governor of ohio removes abstinence-only program from budget

quote:

---

I am willing to bet that if you removed all music, TV, video games, and advertisements from our culture and replaced it with classical music, Sessame Street, and Canasta that you would still have the exact same problems with teen pregnancy today as long as parents, or the school system as a surrogate, are taking a hands off approach to REAL sex education.

---

While I definitely agree with your assesment of abstinence-only sex ed, I have to disagree with your assesment of the effect of culture.There has definitely been a trend in recent decades to sexualize younger and younger children. Have you seen the clothing that is available for girls these days? Low-rider jeans, shoes with heels, and even padded bras for little, little girls. We're talking for 6 or 8 year olds. And there is also the trend of having things written over the backside area of sweatpants for women that I have also seen on clothing sized for 10 year olds. Those words on your butt are meant to get people to look at your butt. I mean, do they want people looking at their pre-pubescent daughters' butts?And here's what one feminist mother in the comments section of the link above had to say about the Bratz clothing line for little girls: Check it out: I want to make it clear that I am all for shame-free sexuality but I am fairly certain that your average 6 year old girl hasn't yet developed hormonally or physically in that way.And can't we find a way for girls to be sexual beings in this country without screaming at them from every media and advertizing outlet "WHAT YOU LOOK LIKE (AND YOU'D BETTER BE SEXY, THIN AND BUSTY) IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD!!!"Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Here is where the sexualization begins, jazz.Those Bratz outfits are adult, sexy clothes. They are very close to the same clothes that the "grown up" dolls wear.And the people they are marketed towards are little children.Let's imagine that our culture placed a very high priority on the appearance of boys in the same way that it does for girls. Let's pretend that boys were bombarded with messages that the main value they have in society is to be handsome and sexually alluring.What would you think about there being Chippendale dancer outfits complete with breakaway pants g-strings, and play dollar bills to stuff in them that were marketed towards 6 year old boys?What would you think if there were products marketed towards pre-pubescent boys that they could use to simulate underarm, chest, and facial hair?What if there were a whole range of products geared towards making 8 year old boys look as though they are filling out the crotch of their jeans nicely. Penile enhancement underwear for little, little boys.Seems kind of ridiculous when we think of it for little boys, doesn't it?It is just as ridiculous for little girls, too. It's just become "normal" to sexualize younger and younger girls in our culture.

quote:

---

Another issue might be to ask where is the line? Add 2-3 inches of cloth to the bottom of that shirt, stretch the seams on those pants a little bit and get rid of the word "Babe" on the shirt and I would think that would be perfectly acceptable attire for a little girl.

---

Right. Jeans and a t-shirt that cover her and don't have a sexual term on it would be acceptable for a 6 year old. (AbE) And we'd have to ditch the strappy high heeled sandals, too.

quote:

---

At what point between those two scenarios did the sexualization begin? I would claim that it began the moment an ankle length dress a petticoat was no longer standard fair in the closet of a girl that age although I would hesitate greatly to call it sexualization.

---

The thing is, back in Victorian times, when ankles were sexual, little girl's dresses often showed half her leg. It was when she became a young woman that the skirt became longer.

quote:

---

I am willing to bet that some people would say that such dress teaches girls to be less ashamed of their bodies. I don't agree with that but I can imagine the argument and its basis on the exact same subjective criteria you are using to say that it is wrong.

---

Very few 6 year old girls are ashamed of or uncomfortable with their bodies. They have to start to go through puberty for the shame and self-consciousness to begin to manifest.The point is, these clothes are teaching younger and younger girls that they are supposed to dress to look sexually available to boys.They (hopefully) don't know what sex is yet. I mean, seriously.Those are hooker clothes.For 6 year olds.Sold in department stores and advertized during cartoons.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

If you don't want kids watching what you consider bad stuff on TV, then don't let them watch TV that you consider bad.Or get rid of your TV altogether if you think it is so terrible for your kids and it is too hard for you to censor what they watch.The excuse of them not being able to "relate" to other kids who are allowed to watch the stuff you don't want your kids watching is a poor excuse."...becasue everybody else is doing it" is just about the oldest one in the book.

So turn off the TV.Or get rid of it.I you don't think it is appropriate for your kids, and you aren't willing or able to control what they watch to the level that you wish, then don't have it in your house.You still haven't given a reason for why this isn't a reasonable solution.