Wtf?!?

[Nbadan]

Hungary may legalize porn involving 14- to 17-year-olds for home use


BUDAPEST, Hungary (AP) — A bill modifying Hungary's penal code could allow pornographic material involving 14- to 17-year-olds to be made and kept for personal use.

The Justice Ministry said the draft proposal, presented last month by Hungarian Justice Minister Jozsef Petretei, was in line with European Union norms which give members states the right to regulate the issue at national level.

But Opposition lawmakers attacked the proposal as "legalized pedophilia" and a family welfare group described it as "the waiting room of prostitution."

Petretei said Monday that the proposal had taken into account the age in Hungary — 14 — at which consensual sexual relations are allowed.

USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-02-19-hungary-porn_x.htm)

In other news, Neil Bush appointed ambassador to Hungary today...

:hat

[101A]

OK.

Finally a reasonable argument for cutting and running from Iraq. Our services are needed elsewhere.

[BradLohaus]

Petretei said Monday that the proposal had taken into account the age in Hungary — 14 — at which consensual sexual relations are allowed.

Given that fact I don't see how the government can say "you can have sex when you're 14, but don't video tape it until you're a few years older." It only makes sense to say that whatever the age of consent is, that's when you can make porn.

When the moral order based upon a common religious belief breaks down in a society all they are left with is moral relativism anyway.

[101A]

Given that fact I don't see how the government can say "you can have sex when you're 14, but don't video tape it until you're a few years older." It only makes sense to say that whatever the age of consent is, that's when you can make porn.

When the moral order based upon a common religious belief breaks down in a society all they are left with is moral relativism anyway.


You can have sex at 14 legally in this country as well, as long as your partner is within specific age guidelines which vary from state to state. Dirty old men ought not be allowed to watch tapes of such encounters.

[101A]

When the moral order based upon a common religious belief breaks down in a society all they are left with is moral relativism anyway.

Bigot much?

[Phenomanul]

That is the problem with moral relativism... it is degradative by nature.

[BradLohaus]

You can have sex at 14 legally in this country as well, as long as your partner is within specific age guidelines which vary from state to state. Dirty old men ought not be allowed to watch tapes of such encounters.

Why shouldn't dirty old men be allowed to watch such encounters? Why can't someone watch a video of a perfectly legal act if they want to, and the people on the video don't mind?


Bigot much?

what does that mean?

[101A]

Why shouldn't dirty old men be allowed to watch such encounters? Why can't someone watch a video of a perfectly legal act if they want to, and the people on the video don't mind?





That is the problem with moral relativism... is is degradative by nature.

[BradLohaus]

I don't follow what you're saying. I was wondering why you called me a bigot. Is there another source of morality other than religion and MR?

[clambake]

Martyrs get virgins, God took a virgin, degradation started from the beginning, apparently. Religion teaches to take them young and innocent.

[BradLohaus]

Well it looks like it's settled. If there are no good arguments from religion or human reason then adolescent porn is clearly a fundamental human right.

[gtownspur]

The danger is the possible exploitation of kids whose brains aren't fully developed...which doesn't happen until 20s...that's one reason why the military likes them young


Except, you're a dumbass. The legal age for military and porn is 18, so there goes your notre dumb logic.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

dude i was watching tyra banks show a couple nights ago and they had this pale ass brunette: 18, fresh, well, visually fresh, and she was talking about how she did porno as a living for almost a year, pure anal and gangbangs up to 12 guys, all holes


she was 18 i saidddd

[Ronaldo McDonald]

Stuff like this can seem disgustingly odd and immoral or not, it depends on which region you live in in the world; we are all so seperated in terms of our practices, customs, habits, and beliefs. Most of our differences stem from diverse geography. Fuck plate tectonics.

As an American though, it makes me say :wtf

[BradLohaus]

^That's moral relativism - saying that actions and customs are okay in one part of the world but not in another. It's basically an eithical system based on popular vote. If you believe in MR then you can't believe that there are things that are universally right and universally wrong.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

^That's moral relativism - saying that actions and customs are okay in one part of the world but not in another. It's basically an eithical system based on popular vote. If you believe in MR then you can't believe that there are things that are universally right and universally wrong.

I am for moral relvatism except for one thing: a general, world encompassing moral rule in which definitive regional/social bounderies are set--keeping radical beliefs , terrorism within them.

[BradLohaus]

I see what you're saying - live and let live when it comes to countries defining their ethical code. I certainly wouldn't want the U.S. invading a country because they allow 14 year olds to be in porn, or another country invading us because we allow 18 year olds to be in porn.

But is allowing 14 year olds to participate in porn fundamentally wrong or not? You can argue that it is fundamentally right (as in "a right"), or fundamentally wrong, or you can take the moral relativist position, which is that it isn't even a question because there are no fundamental rights and wrongs, so it is up to a vote of the people or legislature of the region. But it is one of the 3.


When the moral order based upon a common religious belief breaks down in a society all they are left with is moral relativism anyway.

What I meant by that is that if you are saying that something is fundamentally right or wrong then I can't see how you can say that either way unless you break it down to, "because God says so". That phrase works well for a moral code as long as a solid majority in a governed region believes it. But as soon as that phrase is rejected as insufficient, then morality is basically created by voting, either by the population or its law making representatives.

[sabar]

I don't follow what you're saying. I was wondering why you called me a bigot. Is there another source of morality other than religion and MR?

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_care
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_ethics

These are the only real ethics, for they are based on reason alone and not human biases and cultural niches.

[BradLohaus]

These are the only real ethics, for they are based on reason alone and not human biases and cultural niches
I doubt any person can separate "reason" from their biases and cultural niches.
Also, I didn't expect someone to offer ideas such as utilitarianism and Peter Singer's thoughts as serious moral codes.

Moral codes that are accepted on human reason are still accepted by voting, because each individaul votes on his own reasoning. If only John Stuart Mill thought that utilitarianism was reasonable than no one would care much about it. It took a number of people believing it was reasonable (and I don't know how, because it makes slavery ethical under certain circumstances) to make it relavent, which is nothing more than saying, "utilitarianism (or any of those links) is a good ethical system because X number of us people believe it for ________ reasons."

That is why religion based morality is superior to so-called "reason" based morality. Religion based morality offers fundamental truths as the underlying concept of morality, therefor it is unchanging no matter how many believe in it. "Reason" based morality is nothing more than a better sounding word for voting because it changes with people's opinions.

Religion based morality would in fact say that something is right or wrong, reasonable or unreasonable, no matter how many believe in it, because reason and "right and wrong" come from God. "Reason" based morality can't say this because it attempts to create morality without God, i.e the creator of morality. Without God there can be no fundamental "rights", because there is no fundamental "reason". And I didn't come up with this.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness

Note that they didn't say, "We can tell this is true because of reason." or "We took a vote and decided that..." Those statements don't hold much water. Instead they basically said, "It's obvious that God has given mankind a moral code that our current government isn't following." It's also self-evident why the DOI is held in a higher regard than utilitarianism or any of the other so-called "reason" based codes above.

[Phenomanul]

The inherent decay of moral relativism is the primary reason why a belief in absolute truth for mankind is necessary.

GOD is absolute TRUTH.

Thus... and I've stated this on other threads before... any search for TRUTH should always lead to GOD. However, when we juxtapose our own desires above GOD's and lean on our own wisdom we will usually end up walking down a path that opposes GOD's will for our lives.

[Spurminator]

The key language here is "to be made and kept for personal use." I would assume this still prohibits the sale or distribution of the videos.

So along the lines of what BradLohaus is saying... If you have an issue with this, it's more likely the age of consent that you have a problem with, not the legalization of making a video.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

The inherent decay of moral relativism is the primary reason why a belief in absolute truth for mankind is necessary.

GOD is absolute TRUTH.

Thus... and I've stated this on other threads before... any search for TRUTH should always lead to GOD. However, when we juxtapose our own desires above GOD's and lean on our own wisdom we will usually end up walking down a path that opposes GOD's will for our lives.

What is the "inherent decay" of moral relativism?

And, in searching for truth in anything, why are we led to God?

You can't just say stuff like that without giving a reason.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

The key language here is "to be made and kept for personal use." I would assume this still prohibits the sale or distribution of the videos.

So along the lines of what BradLohaus is saying... If you have an issue with this, it's more likely the age of consent that you have a problem with, not the legalization of making a video.

age of consent is the problem. but standards change, as cultures change. america has been lowering its standards for what is considered to be explicit/exploitative since the early 19th century. There is potential for us to not look at this as disgusting, as we do now, 10, 20, or 30 years from now.

Just look at how most of the countries in the middle east look at our culture.

[Phenomanul]

What is the "inherent decay" of moral relativism?

And, in searching for truth in anything, why are we led to God?

You can't just say stuff like that without giving a reason.


Decay = progressively gets worse.

Inherent because man's nature is selfish.


We are led to GOD because he placed an innate desire within us the day we were created - an inner yearning to find completeness in HIM. Some find HIM and establish the spiritual connection we were meant to have with GOD - the rest reject HIM and fail to find true peace.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

Decay = progressively gets worse.

Inherent because man's nature is selfish.


We are led to GOD because he placed an innate desire within us the day we were created - an inner yearning to find completeness in HIM. Some find HIM and establish the spiritual connection we were meant to have with GOD - the rest reject HIM and fail find true peace.

"The rest reject HIM and fail to find true peace".

That is just an opinion.

And, who created God?

[Phenomanul]

"The rest reject HIM and fail to find true peace".

That is just an opinion.

And, who created God?


GOD has always existed. Infinity has no beginning and no end; this applies to GOD's timeline.

I suppose some will say man created GOD; but that is an opinion as well isn't it?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

what about bhuddists

[ChumpDumper]

What did God say age of consent should be?

[boutons_]

Anybody got the age of Mary when she gave Birth? I bet she was under 15.

Age of consent is a legal fiction, based more on mores, not morals.

If you're in high dudgeon about this Hungary story, then you should be equally upset by the sexualization of childhood in the USA by coporate marketing and media.

[Guru of Nothing]

Decay = progressively gets worse.

Inherent because man's nature is selfish.


We are led to GOD because he placed an innate desire within us the day we were created - an inner yearning to find completeness in HIM. Some find HIM and establish the spiritual connection we were meant to have with GOD - the rest reject HIM and fail to find true peace.

And Hector lives happily ever after.

You should write a Disney screenplay.

[Guru of Nothing]

[God] placed an innate desire within us the day we were created - an inner yearning to find completeness in HIM.

I'll take famous Ted Haggard quotes for $800, Alex.

[Guru of Nothing]

...man's nature is selfish.


Just because most men are selfish does mean that man's nature is selfish.

Don't believe everything you read.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

Just because most men are selfish does mean that man's nature is selfish.

Don't believe everything you read.

The majority of people are as selfish as they are curious.

[Phenomanul]

Anybody got the age of Mary when she gave Birth? I bet she was under 15.

Age of consent is a legal fiction, based more on mores, not morals.

If you're in high dudgeon about this Hungary story, then you should be equally upset by the sexualization of childhood in the USA by coporate marketing and media.


High dudgeon???

Dude, I'm not preaching... I'm simply stating my viewpoint.

And yes I'm 'equally' upset by the sexualization of childhood in this country... the fact that children are being exposed to sexuality at such young ages is not healthy for their development... and in a sense it shortens their childhood - a truly unappreciated facet of our lives.

[Phenomanul]

Just because most men are selfish does mean that man's nature is selfish.

Don't believe everything you read.

That, of course, is one of many philosophies.

I believe man is corrupt; that we've all been tainted by the fall of Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden. Why? Because in that very moment a temporary rift was created between GOD and man until the day humankind was to be redeemed by Christ... And even then... that redemption, though extended to all, has to be willingly accepted. For a return to that perfect state with GOD sin has to be forever vanquished from the face of the planet.

Furthermore, I believe each and every one of us will be held accountable for our actions before the one True and Supreme Judge. Personally, I wouldn't want to count on my own 'goodness' to meet His absolute standards.

You act as if humans were altruistic beings by nature. But then wouldn't that oppose the evolutionary concept that supposedly drives all species into a 'survival of the fittest' mindset? Selflessness and altruism are not concepts that can be explained by an evolutionary model that engenders a 'me first' biological frame of mind. Altruism and 'goodness' are spiritual gifts from above. These divine traits are some of the characteristics of a true Christian - they that can give of themselves without expecting anything in return.

Keep in mind that one has to consciously conjure up restraint in order to weed out the manifestation of selfish desires in their personalities. And in the case of 'true Christians', they rely on the strength of the Holy Spirit to aid them in this daily struggle. They are also to reflect GOD's love upon the world but most fail miserably in this venture.

[Phenomanul]

I'll take famous Ted Haggard quotes for $800, Alex.


Hardy har har.... I'll take 'cynical remarks for $1,000'

I'm out. I have to wake up at 4:30 AM later this morning. :sleep :sleep :sleep

[sabar]

Age of consent should be exactly the same as the age of majority. Or the other way around.

[Nbadan]

Just because most men are selfish does mean that man's nature is selfish.

I don't think very many wealthy men and women sit around and ponder if divinity wants them to be even richer. We humans are creatures of our society, or is society the way it is because of the very nature of man?

[Nbadan]

Furthermore, I believe each and every one of us will be held accountable for our actions before the one True and Supreme Judge. Personally, I wouldn't want to count on my own 'goodness' to meet His absolute standards.

Is there a seperate hell for sociopaths?

[BradLohaus]

Almost everybody's reaction to making porn legal for 14 year olds is "What?! No way, how can that be okay?"

But, if we use reason, it should be okay, at least that's what my reason tells me (but it is just my vote). 14 year old girls can get pregnant and 14 year old males can impregnate. Why can't they have sex? If having sex is okay and reasonable then why can't they video tape it, and why can't someone older than them watch that video if the participants don't mind? Saying that 14 year olds aren't mature enough for sex despite the fact that their bodies are is an opinion. I'm sure many 14 year olds would be more responsible with sex than many 30 year olds. There are plenty of adults (adults in the legal sense) that aren't sexually responsible. Watching one episode of Maury Povich paternity tests can prove that, I think.

Yet I still think that allowing 14 year olds to have sex is wrong. Obviously I also think that 14 year olds in porn is wrong also. The question is why I (and almost everyone else) believe this. It can only be because I think it is wrong on some fundamental level beyond my reasoning ability. That contridicts reason, and I know it, and I suspect the majority of people would agree with that, but we still believe it.


What did God say age of consent should be?

That is the question. I would say that God intends the age of consent to be the age that a person is capable of properly raising a child. That implies that the age of consent varies from person to person and that some people should never have sex. I think that reality proves both to be true. Of course, that's just my single vote.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

Almost everybody's reaction to making porn legal for 14 year olds is "What?! No way, how can that be okay?"

But, if we use reason, it should be okay, at least that's what my reason tells me (but it is just my vote). 14 year old girls can get pregnant and 14 year old males can impregnate. Why can't they have sex? If having sex is okay and reasonable then why can't they video tape it, and why can't someone older than them watch that video if the participants don't mind? Saying that 14 year olds aren't mature enough for sex despite the fact that their bodies are is an opinion. I'm sure many 14 year olds would be more responsible with sex than many 30 year olds. There are plenty of adults (adults in the legal sense) that aren't sexually responsible. Watching one episode of Maury Povich paternity tests can prove that, I think.

Yet I still think that allowing 14 year olds to have sex is wrong. Obviously I also think that 14 year olds in porn is wrong also. The question is why I (and almost everyone else) believe this. It can only be because I think it is wrong on some fundamental level beyond my reasoning ability. That contridicts reason, and I know it, and I suspect the majority of people would agree with that, but we still believe it.



That is the question. I would say that God intends the age of consent to be the age that a person is capable of properly raising a child. That implies that the age of consent varies from person to person and that some people should never have sex. I think that reality proves both to be true. Of course, that's just my single vote.

Children are vulnerable. They are limited in thier mental/physical capacities. They grow and continue to grow, until mentally/physically they parallel the average person of the population. When they reach the mental/physical level of the average person, they instantly become vulnerable, and basically subject to a generally accepted, lower regard for sexual exploitation. That's my theory.

I should probably say that in a society like America that is democratic, and economically supported through free enterprise, and thus dependent on consumerism, our culture and even our moral beliefs reflect what the people want and can tolerate. Diverse religion being tolerated in America, and most of them having similar set core morals and values, we as a society are share much of the same beliefs-- an agreed on idea of what is right and what is wrong. Religion has a lot to do with what we hold as right or wrong. It shows in our consumerist/free enterprise society--because if you were to allow stuff like child pornography in America, the general take on it would be :cry :bang

[BradLohaus]

Children are vulnerable. They are limited in thier mental/physical capacities. They grow and continue to grow, until mentally/physically they parallel the average person of the population. When they reach the mental/physical level of the average person, they instantly become less vulnerable, and basically subject to a generally accepted, lower regard for sexual exploitation. That's my theory.

I'm guessing you meant less vulnerable there. I would basically agree with all of what you said.

Still there's this:


When they reach the mental/physical level of the average person, they instantly become less vulnerable, and basically subject to a generally accepted, lower regard for sexual exploitation.

That's where the voting aspect comes into play. What is the fundamental foundation for outlawing 14 year olds from porn?

[Ronaldo McDonald]

I'm guessing you meant less vulnerable there. I would basically agree with all of what you said.

Still there's this:



That's where the voting aspect comes into play. What is the fundamental foundation for outlawing 14 year olds from porn?

No, I meant vulnerable. Why would they be less vulnerable as children?

Never mind with what I said^^^^^I though you were talking about the first sentence.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

I'm guessing you meant less vulnerable there. I would basically agree with all of what you said.

Still there's this:



That's where the voting aspect comes into play. What is the fundamental foundation for outlawing 14 year olds from porn?

religion/mental capacity. Historic nomadic peoples who lived in all parts of the world, but never crossed paths, have left evidence that they too nourished and cared for their young. The Bible/similar religions teaches us the same of values. But these nomads unknowingly followed its teachings and acted in ways similar in terms of keeping with its regard for family, and the value of life, as in children etc. There is only one thing that account for that: our instinctive, extreme regard for the growing. If their was no intervention from a higher being, and thus no external implementation of moral codes--such as the Commandments--these people must have created a basic system of belief centered around what they instinctively believed was right or wrong.

Anyway, In order for the majority of the people of today to accept a thing like child pornography the majority would have to abandon religion containing similar values, and our instinctive inclination to nourish and protect the growing would have end. The only way that can ever happen is if people with same mental capacity as children (children) become the majority.

Does the Bible/similar religions really instill in us a regard for children, that does not exist in our nature, or do we naturally posess a regard for children? I think we have it naturally, like I said up their^^^^.

[spurster]

My understanding is that Jewish tradition says that boys/girls become adults at age 13/12. I don't think we want to be that biblical though.

[Phenomanul]

Anybody got the age of Mary when she gave Birth? I bet she was under 15.

Age of consent is a legal fiction, based more on mores, not morals.

If you're in high dudgeon about this Hungary story, then you should be equally upset by the sexualization of childhood in the USA by coporate marketing and media.


And she was undoubtably more mature than 13-15 year olds today. Mature enough to raise children (as someone above already hinted) and mature enough to tend to the duties of her marriage...

Bringing up the subject of Mary however is a moot point... GOD didn't engage in 'physical' relations with Mary - 'Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit'. Besides Mary was legally married to Joseph and didn't engage in pre-marital sex (or if you speak to some Roman Catholics they don't believe that Mary ever engaged in sexual relations with Joseph whatsoever). The fact of the matter, is that she was married - and was mature enough shoulder that responsibility.

Anyhow... age is only one factor in this debate, there are other factors to consider as well such as the aforementioned maturity level of a child, their emotional stability, and their physical readiness and capabilities. Since this varies from child to child (or teen to teen) it should follow that everyone in a certain age-group should be protected against exploitation - a reasonable expectation that would protect the less developed minds.

[boutons_]

"she was undoubtably more mature than 13-15 year olds today"

Where is your evidence for this assertion? or do you just "believe" whatever bullshit "religious" cant you dream up or hear from your thought-masters?

Social expectations and mores were totally different, unimaginably different, 2000 years ago.

Your supposing that today's pre-teen/early-teen girls are "immature", but they are exposed to murder and sex in the media non-stop. Today Western society expects pre-teen girls to be fully sexual beings, strutting around with their abdomens exposed down to the mons pubis, cleavage exposed (or created with sexy bras), receiving mandatory anti-STD vaccines, half-naked from the waist up, tarted up in pre-teen beauty contests like $5 whores, etc, etc.

Hungary is only formalizing what is de facto the case in many Western countries, including the USA. If you don't like what Hungary is doing, you're a hypocrit throwing stones from your own glass house.

[clambake]

"Besides, Mary was legally married to Joseph"

#7 do not commit adultery

Oops

[Phenomanul]

"she was undoubtably more mature than 13-15 year olds today"

Where is your evidence for this assertion? or do you just "believe" whatever bullshit "religious" cant you dream up or hear from your thought-masters?

Social expectations and mores were totally different, unimaginably different, 2000 years ago.

Your supposing that today's pre-teen/early-teen girls are "immature", but they are exposed to murder and sex in the media non-stop. Today Western society expects pre-teen girls to be fully sexual beings, strutting around with their abdomens exposed down to the mons pubis, cleavage exposed (or created with sexy bras), receiving mandatory anti-STD vaccines, half-naked from the waist up, tarted up in pre-teen beauty contests like $5 whores, etc, etc.

Hungary is only formalizing what is de facto the case in many Western countries, including the USA. If you don't like what Hungary is doing, you're a hypocrit throwing stones from your own glass house.


Hey... you brought her up. What makes your take on the Mary issue more valid than mine? Especially since you've already determined that the whole story was contrived to begin with.

And yes I do believe that our teens now are way more immature than their counterparts even a couple of centuries ago. You can look into any other history book to see the context for yourself since you feel inclined to believe the Bible holds no merit whatsoever on the issue.

And please elaborate why you feel my opinion on the issue is hypocritical? I don't see how... I oppose pornography period; no matter the age.

[Phenomanul]

"Besides, Mary was legally married to Joseph"

#7 do not commit adultery

Oops


Are you suggesting Mary committed adultery?

[Extra Stout]

Your supposing that today's pre-teen/early-teen girls are "immature", but they are exposed to murder and sex in the media non-stop. Today Western society expects pre-teen girls to be fully sexual beings, strutting around with their abdomens exposed down to the mons pubis, cleavage exposed (or created with sexy bras), receiving mandatory anti-STD vaccines, half-naked from the waist up, tarted up in pre-teen beauty contests like $5 whores, etc, etc.

Hungary is only formalizing what is de facto the case in many Western countries, including the USA. If you don't like what Hungary is doing, you're a hypocrit throwing stones from your own glass house.
Hector is only a hypocrite if he assents to the sexually exploitative nature of American culture. Violence and sex in the media is one of the things religious-conservative activists groups fight the hardest. They get little traction because corporations control the lawmaking, and they are happy to market to the lowest common denominator, damn the social consequences.

[boutons_]

"What makes your take on the Mary issue more valid than mine?"

A general knowledge of life 2000 years ago, when lifespans were an average of a 2 or 3 decades, and women were property of their families and of their husbands (like women are still in many "traditional" societies today) (women had essentially no rights in the USA 150 years ago), much like animals, to be married off early, like as soon as they were fertile or strong enough to for household chores or fieldwork, where pregnancies were early and frequent because of high infant mortalit and the need for kids for work.

I doubt Mary was "more mature" physically (reproductively) or emotionally. Average adults of that time had a mentality, a mental sophistication of today's 6 or 7 year olds (imagine what mental age the OT writers were writing for, as if their readership could ever obtain what they wrote (no printing), or read it if they had a copy(no education).

Mary got married and pregnant as soon as possible because that's what her society expected girls to do. Modern niceties like "maturity" just weren't in the picture.

[clambake]

#7

Feel free to make your biblical loophole retort.

[DarkReign]

People of Biblical times (in general) were not the Hollywood version you see on TV. They werent philanthropists, or idealists or even educated. They were survivors.

Survival does not require a large vocabulary or vocational study. An edged tool and one helluva work ethic pretty much encompasses any and all skills needed for the time. I doubt Mary could have spelled her name correctly.

More mature than todays 14 year olds....GTFOOH with that....Children of today are more "mature" and worldly than probably any time in the history of humanity. Society coddles youngsters.

BTW, this post has NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread. To address the topic, I think its sick. Period. I was just arguing the "more mature" aspect. That was all.

[Phenomanul]

People of Biblical times (in general) were not the Hollywood version you see on TV. They werent philanthropists, or idealists or even educated. They were survivors.

Survival does not require a large vocabulary or vocational study. An edged tool and one helluva work ethic pretty much encompasses any and all skills needed for the time. I doubt Mary could have spelled her name correctly.

More mature than todays 14 year olds....GTFOOH with that....Children of today are more "mature" and worldly than probably any time in the history of humanity. Society coddles youngsters.

BTW, this post has NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread. To address the topic, I think its sick. Period. I was just arguing the "more mature" aspect. That was all.

If by more mature you refer to their general disdain for authority, their general lack of training in a productive trade, the general trend of seeing more juveniles committing far more heinous crimes at greater frequencies, their shorter fuses and lack of restraint, their spoiled demeanors. I see.

It's all in how you define 'mature'. Are teens today more self-aware of their sexuality? Perhaps... but knowledge does not necessarily dictate one's maturity level. I would think responsibility is a much bigger factor. It's a case by case basis, but I figure teens in today's society are less responsible than their predecessors.

[Phenomanul]

#7

Feel free to make your biblical loophole retort.


You're the one making the assertion. Please elaborate on why you feel Mary defiled the Jewish law of her time.

[Phenomanul]

"What makes your take on the Mary issue more valid than mine?"

A general knowledge of life 2000 years ago, when lifespans were an average of a 2 or 3 decades, and women were property of their families and of their husbands (like women are still in many "traditional" societies today) (women had essentially no rights in the USA 150 years ago), much like animals, to be married off early, like as soon as they were fertile or strong enough to for household chores or fieldwork, where pregnancies were early and frequent because of high infant mortalit and the need for kids for work.

I doubt Mary was "more mature" physically (reproductively) or emotionally. Average adults of that time had a mentality, a mental sophistication of today's 6 or 7 year olds (imagine what mental age the OT writers were writing for, as if their readership could ever obtain what they wrote (no printing), or read it if they had a copy(no education).

Mary got married and pregnant as soon as possible because that's what her society expected girls to do. Modern niceties like "maturity" just weren't in the picture.

Except for the fact that Jewish people were somewhat healthier than societies around them. For one they didn't eat pork, or other 'unclean' meats. It's all in the context. Mary lived to be at least 50 years of age.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

"she was undoubtably more mature than 13-15 year olds today"

Where is your evidence for this assertion? or do you just "believe" whatever bullshit "religious" cant you dream up or hear from your thought-masters?

Social expectations and mores were totally different, unimaginably different, 2000 years ago.

Your supposing that today's pre-teen/early-teen girls are "immature", but they are exposed to murder and sex in the media non-stop. Today Western society expects pre-teen girls to be fully sexual beings, strutting around with their abdomens exposed down to the mons pubis, cleavage exposed (or created with sexy bras), receiving mandatory anti-STD vaccines, half-naked from the waist up, tarted up in pre-teen beauty contests like $5 whores, etc, etc.

Hungary is only formalizing what is de facto the case in many Western countries, including the USA. If you don't like what Hungary is doing, you're a hypocrit throwing stones from your own glass house.

Does western society really directly expect pre-teen girls to be more sexual?. The answer is no. Western society has set and moved the bar for what is considered to be sexually accepted throughout history, and continues to do so. Why do they keep moving it? Well if the majority girls of a certain age group (say 14,15,16) willingly want to live under a less strict, more exploitative standard set for a higher age group, than they are giving the higher age group (the mentally/physically superior) the right to lower the agreed upon maximum (or generally accepted) age of consent. This negates all set standards for what is considered to be wrong/immoral by the majority of adults. Essentially, children have "earned" or "accepted" the right to be "exploited" by their own effort and actions. The majority will naturally accept their consent, and in that sense abandon what they orginally thought of as wrong. This makes some morals in a sense not timeless because of time/consent. Our morals change through time and consent. (i.e. 18 year will only have sex with 13 year old through her consent. If it were forced it would be wrong and in conflict with his morals.)

[clambake]

Who's blaming Mary?

[boutons_]

"Does western society really directly expect pre-teen girls to be more sexual?. The answer is no."

YOUR answer is no. A lot of parents and professionals/researchers are very concerned, in fact anybody with their eyes open and half-a-brain is concerned, eg:

============

Goodbye to Girlhood

As Pop Culture Targets Ever Younger Girls, Psychologists Worry About a Premature Focus on Sex and Appearance

By Stacy Weiner
Special to The Washington Post
Tuesday, February 20, 2007; HE01

Ten-year-old girls can slide their low-cut jeans over "eye-candy" panties. French maid costumes, garter belt included, are available in preteen sizes. Barbie now comes in a "bling-bling" style, replete with halter top and go-go boots. And it's not unusual for girls under 12 to sing, "Don't cha wish your girlfriend was hot like me?"

American girls, say experts, are increasingly being fed a cultural catnip of products and images that promote looking and acting sexy.

"Throughout U.S. culture, and particularly in mainstream media, women and girls are depicted in a sexualizing manner," declares the American Psychological Association's Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls, in a report issued Monday. The report authors, who reviewed dozens of studies, say such images are found in virtually every medium, from TV shows to magazines and from music videos to the Internet.

While little research to date has documented the effect of sexualized images specifically on young girls, the APA authors argue it is reasonable to infer harm similar to that shown for those 18 and older; for them, sexualization has been linked to "three of the most common mental health problems of girls and women: eating disorders, low self-esteem and depression."

Said report contributor and psychologist Sharon Lamb: "I don't think because we don't have the research yet on the younger girls that we can ignore that [sexualization is] of harm to them. Common sense would say that, and part of the reason we wrote the report is so we can get funding to prove that."

Boys, too, face sexualization, the authors acknowledge. Pubescent-looking males have posed provocatively in Calvin Klein ads, for example, and boys with impossibly sculpted abs hawk teen fashion lines. But the authors say they focused on girls because females are objectified more often. According to a 1997 study in the journal Sexual Abuse, 85 percent of ads that sexualized children depicted girls.

Even influences that are less explicitly erotic often tell girls that who they are equals how they look and that beauty commands power and attention, contends Lamb, co-author of "Packaging Girlhood: Rescuing Our Daughters from Marketers' Schemes" (St. Martin's, 2006). One indicator that these influences are reaching girls earlier, she and others say: The average age for adoring the impossibly proportioned Barbie has slid from preteen to preschool.

When do little girls start wanting to look good for others? "A few years ago, it was 6 or 7," says Deborah Roffman, a Baltimore-based sex educator. "I think it begins by 4 now."

While some might argue that today's belly-baring tops are no more risque than hip huggers were in the '70s, Roffman disagrees. "Kids have always emulated adult things," she says. "But [years ago] it was, 'That's who I'm supposed to be as an adult.' It's very different today. The message to children is, 'You're already like an adult. It's okay for you to be interested in sex. It's okay for you to dress and act sexy, right now.' That's an entirely different frame of reference."

It's not just kids' exposure to sexuality that worries some experts; it's the kind of sexuality they're seeing. "The issue is that the way marketers and media present sexuality is in a very narrow way," says Lamb. "Being a sexual person isn't about being a pole dancer," she chides. "This is a sort of sex education girls are getting, and it's a misleading one."

Clothes Encounters

Liz Guay says she has trouble finding clothes she considers appropriate for her daughter Tanya, age 8. Often, they're too body-hugging. Or too low-cut. Or too short. Or too spangly.

Then there are the shoes: Guay says last time she visited six stores before finding a practical, basic flat. And don't get her started on earrings.

"Tanya would love to wear dangly earrings. She sees them on TV, she sees other girls at school wearing them, she sees them in the stores all the time. . . . I just say, 'You're too young.' "

"It's not so much a feminist thing," explains Guay, a Gaithersburg medical transcriptionist. "It's more that I want her to be comfortable with who she is and to make decisions based on what's right for her, not what everybody else is doing. I want her to develop the strength that when she gets to a point where kids are offering her alcohol or drugs, that she's got enough self-esteem to say, 'I don't want that.' "

Some stats back up Guay's sense of fashion's shrinking modesty. For example, in 2003, tweens -- that highly coveted marketing segment ranging from 7 to 12 -- spent $1.6 million on thong underwear, Time magazine reported. But even more-innocent-seeming togs, toys and activities -- like tiny "Beauty Queen" T-shirts, Hello Kitty press-on nails or preteen makeovers at Club Libby Lu -- can be problematic, claim psychologists. The reason: They may lure young girls into an unhealthy focus on appearance.

Studies suggest that female college students distracted by concerns about their appearance score less well on tests than do others. Plus, some experts say, "looking good" is almost culturally inseparable for girls from looking sexy: Once a girl's bought in, she's hopped onto a consumer conveyor belt in which marketers move females from pastel tiaras to hot-pink push-up bras.

Where did this girly-girl consumerism start? Diane Levin, an education professor at Wheelock College in Boston who is writing an upcoming book, "So Sexy So Soon," traces much of it to the deregulation of children's television in the mid-1980s. With the rules loosened, kids' shows suddenly could feature characters who moonlighted as products (think Power Rangers, Care Bears, My Little Pony). "There became a real awareness," says Levin, "of how to use gender and appearance and, increasingly, sex to market to children."

Kids are more vulnerable than adults to such messages, she argues.

The APA report echoes Levin's concern. It points to a 2004 study of adolescent girls in rural Fiji, linking their budding concerns about body image and weight control to the introduction of television there.

In the United States, TV's influence is incontestable. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, for example, nearly half of American kids age 4 to 6 have a TV in their bedroom. Nearly a quarter of teens say televised sexual content affects their own behavior.

And that content is growing: In 2005, 77 percent of prime-time shows on the major broadcast networks included sexual material, according to Kaiser, up from 67 percent in 1998. In a separate Kaiser study of shows popular with teenage girls, women and girls were twice as likely as men and boys to have their appearance discussed. They also were three times more likely to appear in sleepwear or underwear than their male counterparts.
Preteen Preening

It can be tough for a parent to stanch the flood of media influences.

Ellen Goldstein calls her daughter Maya, a Rockville fifth-grader, a teen-mag maniac. "She has a year's worth" of Girls' Life magazine, says Goldstein. "When her friends come over, they pore over this magazine." What's Maya reading? There's "Get Gorgeous Skin by Tonight," "Crush Confidential: Seal the Deal with the Guy You Dig," and one of her mom's least faves: "Get a Fierce Body Fast."

"Why do you want to tell a kid to get a fierce body fast when they're 10? They're just developing," complains Goldstein. She also bemoans the magazines' photos, which Maya has plastered on her ceiling.

"These are very glamorous-looking teenagers. They're wearing lots of makeup. They all have very glossy lips," she says. "They're generally wearing very slinky outfits. . . . I don't think those are the best role models," Goldstein says. "When so much emphasis is placed on the outside, it minimizes the importance of the person inside."

So why not just say no?

"She loves fashion," explains Goldstein. "I don't want to take away her joy from these magazines. It enhances her creative spirit. [Fashion] comes naturally to her. I want her to feel good about that. We just have to find a balance."

Experts say her concern is warranted. Pre-adolescents' propensity to try on different identities can make them particularly susceptible to media messages, notes the APA report. And for some girls, thinking about how one's body stacks up can be a real downer.

In a 2002 study, for example, seventh-grade girls who viewed idealized magazine images of women reported a drop in body satisfaction and a rise in depression.

Such results are disturbing, say observers, since eating disorders seem to strike younger today. A decade ago, new eating disorder patients at Children's National Medical Center tended to be around age 15, says Adelaide Robb, director of inpatient psychiatry. Today kids come in as young as 5 or 6.

Mirror Images

Not everyone is convinced of the uglier side of beauty messages.

Eight-year-old Maya Williams owns four bracelets, eight necklaces, about 20 pairs of earrings and six rings, an assortment of which she sprinkles on every day. "Sometimes, she'll stand in front of the mirror and ask, "Are these pretty, Mommy?"

Her mom, Gaithersburg tutor Leah Haworth, is fine with Maya's budding interest in beauty. In fact, when Maya "wasn't sure" about getting her ears pierced, says Haworth,"I talked her into it by showing her all the pretty earrings she could wear."

( Leah is a fucked up Mom )

What about all these sexualization allegations? "I don't equate looking good with attracting the opposite sex," Haworth says. Besides, "Maya knows her worth is based on her personality. She knows we love her for who she is."

( IBIWISI )

"Looking good just shows that you care about yourself, care about how you present yourself to the world. People are judged by their appearance. People get better service and are treated better when they look better. That's just the way it is," she says. "I think discouraging children from paying attention to their appearance does them a disservice."

Magazine editor Karen Bokram also adheres to the beauty school of thought. "Research has shown that having skin issues at [her readers'] age is traumatic for girls' self-esteem," says Bokram, founder of Girls' Life. "Do we think girls need to be gorgeous in order to be worthy? No. Do we think girls' feeling good about how they look has positive effects in other areas of their lives, meaning that they make positive choices academically, socially and in romantic relationships? Absolutely."

Some skeptics of the sexualization notion also argue that kids today are hardier and savvier than critics think. Isaac Larian, whose company makes the large-eyed, pouty-lipped Bratz dolls, says, "Kids are very smart and know right from wrong." What's more, his testing indicates that girls want Bratz "because they are fun, beautiful and inspirational," he wrote in an e-mail. "Not once have we ever heard one of our consumers call Bratz 'sexy.' " Some adults "have a twisted sense of what they see in the product," Larian says.

"It is the parents' responsibility to educate their children," he adds. "If you don't like something, don't buy it."

But Genevieve McGahey, 16, isn't buying marketers' messages. The National Cathedral School junior recalls that her first real focus on appearance began in fourth grade. That's when classmates taught her: To be cool, you needed ribbons. To be cool, you needed lip gloss.

Starting around sixth grade, though, "it took on a more sinister character," she says. "People would start wearing really short skirts and lower tops and putting on more makeup. There's a strong pressure to grow up at this point."

"It's a little scary being a young girl," McGahey says. "The image of sexuality has been a lot more trumpeted in this era. . . . If you're not interested in [sexuality] in middle school, it seems a little intimidating." And unrealistic body ideals pile on extra pressure, McGahey says. At a time when their bodies and their body images are still developing, "girls are not really seeing people [in the media] who are beautiful but aren't stick-thin," she notes. "That really has an effect."

Today, though, McGahey feels good about her body and her style.

For this, she credits her mom, who is "very secure with herself and with being smart and being a woman." She also points to a wellness course at school that made her conscious of how women were depicted. "Seeing a culture of degrading women really influenced me to look at things in a new way and to think how we as high school girls react to that," she says.

"A lot of girls still hold onto that media ideal. I think I've gotten past it. As I've gotten more comfortable with myself and my body, I'm happy not to be trashy," McGahey says. "But most girls are still not completely or even semi-comfortable with themselves physically. You definitely still feel the pressure of those images."

To read the APA report of the Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls, go to <http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/sexualization.html>http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/sexualization.html.

Stacy Weiner writes frequently for Health about families and relationships. Comments:<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected].

===============

The entire pre-pubscent sexualization is epitimoized by Britney, in a school girl's uniform and a microskirt, singing "Baby, More Time", aka "Baby, Fuck Me One More Time"

[DarkReign]

Soooooo, are they trying to say that looks are not important?!

Because, in la-la land that may be true. In the real world, chicks with big breasts and short skirts get the promotion, the frumpy one is your elementary librarian.

Life sucks. Your physical appearance matters to the world and everyone in it. the important question you should ask yourself is, does that fact matter to me?

My answer is no. I dont care wtf anyone thinks about me or otherwise (to a degree, obviously, no one can say that with absolutism).

[boutons_]

Please try stay on topic! :lol

[DarkReign]

If by more mature you refer to their general disdain for authority, their general lack of training in a productive trade, the general trend of seeing more juveniles committing far more heinous crimes at greater frequencies, their shorter fuses and lack of restraint, their spoiled demeanors. I see.

It's all in how you define 'mature'. Are teens today more self-aware of their sexuality? Perhaps... but knowledge does not necessarily dictate one's maturity level. I would think responsibility is a much bigger factor. It's a case by case basis, but I figure teens in today's society are less responsible than their predecessors.

Now thats an interesting response...

"Mature" is such a vague, subjective term. I agree that it is in how you define it that the argument becomes relevant.

Hmmm, mature. Without putting too much thought in it, I would define it as "responsible decison making". And "the ability to be socially accepted as a peer among a considerably older crowd" or some such.

So, in that respect, I would agree with you. By my own definition, I would say people in those times were making better decisions based on their family's need to survive. The socially accepted definition doesnt apply to those days though.

But the amount of knowledge and personal expectation put on the era-children are far different. Which has to count for something. Children commiting crimes at a rate higher than previous times is no big shock for me. I attribute alot of the perceived "hell in a handbasket" theory to miniturization of our globe and everyone in it. Let me explain.

In the past, it was very, VERY common to know very little about the world, the people in it, the conflicts, the strife, the differences. With every telecommunication invention (telegraph, telephone, television and by far the most influential, the internet), the world gets smaller and smaller (so to speak).

So instead of the classic "Leave it to Beaver" family where dad knows all and mom is a saint, children of all ages have a more complete perspective of their parents (ie authority figures). I remember when I thought my dad knew everything, I also remember when I figured out he didnt. The age gap between the two is at its narrowest ever. If it exists at all.

Unless a family unplugs themselves from the world (see any Wife Swap episode), the chances of having a docile child that obeys your every word is remote. They question you at a much earlier age, they absorb your faults and traits at a higher rate, etc. So, todays 10 year old has an opinion about everything (even though it may be mortally flawed). They have an opinion because the world says they should.

That was not the case throughout our history. Children were to be seen and not heard.

The flipside of your argument are the parents. The parents that literally worship their children (I cant remember this group that thinks their children are so very special, they have a term for their children and its escaping me). The opposite spectrum has children literally thinking they are adults, they literally know it all, and literally will do what it takes at a much too early age.

This post has rambled long enough. Basically, to answer the call, I do in fact think children today are much more mature than the past, but only because the pressures of being young are much more oppresive than those times. An edged tool and a helluva work ethic gets you nowhere today. Not so in times past.

[boutons_]

"much more mature than the past"

They are more experienced in what they've seen watching 4 - 6 hours of TV per day, beiing saturated with media, magazines, etc for their entire young lives. But experientially, emotionally, they mature very little by watching TV, which is vicarious, inauthentic living.

The entire corporate marketing effort, The Great American Dream Machine, is geared to making you feel bad about yourself, to feel inferior, uncool, left out, old, "Left Behind", unsexy, unfashionable, sick!, unhealthy, sub-"par" skin/hair/dick/boobs/butt, fat, sinful, so you are motivated by insufficiency to buy their shit, exercise machines, Green Prosperity Hankerchiefs, pills and drugs for everything ("ask you doctor" about our shit-with-side-effects for your imagined disease), consume our alcohol/junk "food"/cigarettes, use our cosmetics, drive our vehicles, "Christ" needs your money, etc, ad nauseam.

The marketing of sexiness to children is just corporate greed going after children's purchasing power and influence. They don't give a shit what harm it causes, just give us your money. The worse the girls feel, the more money for the corps. And of course if sex-oriented consumerism fucks the girls up, the doctors are there to drain your wallets to try to get the girls back to "normal".

[Guru of Nothing]

You act as if humans were altruistic beings by nature. But then wouldn't that oppose the evolutionary concept that supposedly drives all species into a 'survival of the fittest' mindset?

Nor do I think humans are altruistic.

Humans are optimizers, and optimizers work in mysterious ways.

[Phenomanul]

Now thats an interesting response...

"Mature" is such a vague, subjective term. I agree that it is in how you define it that the argument becomes relevant.

Hmmm, mature. Without putting too much thought in it, I would define it as "responsible decison making". And "the ability to be socially accepted as a peer among a considerably older crowd" or some such.

So, in that respect, I would agree with you. By my own definition, I would say people in those times were making better decisions based on their family's need to survive. The socially accepted definition doesnt apply to those days though.

But the amount of knowledge and personal expectation put on the era-children are far different. Which has to count for something. Children commiting crimes at a rate higher than previous times is no big shock for me. I attribute alot of the perceived "hell in a handbasket" theory to miniturization of our globe and everyone in it. Let me explain.

In the past, it was very, VERY common to know very little about the world, the people in it, the conflicts, the strife, the differences. With every telecommunication invention (telegraph, telephone, television and by far the most influential, the internet), the world gets smaller and smaller (so to speak).

So instead of the classic "Leave it to Beaver" family where dad knows all and mom is a saint, children of all ages have a more complete perspective of their parents (ie authority figures). I remember when I thought my dad knew everything, I also remember when I figured out he didnt. The age gap between the two is at its narrowest ever. If it exists at all.

Unless a family unplugs themselves from the world (see any Wife Swap episode), the chances of having a docile child that obeys your every word is remote. They question you at a much earlier age, they absorb your faults and traits at a higher rate, etc. So, todays 10 year old has an opinion about everything (even though it may be mortally flawed). They have an opinion because the world says they should.

That was not the case throughout our history. Children were to be seen and not heard.

The flipside of your argument are the parents. The parents that literally worship their children (I cant remember this group that thinks their children are so very special, they have a term for their children and its escaping me). The opposite spectrum has children literally thinking they are adults, they literally know it all, and literally will do what it takes at a much too early age.

This post has rambled long enough. Basically, to answer the call, I do in fact think children today are much more mature than the past, but only because the pressures of being young are much more oppresive than those times. An edged tool and a helluva work ethic gets you nowhere today. Not so in times past.

Fair enough take.

[Phenomanul]

"much more mature than the past"

They are more experienced in what they've seen watching 4 - 6 hours of TV per day, beiing saturated with media, magazines, etc for their entire young lives. But experientially, emotionally, they mature very little by watching TV, which is vicarious, inauthentic living.

The entire corporate marketing effort, The Great American Dream Machine, is geared to making you feel bad about yourself, to feel inferior, uncool, left out, old, "Left Behind", unsexy, unfashionable, sick!, unhealthy, sub-"par" skin/hair/dick/boobs/butt, fat, sinful, so you are motivated by insufficiency to buy their shit, exercise machines, Green Prosperity Hankerchiefs, pills and drugs for everything ("ask you doctor" about our shit-with-side-effects for your imagined disease), consume our alcohol/junk "food"/cigarettes, use our cosmetics, drive our vehicles, "Christ" needs your money, etc, ad nauseam.

The marketing of sexiness to children is just corporate greed going after children's purchasing power and influence. They don't give a shit what harm it causes, just give us your money. The worse the girls feel, the more money for the corps. And of course if sex-oriented consumerism fucks the girls up, the doctors are there to drain your wallets to try to get the girls back to "normal".

We agree on something (95% of this post) - I believe it happens once every year or so.... so let's just say I'm a bit surprised. :tu

Anyhow, I disagree that 'the Body of Christ' (i.e. the Church) somehow participates in this trend. The Biblical message suggests that we are all beautiful and that GOD accepts us just the way are; with all our defects, flaws, imperfections whether they are perceived or real. And if HE loves us despite all of these shortcomings; we are to learn to love and forgive others just as GOD loves and forgives us... to see beyond others' flaws as well. This completely opposes the mass media drive you've just explained above.

[PixelPusher]

You act as if humans were altruistic beings by nature. But then wouldn't that oppose the evolutionary concept that supposedly drives all species into a 'survival of the fittest' mindset?

You are supposing altruism couldn't be a natural instinct that works in favor of survival...consider how much more important altruism is for a species that has the power to affect it's environment to an unprecedented degree. Our "greed" instinct has a much greater (and more harmful) side effects for us than the "greed" exhibited by a lion who guards her carcass from a hyena.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

"much more mature than the past"

They are more experienced in what they've seen watching 4 - 6 hours of TV per day, beiing saturated with media, magazines, etc for their entire young lives. But experientially, emotionally, they mature very little by watching TV, which is vicarious, inauthentic living.

The entire corporate marketing effort, The Great American Dream Machine, is geared to making you feel bad about yourself, to feel inferior, uncool, left out, old, "Left Behind", unsexy, unfashionable, sick!, unhealthy, sub-"par" skin/hair/dick/boobs/butt, fat, sinful, so you are motivated by insufficiency to buy their shit, exercise machines, Green Prosperity Hankerchiefs, pills and drugs for everything ("ask you doctor" about our shit-with-side-effects for your imagined disease), consume our alcohol/junk "food"/cigarettes, use our cosmetics, drive our vehicles, "Christ" needs your money, etc, ad nauseam.

The marketing of sexiness to children is just corporate greed going after children's purchasing power and influence. They don't give a shit what harm it causes, just give us your money. The worse the girls feel, the more money for the corps. And of course if sex-oriented consumerism fucks the girls up, the doctors are there to drain your wallets to try to get the girls back to "normal".

Exactly. And power that corporations have through marketing will ultimately dilute our ethical and moral systems that are currently undergirded by religious law. As we continue to consume what the corporate market keep feeding us, we lower our general morals associated with religion. But will we ever stop eating up what the "The Great American Dream Machine" feeds us, or will we as a society let religion stand its ground and prevail as the basic system of our beliefs, and thus be the guide for most of our actions? If we stop giving in how would our free enterprise economy survive?

It needs us to consume. And the only way it can keep us consuming is by breaking new ground; it has to keep feeding us something new...the probelem is that what we haven't experienced is/has been curtained by our morals...the clash between them and corporate marketing constantly trying to filter them has been and will continue to go on (and it is really just the beginning-- the corps stll have a lot more moral-testing marketing to do).

[Ronaldo McDonald]

Oops accidently double posted

[BradLohaus]

I think this thread has gone into some interesting directions, and I think it all does relate to the original topic on some level. There were good points on maturity in today's world. My 2 cents, and I'll use the words "maturity" and "experience" synonymously just to be simple and short.

Children are more mature today in the wrong ways, but less mature in the right ways. But I can't separate my religious beliefs from this opinion. If I was an atheist then I'd probably just say that children are too spoiled today, or not mature enough.


"she was undoubtably more mature than 13-15 year olds today"

Where is your evidence for this assertion? or do you just "believe" whatever bullshit "religious" cant you dream up or hear from your thought-masters?

Social expectations and mores were totally different, unimaginably different, 2000 years ago.

Your supposing that today's pre-teen/early-teen girls are "immature", but they are exposed to murder and sex in the media non-stop. Today Western society expects pre-teen girls to be fully sexual beings, strutting around with their abdomens exposed down to the mons pubis, cleavage exposed (or created with sexy bras), receiving mandatory anti-STD vaccines, half-naked from the waist up, tarted up in pre-teen beauty contests like $5 whores, etc, etc.

Hungary is only formalizing what is de facto the case in many Western countries, including the USA. If you don't like what Hungary is doing, you're a hypocrit throwing stones from your own glass house.

Boutons, in the first part you rant about how stupid religion is, then in the 2nd part you make a good case for an attempt to turn around the declining religious values of Western culture. I'm guessing this was unintentional.

And if Mary was 14 during her pregnancy with Jesus then I don't think it's going out on a limb to say that she was likely more mature (responsible) than the vast majority of 14 year olds today. I think a person can be an atheist and easily believe that. To attack a person's religious beliefs for asserting that just shows a fundamental disdain for religion, I think, and not the actual point in question.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

We agree on something (95% of this post) - I believe it happens once every year or so.... so let's just say I'm a bit surprised. :tu

Anyhow, I disagree that 'the Body of Christ' (i.e. the Church) somehow participates in this trend. The Biblical message suggests that we are all beautiful and that GOD accepts us just the way are; with all our defects, flaws, imperfections whether they are perceived or real. And if HE loves us despite all of these shortcomings; we are to learn to love and forgive others just as GOD loves and forgives us... to see beyond others' flaws as well. This completely opposes the mass media drive you've just explained above.

:lol Church as an establishment will sooner or later have become integrated, once it realizes that the "formal attire" required to go into church no longer exists. So they'll have to accept what the norm is. So 30 years from now people will be walking into church with rubberband thongs, and that's when all priests will realize they can't just turn their heads like they used to. A confession will be more like a sex session.

[BradLohaus]

^When a segment of a society becomes atheistic and decadent they tend to stop reproducing. When this is true of a substantial portion of a society then the society as a whole tends to die out. The Western Roman Empire (basically the historical Roman Empire) experienced this while the Eastern Roman Empire (the Byzantine Empire) flourished. It's interesting that this is repeating itself in Europe today. Native European birthrates have declined dramatically, and in many countries non-immigrant birth rates are less than death rates. People always move in to fill these voids, whether its's high birth rate Muslims in Europe or high birth rate Hispanics in the U.S. So if a scenario like the one you mentioned ever came about then it wouldn't last for long. Demographics is destiny; history says reproduce or die, and atheists simply don't reproduce historically.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

^When a segment of a society becomes atheistic and decadent they tend to stop reproducing. When this is true of a substantial portion of a society then the society as a whole tends to die out. The Western Roman Empire (basically the historical Roman Empire) experienced this while the Eastern Roman Empire (the Byzantine Empire) flourished. It's interesting that this is repeating itself in Europe today. Native European birthrates have declined dramatically, and in many countries non-immigrant birth rates are less than death rates. People always move in to fill these voids, whether its's high birth rate Muslims in Europe or high birth rate Hispanics in the U.S. So if a scenario like the one you mentioned ever came about then it wouldn't last for long. Demographics is destiny; history says reproduce or die, and atheists simply don't reproduce historically.

You make a good point (I don't know much of any history outside of America though).:smokin

But what about aids? Potentially more dangerous to minorites, because of lack of awareness, AND high reproduction rates.