Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Pathos]

Out of curiousity; because it just sort of occured to me. Why exactly is these kids dancing in a sexualised way bad? I mean, ovbiously actually having sex with them is unacceptable, but pretending to be all sexy and grown up is bad for precisely what reason?

Just curious; i'm trying to work out what angle you're coming from here, although i suspect i already know.

Because sexualising children is wrong. The entire concept of it leads to paedophilia being at least semi-acceptable in Western culture (looking avarously at little children's bodies etc etc), and that's something I'd like to prevent.

If you say it's okay for children to act sexily, then you're saying it's okay for a person to be sexually attracted (and have sexual conduct with them) to children. Especially since it gives them that whole "but she was dressed provocatively" line.

[Neruz]

So you're saying that sexualising children is wrong because it leads to paedophilia, o.k., do you actually have any proof of that particular claim? Because it sounds pretty similar to the old "violence in TV leads to people commiting murder" adage trotted out every so often.

If you say it's okay for children to act sexily, then you're saying it's okay for a person to be sexually attracted (and have sexual conduct with them) to children. Especially since it gives them that whole "but she was dressed provocatively" line.

I don't recall saying that. Did i say that? I recall asking why you thought it was a bad thing, and i recall implying that i did not think children imitating the adults in their life by acting in a sexualised fashion was a bad thing, but i don't ever recall saying that someone being sexually attracted to and having sexual conduct with children was a good thing. You appear to be not only putting words into my mouth, but also attempting to condemn people based on their thoughts, rather than their actions, which is one hell of a slippery slope.

[Pathos]

So you're saying that sexualising children is wrong because it leads to paedophilia, o.k., do you actually have any proof of that particular claim? Because it sounds pretty similar to the old "violence in TV leads to people commiting murder" adage trotted out every so often.

If you say it's okay for children to act sexily, then you're saying it's okay for a person to be sexually attracted (and have sexual conduct with them) to children. Especially since it gives them that whole "but she was dressed provocatively" line.

I don't recall saying that. Did i say that? I recall asking why you thought it was a bad thing, and i recall implying that i did not think children imitating the adults in their life by acting in a sexualised fashion was a bad thing, but i don't ever recall saying that someone being sexually attracted to and having sexual conduct with children was a good thing. You appear to be not only putting words into my mouth, but also attempting to condemn people based on their thoughts, rather than their actions, which is one hell of a slippery slope.

I didn't say it leads TO paedophilia, I said it leads to paedophilia being more acceptable in Western culture. You're twisting my words in a way that doesn't even make sense.

I don't know, what you said was similar to saying, "I support a free market economy, but I don't support capitalism. Capitalism is WRONG." They're too closely linked to support one without the other. Of course, you don't care about this.

So, tell me, why isn't it wrong for children to be sexualised?

[Neruz]

I didn't say it leads TO paedophilia, I said it leads to paedophilia being more acceptable in Western culture.

Really? How? And why is it unique to Western culture, the same practices wouldn't lead to it being acceptable in Chinese culture?

I don't know, what you said was similar to saying, "I support a free market economy, but I don't support capitalism. Capitalism is WRONG." They're too closely linked to support one without the other. Of course, you don't care about this.

Are they? It seems to me that you're just having trouble working out where to draw the line. I draw it at actions, if that helps.

So, tell me, why isn't it wrong for children to be sexualised?

Because i can't think of any real reason why it is. Ovbiously actually engaging in sexual activity with children is a bad idea, as they are minors and the health problems that can result are pretty serious, but as for why they shouldn't dress up and dance in a provocative manner (so long as it is their choice, they enjoy it and they are not being exploited) i'm drawing blanks. The only reasons i can think of for somone to truely believe such a thing is bad are founded in religion, specifically the rather impressive propaganda campaign waged by the various Abrahamic religions over the past few milennia, but that relates to sexualisation in general rather than specifically in relation to children.
Sexualisation is a pretty major part of our culture, in fact one could make a reasonable argument that the vast majority of culture ultimately comes down to sex at it's core; why should children be excluded from that? I'm wondering if perhaps the same line of reasoning that leads to parents lying to their children about the world being fair and equal is being used to reach this conclusion about sexualisation.

The fact that you're reduced to asking me why i think it isn't wrong leads me to conclude that you couldn't think of any non knee-jerk emotional reason why it was wrong either.

[Duke 2.0]

I should probably add that i personally feel that if somone wishes to take cocaine, it is my position to ensure they are aware of the risks, but it is not my position to stop them if i am satisfied they are aware of the risks and choose to go ahead with it anyway.

 This has sort of been bothering me. Not because the idea is wrong, but because it sort of applies to the argument at hand. Do children understand what is going on, and the consequences of such? Because despite how much you argue that sexuality is ingrained in our socieoty you must admit that embracing it in a public and free way does encourage some amount of recklessness with it simply because nothing is taught about responsibility over your own sexuality.

 Quite simply, I don't think children are developed enough to be responsible with sexuality. And even when you have an adult around it is generally not a good idea to hand a kid a chainsaw.

[Neruz]

This has sort of been bothering me. Not because the idea is wrong, but because it sort of applies to the argument at hand. Do children understand what is going on, and the consequences of such? Because despite how much you argue that sexuality is ingrained in our socieoty you must admit that embracing it in a public and free way does encourage some amount of recklessness with it simply because nothing is taught about responsibility over your own sexuality.

That's more a failure of the system by which people are educated (not just the education system, as parents and peers are ovbiously involved in the process) than it is some innate property of the concept. It's not like children cannot be taught responsibility about these things, we just choose not to. (And, one could possibly argue, neglecting that can cause all sorts of problems, not the least of which leaving unwary children vulnerable to predatory adults.)

Quite simply, I don't think children are developed enough to be responsible with sexuality. And even when you have an adult around it is generally not a good idea to hand a kid a chainsaw.

Possibly, but how do you determine when they are developed enough? And can we keep the rediculous comparisons to a minimum; they really don't add anything to the discussion.

[Nonsapient]

This has sort of been bothering me. Not because the idea is wrong, but because it sort of applies to the argument at hand. Do children understand what is going on, and the consequences of such?

This does not ABSOLUTELY pertain to the topic at hand,  but I'm really not sure ANYONE is capable of that.  Too much of our lives seems to be just below the acceptable level of awareness.  I'm really not sure humanity has achieved its own definition of sapience.

[Neruz]

Lets keep to the discussion at hand shall we?

[Pathos]

Really? How? And why is it unique to Western culture, the same practices wouldn't lead to it being acceptable in Chinese culture?

If this was being done (and being accepted) in Asian culture, then yes it would. Are you an idiot or are you deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying?

Are they? It seems to me that you're just having trouble working out where to draw the line. I draw it at actions, if that helps.

Like the action of allowing children to go on stage and do "sexy dances"? I don't know, man, wouldn't you find it creepy if a person told a little kid to dance in a skimpy outfit and then applauded them whilst they did it? Regardless of whether the child was having "fun" or not?

Because i can't think of any real reason why it is. Ovbiously actually engaging in sexual activity with children is a bad idea, as they are minors and the health problems that can result are pretty serious, but as for why they shouldn't dress up and dance in a provocative manner (so long as it is their choice, they enjoy it and they are not being exploited) i'm drawing blanks. The only reasons i can think of for somone to truely believe such a thing is bad are founded in religion, specifically the rather impressive propaganda campaign waged by the various Abrahamic religions over the past few milennia, but that relates to sexualisation in general rather than specifically in relation to children.

Sexualisation is a pretty major part of our culture, in fact one could make a reasonable argument that the vast majority of culture ultimately comes down to sex at it's core; why should children be excluded from that? I'm wondering if perhaps the same line of reasoning that leads to parents lying to their children about the world being fair and equal is being used to reach this conclusion about sexualisation.

The fact that you're reduced to asking me why i think it isn't wrong leads me to conclude that you couldn't think of any non knee-jerk emotional reason why it was wrong either.

I asked you to tell me why you think it's not wrong because I was interested in seeing where you were coming from. And, really, read over what you just typed.

"Children should be sexualised because everyone else is", "They are not being exploited, they are enjoying it", "I suppose children shouldn't be sexualised because of the same reason adults lie to their kids about the world being a nice place."

What scares me is that there are people like you running around in society. Also, your arguments are utterly moronic and make no sense, the very concept that "because everyone else is doing it, children should do" is utterly, UTTERLY stupid. Do you realise how much of an effect childhood has on people's lives? I guess not.

FALSE EDIT: As Duke said, children don't really have the capability to deal with sexuality etc, especially when they're about 8 years old. It's something you develop as you go through puberty, as you experience the feelings of sexuality yourself. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS?

TL;DR: Neruz is either trolling (playing the Devil's advocate) or an utterly creepy chap who has no foundation in society.

[Lord Shonus]

Personally, I don't think exposing kids to sex IS wrong. Adults with kids is bad because of the power dynamic, but that's about as far as I'd go.

[Duke 2.0]

The thing is though, even with our own flawed system children do learn responsibility and how to handle themselves. It is just something they pick up when growing up around people who are responsible and can handle themselves., and when they make mistakes and mess up. The point is that as children you are currently learning it and don't yet have a completely formed sense of responsibility. While the system could be adjusted to allow children to learn such things earlier it seems more the fact that a childs mind grows alongside their body. They need years of comprehension of what's around them to have it set in their core ideas rather than some facts taught to them without that foundation.

 And there really is no way to determine when a person is responsible enough to handle sexuality. Hell, I don't think any of us are. But the difference is that our emotions and sense of responsibility is more developed to an undefined quantity more than them, which despite not being enough to make correct decisions all the time does allow us to get by without massive emotional problems later in life. Not to say that adults don't get emotional scarring through their mistakes, but at least they are not growing during the hurt period.

 And I'll stop making rediculous comparisons that don't add anything to the discussion when you stop making stupid jabs at people that don't contribute to the discussion. I wonder what angle you are coming from here, although I suspect I already know.

[bjlong]

-snip-

So, no mention of the studies I linked to, here?

It's fairly well established that violent media has a detrimental effect on children. Only one study concluded anything positive--and that was that with significant parental involvement, the effects of violence are mitigated. This would probably extend to sexualization.

Or the various reasons I provided for this being pretty messed up? Indicative of poor parenting? Nothing? Oh, I see. It's all just brainwashing by Abrahamic religions. No other religions have any hang-ups about sex. Certainly don't do independant research on taboos in Shinto rituals, or talk about Bhuddist beliefs about sex, or many of the other taboos about sex in other societies. Every taboo about sex is harmful and comes from Abrahamic religions unfairly repressing sexeh tahm.

The thing is though, even with our own flawed system children do learn responsibility and how to handle themselves. It is just something they pick up when growing up around people who are responsible and can handle themselves., and when they make mistakes and mess up. The point is that as children you are currently learning it and don't yet have a completely formed sense of responsibility. While the system could be adjusted to allow children to learn such things earlier it seems more the fact that a childs mind grows alongside their body. They need years of comprehension of what's around them to have it set in their core ideas rather than some facts taught to them without that foundation.

This. It's backed up by some child psychology, too. The thing is, we can't really say "Hey, you're sexually ready after you pass this test," but we can say "You'll be equipped with all the knowledge/wisdom you need after this age."

Personally, I don't think exposing kids to sex IS wrong. Adults with kids is bad because of the power dynamic, but that's about as far as I'd go.

While some limited exposure is probably OK, I'd be very wary about allowing explicitly sexual contact while kids are still... kids. My big post on the last page explains why.

[Nonsapient]

redacted

[bjlong]

Also redacted.

[Zombie]

Out of curiousity; because it just sort of occured to me. Why exactly is these kids dancing in a sexualised way bad? I mean, ovbiously actually having sex with them is unacceptable, but pretending to be all sexy and grown up is bad for precisely what reason?

Just curious; i'm trying to work out what angle you're coming from here, although i suspect i already know.

I think it's important to realize that these girls did not choose to wear these red skimpy outfits of their own volition, nor did they choose the choreography or, possibly, even the song. My point here is that to the girls, they are having fun. This is good. Adults, however, are twisting their desire to have fun and dance around and be popular into something that can be construed as sexually charged.

Dance contests are not inherently sexually charged. I mean, just look at Dancing With the Stars. Sometimes it's sexy, but other times you've got some really weird stuff going on. Other times you have dances that mean something, like interpretative dance.

I am not saying that these little girls have decided to be sexually charged, nor that the adults that put them up to this have necessarily decided to make this sexually charged. You cannot deny, however, that the result is inherently sexual. The girls, as Pathos has stated, are thrusting their hips and shaking their undeveloped chests around. They are also dressed far more skimpy than Beyonce in the original Single Ladies video, which has already been referred to as sexy.

The point I'm attempting to make is that the girls are having fun, but the source material is inherently sexual and, when coupled with the outfits and the choreography it results in a performance that, to the public at large can be construed as sexual.

Whether or not you see the problem is moot. You do not represent all of society. None of us do. The fact is that people do perceive this as sexual, which is a negative thing when involved with children. While I do not personally think it is bad for kids to learn about anatomy and how stuff works (all stuff and not just naughty stuff, mind you) I also think that allowing, or even endorsing young children (boys included!) to dance around to a sexual, adult song dressed in sexual, adult clothes and being choreographed by sexual adults... That is wrong. It is not wrong because children shouldn't be allowed to dance, no.

It is wrong because it is imbuing what, to these girls, is just simple, fun dancing with something they do not realize to exist. Do they know that older women shake their chests when dancing to make their breasts jiggle to seem alluring? No. They do not. Yet they are performing that move in the video. Actions like these and pelvic thrusting are not construable as something else. They are moves made to be sexual.

This last bit I do not feel is applicable to the problems with this video. I don't think the little girls are intending or even aware that people can view them in a sexual way. They might not even be aware of what sexuality is. With that said, I've spoilered it so it, hopefully, doesn't derail us too much.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

So as far as the question of, "Why is it wrong for children to be sexual?" Well, I suppose it isn't inherently wrong, it's simply too early. Biologically speaking, you shouldn't be thinking about sex until your sex drive kicks in, and then you just sort of think about it. Then, when you eventually have sex, you realize it feels good and you want to do it more. It's all to aid in our reproductive efforts, really. Girls this age are not physically "ready" enough to carry a child to term and boys this age are not physically "ready" enough to impregnate them. Hence their age is deemed to be "too young" for sexualization.