Wtf?!?

[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 s, 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 uva 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 uva 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 bull "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 s, 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 do ented 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, o 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 iden ies 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 ed 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]>health@washpo st.com.

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

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

[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 " 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 uva 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/ /boobs/butt, fat, sinful, so you are motivated by insufficiency to buy their , exercise machines, Green Prosperity Hankerchiefs, pills and drugs for everything ("ask you doctor" about our -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 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 s 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 " 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 uva 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/ /boobs/butt, fat, sinful, so you are motivated by insufficiency to buy their , exercise machines, Green Prosperity Hankerchiefs, pills and drugs for everything ("ask you doctor" about our -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 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 s 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.

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/ /boobs/butt, fat, sinful, so you are motivated by insufficiency to buy their , exercise machines, Green Prosperity Hankerchiefs, pills and drugs for everything ("ask you doctor" about our -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 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 s 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 bull "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 s, 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.

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.

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).

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