Feminism is alive in the next generation: Video Against Slut Shaming

[RobinFinderson]

I guess it's possible, but I find it highly unlikely that a 13 yo would even be able to understand the concepts she was discussing in the video.

My second post in this thread accepts the possibility that she received help writing this piece. That isn't what was weird about your position. What was weird was the misconception about 'progressives' that there would be some underlying 'progressive' idea that would prevent parents from sharing their values with their children.

[jay santos]

My second post in this thread accepts the possibility that she received help writing this piece. That isn't what was weird about your position. What was weird was the misconception about 'progressives' that there would be some underlying 'progressive' idea that would prevent parents from sharing their values with their children.

This was what I said.

Manipulating your kids into thinking progressively isn't very progressive.

Notice I make no negative judgments about sharing your values with your children.

[RobinFinderson]

This was what I said.

Manipulating your kids into thinking progressively isn't very progressive.

Notice I make no negative judgments about sharing your values with your children.

And like I said, that is a weird understanding of what it means to be 'progressive.' I know a lot of people who consider themselves to be 'progressive,' and 100% of them think that teaching their values to their children is a part of their parental responsibility.

You can call it teaching or manipulating... at a young impressionable age, they are essentially the same thing.

[jay santos]

You can call it teaching or manipulating... at a young impressionable age, they are essentially the same thing.

Disagree.

But I admit I probably am taking it too far to imply this girl has been manipulated into her way of thinking. Her arguments are so grown up and beyond her yet so strongly worded even passionate that it just gave me a strange feeling.

[RobinFinderson]

Disagree.

But I admit I probably am taking it too far to imply this girl has been manipulated into her way of thinking. Her arguments are so grown up and beyond her yet so strongly worded even passionate that it just gave me a strange feeling.

The difference between teaching and manipulating children is probably most often a distinction that exists in the mind of the outside observer, based on the extent that the observer agrees or disagrees with the value of the message conveyed. Is it manipulation or teaching to whisper the words of a testimony into a child's ear?

Regardless, 13 is definitely not too young to receive the sex-talk from parents, and it seems like these parents conveyed a lot of useful information that will set this girl up with some healthy ideas about sex no matter when she decides to become sexually active.

[Donuthole]

Her arguments are so grown up and beyond her yet so strongly worded even passionate that it just gave me a strange feeling.

She reminds me of many of the participants on my 7th grade debate team. We were tackling issues which were way above our heads as 7th graders, but with a little coaching from our teacher, we knew all of the grown-up buzz phrases. We had memorized quotes from supreme court cases and past and current presidents, etc. In a vacuum we were very articulate and sounded really intelligent with respect to our assigned subjects. However, as soon as someone asked us a question we weren't expecting, we sounded like 7th graders.

In my opinion, this girl is much like we were. She has had a chance to write out and memorize an "essay" of sorts, and can deliver it articulately and with emphasis on all the right words and syllables. However, I suspect that if she were posed some of the questions being asked here, or any manner of follow-ups, she would very quickly sound like an average 7th grader talking about sex.

[Pelado]

The difference between teaching and manipulating children is probably most often a distinction that exists in the mind of the outside observer, based on the extent that the observer agrees or disagrees with the value of the message conveyed. Is it manipulation or teaching to whisper the words of a testimony into a child's ear?

Regardless, 13 is definitely not too young to receive the sex-talk from parents, and it seems like these parents conveyed a lot of useful information that will set this girl up with some healthy ideas about sex no matter when she decides to become sexually active.

Yes.

[Green Monstah]

Seems like a very smart kid and it's a very mature topic to tackle.

I think she has the right idea, but for the wrong reasons. We shouldn't slum slam because it isn't nice.

[TripletDaddy]

For all of you people freaking out: Deal with It.

[SeattleUte]

I'm vehemently opposed to slut shaming. In fact, don't ask don't tell may be the best policy for getting your kids to a reasonable level of maturity, accomplishment and getting potential longings out of their system before marriage, and it's women who benefit most from delaying marriage.

However, I agree with those here who suggest that it's a shame kids in this age lose innocence so early. This girl is only barely not a child anymore and she's lecturing about the virtues of frequent sex. It's sickening actually, especially the combination of her extreme youth and that this is a public document now. She isn't even mature enough to realize or weigh how mortified she might be about this ten or twenty years from now. It does make you wonder about her adult stewards.

[RobinFinderson]

However, I agree with those here who suggest that it's a shame kids in this age lose innocence so early. This girl is only barely not a child anymore and she's lecturing about the virtues of frequent sex. It's sickening actually, especially the combination of her extreme youth and that this is a public document now. She isn't even mature enough to realize or weigh how mortified she might be about this ten or twenty years from now. It does make you wonder about her adult stewards.

In my opinion, sex ed has nothing to do with childhood innocence. I think the importance of childhood innocence has to do with creating an environment where the child can develop free of fear, stress, and basic material deprivation (food, shelter, clothing). In my mind, knowing accurate and useful information about sex doesn't compromise childhood innocence.

And I don't think she is 'lecturing about the virtues of frequent sex.' She said two things about sex -- 1. Given certain circumstances (consent, maturity, desire...) that sex can be a rewarding part of any person's life. That is a simple truth that every 13yo would be well served to understand (if for no other reason, it might shape the way that 13yo's talk about sex, which they do, quite a lot). 2. That we should accept and respect the personal choices of others with regard to choices about sexual activity (frequency and number of partners).

But SU, I can understand that many people of your generation are going to remain very socially conservative about this issue, so I'm neither surprised nor disappointed by your view.

[PaloAltoCougar]

In my opinion, sex ed has nothing to do with childhood innocence. I think the importance of childhood innocence has to do with creating an environment where the child can develop free of fear, stress, and basic material deprivation (food, shelter, clothing). In my mind, knowing accurate and useful information about sex doesn't compromise childhood innocence.

And I don't think she is 'lecturing about the virtues of frequent sex.' She said two things about sex -- 1. Given certain circumstances (consent, maturity, desire...) that sex can be a rewarding part of any person's life. That is a simple truth that every 13yo would be well served to understand (if for no other reason, it might shape the way that 13yo's talk about sex, which they do, quite a lot). 2. That we should accept and respect the personal choices of others with regard to choices about sexual activity (frequency and number of partners).

But SU, I can understand that many people of your generation are going to remain very socially conservative about this issue, so I'm neither surprised nor disappointed by your view.

RF, you're always interesting, but very often I think you're completely out to lunch, and dangerously so when it comes to caring for children in certain matters. You lost me at your first sentence. I don't understand how any mature adult could believe that providing a five year-old with graphic (or even live) depictions of people engaged in various acts of sexual congress would have no effect on childhood innocence. I'm all for sex ed, but the details and level of instruction should be a function of the student's age and maturity level, and those should be determined by a caring adult, not the student.

Of course, I'm even older than SU so you can discount my view as well. But it saddens me that, if left to your supervision, preschoolers would be free to select Deep Throat over Backyardigans for their video viewing.

[RobinFinderson]

RF, you're always interesting, but very often I think you're completely out to lunch, and dangerously so when it comes to caring for children in certain matters. You lost me at your first sentence. I don't understand how any mature adult could believe that providing a five year-old with graphic (or even live) depictions of people engaged in various acts of sexual congress would have no effect on childhood innocence. I'm all for sex ed, but the details and level of instruction should be a function of the student's age and maturity level, and those should be determined by a caring adult, not the student.

Of course, I'm even older than SU so you can discount my view as well. But it saddens me that, if left to your supervision, preschoolers would be free to select Deep Throat over Backyardigans for their video viewing.

Due to past confusion about this issue, I'd just like to clarify, I have never provided a child with graphic (or even live) depictions of people engaged in various acts of sexual congress. And generally speaking, I agree with you about contextualizing sex ed in an age-appropriate way, though I assume we probably have different ideas about what might be 'age-appropriate.' When I wrote my post, what I really had in mind was 'the talk,' where parents make choices about how teach their children about sex. Even more specifically, I was framing my post in terms of the evidence presented in the video -- this kid seems to have very healthy and useful information about sex at a time when her peers are going to be talking about sex a lot. SU might be happy for his kids to learn about sex from other 13yo's, because they are such a wealth of useful information, no?, but I would prefer for my child to have useful information and a healthy perspective like that expressed by this girl.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Due to past confusion about this issue, I'd just like to clarify, I have never provided a child with graphic (or even live) depictions of people engaged in various acts of sexual congress. And generally speaking, I agree with you about contextualizing sex ed in an age-appropriate way, though I assume we probably have different ideas about what might be 'age-appropriate.' When I wrote my post, what I really had in mind was 'the talk,' where parents make choices about how teach their children about sex. Even more specifically, I was framing my post in terms of the evidence presented in the video -- this kid seems to have very healthy and useful information about sex at a time when her peers are going to be talking about sex a lot. SU might be happy for his kids to learn about sex from other 13yo's, because they are such a wealth of useful information, no?, but I would prefer for my child to have useful information and a healthy perspective like that expressed by this girl.

I didn't mean to imply that you've actually provided explicit materials to children, but I believe you've said previously that you'd leave the determination of what a child could/should watch to the child--that you would allow the child to determine what he/she could handle, which I find absurd on its face. And if you're on board with providing sex ed only in an age appropriate manner, then I assume you believe that inappropriate sex ed would, in affect, adversely affect childhood innocence.

I suspect we're not as far apart as our initial posts might suggest, as I'm confident you're a fine father to young Robin. I just think it's more important for men of any generation to care more about being fathers to their children than mere schoolyard buddies.

[SeattleUte]

In my opinion, sex ed has nothing to do with childhood innocence. I think the importance of childhood innocence has to do with creating an environment where the child can develop free of fear, stress, and basic material deprivation (food, shelter, clothing). In my mind, knowing accurate and useful information about sex doesn't compromise childhood innocence.

And I don't think she is 'lecturing about the virtues of frequent sex.' She said two things about sex -- 1. Given certain circumstances (consent, maturity, desire...) that sex can be a rewarding part of any person's life. That is a simple truth that every 13yo would be well served to understand (if for no other reason, it might shape the way that 13yo's talk about sex, which they do, quite a lot). 2. That we should accept and respect the personal choices of others with regard to choices about sexual activity (frequency and number of partners).

But SU, I can understand that many people of your generation are going to remain very socially conservative about this issue, so I'm neither surprised nor disappointed by your view.

This isn't what that video was about. She was talking like a sexually liberated college female, and I would have no probelm with that, from a college-aged female. The inference was that she's vulnerable to the slut label but look how bright and articulate and rational she is. The problem is, this girl is barely 13.

The reason the video attracts attention is this 13 year old is talking that way, even coquettishly, granted in a very articulate way, just as a smart college student would talk.

I bet a vast majority of grown up Americans of whatever age would not approve of a 13 year old talking like someone who's experienced a great deal sexually.

I hope she doesn't know what she's talking about. Who is she having sex with? Other 13 year olds? Adults? Think about that.

I don't necessarily think her parents should go to jail. She seems really bright and mature and odds favor her becoming successful by contemporary measures. It's not ncessarily all that big of a deal. I just think the video is not cute or entertaining (apparently that's its point; look how cute and precosious she is). I tihnk it's revolting, and I know virtually all well adjusted Americans would agree with me.