Sex Sex Sex
Nov. 17th, 2003 09:24 amA number of sex-related claims crossed my news radar this weekend...
...All of which, I think you'll agree, adds up to a pretty schizophrenic picture. The news about Kylie's bum is, of course, the most startling of all; frankly, I thoughtwe'd never see the back of it it would be with us until judgement day. And the claim made for online relationships is, hearteningly, accurate (although they don't mention how much easier it is to make that one ill-judged comment that kills the mood dead).
The other two claims come from a world I don't recognise. I don't think the one about the poor teenage boys is accurate (although I'm sure there are a few grains of truth in it), since, y'know, we can think for ourselves; but even if it's all true, the article as written strikes me as contributing to the problem, rather than helping in any way. And as for the teenage sex thing - well, when I was 12 I was more into Dragonlance, Games Workshop, the local young ten-pin bowling club and, occasionally, a trip to the cinema with my friends. For most of my teenage years, going out on Saturday night was a foreign idea, as evidenced by my detailed knowledge of Casualty plots and characters c.1993-1997. I didn't have anything so advanced as a girlfriend until university (hell, or even a first kiss; there were 40 girls in my sixth form of 200 or so, and the gawky nerd with the Asimov books didn't rank very high up the eligibility scale).
But you know, I don't feel the least bit bitter about it. Well, maybe slightly bitter that I've never had the stereotypically torrid teenage romance, but in general, I'm ok with it. In fact, I liked having the age of consent there - it gave me an excuse, on the rare occasion that I needed one, for not having made any inroads into that field. Which is not to say I support the idea of making teenage experimentation illegal; it wasn't for me, then, but to outlaw it is clearly ludicrous. Similarly, more comprehensive sex education would be unambiguously A Good Thing. I just get slightly concerned on behalf of all the kids like me that society could move, from a position that is arguably too restrictive, a little too far in the opposite direction.
- Kylie's bum is no longer to be used as a marketing tool.
- The post-feminist generation of teenage girls put out incredibly mixed messages in the way they act and behave. This is causing a crisis amongst teenage boys, who are even turning to steroids to pump up their look because they just can't handle the pressure, the poor guys.
- Online etiquette is in many ways very old-fashioned, and the rise of online relationships (over the next five years, 50% of singletons are expected to meet their partner online) is leading to a return to old-fashioned courtship.
- The current age of consent is out of step with current teenage lifestyles. It should be lowered to 12, and far more explicit sex education should be provided. The government, on the other hand, is going to make the situation worse by making all forms of sexual contact, from kissing on up, illegal for under-16s.
...All of which, I think you'll agree, adds up to a pretty schizophrenic picture. The news about Kylie's bum is, of course, the most startling of all; frankly, I thought
The other two claims come from a world I don't recognise. I don't think the one about the poor teenage boys is accurate (although I'm sure there are a few grains of truth in it), since, y'know, we can think for ourselves; but even if it's all true, the article as written strikes me as contributing to the problem, rather than helping in any way. And as for the teenage sex thing - well, when I was 12 I was more into Dragonlance, Games Workshop, the local young ten-pin bowling club and, occasionally, a trip to the cinema with my friends. For most of my teenage years, going out on Saturday night was a foreign idea, as evidenced by my detailed knowledge of Casualty plots and characters c.1993-1997. I didn't have anything so advanced as a girlfriend until university (hell, or even a first kiss; there were 40 girls in my sixth form of 200 or so, and the gawky nerd with the Asimov books didn't rank very high up the eligibility scale).
But you know, I don't feel the least bit bitter about it. Well, maybe slightly bitter that I've never had the stereotypically torrid teenage romance, but in general, I'm ok with it. In fact, I liked having the age of consent there - it gave me an excuse, on the rare occasion that I needed one, for not having made any inroads into that field. Which is not to say I support the idea of making teenage experimentation illegal; it wasn't for me, then, but to outlaw it is clearly ludicrous. Similarly, more comprehensive sex education would be unambiguously A Good Thing. I just get slightly concerned on behalf of all the kids like me that society could move, from a position that is arguably too restrictive, a little too far in the opposite direction.
Intelligence
Date: 2003-11-17 02:21 am (UTC)Welcome to my Teenage Years... :D
I think the media should have at least some of the blame laid at their door, for perpetuating the idea that you *need* to have lived your entire life three times over before you're 21. The big issue in this country then becomes the question of Whose Responsibility is it Anyway? Parents, teachers AND the media ALL need to preach the same sermon on what is acceptable behaviour (plus how that message should be pitched), and as the three are currently pulling in completely different directions...
I will miss Kylie's bum, but as I've always been behind the times... (badumb *ching!*)
Re: Intelligence
Date: 2003-11-17 02:43 am (UTC)And even in more than three different directions, which is particularly impressive. :-)
Personally, I'm just trying to work out what my parents did right and how I can repeat it when it's my turn.
I will miss Kylie's bum, but as I've always been behind the times
There's nothing quite like bad puns on a monday morning.
Re: Intelligence
Date: 2003-11-17 04:00 am (UTC)Pretty much what I'm doing, too. There is no truly right way, just the way that works best for you... isn't that what *they* say...?
no subject
Date: 2003-11-17 02:22 am (UTC)I guess we need *proper* sex education (and now that the gawd-awful section 28 is gone teachers will feel able to ask any questions about homosexuality that may come up) - but not a good-sex-guide-for-teens. Sex education that deals with the issues of pregnancy, STDs *and* the emotional side of sex rather than just the mechanics is what is needed.....
I think the press are hyping things up a bit - but the figures for STDs amongst teens are fairly alarming - so there is obviously a problem and the current education programs aren't working..... I think that 16 is fine as an age of consent - any lower than 14 I am not comfortable with. The worst thing they could do IMO is make the AOC unequal again.....
no subject
Date: 2003-11-17 02:36 am (UTC)The age of consent stuff all comes from a C4 documentary last night. They were saying, and I can believe, that full and frank sex ed raises the average age that people Do It. On the other hand, they also argued that the age of consent has no impact, which I'm less convinced by.
(They raised the 'people mature at different rates' argument, too, and whilst I'm sure that there are people mature enough at 13, I very much doubt that they're in the majority. Moreover, I would say that based on this documentary there's apparently a risk that even intelligent adults will mistake the appearance of maturity for maturity itself.)
no subject
Date: 2003-11-17 04:56 am (UTC)Ah, but did you watch the drama afterwards? I wasn't convinced by its value as drama, or entirely sure that it didn't go to the furthest extreme of 14-year-old experience, but a lot of it rang true from my observations (and even experiences) when I was that old. And it even steered clear of preaching until the very very end. But, then again, I did go to a pretty dire school that I was happy to escape from at 16 ... so my 14th year may be atypical.
What the drama did do, however, was make it perfectly clear that lowering the age of consent could be disastrous if not micro-managed on an almost impractical level. It attempted to be ambiguous in its conclusions (if the age of consent was lowered, would the terrible things that happened to the girls in this drama occur?), but to be honest it was pretty obviously on the side of keeping it at the level it is now, if not higher.
I was actually going to post about this myself, but you beat me to it. More programmes in the season on Tuesday, I think.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2003-11-17 02:57 am (UTC)I hope the pupils can answer their questions ;o)
no subject
Date: 2003-11-17 03:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-17 02:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-17 02:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-17 04:49 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2003-11-17 02:35 am (UTC)Once again Niall kills me softly with his song. :)
no subject
Date: 2003-11-17 02:46 am (UTC)Vocab Nazi smackdown
Date: 2003-11-17 02:55 am (UTC)This public service pedantry announcement was brought to you by itchyfidget. Have a nice day, citizen.
Re: Vocab Nazi smackdown
Date: 2003-11-17 03:02 am (UTC)Re: Vocab Nazi smackdown
Date: 2003-11-17 03:39 am (UTC)Consider him friended :) We pedants must stick together.
Re: Vocab Nazi smackdown
Date: 2003-11-17 03:02 am (UTC)(Also 'behaviour that seems to be motivated by conflicting or contradictory principles' is listed as a valid usage in the big Collins dictionary we have here at work...)
(All of which said, I do agree with you - it's a lazy shorthand that should be avoided. I'm just pointing out that it's made it into the dictionaries.)
Re: Vocab Nazi smackdown
Date: 2003-11-17 03:43 am (UTC)And, bah, what do dictionaries know? Next thing you know they'll be including phrases like "off one's own back" (that's BAT, thank you!) and "ecsetera [sic]" because that's what the majority of people say.
*goes to live rest of life as hermit*
Re: Vocab Nazi smackdown
From:Re: Vocab Nazi smackdown
From:Re: Vocab Nazi smackdown
Date: 2003-11-17 03:39 am (UTC)Re: Vocab Nazi smackdown
From:Re: Vocab Nazi smackdown
From:hmmmmm
Date: 2003-11-17 04:02 am (UTC)This was an interesting one:
"The post-feminist generation of teenage girls put out incredibly mixed messages in the way they act and behave. This is causing a crisis amongst teenage boys, who are even turning to steroids to pump up their look because they just can't handle the pressure, the poor guys."
... teenage boys turning to growth hormones + steroids isn't exactly a new phenomenon (I knew a few abusers at school) but laying it at the feet of post-feminist teenage girls is a new one on me. Avoiding bullying from (male) pupils and teachers was the reason I'd heard -- perhaps the reason is that female status has now risen sufficiently that they're beginning to be able to bully the smaller boys, too?
Being in the youth information biz, there's a lot of sex ed out there. What's been somewhat neglected (though it's beginning to return, at least in our county) is relationship education -- self respect, healthy interaction, avoiding abusive patterns, that sort of thing.
... I am so far against lowering the age of consent to 12 that I could rant for hours about it. Come on, 12? ... all this is about is legalizing the bazillion 20-year-old morons out there who want to f*** little girls because no-one their own age would be dumb enough to allow them to, and the significant proportion of 40-year-old men who wish to do the same.
There are a lot of good reasons not to feel bitter about missing out on teenage romance. The mild bitterness felt at not having had a girlfriend in your sixth form is as nothing compared to the gaping emotional wounds/wrecked exam results/pregnancy scares/substance abuse issues/esteem problems left behind by the vast majority of teenage "romances".
Re: hmmmmm
Date: 2003-11-17 05:15 am (UTC)I'm not sure I'd go that far. :)
perhaps the reason is that female status has now risen sufficiently that they're beginning to be able to bully the smaller boys, too?
The article was suggesting it was to impress the girls, but it didn't have anything to back that speculation up.
there's a lot of sex ed out there.
All I ever got were a couple of lessons with a carrot...
I am so far against lowering the age of consent to 12 that I could rant for hours about it.
The argument seemed to be 'well, everyone's doing it at 13 anyway, so why make it illegal?' Which wasn't the most convincing position in the world.
As
a carrot? exotic.
From:Re: hmmmmm
From:Re: hmmmmm
From:Re: hmmmmm
From:Re: hmmmmm
From:Re: hmmmmm
From:Re: hmmmmm
From:Re: hmmmmm
From:Re: hmmmmm
From:Perhaps the age needs to be redrafted to an age-differential
From:Re: hmmmmm
Date: 2003-11-17 06:32 am (UTC)I believe the kids would say to this paragraph: word.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-17 05:46 am (UTC)Nothing new, in my experience. Females have always put out mixed messages, in my experience. No doubt it helps little that males are notoriously bad at reading messages even when they're not mixed.
I find the conclusion that it's driving boys to use steroids rather odd. What's wrong with having a beer or two with friends and moaning about how you'll understand women, hmm? :)
no subject
Date: 2003-11-17 06:01 am (UTC)Still can't see why women should be blamed for steroid use among teenage boys. Personally I think that's more about the increasing willingness of people to mess with their bodies to make them more "desirable" (cosmetic surgery/increases in modifications like piercings and tattoos, celeb-diets, etc).
Incidentally, Piers Morgan (yes, I know!) writes a belting column about "our" obsession with celebrity in today's Guardian. Even if he is just drumming up publicity for his new TV show. It's all part of the same problem here (when a nation of young people mainly want to be famous for its own sake, you have to wonder about our collective mental health).
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:I'm reminded of a joke comment on 'Tough Crowd with Colin Quin'
Apparently on one college campus or other, a fetish club was set up using college club funds - causing a bit of a stir.
To that, one of the comedians commented, "Hey, with all this early experimentation, what are they going to have to see them through their 30s and 40s?!"
----
Seriously though, there is a value in passing up the novelty factor sooner rather than later, but so too is there a cost. I do generally agree on explicit sexual education as an unambigiously good thing.
I also worry whether a 12 year old can fully process an interactive/mutually-shared sexual experience.
I also feel there is certainly some death of romance in all this.