This kind of sexualization of 'tween girls - defined as those between the ages of 8 and 12 - in pop culture and advertising is a growing problem fueled by marketers' efforts to create cradle-to-grave consumers, a University of Iowa journalism professor argues in her new book.
"A lot of very sexual products are being marketed to very young kids," said Gigi Durham, author of The Lolita Effect. "I'm criticizing the unhealthy and damaging representations of girls' sexuality, and how the media present girls' sexuality in a way that's tied to their profit motives. The body ideals presented in the media are virtually impossible to attain, but girls don't always realize that, and they'll buy an awful lot of products to try to achieve those bodies. There's endless consumerism built around that."
Durham advocates healthy and progressive concepts of girls' sexuality, but criticizes the media for its sexual representations. Studies by the Kaiser Family Foundation and other research organizations show that sexual content aimed at children has increased steadily since the 1990s, Durham said. Times were prosperous, Britney Spears emerged as the sexy schoolgirl on MTV, and 'tweens had plenty of disposable income -- a perfect alignment for marketers trying to expand into a new demographic. By 2007, 8- to 12 year-olds' consumer spending was $170 billion worldwide, according to the market research firm Euromonitor.
The book, published this month by Overlook Press, is the culmination of 13 years of research by Durham, an associate professor in the UI School of Journalism and Mass Communication, part of the UI College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.
Durham immersed herself in magazines, movies, TV shows, catalogs and Web sites aimed at young girls, from Cosmo Girl to "Hannah Montana." She went to junior high schools to talk with girls about how the messages affected them.
In the book, Durham identifies five myths of sexuality and provides advice and resources for caring adults who want to discuss the issue with young girls.
The myths are:
-- If you've got it, flaunt it. Bare a "Barbie body" as often as you can. But don't celebrate or enjoy any other body type. "It's really excluding a lot of girls from enjoying and recognizing pleasure in their own bodies," Durham said.
-- Anatomy of a sex goddess. "Media reinforce a ridiculous ideal of being both extremely thin and voluptuous -- a body not found in nature," Durham said. "You have to go through borderline starvation and plastic surgery to get it."
-- Pretty babies. Representations of sexual girls are getting younger and younger. Many of the images presented as the most sexually desirable are images of girls as young as 11 or 12. "It's problematic in many ways: It encourages sexualization of girls too young to make good decisions about sex. It legitimizes the idea that young girls should be looked at as sexual partners. And, presenting pre-pubescent bodies as the sexual ideal pressures grown women to achieve the body of a child who hasn't even matured yet," Durham said.
-- Sexual violence is hot. Media aimed at children -- like PG-13 "slasher" movies -- convey the message that violence is sexy or that sex should be violent.
-- Girls don't choose boys; boys choose girls -- and only hot girls. Women and girls are supposed to focus on pleasing men. But little emphasis is placed on women taking pleasure in their own sexuality or bodies, or on guys striving to please gals, Durham said. "It's a very one-way construction of sex."
"The book definitely isn't anti-sex," Durham said. "It starts with the recognition that girls are sexual -- everybody's sexual -- but that girls deserve good information that will help them make good decisions. We have the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the industrialized world, and a study by the Centers for Disease Control just reported that 1 in 4 teen girls in the U.S. has an STD. Clearly we're not giving them the kind of information they need to take care of themselves sexually and transition to adulthood in safe ways."
Durham encourages parents, teachers and counselors to jump-start conversations about sexualization of young girls in the media. Ask girls to look through a teen magazine and discuss the messages. How seriously do they take them? Do they understand the profit motives, or how images can be doctored to perfection?
Other tips include: complimenting girls on more than just their appearance to emphasize that they are multidimensional; encouraging activism for causes like ending sex trafficking; and assisting girls in creating their own media -- Web sites, blogs or 'zines -- that are less focused on sex and appearance.
"There's this hesitance to talk about these issues, especially before kids reach adolescence," Durham said. "But often, when parents finally do bring it up, it's too late. Kids have already had their sexual understanding shaped by media. We need to be having a lot of open discussions about the sexualization of childhood and what constitutes healthy sexuality. I don't think we should neglect our responsibility as adults and leave them to navigate this terrain on their own."
Comments

- Reply to This »
- Link
I am an 18 year old girl and am rebellious to the whole movement.Somehow along the way I realized what was happening.I had the option of joining the popular group of Abercrombie wearing misfits,but chose one that was more logical for me.Ultimately,I don't know what we can do to stop this other than create a new trend to trample this one.
A few years ago Abercrombie started parading hot male models around their stores wearing practically nothing to lure people into their stores.This still goes on today.You know there must be something wrong when retailers are showing models instead of their product for sales.
Mommy loves that her little girl is bringing in the money and daddy is kept clueless.
Despite what people think, its actually pretty hard to 'accidently' stumble upon internet content you dont want to view, aside from popups and spyware, that is. See, the average joe cant be surfing google, and just stumble upon kiddie porn. If they could, google would be sued for showing the site as a listing, as well as the site admin, and the people photographing the child. Again, I add that the post about the webcam, is downright disturbing.
As for the article? Its terrific! Though, as others have said, who the hell is buying this stuff. I mean, its one thing to let your child express themselves with multi-colored hair, or something, but buying them slutty outfits? Gross!
Also, in answer to the question of where these girls get the capital to buy this stuff - the obvious answer in the increasing amounts of 'pocket money' or 'allowance' given by parents to their children - not intentionally to buy thongs, of course. As for my younger sister (age 11), who gets no allowance, she occasionally pickpockets our parent's wallets and denies it afterwards, throwing a tantrum.
thinker as you can. Then, once they've developed a the capacity for
that, don't hold anything back from them. Raise them to be intelligent
enough to recognize the lies around them."
[my emphasis.]
Agreed. Need I add more, Graeme?
"By 2007, 8- to 12 year-olds' consumer spending was $170 billion worldwide, according to the market research firm Euromonitor."
Where do 8-12 year olds get that kind of money to spend and why are we allowing corporations to market products to individuals that, by definition, are not legal to work? We don't allow marketing of cigarettes and alcohol to under-age persons, so why allow this? It is clearly a marketing "end around" the parents to try and garner sales by pressure generated from children to parents.
... and please ... no "free market" nonsense, since under that premise we'd allow cigarettes and alcohol advertising.
BTW, for the record, there is no "free market" except as an operation of what we declare to be a legitimate market in the first place (which is why we bar drug cartels from operating). Therefore whether the market operates "freely" or not, is not the same thing as "free advertising". In other words, the markets do NOT have a right to propagandize consumers and simply make up facts, nor do they have the right to impose their marketing efforts on individuals. That is not and never has been a function of "free market" economics.
In comes down, like it always has, to the parents being responsible. If they aren't then we will always be left to pick up the pieces from whatever hair-brained notion or idea is the current fad. Not to pick on Paris Hilton, but the only reason she's famous is because too many people are buying into that hype. In my world she ranks well below changing the oil in my car and cleaning stalls (in terms of things that are important and need to be taken care of). Yet, why do I know the name of her dog?
In truth, we are so overwhelmingly marketed to on a regular basis, I don't think we even know how to turn it off anymore and increasingly everything is hyped well beyond one's ability to escape it.
It really is little wonder that so many people willingly accept it and shape their lives to accommodate it (hence the 15 minutes of fame becomes the overriding element many people seek).
To me this translates into an "anything for fame" mindset that no longer retains any semblance of integrity or personal worth. Is it any wonder that kids pick up on this and think that the only thing that counts is how they would be viewed within a media context?
(remember this isnt high school with different social groups. at this age kids havent broadened their understanding enough to veer away from main stream ideology and have a separate standpoint)
So here is my drawn out point-
If you have a 8-12 year old who gets excluded from playtime and kids call her bad names because she doesnt wear a thong that says "Eat Me!" (or whatever) how should a parent* act?
Would you (or more importantly your child) be happy being a social pariah rather than dress the way described above. Maybe the myriad of potential mental health problems and low self esteem outweighs your child dressing like that, as long as you still talk about healthy sexual behaviour and tell her not to flaunt her jailbait fanny on youtube.
I am not picking a side. It just seems everyone is quick to denounce these people they know nothing about.
* Bear in mind the term parent refers to your bog standard working class parent with little valuable education, little spare time/money to spend with kids. Not the ideal image of a supporting parent that has taught their child the right things since they were 3.
There simply is no excuse for failing to do your job as a parent. While I realize that there are numerous elements in an adult life that can make it difficult and there may even be severe limitations on the contact/influence one can have (like in the case of divorce). There is still no excuse for failing to convey the right message when the opportunity presents.
Regardless of what corporations have done regarding advertising, in the end it comes back to parents that encourage this type of behavior, and support the idea of bullying or social exclusion that occurs in school. There are simply too many parents that want to be "friends" with their child rather than be the parent. Many are over-protective whether it be from guilt or simply because they can't be bothered to see what their children do.
If even parents are too cowardly to confront peer pressure, or teach their children about these issues, then we might just as well turn our children over to the corporations since we (as parents) have simply become a useless appendage to their upbringing.
You would not believe the kind of games I played with my Barbie dolls as a kid. And I grew up to be a healthy (well, not sicko anyway) woman with no body issues or whatever one should get from be exposed to Barbie.
Western culture has pushed the nominal/legal age of sexual maturity several years beyond the physical age of sexual maturity. One way to characterize the way different cultures approach this question is to equate the period of childhood to the duration of education. In a diverse/complex economy, most people don't finish their basic education until they are about 18. In simpler, pre-industrial cultures, girls will have learned just about everything they need to know by the time they are 13. This pattern may well go back to our very early human hunter-gatherer pre-history, back before rates of cultural evolution far outstripped physical evolution.
Our species has evolved to have females reach sexual maturity in their early teens (depending on nutrition levels - lately the secular trend has pushed menarche earlier sand earlier, but still 13 is a good approximation.)
Obviously youth is a primary attribute for female beauty. Virtually every beauty product on the market has the effect of making women look younger. It seems that humans have an instinctive attraction toward females who are at the earlier stages of sexual maturity. From an evolutionary standpoint, this makes perfect sense. A male who can gain sexual access to a young virgin female can maximize his own reproductive potential by hooking up with her. In Darwinian/selfish gene terms, males who evolved an attraction to females who had recently reached menarche (and were not already pregnant!) would tend to out-reproduce other males who were not so discriminating. Guys who were attracted to old women, especially post-menopasal ones, did not do so well and their genes became less common.
Some will think this too deterministic, that men are socialized to see a particular female body type attractive. This hypothesis can be easily refuted, however. The female body shows very clear evidence that this particular co-evolutionary exchange between male and female has been going on for a long time. The breasts are probably the clearest example. Breast shape is an extremely sensitive and honest indicator of sexual maturity. The particular perky jut of a nubile virgin breast is unmistakable. Throughout most of human history that breast would be standing up (or sagging down) for all to see; yet another example of the artificial constraints of modern culture, where women are legally prevented from demonstrating their breast tone.
The waist is another example. Not every subspecies of human has a waist. It appears to be a fairly recent innovation, since many isolated culture groups do not have it as part of their physiological adaptation. Nubile females have a big round waist. This has a very different evolutionary consequence: you can't tell if the girl is pregnant as easily. It's a different female reproductive strategy, relying on deception instead of honest advertising.
The jury seems to be out: honest advertising is better. (This on the basis of the fact that the cultures lacking the waist lie off of the mainstream of physical evolution. The waist is an upgrade.)
So maybe these young girls want to look sexy because that sex appeal has very high value. They're playing the hand they've been dealt. Some of them will even strike it rich. It's nice work if you can get it.
The evolution of our society has altered the rules of the mating game to push back the social age of sexual maturity, but that is a consequence of an increased social complexity that requires a longer adolescence to acquire all the knowledge necessary to succeed. That is why girls who are sexually mature from a physical standpoint are not sexually mature from a social standpoint.
Consider the case of female beauty products; every one is designed to make a woman look younger. (They aren't necessary for girls under 16, of course, who might actually benefit from larger breasts.) However, for any woman over the age of 18 or so, it's all about looking younger.
Bras: lifts the breast
Skin cream: smooths out wrinkles and weathering
Lipstick: brighter colors are an adolescent trait
Eye make-up: adds both color and apparent size, again adolescent traits
High heels: increases apparent leg length relative to upper body, characteristic of female growth spurt after puberty
Blond hair: juvenile characteristic
If it makes you feel any better, the sexualization of younger girls is firmly rooted in human instinct, and is not an unnatural consequence of civilization.
For the record, I believe in God and evolution makes perfect sense to me.
I would argue that personal views of attractiveness are largely subjective, although there is a reasonable probability that one of the criteria would be to find a generally healthy individual attractive. There is little doubt that someone young might convey that point more readily, but if they are too young then it would represent a different sort of risk.
Even having said that, I would also argue that the physical attraction is only the "attention getter" and ultimately has little to do with who one pairs up with (in a reproductive sense). While many of these elements have been turned upside down with the development of contraceptives, in general the biological imperative is in seeking a reproductive mate and not simply focusing on something as simplistic as initial physical attractiveness.
Human pairing requires something much more substantive than simple initial attractiveness, so I have to assume that all the speculation about what someone finds appealing is largely irrelevant.
However, I will say that often men find young (or younger) females attractive because they are primarily motivated by the desire to control the relationship. While I can't claim this in any scientific manner, my sense is that the younger the partner, the greater the influence that can be exerted and thereby render the entire relationship more under control of the older partner. In short, it's an insecurity thing.
But why in the hell would anyone 'celebrate' being overweight or obese? That's like celebrating getting a failing grade on a report card. It doesn't make any sense. No one gets a D- and says, "Eh..good enough" and goes out to celebrate it. Instead of working harder to better one's self, you just celebrate your mediocrity and failure?! Awesome yeah, let's promote a culture of lazy, obese bovines who 'celebrate' the constant neglect of their physical health. If it's truly between that or oversexualizing our youth, it is truly a sad state of affairs for America.
*btw, the captcha image is pointless if it's not even legible to human beings. Jesus fuck this is pointless and frustrating... let's give this another try.
What I find most disturbing though is this notion that one should strive for health to be "fit, [healthy], and attractive". The only one I agree with is "healthy". You seem to be implying that one's motivators for working towards healthy habits should be superficial....I quite disagree. While I agree with you that there certainly is a culture of neglect for one's physical health (and mental health for that matter, might I add), I fervently disagree with the approach you seem to be taking.
As a matter of fact, I'd be MORE justified in stating that you are most likely short and obese. You lead that argument with a bold and obvious ad hominem attack, which is a very strong indicator that something I said struck you personally. It's almost like you read my post and took it as if I were speaking directly to YOU!
This article is making the argument that we should somehow find a way to celebrate 'alternative' body types; like there's people out there with a 'different' physiological composition than the rest of the Homo Sapien population on planet Earth. Human beings are built a certain way, and the only things that change the appearance of the inherent structure of our bodies, aside from physical deformities, are muscle mass and fat retention. That's it.
People who build a lot of muscle mass do so by WORKING hard and DEVELOPING that muscle over time. They also have every reason to celebrate. They work hard to make big gains and accomplish personal goals. That is outstanding. It is a tribute to the inherent beauty in the musculature of the human body.
People who retain fat do so by not doing ANYTHING. Name one other aspect in any other area of life where complacency should be 'celebrated'. Why should this be any different? This is part of that 'everyones-a-winner' mentality that takes the competition out of sports and makes life the same dull shade of gray. There's no need to be THAT politically correct. It IS possible to stop advertisers from over-sexualizing our kids without at the same time teaching them 'it's okay to do nothing'. No one wants to celebrate your muffin-top protruding over the top your high-rise jeans because that doesn't make any sense at all. There are websites dedicated to the glorification of 'other' body types; there they are referred to as 'BBWs' and 'plumpers'.
America promotes a culture of over-indulgence and convenience, which in the long run equals laziness. There is a damn good reason why people say we have an obesity 'epidemic' and it's no coincidence that we have the highest density of fast food restaurants per square mile and per-capita than any other nation on the PLANET! It is disgusting to me that some would actually have us CELEBRATE complacency and mediocrity, by leading us to falsely believe that there are somehow 'alternative' body types that exist. There is only one 'human' body type, the other mammalian body types are known as dears and squirrels and rabbits and cats.
You went through that whole diatribe without once naming a SINGLE 'alternative' body type. The short answer is that it is because you CAN'T! The basic structure of our musculoskeletal system is what makes us human, there's no 'other' body type. There are people who retain fat and people who don't. The only other thing besides fat retention that changes the way we look is muscle mass, I cannot stress that enough.
In this one paragraph, the only point is that in modern society (especially western) this is the fashion. It has nothing to do with biology. In fact, there's a strong argument that muscle mass is detrimental to biological well-being since it is largely something that can only be maintained by an individual living in relative luxury.
The original point dealing with appearance is largely irrelevant since there is no successful human relationship (and ultimately rearing of offspring) that can be based on something that superficial. It's all well and good if people work hard, or are proud of themselves, or are considered attractive, but this is biologically irrelevant if they don't successfully mate and rear offspring.
It's also clear that in evaluating this situation we have to consider the effect of modern society and the "safety net" for raising children which will affect choices and the nature of relationships as they exist. In fact, I would argue that if one looks back over human history, there have always been more significant criteria in a wife than her appearance.
I would agree that the media and retailers profit from that perspective, but the worst offenders are women themselves. All one has to do is look at women's magazines to see where that perspective is created and reinforced. While the argument has often been made that men's magazines objectify women, it is important to note that women are not the target audience there, so regardless of how they're portrayed, that wouldn't be a source of "learning" for women.
But that's fine Mr. Copeland, none of us here are offended that you think what we say is ridiculous. Everybody's entitled to their own opinion.
And absolutely enough of my own ire against this.....it's time for me to focus on something I support, rather than be so negative! So this will be my last and final comment; I will un-check the "email me about all replies to this article" and I will not be coming back here. Arguing with Mr. Copeland has left me exhausted...Why waste my time? He has his very strong opinion, and I have mine. Mr. Copeland, you will never change how I feel about this and I do not care to change your opinion.
PATRIA O MUERTE!!!!!!!!....I'm sorry, I couldn't resist, forgive me Mr. Copeland ;-)
Free people will do foolish things, but consider the alternative. That would be some kind of theocracy or socialist police state. Screw that.
My point of including driving, is that it should ultimately be based on the judgement of the driver. Why have laws against speeding when (if you were concerned about safety), then driving recklessly would cover the lot. Whereas speeding acts as a sort "catch-all" so even if you aren't being unsafe, you may still be illegal.
Alcohol prohibition certainly promoted the gang-warfare (just as drugs are now, as you've pointed out). However, the point remains ... we either let people behave as foolishly as they like (consider drinking and driving), or we legislate. If the latter, then you would need to define where the line exists, that suddenly creates the "theocracy or socialist police state".
We can't have it both ways. Either legislation does good and promotes social order (in which case you'd need to explain why controlling the market results in bad things), or it does no good and there's no point in legislating the other types of behavior.
Even though people are fond of arguing that the absence of laws would result in anarchy, I have yet to see a single law that actually has promoted order. Since the purpose of a law is only to describe the retribution that the state (or others) may exact from an individual when they violate it. The only incentive to obey laws is fear of retribution.
So the question remains ... do individuals in a society have the right to determine what behaviors are appropriate to be a member of that society or don't they? If they do, then markets are not exempt.
Also, laws promote order in at least two ways. First is the fear of retribution. Second is comprehending the reasoning behind the law. I obey the speed limits because traffic that moves at a uniform speed will have less accidents, and also to avoid being ticketed.
Of course they do, where do you think the Bill of Rights originated from in the first place if it wasn't from individuals in a society? The whole basis of the law is to determine what is a "right" versus what is controllable by society, therefore society must establish the boundaries across which it agrees it has no jurisdiction.
We can argue that there are certain "inalienable rights" but that is simply stating that we (as humans) recognize that there are some elements of our existence that are so fundamental we don't think it reasonable to impose our will on them. Yet, we do it all the time, because living in a society requires that we no longer have absolutely freedom, so the only question that remains is the degree to which we are willing to compromise it.
Rights have been derived from God and the nature of man. But any attempt to derive rights from society is self-refuting relativism. If anything or nothing can be defined as a right if society wills it so, the idea of a right has no meaning. Rights are not permissions to act, they are freedoms to act.
The Bill of Rights originated in a specific political theory derived from the political writings of John Locke and the common law tradition
Where are these rights defined? Show me any indication that any group other than a society has ever even addressed the topic. Even Jefferson admitted that they are merely assumed as axiomatic, but there was certainly no independent proof of such a thing.
Your problem in this regard is that any suggestion that humans have rights must invariably lead to anarchy since there can never be any situation in which someone else should have more say over one's life than the individual affected. Yet, this is the basic nature of the social contract.
The social contract assumes that the individual has rights, some of which he surrenders in whole or in part in exchange for the benefits of civil society. Even under social contract theory rights are not created by the society, but are delegated in a contract.
And rights do not lead to anarchy, since in anarchy people may have rights but no one respects them. People join together precisely to better protect their rights. Rights lead to law and civil society.
... and yet to raise such a point would be shocking to members of tribal societies who would never envision themselves without rights or without the companionship of a society.
Once again, this is a claim that doesn't have any real historical backing. There have been many "successful" city-states over the centuries and you would be hard-pressed to demonstrate that their success hinged on any oncept of individual "rights". You may not care for them, nor care to live in them (based on your own accident of when you were born), but that is simply a historical bias since we were not born during those times.
Even during the rise of the Nazi party, it would be foolish to suggest that a significant number of Germans weren't quite content with the state of affairs. That isn't to say that many felt it was the wrong path, or that things would turn out badly, but rather that no group can retain power without the implicit support of the governed.
Although it took centuries to develop the theory of individual rights, the primary issue it deals with was always present. People band together to prevent being robbed by others. In big enough crowd, they need laws so they don't rob from each other. This is a property rights issue which lurks implicity in every group of people even when it is not explicilty acknowledged as such. Property rights are individual human rights to control, use and dispose of material things, their own things.
And then you ended the thread (Godwin's Law) by referring to the Nazis! Yes the germans voted away their property and lives but that just makes them stupid and immoral and is in no manner a refutation of rights, which is after all a normative doctrine.
To your last point .... the germans were not "stupid and immoral", they simply did what the majority of people would do faced with a similar situation. They allowed their sense of patriotism and national identity get them into a corner where they felt justified by their actions. This is the nature of "following" any political leadership where majority rule is the standard by which decisions get made.
Unfortunately you view the Nazi experience as an anamoly whereas I'm saying that it is entirely predictable and has happened before and will happen again because it is both in the nature of governments and the people that follow them. As I said before, the primary objective is for people to identify with the groups they associate with; church, sports teams, schools, country, etc. Depending on the importance assigned to each, will determine how they respond. In the case of the Nazi's it was their nationality and country that was being exploited to justify the course of action the leadership would pursue. It's exactly the same rationale that went into the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay decisions (whether you agree with them or disagree, the mechanism of choice is the same).
I also find it curious that you would separate the tribal societies from the city-states in the way that you have. While there is certainly more anonymity in the city-state and consequently "risks", the rise of law was a direct function of centralizing the decision making powers from previous human relationships. No one requires a central authority to control theft, but it is required when the "right of retribution" has been usurped and centralized.
BTW, this isn't a matter of opinion, since it is clearly visible in virtually every species on the planet. The concept of "property rights" isn't even an adaptation from the concept of "territories".
The development of the human city-state was a major revamping of the lines of power, whereas in a tribal society the individual retained their rights beyond those of voluntary cooperation, in the city-state their "rights" were parceled out by the central authority. Therefore the concept of "rights" had to be invented for this new form of government, since it was presumed to exist in all prior forms of society.
Also, let me note that leadership is not the same thing as governing. A leader can lead but not have coercive authority or power, while a government unequivocally requires both.
Your first point has no basis in fact, since you're implying a relationship between a uniform speed and safety. There is none. In fact, a clear argument that could be made is that uniform speed would result in impossible traffic jams if actually implemented.
In regards to your the first part of your post, my question remains .... what "rights" does the market have? Secondly, why should a legal fiction, such as a corporation, be entitled to "rights"? In addition, where are the rights of individuals to buy illegal drugs if they so choose? Isn't that also a free market?
Where is the right of the government to make certain drugs illegal? It took a whole constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol, why not for heroin and crack?
The craziness in a system that gives such people more rights than the duties imposed is in a realm far beyond mere insanity.
Sure .... and from that study comes:
"Hauer claimed "the indiscriminate public crusade against speeding should be replaced by a balanced approach emphasizing the dangers of both fast and slow driving."
You are confusing the issue of variance with uniform driving speed which is NEVER asserted in the paper. Instead it indicates that large variations from the median speed will result in faster drivers coming into more frequent contact with slow drivers and thereby increasing the likelihood of an encounter that results in an accident.
Not exactly the same thing.
Having made this point as well as it can be made, I will not pursue it any further.
The Bill of Rights originated in a specific political theory derived
from the political writings of John Locke and the common law tradition
Which one are you referring to Paul, the US one or the UK one?
Why do people talk of rights as if they exist independently of duties?
I demand freedom of speech as a right.
Why? Because I consider it my duty to speak out when any individual or group seeks to cause harm to one or more people.
In the absence of the right, I cannot perform my duty. A society that wishes me to refrain from performance of my duty will strive to take away my right.
They can take away my duty-right to freedom of speech when they cut out my cold, dead tongue.
And duties don't exist without a personal motivation act. I don't like the word duty, it leads to all kinds of dark places like obediance and conscription.
I don't obey the law out of a sense of duty, but because the law is sensible or I may be penalized.
The thing about duty is, you can't ask it "why?" If you did and got an answer, it would be something reasonable and then it wouldn't be a duty, it would be a reason.
Simply because we're in agreement with a particular principle doesn't make it globally applicable, so if the law is to make sense it must make sense objectively and not simply because we as individuals may find it "sensible" for our particular viewpoint.
Obedience to the law is something that we intrinsically honor, or the law has no meaning. Obeying a law simply because it is our natural tendency to do that already doesn't make the law effective. It is no great feat for someone that doesn't abuse drugs to live by the laws that make such drugs illegal. So the question is, by what rationale does society (or the government) make the determination that an individual should not be allowed to act foolishly.
My original point was that whatever justification you come up with can just as readily be applied to any other aspect of our society that we choose to regulate. The only way out of it is to suggest that there are NO legitimate laws in which case the only solution is anarchy (not chaos or disorder, but simply the lack of a governing authority). There are no fundamental rights beyond those we (as humans) choose to define. Therefore we can invent whatever form of government we think serves our purposes the best.
This also means that there may be people that think a theocracy or socialist police state are exactly what they desire, so why should that be wrong? It is the ultimate foolishness to believe that a democracy or a representative government are the only ways that a centralized authority can operate for its people.
The truth is that people hate "freedom", because it scares them. People want order above all else, which is precisely why so many are willing to give up their notions of "freedom" if they are assured of protection or safety. It's a fool's bet, but the majority would take it in a minute.
People like the illusion of freedom, much like the quaint notion of the "rugged individual" despite the fact that it is pure mythology. Human beings are cooperative, societal animals that value the identify of the group to which they belong above all else.
In modern society people keep demanding rights, not recognising that for every right they seize for themselves there is at least one back that must carry the burden. Anyone who claims a right without a burden of responsibility, or duty, is parasitic on society. It is precisely to curb the parasitic behaviour of an English king that William of Orange was invited to take the English crown - after signing a document accepting his duties as king. Note carefully that he agreed to shoulder the burden of protecting his subject's liberties - it was only on that basis that he, at that time a foreigner, was granted his rights in English law.
Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse
evill Councellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to
subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and
Liberties of this Kingdome.
...
to be sent to Parlyament to meete and sitt at Westminster upon the two
and twentyeth day of January in this Yeare one thousand six hundred
eighty and eight in order to such an Establishment as that their
Religion Lawes and Liberties might not againe be in danger of being
Subverted, Upon which Letters Elections haveing beene accordingly made.
...
To which Demand of their Rights they are particularly encouraged by the
Declaration of this Highnesse the Prince of Orange as being the onely
meanes for obtaining a full Redresse and Remedy therein. Haveing
therefore an intire Confidence That his said Highnesse the Prince of
Orange will perfect the Deliverance soe farr advanced by him and will
still preserve them from the Violation of their Rights which they have
here asserted and from all other Attempts upon their Religion Rights
and Liberties. The said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons
assembled at Westminster doe Resolve That William and Mary Prince and
Princesse of Orange be and be declared King and Queene of England
France and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging
Full text here.
body type attractiveness has changed drastically every couple of decades or so
just look at the various evolution of corsets- flat and tiny to voluptuous with a tiny waist and pale
then the 1920's flapper- slim small chested and tan
then the athlete - muscular fit and trim
then the heroin chic- anorexic
etc etc
In other words suppose that, instead of gasping at little-girl panties (what's next, a battery-operated "My Little Pony"?), we adults acted like adults and told Madison Avenue to shove it?
I don't expect 8-12's to show much maturity ... I expect it to be imposed on them from adults who have some to spare.
To the person who suggested that the morals of some other location be applied here, I offer this retort: that morality displayed elsewhere is the business of that place / time. We are not considering that place and time, we are considering America at the dawning of the 21st century ... so your arguments are entirely flushable.
While it certainly occurs, it has never been a sufficient influence to affect society at large.
While you may blow off the moralistic aspects of it, but reality is that all social settings have strong taboos and criteria for what constitutes acceptable behavior within a social model. So to suggest that it's simply a matter of a few more commercials and Abercrombie&Fitch, misses the point completely.
huh?...."guarantee"...did i use that word?..... or is that a lil ole strawman rhetorical technique....
...so marketing can make you do/buy something you don't want to?!....or is it just those billions of other dummies and NOT you?......
....let me REALLY rock your world and introduce the very good research that our actions are primarily unconscious and reflexive....."moral" explanations are pretty much after the fact rationalizations and social chit-chat......wot do ya think abt that!
What are you smoking?
"Moral explanations" are not the result of 'after the fact rationalizations', they are the result of pre-thought ... that is, determining ahead of time (not after the fact) what is and is not acceptable behavior. For your argument to hold water, each and every murder trial would have to begin with a determination of the morality / immorality of murder before proceeding to the questions of guilt and punishment. Because, except for the question of morality, there is nothing wrong with murder ... the Darwinists might even argue that it is evidence of "natural selection" in process. And no one would want to argue with a Darwinist, would they?
No, morality is the result of previously established boundaries and not only Abercrombie & Fitch, but tons of other commercial interests have clearly stepped outside of those boundaries.
Given that nearly every article of American clothing is made elsewhere, A & F have no real advantage over other retailers. And that means that I can make my purchase decision on some other basis than quality. A & F are counting on selling sex to 'tweens' and their fairly stupid parents. I hope that they aren't planning on selling anything at all to me.
...do i hear a little rich-white-folks-christian thang goin here...lil holy rollin?....right on!
...as 4 livin on the same street....wow!...i'm flattered you would even consider...so thanks...you own any guns?.....i like guns.....
....do ppl still live in D-town!?....just askin.....
....i like ad hominum too....more fun then facts, don't u think?
....are we like discussing like facts here or venting?...i'm all for venting....carry on.....
...i am sensing a bit of angry, white guys evangelical stalking thang on the science blog?.....weird!...
...am i wrong?...are bible citations coming.....?









