child abuduction, teen pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases. Some kids can even appreciate news programs dealing with the trials young people face...a 60 Minutes expose on drug abuse perhaps.

If not, they'll get their information from the 'net, or in the locker-room, or at last Friday's sleep-over.

But parents fear this "heart to heart talk". If they approach their children over a sensitive topic, they do it at an age where they're extremely prone to rebellion towards authority.


Tell them peer pressure be damned.

That doesn't often work. 150 years ago their peers were us. We put them in the mines, we put them in the fields, we put them in the factories just as soon as they were able to do the work. They modeled adult behavior directly on us. Now we put them in schools, where their peers are now their age. Where once they dressed like us, they dress like other teens...and in clothes we design and market to them, purchased with money we've given them for allowance.



Exactly. So who's responsible for making these kids understand and learn to cope with these raging hormones? And when? Parents and society.

Well, we're in agreement as far as the parents are concerned. Good luck trying to shape society.

Those of you who are Martial Arts instructors and have children's classes, should take advantage of the situation at hand.

While talking about the dangers of drugs and alcohol might be appropriate for an instructor, talking about sex, sex abuse, or sexual assault is not. I live in such a politically diverse community I dare not touch that subject when talking to our younger kids. That is the responsibility of the parents.


Used to be that gays were shunned and replused in society, now they're more welcomed and it's OK.


Not in Texas, apparently.

Can we honestly expect to shield them? Yes we can, but we cannot do it alone, American (and elsewhere) society has to put it's collective foot down and ban these suggestive marketing techniques and suggestive material.

No, we can not shield them. This country will not put its collective foot down. The European Union can't even come up with a Constitution, much less agree on censorship issues.

The issue here isn't carpeting the world, so much as wearing slippers. Don't attempt to shield children...try raising them instead. In lieu of letting them surf for internet porn, take them to a baseball practice...this is easier than trying to police the internet. If Barnes and Noble has magazine covers with scantily clad women, prepare them for it in your own fashion...instead of trying to get the government to censor the media. If Q95 radio has an objectionable radio show, don't allow it to be listened to while driving and implant in them at an early age that you find such stuff to be vulgar and demeaning...this is far more effective than getting the FCC to slap the station with a fine.

But again you're going to get those freedom of speech folks to say hey, we've a right to say (read: advertise) what we want, how we want, where and when we want.

Correct...and supported by conservative members of the Supreme Court, who extended First Amendment rights to businesses.


Remember shows about pioneers where the most racy thing out there was a Montgomery Sears catalog with ladies bloomers?

That was hardly the case. If that were so, Anthony Comstock wouldn't have made his career into what it was. Comstock was a postal inspector and prig who jailed people for months at a time for the mildest infractions. It was the Victorian Age, and prudery was often the norm...but it was also an age of backlash to prudery. There was a "free love" movement, pornography was coming into its own with the invention of photography...and there was an abundance of prostitutes.


Now we have all nude advertising by Victoria's Secrets hanging in the malls.

Really? I need to go shopping more often...

In one case the society protested enough that the particular store took down that advertising. So it is possible. Just have to get enough voice to make it happen.

At a local level this might work. At a national level it will not.

Adults have a right to buy suggestive clothing for private use. But children do NOT have the right to see the things they don't understand completely. They keep seeing the same thing over and over and think... well it's okay to see a naked body posed that way.

So explain it to them. Young children will not be marked by such a display. There is no research to indicate that it will. Pre-adolescents have no libidos and could really care less about such stuff. Adolescents will eroticize anything, and I doubt a poster in a mall will make their sexuality any more incadescent than it is. It can only get so bad...and there is evidence that suppressing such urges is harmful.

Society and environment plays a huge role along with the parents to what our children learn and don't learn at appropriate ages. Changes in morals and values (degrading changes that is) is so subtle that unless you step outside and actually LOOK you won't see them. Just a shrug of the shoulders and say wow don't remember that when I was a kid and shake our heads and walk away focusing our minds at whatever else we were thinking of.

The ol' "back in my day" argument. Back in my day (and I'm one of the oldest on this forum, I think) we had sexual liberation. My generation smoked more pot per capita than any before or after. We had hot pants and tube tops and by golly, we took the Dallas Cheerleaders to a whole new level. We brought an increasing level of vulgarity to movies with "Blazing Saddles," introduced Angel Dust to the illicit drug trade, and demonstrated to all that it was the height of iconoclastic respectability to speed on the highways as in "Smokey and the Bandit."

In my Dad's day well over three out of four men had had sex before shipping out for World War II. Syphillis rates were somewhat high. Men thought nothing of putting paintings of nude women on their bombers. Pin up girls were clothed, largely, but the imagination was more than willing to take up the slack. Dad reported that men drank alot in those days...and his generation continued to drink. In fact, my Dad died of drink at age 70. That and smoking were respectable ways of killing yourself.

I could take you back further, generation by generation and attempt to disabuse you of the notion that THIS generation is slipping into moral turpitude compared to those great generations of bygone eras.

This generation of kids will survive...with, albeit, some casualties. The loosening of "morals" that we all perceive will not likely mark them to any great extent. That nude poster in the mall won't turn a child into a sex fiend.

They'll get by...and live to a ripe old age where they can look back and mourn the morals of this present day in 2005...where we were more moral and pure. We will then be part of their myth.


Regards,


Steve

 

[sgtmac_46]

Somewhere along the way,someone decided to label people born between 1965 and 1976 were known as "generation X".

The Ones born after were called "generatation next".
Now I don't know about the rest of you,but the X'ers where I come from would have never made it to court or even the police as kids if we would have treated ANY female of any age like that no matter how much we begged!
In my family (in the deep south) if something like that happened,there would be a family BBQ to go along with the "family whoopin" that was commin!
And the girls family would be invited too!
Kids might not fear the law anymore because of all these bleeding heart civil liberties groups,and to some extent we didn't fear the law that much either.......we feared mom and dad when the police got involved!

My dad used to say..."to a true gentleman,they are ALL ladies".
My mom used to file her fingernails into points so she could get a better grip when I tried to run!

Believe it or not friends and neighbors........
Parents need to resume a proper parenting role in thier childrens lives instead of letting society do it for them!

That's the key. Kid's today (especially young boys) fear nothing. They have been cottled and protected so long, they are actually surprised and angry that they have to suffer any consequences for their actions at all. In fact, the boy I mentioned in my earlier post is indicative of a trend. He see's no connection between cause (what he did) and effect (any consequences he suffers). In his mind he is being picked on by the police, and THEY are the bad guy. His mother reinforces this by making excuses for him, though, I must admit I think she's relieved that he's gone to detention, so she can live her own life without being burdened by him. Somewhere along the way someone has convinced us that fear on the part of youth is ALWAYS a bad thing.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

That's the key. Kid's today (especially young boys) fear nothing. They have been cottled and protected so long, they are actually surprised and angry that they have to suffer any consequences for their actions at all. In fact, the boy I mentioned in my earlier post is indicative of a trend. He see's no connection between cause (what he did) and effect (any consequences he suffers). In his mind he is being picked on by the police, and THEY are the bad guy. His mother reinforces this by making excuses for him, though, I must admit I think she's relieved that he's gone to detention, so she can live her own life without being burdened by him. Somewhere along the way someone has convinced us that fear on the part of youth is ALWAYS a bad thing.

Every generation looks to the younger generation and lists them as coddled, it seems. Disraeli wrote "Sprung from our loins is a race of weaklings," and thirty years ago people constantly pointed to the Baby Boom generation as being so incredibly inferior to the "Greatest Generation."

You're description above of a wayward youth is hardly indicicative of an entire generation. I heard these same complaints in the seventies, my sisters heard the same complaints in the fifties. The lament started with "Kids today..." just as your post does.

True, the youth of today are facing challenges and we face challenges in raising them. The challenges are far different. Today we worry about whether they dress too scantily or have sex too early. A hundred and fifty years ago our great great grandparents worried whether the twelve hour shift our fourteen year old was putting in at the mine seven days a week might not be a bit too much for him. If you lived on a farm the hours were much the same, so too if you worked in a factory.

Theft in an agrarian environment never really occured. There was nothing to steal. In a factory or a mining town it might be a means of survival. Sex? The kids were too tired. A young lad whose voice just cracked might lose his virginity to a prostitute. Drugs? They started drinking and smoking early, and typically died before fifty.

In 1776 half the population of the United States was sixteen or younger*, and our alcohol consumption rates per capita were five times what they are today.** Were they coddled? Were their parents indulgent? Were their folks complaining about the rebelliousness of youth? Hint: Only if they were Tories.

You note that kids today fear nothing. That's part of the job description of an adolescent. High risk behavior goes with their territory...its the way their brains are wired. This has always been the case, and gave rise to the phrase "the folly of youth." We all recall being that age and having those "that was a supposedly fun thing that I'LL never do again" moments. This is why their insurance rates are higher for driving, and why they die of accidents in far greater proportions than the rest of the population.


Regards,



Steve



*The Rise and Fall of the American Teenager, by Thomas Hine.

** The Alcoholic Republic: An American Tradition, by W.J. Rorabaugh.

Good books, both of them.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Every generation looks to the younger generation and lists them as coddled, it seems. Disraeli wrote "Sprung from our loins is a race of weaklings," and thirty years ago people constantly pointed to the Baby Boom generation as being so incredibly inferior to the "Greatest Generation."

You're description above of a wayward youth is hardly indicicative of an entire generation. I heard these same complaints in the seventies, my sisters heard the same complaints in the fifties. The lament started with "Kids today..." just as your post does.

True, the youth of today are facing challenges and we face challenges in raising them. The challenges are far different. Today we worry about whether they dress too scantily or have sex too early. A hundred and fifty years ago our great great grandparents worried whether the twelve hour shift our fourteen year old was putting in at the mine seven days a week might not be a bit too much for him. If you lived on a farm the hours were much the same, so too if you worked in a factory.

Theft in an agrarian environment never really occured. There was nothing to steal. In a factory or a mining town it might be a means of survival. Sex? The kids were too tired. A young lad whose voice just cracked might lose his virginity to a prostitute. Drugs? They started drinking and smoking early, and typically died before fifty.

In 1776 half the population of the United States was sixteen or younger*, and our alcohol consumption rates per capita were five times what they are today.** Were they coddled? Were their parents indulgent? Were their folks complaining about the rebelliousness of youth? Hint: Only if they were Tories.

You note that kids today fear nothing. That's part of the job description of an adolescent. High risk behavior goes with their territory...its the way their brains are wired. This has always been the case, and gave rise to the phrase "the folly of youth." We all recall being that age and having those "that was a supposedly fun thing that I'LL never do again" moments. This is why their insurance rates are higher for driving, and why they die of accidents in far greater proportions than the rest of the population.


Regards,



Steve



*The Rise and Fall of the American Teenager, by Thomas Hine.

** The Alcoholic Republic: An American Tradition, by W.J. Rorabaugh.

Good books, both of them.

While I respect your ivory tower relativism on the subject, it really doesn't deal with the problem, it merely attempts to bury it under a view so broad as to make it appear irrelavent. I didn't start my post with "kids today", what I did was describe a specific sub-culture of youth today who are an extreme problem.

Since I am forced to work in the forest, instead of looking at it from a distance, I don't have the luxury of waxing philosophical on how all generations are spoiled, so this teenage boy who has just beaten a young girl is just boys being boys.

The source of this particular childs problem IS that he has no fear of anyone, mostly because he lives in a single mother home. The phenomenon hinges around the fact that his mother never sought to enforce discipline or limits on him, and tolerated any behavior he exhibited.

As teenagers do seek to push the boundaries, he found that he really didn't have any, and his only male role models were his father (incarcerated) and his brother (incarcerated). Of course, to their credit, they both tried to teach the young man good work skills....theft and methamphetamine production and distribution....so that he would always be able to maintain gainful employment.

So he felt as though he was free to do whatever he wanted. At least until he came in contact with the criminal justice system, at which point he hit a wall he never realized existed.

I really don't care to indict the entire youth of america, and your statement that they are, as a whole, no different than any other generation is irrelavent. I prefer to deal with the problem of a sub-culture of youth raised by single mothers devoid of any consequences or control for their actions.

Again, until people deal with these folks on a daily basis, it's easy to write it off as "kids being kids". It's nothing like that at all. In fact, if you want me to be perfectly blunt, people like this kids father were the people you heard talked about in the 70's and his grandfather in the 50's, so in that sense every generation has them....criminals. Of course it's also easy to feel sorry for them when you hear their "sad stories", at least until they burglarize your home.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Sgtmac_46, did I really deserve an anonymous negative reputation point for that post? Is that the best you can do?


Regards,


Steve