This article misses the

This article misses the boat. The quote from some girl's mom saying it's Madonna's fault is risible. There's a big difference between the Madonna era ("Papa don't preach...but I'm keeping my baby") and the Britney era (listen to her new hit "3" and you'll see what I mean...it's about a girl offering to do a threesome so she can get a guy who's just not into her - the lyrics helpful add that a foursome is cool too). Blaming technology or pop music doesn't fly.

No, this isn't Madonna, it isn't YouTube, and it isn't the boys. This is "girls gone wild" on every university campus. Feminism has run its course, and we're witnessing the end result. I live near a major university, and I bet the demure, sensible, bright and cosmopolitan muslim girls I see every day going to and from class don't have the same problem as the girls discussed in this article. Their self-respect is visible for all to see. After sundown, their western sisters turn into an obnoxious parade of loud, drunken, horny, exposed meat that everyone is obliged to endure. It's "whore culture/pig heaven" billed as "feminism" and "liberation". What an appalling farce.

It's women who have lowered the threshold. No more fanciful feminist "oppression narratives" please. Take responsibility.

Good points nightbloom, but

The Muslim faith does not have a monopoly on self-respect. In fact, self-respect is not a religious issue.

I would say that self-respect is born of a combination of intrinsic sense of worth and genuinely-expressed family values and rearing.

I have seen too many examples of religion-based illustrations of self-respect being, in fact, just plain old external control. I say that for any and all religions. A matter of degree for some, but still control.

Yes, although "intrinsic

Yes, although "intrinsic sense of worth and genuinely-expressed family values and rearing" seem to be ancillary benefits experienced by the younger generation of Canadian muslim girls, relative to their exposed classmates. They are assimilating only the best elements of the ambient monoculture, and leaving the rest. You can just tell that a lot of them are coming from a good place - i.e. from families that love them and parents who have reinforced the right personal value system. If that happens to be a by-product of belonging to faithful families and communities (of any creed), then it's a good thing.

We've crossed a line, whereby young girls are basically "exposed" and initiated into a form of self-prostitution at a very young age. And it starts well before she gives her first schoolyard blowjob at age 10. We're seeing the other end of that trend on university campuses now, so it'll only get worse as the means for self-prostitution diversify. And we can't blame the boys this time. This fix is entirely concocted by "the fairer sex" - unfortunately, girls today must lie in the bed their mothers prepared for them.

Girls today understand that

Girls today understand that if all they do is pursue education, they will never get married or have children. They're terrified of the what they see around them -older, mature women, highly educated and single, forced into cougardom because they're educational attainment (BSc, MBA) put them out of the marriage market. As a result, they try to act slutty. This is sad, as uneducated, poor women, while having husbands and children, are still -uneducated and poor. What would you choose?

Nothing new

This is just more of the same old/same old - different cast of characters, different setting, same plot:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/31/health/31brod.html?_r=1&scp=18&sq=school%20children%20and%20oral%20sex&st=cse

Pardon the cross-posting

Pardon the cross-posting, but the solution has to start early. Here's some interesting resources:
The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood: Reclaiming Childhood from Corporate Marketers
www.commercialfreechildhood.org

Have a look at this article - Six, Going on Sixteen: Fighting 'age compression' and the commercialization of childhood.
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/23_03/six233.shtml

Of course, check out The Tyee's "YouTubing Ourselves to Death" at http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2009/09/30/YouTubingDeath/index.html?commentsfilter=0

anything for attention

We keep finding excuses for lazy self-indulgent behaviour.
Young people of either sex, are trying to see how far they can go, how much they can get away with and how to avoid any obligations.
Part of that is, that girls each try to outdo the next in whatever seem the "in thing" at the moment; exposing more skin and acting slutty is just one of the ways.
Lately it is to get pregnant as early as possible!
What better way to step out of the crowd and get some attention?
The past generations that actually had a work ethic are now going to depend on these young slobs to keep the system going, good luck!

Holy cow, with comments

Holy cow, with comments (common beliefs?) like Nightbloom's it's no wonder girls these days duck the term 'feminist'. The problem, Nightbloom, is that feminism has taken a giant step backward since I was growing up, even. Nowadays 16 yr old girls are far less likely to say "I am a feminist" than my generation is.

As for the seemingly new phenomenon of 13 yr old boys grabbing girls in the hallway- this was commonplace when I was in grade 7- in 1983!!! And you know what? It never ONCE happened to me. I used to wonder why it was the same girls who got pinched and grabbed, and why the boys wouldn't DARE attempt it with me. Because they knew damn well that I would sock them straight in the eye or... elswhere.

You see Nightbloom, I was already a strong feminist, and those boys knew it :) Trust me, there are plenty of young girls out there these days who aren't getting groped openly in the hallways- they are the ones who know what feminism really is, and they carry that with them.

PLEASE tell me you don't have a daughter!!!!

"They're terrified of the what they see around them -older, mature women, highly educated and single, forced into cougardom because they're educational attainment (BSc, MBA) put them out of the marriage market. As a result, they try to act slutty."

These comments are nothing short of disgusting and offensive. How DARE you propose to KNOW what young teen girls think of older women?! You are totally projecting your own sad views and using this thread on which to do so. I'm assuming you're a dinosaur of some sort yourself. Good god- where are all the sane posters?!!!

To clarify

Sorry if I offended you. It did occur to me that it is also possible, even probable, that a young woman can be educated and also act slutty. I was recently perusing some facebook friends and I did observe several young women from my socio-economic background (which is middle to upper middle-class Canadian), sporting tattoos on their breasts. Yes, large tattoos exposed on facebook for all to see. They weren't entirely naked, just cleavage showing. My point is, I failed to mention in my previous post that it is quite possible nowadays to be a feminist and a slut at the same time. You don't have to choose. Sorry for the confusion. If I were a young woman today, I would go to school and get an education, but I would also get some slutty tats to let the guys know I'm hot and I give it up and I like sex. Young women today are deathly afraid of being single and childless into their forties...

Sex sells. We sell. Hence..

Sex sells. We (in the West) sell (what others make).

How could children not be consumed by sex in a culture consumed by selling?

I think you affirmed my

I think you affirmed my point, Fii. Feminism has indeed stepped backwards, but that "step" is actually a series of rearward leaps and bounds that have been ongoing and cumulative for the last four decades. We're now seeing the results, in stark contrast to the self-assured newcomers to the monoculture. These new girls (second-generation children of non-western immigrants, often muslim) have completely by-passed the perverse psycho-sexual drama of modern feminism and are clearly - *clearly* - better off as a result. Britney-wannabe is damaged goods in comparison, and it's plain for everyone to see. The fundamental problem with kids today is that deep down they suspect - or worse *know* - that they were never really loved. That's the price womanhood has paid for boomer "feminism".

And you're wrong that things were the same back then (I went to high school in the '80s too). Your description of commonplace, open and socially accepted sexual aggression in the hallways is foreign to me. Boys faced strong repercussions for that kind of thing. It's not a "strong feminist" bearing that shielded you (and my classmates) from sexual aggression. It was the exercise of sound judgment, the presence of male authority in the school, and the cumulative power of social norms that restrained the behaviour of *both* girls and boys. Those social norms have disappeared, and it's the girls who've thrown them out in favour of the new hook-up culture at increasingly younger ages. It's been inculcated into them now, and I don't think there's any going back.

Fii, I will defend Rufus' right to free expression

Fii, how DARE you propose to know that Rufus is wrong.

OK. I just got myself into a circular argument as, if I was being consistent, I would not chastise you for expressing your own belief and would be defending it equally.

The point I am making is that everyone has a point of view based on their life experiences. It is the very interaction amongst the people who read and participate in the Tyee that there continues to be a furthering of their life experience with a possible shift or confirmation of their beliefs and how they act upon or further their beliefs.

If I feel insulted or affronted by someone's comment, I take that as an opportunity to understand why. It's my opportunity for growth, not theirs.

So, bottom line: Everyone, post your thoughts as freely as possible. Otherwise we are not going to learn a thing.

Perverse psycho-sexual drama

I'd say that label probably describes the life of 'celibate' priests more than it does the rituals of 'modern' youth - which, I'd suggest, haven't actually changed all that much since the Depression.

The only difference is the addition of widely available and reliable birth control...

Alexander- If Rufus is not

Alexander- If Rufus is not wrong, I would like to know HOW he knows what young women think-"Young women today are deathly afraid of being single and childless into their forties..." That is WRONG. If society has brainwashed women into thinking that they must be married and have children by a certain age, that is one thing. And that is sad. I have two friends who are both single mothers of three children each, whose hubands walked out on them. They have gone through unimaginable pain and suffering- THAT is what young girls are afraid of. Of not being loved- they are brainwashed very early on to think they need someone else to love them, that it doesn't start with loving themselves."The fundamental problem with kids today is that deep down they suspect - or worse *know* - that they were never really loved". That is a good point, Nightbloom- that is what this sexualization is about. To use this space to express your distorted attitudes toward feminism is pathetic. Feminism is about far more than sexuality/freedom of.

Nightbloom- what is this: "And you're wrong that things were the same back then (I went to high school in the '80s too). Your description of commonplace, open and socially accepted sexual aggression in the hallways is foreign to me"... I'm sorry, did you attend St Peter's in Brantford Ontario? That is what happened at my elementary school (grades 1-7). DON'T tell me I'm wrong. And this: "These new girls (second-generation children of non-western immigrants, often muslim) have completely by-passed the perverse psycho-sexual drama of modern feminism and are clearly - *clearly* - better off as a result". haha- now you know how young Muslim women feel, too? Wow- you sure get around.

Rufus- you're just creepy and disgusting. I won't even acknowledge your "To clarify" post.

The fact that I am the only woman on this thread is perhaps the most disturbing thing of all- an article on teen sexual harassment and a bunch of middle-aged (old??) men are the only ones making comments? Yeesh... haha.

(G West- you of course are excluded from my disgust, and your posts much enjoyed :)

as a woman

I am pretty disturbed by a lot of the comments here... interesting how the main point most of the men here are making are all of the "it's women's fault for being sluts" variety.

First of all here is an article that was published today on another BC news website:

http://www.straight.com/article-260253/new-research-reveals-why-women-want-sex

That is a good starting point. It is ridiculous for folks to posit they know why women act "like sluts"

Also yeah, women are scared of being childless and single in their 40s?!?! According to who?

First of all, I know tons of women who have no interest in EVER having children... I happen to be of the same mind. As for being single - well, it wouldn't be ideal, but I am certainly not terrified of it.

Many of these comments are ignorant and belittling. Crikes, parents used to marry girls off as soon as they began to bleed - and we are shocked that young women have sexuality?

The only difference between now and the past is some of the powers of restriction have worn thin - mostly as a result of women gaining more personal and economic freedom and legal protections.

That's a good thing.

What people should be focused on, and what the article should be focused on is not sexual behaviour - but how to stop harrassment. Being sexual is fine - grabbing someone's breast without permission is NOT.

Yet, instead of discussing the disgusting male behaviour that is being talked about in the article - most of the men here seem to squarely focus on making it the woman's problem.

Shame on you.

female chauvinist pigs: the new uncle tom

Check out Ariel Levy's book Female Chauvinist Pigs. Will probably shed some light on the issue of teenage sexuality.

"The picture that Levy paints is more than a little grim: raunch culture, which is essentially misogynist, callow, simplistic and ubiquitous, breeds women-hating-women who angle for power with men and propagate more raunch under the deceitful guise of feminist empowerment." Christine Smallwood

I wonder if this situation has it's roots...

in the misandrist family law system. If 50% of marriages end in divorce and children are parcelled off to the mother as happens in the vast majority of cases, maybe it's just an outright lack of paternal guidance.

Marysue has hit the nail on the head, she seems to acknowledge it's the fathers that are able to sort out these errant minions.

It's about time Bill C-422 was enacted.

Moonbug, you're the only

Moonbug, you're the only person here who has used the misogynist word "slut". I think you're distorting the intent of other commenters on this thread by putting that word in their mouths. It's a common tactic when faced with viewpoints that aren't in absolutely conformity to feminist ideology. It's an empirically and statistically proven fact that sexual mores among young women have fallen. For example, female university students now report more sex partners than their male counterparts, on average. This is a new thing.

Fii, defensiveness and intolerance of other people's viewpoints on gender issues is one of the reasons men are so reluctant to engage "feminists" in dialogue. There's no point, and we're all terrible people until we agree with you. Try dropping the hectoring tone and the "outraged school ma'am" routine. I don't agree with some of Rufus' statements either, but insulting people probably isn't the best way to get your point across.

Ok, I got it.

That was an interesting article, Moonbug. I've learned a lot from this. I always wondered why young girls were tatting there bodies up, piercing there tongues and nipples. I honestly believed it was because they were afraid of being alone and without children like so many career women today. Now I see that is much too simple an explanation. Young people are just confused, as young people always have been. Hopefully they make it to adulthood without too much psychological damage. Most will.

Peace.

Good Muslim girls

I think it would be simplistic to suggest all those modest ladies of Islam are making a free choice about their deportment and appearance. Many do it out of pressures from family or community.

I remember well a young woman who was handling P.R. and logistics for a two-week bike race in Malaysia in the '90s. Her decision whether or not to wear a head scarf was entirely predicated on the relative traditional-ness of the town we happened to be in that day, or who she might have to deal with. No headscarf for Westerners, headscarf on the moment local officials were on the agenda.

Quite surprised!

I must say, I am very surprised with some of the posts here. Some comments have even teased the idea that these teenage girls and boys are simply mindless, confused individuals acting out on the whims of their biological nature, influenced only by their peers and popculture. Give me a break. I don't think you are giving these people enough credit. When a girl goes out looking like she should be standing on a street corner, I don't care what she says, she knows exactly the kind of image she is portraying and that is the image that she wants for herself. It was a conscious desicion to put on that outfit.
Now with that being said, I would say that there is a much greater population of free-thinking females that choose not to act and dress in such a way. Why? Not because they are from a Muslim, Catholic, Christian, Jewish or other relgious background, but because they realize that their own body and the way that they portray themselves is their own decision.
And there are quite a handful of succesful, perhaps even conservative in nature, young women who understand and embrace their own sexuality. They are able to live in a balance of what they want and the self respect that they have allowed themselves to have.

Basically the point of this was not to generalize. Todays youth are not all lazy, uncaring, crazy multiplying wastes of space. We are all capable of making our own choices - including whether or not we feel that we should live in accordance to pop media set standards.

Perhaps instead of blaming the bigwigs at the media for foricing such garbage down our throats, blame the parents for letting television raise their family, blame the teachers at school who make a fuss about teaching SexEd to a group of 13 year olds, blame the doctors who make comments when a 16 year old girl wants a prescription for birthcontrol.
Sex is one of those things you can't ignore. Might as well talk about it in a healthy, respectful way.

facts

" It's an empirically and statistically proven fact that sexual mores among young women have fallen. For example, female university students now report more sex partners than their male counterparts, on average."

I would wonder if those statistics weren't skewed by the fact that we are more open about our sexuality now, and activity was underreported back when good girls 'didn't'.

Historically speaking, I'll bet everybody is having just about as much sex as they ever did, we just talk about it a lot more.

talking about feminism

"Fii, defensiveness and intolerance of other people's viewpoints on gender issues is one of the reasons men are so reluctant to engage "feminists" in dialogue"

Whoa there, speak for yourself please, and don't lump everybody into a mass. I don't share your reluctance.

*sigh*

Nightbloom- No, no, no....moonbug was NOT the first person on this thread to use the demeaning word "slut" in reference to young women- did you not read Rufus' comments?? HE used the word. How interesting that my tone is "hectoring and insulting" when I call him "creepy", yet he can refer to young women as sluts and that is simply "freedom of expression and his opinion". Right. That is why I was so defensive and intolerant and my response so severe. I actually went to bed last night feeling slightly disturbed and saddened by the attitude toward feminists and young teen girls being displayed on this thread. I was a bit hestitant to come back to it today... and then to my relief read the comments of Moonbug, Chris and MarySue :)

Arrrgh.....statistics

".....sexual mores among young women have fallen."

Hmmmm. When have we heard that before? Better still, when HAVEN"T we heard it?

I heard it as a youth in the sexually repressed 50s. I sure felt like a freak to learn that everybody but me was getting laid.

Aren't we so fortunate that we have the moralists and the social "scientists" to warn us about what is going down?

I'm leaning towards OSkagos' commentary

It really seems that this sort of thing gets replayed on a regular basis. Many of us that are parents, or care about the challenges faced by young boys and girls with their present and future social environment, are perhaps more apt to be overly concerned about particular social conditions.

The article itself, may make for good reading and the generation of some angst for some of us, but in the end, society is what you make it by example.

The article does bring me to reflect that I was a teenager once. Unfortunately, we didn't have mobiles at that time, I was programming with punchcards. Had we been so inspired, it would have been quite time consuming to send a bunch of cards to someone so that the recipient would get some kind of dubious message. Although I don't doubt that some did.

Anyway, my personal experience actually encompasses OSkagos' observation: I was a lot smarter than "older folks" gave me credit for.

But that doesn't stop me from having some angst as I am a lot smarter than my kids! Yea. Right. ( T-i-C)

Let's stop yelling at each other.

"One of the girls' moms, a teacher, supports the premise of the documentary, saying that media and high-tech culture has "created a whole culture, a culture of sexuality. The women's movement has shot back decades and decades; although, you know, it's under the guise of feminism."

I don't think I should be apologizing any more profusely than I already have, Fii. Whether or not it's ok to call a woman or girl a slut is a diversion from this debate. After all, one of the episodes from 'Sex in the City' is called: 'Are We Sluts'?

http://www.allmovie.com/work/sex-and-the-city-are-we-sluts-250390

The focus of this debate, I will repeat for the umpteenth time, is why are young girls INITIATING a slutty persona? (giant tats on breasts and above ass-crack/ nipple piercings, etc etc).

I liked Moonbug's answer: the reasons are complex, everyone is unique. I disliked Fii's answer, because of her anger and rage.

Peace.

ink and metal

"The focus of this debate, I will repeat for the umpteenth time, is why are young girls INITIATING a slutty persona? (giant tats on breasts and above ass-crack/ nipple piercings, etc etc)."

Why are tattoos and body piercings inherently slutty? Body modification is as old as human history.

http://www65.statcan.gc.ca/acyb05/acyb05-07/img/acyb05-07_0004.jpg

http://media.photobucket.com/image/body%20modifications%20in%20african%20cultures/beercanhill/Old-Indian-Woman910byEdwardSCurtisi.jpg

It appears you're putting your own interpretation on other people's actions.

So Chris and Rufus:

Chris, you appear to consider Rufus' use of stereotypes to be offensive and inaccurate.

Rufus, you appear to consider the use of stereotypes to be an easy and accurate way of gauging of what is happening in society at the moment.

But is not this very article stereotyping today's teenagers? As so many articles have over the years?

I suppose what I am trying to say is: Chris, Rufus, you are both right and you are both wrong.

I wish more people adopted

I wish more people adopted your approach to discussion on these threads, Dr. Alexander!

I think Rufus was just using the tattoo/piercing thing and the ass-crack thing as examples of deliberate self-display. Of course it has sexual overtones, and there are many other examples. His description of stereotypes has a streak of truth to it (as many stereotypes do). So long as people remember that people are usually more complex than the stereotypes they sometimes project (usually, but not always), it's fair game for discussion. No censorship in the gender debate please. The cougar phenomenon is real, the "biological clock" phenomenon is real, the thiry-something gender power-switch is real. It's hardly "offensive" to discuss them, as long as we realize that these factors, while influencing people, don't sum them up in any comprehensive way.

Thanks for sticking up for

Thanks for sticking up for me Fii, I was pretty certain that I was not the first person to use the word slut...

at any rate, I think it is interesting that everyone is still talking about the women's "problem" (being so gosh darn slutty, I mean, sexualized, etc/whatever)

and no one, not one person has thought it worthwhile to discuss the reasons why some young men think that it is okay - NO MATTER HOW A WOMAN IS DRESSED to sexually assault women.

Why is that not worthy of discussion?

Moonbug/Fii, I stand

Moonbug/Fii, I stand corrected: I missed those earlier uses of "slut" in the thread. Speaking as somewhat of a reformed slut myself, I generally don't agree with characterizing individual people that way based on their choices at a given point in their lives.

Moonbug, I don't think anyone is claiming that it's okay to sexually assault anyone based on how they are dressed. That's crazy.

Now I get it.

I must say I'm a little baffled by my previous subject line being deleted by the moderator, and stated as thus in large caps. It makes it look as though I were raining abuse on someone. Anyway, such is life.

It seems like this debate has boiled down to 'live and let live'. I concur with that. It's a free world, and teenagers ought to explore their options. I'm glad to have weighed in on this, and to have been corrected, also. I used to think young girls were tatting themselves up to attract boys, to let them know they were fertile, available and sexual. This would also let boys know that they were not only career-driven, and status conscious, but they also wanted to 'get it on'...make babies. Now I know that is false. Everyone is different. Stereotypes don't work. A woman with nipple piercings and ass-tats MAYBE and SOMETIMES wants attention and/or sex. This same woman also wants peace and quiet when she's writing her Master's thesis in the library. I got it.

Peace.

Peace, indeed! Nightbloom,

Peace, indeed!

Nightbloom, I don't think anyone was saying it was okay - not at all... but I am curious as to why no one seems interested in discussing why some young men think it is okay to engage in sexual assault.

Obviously a good number of young men think it is okay to sexually assault women based on how they are dressed - given the evidence in this article and in our society

why is that? why do so many men clearly think sexual assault is okay?

A Culture of Simile

Quote from article:

"saying that media and high-tech culture has "created a whole culture, a culture of sexuality".

I don't think so ....this is no "culture of sexuality", more a culture of insecurity that has proved highly profitable for the market forces that intentionally created it.

We act shocked or outraged when intentionally created perception ( the consumer world of fashionable appearances) runs smack dab into the very straight forward rules of biology:

"So guy meets girl. Guy grabs girl's ass. Girl says, "stop." But guy doesn't. Why? Guys "think you're joking, so it gets kind of difficult to tell them to stop," says Kelsie, 15."

It's like learning a new and very obscure language that doesn't play by grammatical rules.

The girls are dressing fashionably "like sluts". They are, of course, not sluts but mere fashionable similes of sluts that are being "read" by guys as the real thing. Who can blame anyone at this point? This is the world most children are born into these days - a marketplace that excels at creating a highly conformist world of appearance and false perception that consistently betrays reality and all that is genuine in life, including any genuine feelings we may have.

This is the farthest thing I would think from the level of real intimacy needed to create a genuine culture of sexuality that defined robust cultures like the Etruscans.

the really mistreated segment of the population

oh Boy: everybody is busy apologizing at the thought they might have offended the feminist movement.
Sorry, that movement has seen its day and overdone its importance a long time ago!
If anyone needs to make waves about how they are treated, it would be middle-aged men who spent their lives being correct "doing the right thing" and now are pissed on by society when they perhaps should be reaping a reward similar to what they bestowed on their parents.

lynn is on the ball

Madison Avenue is paying a lot of people a lot of money to work 24/7 on developing and leveraging sexual and cultural confusion on the youth of both sexes in order to separate them from their or their parents money.

Have a good listen to Shrek (the second one). There is so much nuanced sexual and fidelity-related innuendo in there that you would be surprised. You might as well be showing Benny Hill videos to your kids.

I can't answer that,

I can't answer that, Moonbug. I think the whole arena of sexual "negotiation" has become unglued from the civilizing influence of clearly delineated gender roles. It's possible they may not view their actions as "assault", or they may be picking up on sotto voce signals suggesting that such behaviour is desired on some level. If girls are rewarding that behaviour with sexual access (which I suspect they are), then that is surely also part of the equation. Or perhaps it has little to do with the girls, and is the result of the collapse of male authority, the exile of the father, and the silencing of the father's primordial "No" which restrained the adolescent male id and ego, and helped form the superego to the benefit of the tribe. Who knows?

I do know that boy are now - more than ever - the creation of women, both within the family and within the feminized education bureaucracy (one of the reasons they're failing, btw). So I think we've blamed the boys long enough. It's time to search for other causes. I return again to the example of non-western minority communities, and the remarkable self-assuredness of the young women I see. They're not looking for a boost, a break, a short-cut, or a daddy-discount by showing some boob 'n ass. On Friday night they're sitting together in the coffee shop pouring over their engineering, calculus, and medical texts. Meanwhile, Britney-wannabe is hitting the dance floor with her fifth drink and scouting for that new notch in her bedpost.

In response to Nightbloom

I continue to find it very difficult to take anything that you are saying seriously because you seem to insist on falling back on age old sterotypes and generalizations. This brings me right back to your "good wholesome Minoirity" comments. I can not stress enough that this is a completely flawed view. In fact, in many rural Canadian communities, the ethnic group (since you seem to feel comfortable grouping people as such, I'll play along) that is most plagued with teen pregnancy, infection and general promiscuity is considered a minority group.

People are people, and sex is sex. It is a universal thing. Depending on circumstance, location and company, anyone can be seeking out that "boob 'n ass" regardless of ethnicity.

I have been a high school

I have been a high school teacher for 18 years, and have often been shocked by what the kids are exposed to these days. A couple of years ago I had a conversation with a gr 12 class about the "Superman" song. It was an extremely popular song with a dance that went along with it. This song could be heard everywhere - radio, malls etc. The lyrics are disgusting and degrading to women. If you don't know what it means to "superman" a woman, look it up in the urban dictionary. In my discussion with my students, it became apparent that some of them truly thought that this kind of thing was OK for a guy to do, and that it was part of a normal sexual relationship. Others knew what the song was about, but were as grossed out as I was (both boys and girls). I have also had to talk to many girls over the years regarding the very revealing clothes they chose to wear to school. (I should say here that I am a woman). In every conversation, the girls stated that they liked dressing that way because it was fashionable. They would get offended by boys who would gawk or make comments. I tried to explain to them that they can't have it both ways. As a friend of mine would say, "people can't help but stare at your chest, it's part of the conversation". I also tried to explain that the message they are sending out is that this is what they have to offer, and many people won't bother looking any deeper. I don't think I made much of an impact, unfortunately.

Things have changed... not!

When I went to high school in the early 70's, we dressed modestly in school.

In the summer, a whole bunch of us, of equal numbers of both sexes, would hang out nekkid on a small beach called "White Rock" on Kalamalka Lake.

Some of my compatriots are now "Leaders of the Community".

Go Figure.

Bottom line: I think OSkagos is providing the most sanguine commentary on this thread. I have lived in big towns, small towns, places where I was a minority and places with identifiable and "closed camp" minorities and places with seamlessly integrated minorities. What OSkagos has been saying resonates the most with my own experiences.

OSkagos, I sense you

OSkagos, I sense you disagree but I don't see a counter-argument there. Dr. Alexander, I think you're taking the easy out and giving my viewpoint short shrift. I'm saying a bit more than Rufus delved into (in my reply to Moonbug).

Btw, OSkagos, which minority group could you possibly mean with this (quote): "In fact, in many rural Canadian communities, the ethnic group (since you seem to feel comfortable grouping people as such, I'll play along) that is most plagued with teen pregnancy, infection and general promiscuity is considered a minority group."

p.s. why did The Tyee do away with the auto indented quote function on the comment threads?

I just re-read Lynn's

I just re-read Lynn's comment. I like the phrase "Culture of Simile". Market-fed pantomime in designer low-riders and Revlon lip gloss. A lot is lost in translation, and some of it is untranslatable. It's a little much to expect adolescent boys to be able de-code it all while de-coding themselves.

Ghetto people?

Yeah it is bad to stereotype racial differences, but unfortunately this is a real world where many live in their own environment and refuse to be part of the general population.
Are we meant to pretend that this does not exist?
That some cultures maintain their traditions even after living here for decades?
It is very much appropriate to refer to muslims, as an example, as being different from the "typical" canadian citizen.
Some aspects of that may be seen as good and some as not so good, but it is relevant to a discussion such as this.
I am all for people who go against trends, to me nothing is more silly than people who just follow the herd without thought.
The average young person today seem more hung up on being "in" than previous generations did, and I see that as what happens when advertising rules the world.

intepretation

Gs38 sizes it up this way:

"I also tried to explain that the message they are sending out is that this is what they have to offer, and many people won't bother looking any deeper. I don't think I made much of an impact, unfortunately."

Indeed, SOME people won't look any deeper, and it isn't just an accident that these will invariably be adults or teens acting under their advice.

My guess is that the genuinely cool guys however, will be the ones who will know the difference between what is fashion and what is invitation, according to the current adult-excluding code teens have always used amongst themselves.

Quote: "My guess is that the

Quote: "My guess is that the genuinely cool guys however, will be the ones who will know the difference between what is fashion and what is invitation..."

Query: And what do the boys who are not "genuinely cool" get, those who don't know the difference between fashion and invitation? Who haven't figured out "the code" of adolescent girldom? A criminal record? Juvenile prison? Disruption of their academic progress (and therefore disruption of their entire lives)? Membership on the sex offender registry? What price, the harmless explorations, games, and acting out of girls?

This isn't about helping adolescent girls filter, sift, identify and reward (with sexual access) the "genuinely cool guys" while punishing those who mistakenly take their signals at face value. What a tragic joke liberal gender ideology has become. An unfunny joke.

Why dress provocatively?

About six or seven years ago, the National Post had an article entitled “Mom, I’m going to school,” accompanied by a photo of a young girl dressed like a little temptress. It was looking at the whole issue of 12 to 14 year-old girls dressing provocatively for school. The author talked to a wide range of people inside and outside the school system. One comment stuck with me regarding what we are now calling ‘age compression’. It went something to the effect of “These girls think they are in their early 20s. One of the things they think adults do is dress provocatively. So they dress provocatively”.

However, the reality is adults don’t dress provocatively all the time, and certainly not at work unless they work in the sex trade.

Since this article was written, kids have been exposed to more music videos, sexualization, advertising, etc. Again I come back to the notion that North American culture has lost its sense of basic values. What was once instilled by religion has been displaced by consumerism and commercialization.

To see how bad age compression is getting, read: http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/23_03/six233.shtml

Not likely to get much of an example from organized religion

When princes of the church are into pedophilia and kiddie porn and fundamentalist right wingers preach homophobic hate while having secret dalliances with male hookers.

Where would you suggest those basic values come from?

Politicians and business leaders perhaps.

Can you spell hypocrisy?

Basic Instincts

I think nightbloom raises an interesting question. There may actually be an unacknowledged measure of personal freedom in more restrictive cultures in that they are freer to a certain degree from the relentless onslaught of mass messaging. Within that degree of protected stillness, they may find it easier to sort out and find their own true feelings about things - that, of course has to be weighed against other kinds of restrictions they may face within that culture.

There is no doubt that we and our children in the "free" west, have become Orwellian victims of identity theft....our lives defined to the last detail ...down to the kinds of buttons on our coat, to our choice of kitchen faucets, to the "appropriate" labels on both etc etc.

We are not so free as we would like to appear.

(In fact, that idea fits in with the many studies that report that when children, are allowed to just play, on their own with other children, without adults swooping over them constantly, their intelligence, creativity and imagination levels all soar. That few things replace the tremendous value of "free" play. Ironically, that playful "activity", free of "adult messaging", provides a still and joyous center for a child....where he or she can find himself/herself in his/her own way in relation to the world.)

Sadly this mostly gives way - and the mass manufacturing of identity begins.

Just as the kids are finding out in this article, it is hard to extract yourself from the image you present - as Marilyn Monroe found out... and as the image-making "business" of celebrity gives sad evidence of everyday.

For me, this article reveals how a daily dose of consumer messaging that induces conformity, has numbed us in some sense to our bodily instincts, even to the point of endangering our self-preservation. Fashion( and I am speaking in the big sense here not just about clothes), was meant to be a small part of our lives not its totality. Consumerism has now trumped the common sense of our bodily instinct...to the point that the highly customized fashioning of that consumerism calls to us more loudly than the common sense and logic of human instinct.

We see this on the grand scale in the world environmental crisis now facing us where we need to stop doing the things that are destroying us and the world we live in but we seem unable to break free. The messaging's hold, both lethal and entrancing.

We see it on a smaller scale here in the slutty dress, the bought image that comes with risk...though the risk is being denied.

I remember Sharon Stone saying once that it took her a long time to understand that she had become a victim of her Basic Instinct image - that after the movie came out she thought she had to give the public the character rather than herself, and she nicely obliged by presenting herself as brash, ruthless and cold.

It was all an act.

Except the movie was over.

Chris says it without the RAAAAAAGE !!!

"My post was created to show how shallow your analysis of the situation is... from slutty tattoo'ed girls, to desperate older women... the stereotypes you're working from are offensive and inaccurate IMO."

Thanks, Chris. If Rufus met me in person I wouldn't seem quite as scary, I'm sure :0 My real life presence works well to dissipate the image of anger that apparently comes through in my writing, but I make no apologies for calling it like it is and being over the top opinionated :)

Well Rufus, if we were having this conversation in person I could at this point say "debate over- let's be friends"... so there ya go. No hard feelings- see you on another thread? (wink wink)

So... after all that: Who's up for gettin' some 'tats!

Thought about it myself, but am quite sure that kind of style clashes with my Members Only jacket.

G West - It can be as simple as the Golden Rule, but...

The Golden Rule has been around for thousands of years. I'm not advocating we turn to religion en masse, but observing that I think that's where our values originated some 50 to 60 years ago. We've "evolved" considerably since then. And in dog-eat-dog, USA-style capitalism, with all the related Madison Avenue-driven consumerism, there is not room for a basic a tenet of behavior as the Golden Rule.

From my view, and as a parent myself, it is the role of the parents in modern society. The schools try a bit, but we can't expect them to solve the problem. Some of this can be attributed to poor parenting, or less-involved parents as Dr. Gabor Mate ( Hold On To Your Kids) suggested.

Madison Avenue

Someone earlier mentioned Madison Avenue, and I'm surprised no one else pick up on this and blamed crass, manipulative business interests.

I recall a few years ago my sister-in-law complained how difficult it was to find normal-looking clothes for her two daughters (then 8 and 10). She said it was almost impossible to find outfits that did NOT bare the midriff. The whole fashion and retail industry seemed to be determined to make her girls look like "little sl_ts".

GS38's comment got at the idea that young women merely look at some of these outfits as "fashionable", without looking at the broader context. In other words, is their choice appropriate, provocative, too provocative?

I recall a friend who worked in social services and they were hiring staff for a group home. Many of the young people who arrived for interviews were clueless about the norms. Some arrived an hour and a half early for their interview, causing overcrowding in the small reception area. Some young women showed up in evening gowns.

Glad I stayed outta this one

I see value in everyone's contribution. Thanks.

Everyone's....

Plus ça change…

Shorter nightbloom: society is going to the dogs and it's all the fault of feminists.
Haven't been around here much lately, but it's nice to know some things never change. It provides much-needed stability in a world of uncertainty.

I sure hope those parents of the 10 year-old girls agonizing over their “daughters' entry into adolescence and the additional pressures on the sex and dating front” aren't the ones buying their daughters My First Stripper Pole, Bratz dolls dressed like hookers, thong underwear and t-shirts that read “Porn Star”.

Halocene, my posts

Halocene, my posts emphasized genuine self-respect and loving families, and criticized exploitation dressed up as "liberation" and "feminism". Girls are exposed to the subtle coercion of the sexual economy at a very young age; feminism and liberal gender-ideology (plus consumerism) tend to enable rather than mitigate that, while systematically breaking down what few non-statist social bulwarks remain. The answer is not more "oppression narratives" or more clueless 'Boomers giving self-esteem workshops. Girls need space where they are not "interfered" with and not "initiated" into the sexual economy at absurdly young ages. Boys are not to blame, and are being used as proverbial whipping-boys (or worse, getting sent to juvenile prison). That's my argument in a nutshell.

The sexual economy has

The sexual economy has bugger-all to do with feminism or liberalism. It's commerce, pure and simple, abetted by good old-fashioned sexism. Your solutions of “male authority” and a return to the kind of “demure” modesty (—I'm using quotes because they're your words) you so appreciate in the Musim girls you see, give away your real agenda.

We're really talking about two sides of the same coin that always lays the burden of responsibility for moral behaviour on the female half of the population, hence your “we can't blame the boys” statements. It's actually funny, albeit in a sad way, that you'd wax so admiring of the modesty of Muslim girls, since your very first comment on this story referring to “exposed meat” might as well have been out of the mouth of that crazy fanatic Sheik Taj Aldin al-Hilali in Australia. You remember, he's the guy who said, “If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem.”

Holocen..... interesting point... all I know is that:

We are all born with no clothes on and then it seems to kind of get screwed up from there on.

Seems to be more of an issue on Robson Street than on Wreck Beach.

Halocene, the sexual economy

Halocene, the sexual economy (in the broader sense of the term) has *everything* to do with it. Denying that reality helps no one.

And if you’re going to quote me, don’t do so out-of-context and deliberately twist my meaning. My reference to male authority was explicitly directed at male misbehavior and rapaciousness in the co-ed school setting (yes, boys need male authority figures and role models too). And that critique applies not just to sexual harassment of girls by boys, but also to boys’ initiation into gang culture, and a lot of other things. To pretend that isn’t part of the equation is pure idiocy, in my opinion. Unfortunately, that's an aspect of the debate liberals are always careful to silence, curtail, exclude, stigmatize and censor. It's off-message, in their minds.

on topic

it seems that somewhere along the line, the term, 'feminist,' has become an unwelcome tag.
women and men alike have to get together with this one. for decades now, women have been slipping backwards in terms of credibility. the men out there that have young daughters might want to ask themselves if they like the idea of their own flesh and blood looking as if she has been turned out for street work. there is a lot of guilt here to spread around. the music industry, the fashion industry and the parents all can take a slice of this blame game. it is very scary and pretty insulting to all the true feminists, which includes men and women alike, to see young women wanting to demean themselves. take back the pride.
the sooner feminists reclaim the word and make it a badge of honour the better.
tick tock

Maybe loving respect for

A certain 'kind' of family...not so much for others.

Why do I get the feeling that families with male authority figures in residence and in control and female 'helpmates' in aprons and comfortable shoes (and not out earning livings in the market place) is the 'kind' of loving family certain commentators have in mind?

As for the 'modesty' of Muslim traditions: Let us not forget that there are plenty of Muslim 'traditions' that seem to have attracted a lot of attention from our “cultural warriors” in the Defence Department and form a big part of Pee Wee's dedication to the military adventure in Afghanistan. Knowing what one does of Pee Wee’s ‘real’ commitment to freedom of expression and his ‘respect’ for ‘alternate’ lifestyles and traditions, I’ve always taken that stuff as little more than talk. If Obama decides to drop out of the dance do you really think Canada will continue to waste lives in that hell hole?

Be careful what you wish for. In fact, the western liberal enlightenment tradition may spawn some nasty stepchildren from time to time - the suggestion that other traditions don't is facile in the extreme.

Madonna was wrong.

Holocene,

Let's not forget we're talking about teenagers here, and they still need guidance. This is an earlier post:

'I have also had to talk to many girls over the years regarding the very revealing clothes they chose to wear to school. (I should say here that I am a woman). In every conversation, the girls stated that they liked dressing that way because it was fashionable'.

Of course, adults can control themselves. But a seventeen year-old boy, confronted with a seventeen year-old girl wearing fishnets and stiletto heels, mini-skirt, thong and tattoo strategically placed above the rear end -all this in the name of feminism? Are you suggesting we punish the young boy for trying to cop a feel?

I know a woman from Iran and we've discussed these issues before. She pities these westernized barbie-dolls. Women do not have the same 'rights' as men in Iran, but they most certainly are respected, providing they do not dress and act like a whore.

Peace.

"Let's not forget

"Let's not forget we're talking about teenagers here, and they still need guidance. "

Nice to read that, Rufus.

Rufus

There have been whores around for centuries - they wouldn't have been if there weren't always a good supply of men to use them.

I don't care what a woman wears - her body is her property and any man who thinks otherwise deserves a quick kick in the groin.

Period.

In response to Rufus

"Of course, adults can control themselves. But a seventeen year-old boy, confronted with a seventeen year-old girl wearing fishnets and stiletto heels, mini-skirt, thong and tattoo strategically placed above the rear end -all this in the name of feminism? Are you suggesting we punish the young boy for trying to cop a feel?"

So Rufus, are you telling me that if I see a young man walking by in nothing but scantly clad swim shorts and a body that screams "look at me!", I can try to cop a feel because I am simply a young woman who can not control herself and act only on impulse?

Your logic makes absolutely no sense to me. Can you please elaborate on when a man in western society has ever had the right to grope another woman because of her clothing, provocative or not.

Sex

is not a new thing - our parents participated, and so did our grandparents. Our children might or might not, willingly or unwillingly. The signals sent from one gender to the other (or to the same) are not necessarily obvious - pheromones and other scents are not discernible to the nose but affect the whole body through the olfactory sense.

Children learn to walk and talk partly by instinct and partly by copying the example set for them by adults. Same with sex. Kids learn how to treat the opposite sex (and their own, whatever that is) by imitating the way they see the adults treat each other. If they don't see respect, like Aretha Franklin sings, how can they copy it in their own lives? The trigger for that behaviour is in its illustration for them by society - everything from table manners,posture, entertainment,on up to empathy and consideration of the opinions of others. Perhaps we need a mirror....

mirror, mirror...

Slut, slutty, sluttiness...could someone please define these? The discussion thus far (with a few notable exceptions, thank you Fii, Moonbug, and G West) revolves around this concept: the girls are slutty, the boys react, ergo the girls are at fault. A little male authority will apparently cure this, along with a little less feminism, and perhaps the institutionalization of the burkah as standard Canadian school uniform (only for girls, of course.)
Course, I have piercings (gosh, 3 in one ear), have been known to wear fishnet stockings, and am writing this in my thong. Which will now make me fair game for any harassement imaginable, because I have put myself beyond the pale of 'decency' erected solely in the minds of a few contributors here.
Now, I think we ought reflect on Gloria Steinem's definition of feminist: a person who believes in the equality of men and women (and by extension, girls and boys.) The concept of equality implies a lot of things, but I think equality is a state of tolerance which first and foremost looks at individuals as free to express themselves in a variety of ways.If adolescents are expressing themselves in dress and deportment in ways that you or I do not like, could it be they are reacting to the hypocrisy of a culture that promotes sexuality, but not love or intimacy? Could it be they are struggling to define what is important in a culture that values only the material? Could it be that they are very confused?
But who created this culture, anyway? And just what is it about wearing a thong that is not self-respecting? Do tell.

Back up, Gwest

A seventeen year-old is not a legal adult in this country. Close, but not quite. Additionally, that is the oldest age of a high-school kid. We are still talking about kids, right?

Did you catch that, VivianLea? What a surprise you would weigh in with Gloria Steinem et al. Of course you can wear a thong. You can do whatever you want, because you're an adult. Let's talk about the kids, now. There are those that must make decisions -parents, school board trustees, teachers and principals. Decisions regarding proper attire. If a young girl of 17 wears clothing of which I described above, she will probably be groped by a boy. She will be confused, because she didn't like it, and he will be confused -because she didn't like it.

What do you do?

Now, Gwest, VivianLea, I'm guessing you're stock response will be punish the boy. What form of punishment? How severe?

I know Viv, I get it. You've said it a thousand times -equal rights, equal rights, bla bla bla.

But in a real world situation like the one I described above -in a high school, where no one cares about Gloria Steinem, (at least not until they get to university) what do you do?

Peace.

Feminism, stats and porn

Gawd, what a scary message board this is! Despite that, there are some great insights into the complexity of teen culture, teens' susceptibility to consumerism, and the decline of emotional closeness in TV and movie relationships.

Fii said: "Nowadays 16 yr old girls are far less likely to say "I am a feminist" than my generation is." I'd suggest that teenage girls these days take feminism for granted. Perhaps feminism is the wrong word. Equality, the aim of feminism, might be more apt. Why would they need to be feminists if they've already achieved equality?

And the sexual playing field is now equal for all genders. Boys have always been slutty. It has always been their perogotive, whether they're Canadian, European, Muslim, or whatever. Except they are called paragons of manhood, not sluts. But that's neither here nor there.

Here's something that hasn't come up in any previous posts: In 2000, 51% of Canadian teens had never engaged in sex. In 2008, that number rose to 56% (Project Teen Canada 2008). Not a huge decline of sexually active teens, but it will be interesting to see if this is a trend with some staying power. And these numbers do serve to counter arguments that teens today are more sexualized than ever.

One more thing that hasn't been addressed: the availability of pornography to teenagers. I don't know what kind of problem porn creates for Canadian teenagers' self esteems (bigger than many might think, since the topic isn't addressed at all and yet Canadian teens are watching porn), but when I was in England last spring I was informed it was a big problem.

The porno problem: teen boys watch porn and think that they are watching "real" depictions of sexual acts. They expect girls to live up to what they watch in porn. They think the way female porn stars are treated in those films are normal. Teen girls watch porn and also think that they are watching "real" depictions of sexual acts. They think the way the porn stars interact interpersonally is normal. They think they must mimic the porn stars in order to attract boys. And if those teen girls don't have 24 inch wastes, double E bras, zero body hair and an interest in kissing other girls to provoke boys, they will do what they can to fix that or feel bad about themselves. There's an educational program under way there to tell teens that what they see in porn is pure fantasy, and to give teen girls back their self esteem.

Maybe we need some kind of counter-pop culture class or program taught in high schools to educate young people about consumerism and being a target of advertising and media.