Pajamas Media

41 Comments

1. jvon:

I’ve never read the book, but I recently rented the Hitchcock movie, and thought it was interesting that the Lolita in the film actually was very manipulative. (Though there was nothing explicitly sexual.) Later there was The Crush, which was obviously based on this same idea, and she was even more provocative. I have not seen the most recent Lolita remake, but if the trend continues she probably ties him up and has her way with him.

There’s definitely been a shift (evolution would imply something positive) in the “Lolita” concept since the book was published, that’s clear.

Another thing: Disney? Seriously?

Jul 12, 2008 - 1:27 am 2. Pope Linus:

“So the metaphorical Lolita is a capitalist creation, an apparition conjured up by culture industries to disquiet parents, corrupt little girls, and instigate pedophiles.”

And what about the strong libertine elements in our culture? If a thirteen-year-old is old enough to abort her fetus, if school students learn to put condoms on bananas, if our culture is telling young girls that sexual experimentation is not only okay, but healthy, then we shouldn’t be surprised at this metaphorical Lolita popping up everywhere.

Dr. Kinsey, Dr. Kinsey, paging Dr. Kinsey…

Jul 12, 2008 - 5:32 am 3. Pope Linus:

jvon, it was Kubrick, not Hitchcock. Just a little point. But you’re right about The Crush. I forgot about that one.

Jul 12, 2008 - 5:39 am 4. Ed Wallis:

Miss Durham should go back and try to read the book again without the “aid” (sic) of the deconstructionist and radical feminist rubbish which has clearly distorted her – ahem – interpretation of Nabokov’s work.

Jul 12, 2008 - 6:35 am 5. jvon:

Kubrick, my apologies. The timeframe threw me off I think.

Jul 12, 2008 - 7:42 am 6. Zeno:

There’s for sure a sexualization of children going on in modern culture, but I think Nabokov’s “Lolita” has very little to do with it.

Jul 12, 2008 - 8:59 am 7. NahnCee:

“modern culture”???

When the Muslims have been marrying off and raping their girl babies and children for millennia? And still are?

I do agree that there’s something disturbing about the Jon Benet syndrome, but let’s not pretend that it’s something that’s just popped up since Nabokov and the 1950’s. Or even Roman Polanski and a wannabe 12-year-old in Jack Nicholson’s hot tub in the 1970’s.

Just ask any UN peacekeeper what he thinks he age of consent is.

Jul 12, 2008 - 10:54 am 8. Charlie (Colorado):

It’s worth remembering the decrease in age of both menarche and nubility; some estimates suggest menarche was in the late teens for, say, Jane Austen’s heroines.

Millions of years of evolution tell us to become sexually active at nubility; a 16 year old girl today is almost certainly nubile, and all visible bodily indications are that Miley Cyrus is physiologically nubile.

You can’t fool Mother Nature.

Jul 12, 2008 - 10:55 am 9. NahnCee:

BTW – what kind of name is Meenakshi and what kind of social/cultural baggage is *she* carrying, along with her self-imposed academic dementia?

Jul 12, 2008 - 10:56 am 10. A Dude:

You seem to be freely mixing up pre-adolescents with adolescents.

Pre-adolescents are children and their sexualization is, at best, unnatural and offensive.

Adolescents are by definition pubescent and, in the eyes of mother nature, sexually viable. I think it’s much more senseless to beat guys up about finding developed adolescents sexually attractive. It’s completely natural (that does not say one should act on it, but one shouldn’t be shamed over it.)

But I agree with you that the two are getting more mixed up than ever, and that’s disturbing.

Jul 12, 2008 - 11:10 am 11. belle:

Forget the media, music videos and the internet…I’ve always thought the the early sexualization of girls started with Barbie dolls. When my daughter was young I refused to buy her Barbie dolls because the clothes were so skanky. I used to look a the different boxes at the toy store and think to myself, “bar hopping” Barbie, “cokehead” Barbie, “pole dancer” Barbie, “high end hooker” Barbie, etc.

Later, when my daughter was a preteen, there was a popular brand of clothes being marketed to this age group called Porn Star. I would see little 11-13 year old girls walking around wearing tee shirts that said Porn Star on the front.
I used to wonder how our culture had evolved to the point where parents would think it was OK to buy these trashy things for their pre-teen daughters.

Something has always made me think that mothers who feel the need to extend their own youth and hipness, dress their daughters like little Lolitas as way of extending their own sexuality. It’s like hot mom brand extension

Jul 12, 2008 - 2:14 pm 12. NahnCee:

Agree with Belle. In the West, the sexualization of girl children is almost always at the behest of the mother, who is making up for her own lost or wasted youth. Men are just the drive-by suckers in that scenario.

Jul 12, 2008 - 2:31 pm 13. P. Ami:

The Lolita character in Nabokov’s book most certainly understands and enjoys her sexual power over her step-father. She is simply too inexperienced to comprehend most of the common consequences of her power. I’m not sure why Mrs. Durham misses that point, in fact distorts it, but I certainly do not think the premise of this editorial fits novel it is built around.

BTW, Romeo and Juliet were 12 or 13. I agree with A Dude and Charlie’s points regarding the natural ways of testosterone as it responds to estrogen. The fact is that until recently the average life expectancy of humans was in the mid-30s and only very recently did the life expectancy of humans reach the mid-40’s. With nearly a year for gestation and several years until weening the period of time human’s have had available for childbearing was very limited. Starting at 13 or so you have to figure that a woman might have 10 good years and another 10 difficult ones for continuing the species.

Jul 12, 2008 - 2:35 pm 14. susan:

This is one of the most important subjects today. The sexualization of young girls also leads to male unhappiness due to temptation.

Jul 12, 2008 - 2:56 pm 15. cedarford:

Charlie – Millions of years of evolution tell us to become sexually active at nubility; a 16 year old girl today is almost certainly nubile, and all visible bodily indications are that Miley Cyrus is physiologically nubile.
You can’t fool Mother Nature.

Charlie is right. The way of nature and human society has pretty much been until modern times that women of breeding age are selected, do selecting in turn, and are mated shortly after puberty. Just like other mammals – no extended childhood was granted – survival is getting to sex with females and having them spit out young-uns ASAP.

Modern man fools himself with claims that the “moral thing” is for people to defer marriage to school and career – and that the desperate career 40-year old woman who is spending tens of thousands with her mate trying to have a child free of age-onset Downs, autism is “the normal one”.

Nature makes a nubile 16-year old female, on average, far more arousing and sexually attractive to the average man than the average 35-year old woman who slaved to get the Office management spt or double masters in teaching, and is now ready to finally have their one child… And the idea that after 16 year olds were having babies from the beginning of history that now, suddenly, they are too “child-like and mentally undeveloped” to have sex, or the hyper-hormoned boys and alpha men who would normally pick up that booty are “twisted, evil, criminal” for being guided that way by their biological core —is ridiculous.

Indeed, the Western concept of female childhood ending between 25 and 35, deferred or no children to “maximize personal growth” – is demographically untenable in the face of more vigorous cultures with stronger demographics.

As we face an overpopulated world, the answer is obviously not a pack of 13-year old vixens all knocked up, but neither is letting 8-9 kid Muslim families and 5-6 kid Welfare Mammy families inherit the West. Locking up 19 year olds for dating 16 year olds as “rapists” is amazingly stupid….the goal should be stable, self sustaining families and all ethnicities within a country to be regulated to get roughly the same birthrate so civil wars are avoided…

Jul 12, 2008 - 3:31 pm 16. TalkinKamel:

And how do you suggest “regulating” said ethnicities? Have the police break down their doors? Demand that any children over their quota be liquidated? And do some ethnicities get to have more kids than others? You know the, “But some animals are more equal than others.”

(I believe we do extend childhood for too long in our society. But I also don’t think we’ll be benefiting society at all by making it easy for randy males to get access to very young girls. And 19 year olds should be dating 18 year olds; girls closer to them in age.)

Jul 12, 2008 - 4:34 pm 17. Charlie (Colorado):

Anyone who thinks Barbi dolls look prepubescent, or even merely pubescent, grew up in a way different neighborhood than I did.

Jul 12, 2008 - 5:10 pm 18. newyorkdude:

cedarford got it IMHO. Who wants a 35 year old career woman whose life is devoted to liberating her sisters when you can have a 16 year old whose life is devoted to pleasing you? Lolita’s modern incarnation is a reaction to the boredom and oppression of modern women’s lib.

According to Wikipedia: “Minakshi (…often written Meenakshi) is a Hindu deity. – sister of Lord Vishnu and wife of Lord Shiva, who is worshipped mainly by South Indians. She is also one of the few Hindu female deities to have a major temple devoted to her – the famed Minakshi temple in Madurai, Tamil Nadu.”

Jul 12, 2008 - 6:29 pm 19. A Dude:

whoa cedarford i was with you 100% until the last paragraph.

Jul 12, 2008 - 8:59 pm 20. cedarford:

TalkinKamel – If you have a “diverse country” where the majority determines they want near zero population growth for habitat preservation, ecological, or reasons of encouraging female employment – any culture that comes in and says “fine, but our women will have as many babies as they want and your taxpayers are obligated to support them” or come with deeply foreign values and proclaims that 8-9 kids per Muslim family will doom the low growth civilization by demography and extinguish its values and culture. (In France, radical Muslims are fond of pointing out that they will be a majority by 2035, thus able to take command of France by democratic vote, command of Frances 300 thermonuclear warheads, and usher Sharia Law in on the “conquered peoples” – the natives become Dhimmis)

Well, you have a real problem, then.

Passivity and blind respect for the rights of a parasitic or inamicable culture out to extinguish your own culture and all those rights eventually, by their higher birthrate, is no strategy, TalkinKamel.

Let me ask what your solution is?

1. Accept demographic conquest and majority rule in France of new arrivals, hand over all weapons infidels have – all prohibited?
2. Prohibit women from having jobs, getting abortions, and then go into an endless demographic race where each native family in Europe is expected to have 8-9 kids to hold off the immigrant masses population explosion?
3. Say that you love “the Law” so much that just a few more decades of doing nothing gives the moral high ground and that when your culture and rights are extinguished you sent down nobly, true to lofty, though suiciadal principles?

My guess is Europe will not go down passively.

They will end democracy as a stupid indulgence and form of government that cannot be allowed to facilitate their suicide. The people that cannot assimilate will be cleansed out with much necessary violence, going to lands already made nearly uninhabitable by Muslim and African overbreeding.

The USA, BTW, is not safe either. While we do not have the fear of Muslim demographic triumph, we will have, with immigration continuing, more people in 2050 (435 million) than China had in 1900. We are where Venezuela was in 1985, when the once solidly white country saw such explosive growth in the poor peoples numbers with welfare and modern medicine that the 50% line – those paying no taxes – was crossed. In America now, with our own huge welfare families for 50 years PLUS immigrant families> If they can get organized, we have an effective voting majority like Venezuela’s that pays no taxes and wants all sort of free goodies. It took the poorer masses 20 years in Venezuela to realize they could control govenment and milk the wealth of the elites and productive workers by democratic vs. Marxist means….

*****************
And this relates to the controversy of what young women and young men are supposed to do with the decade of their most attractive physiques, peak libido, and prime child bearing years.
We have to admit that the Muslim and poor black breeding pattern is more realistic, more true to the facts and nature of humanity than our present Western feminist dream of deferred female childhood until 25 and only attempting starting a family at age 40 so you can love a kid with age-related birth defects, but still keep the house, the beloved career and 3 cats…

At the same time, we are realizing that we are brushing up against finite population limits as arable land, safe water, Co2 pollution, limits on oil, copper. ocean fisheries have been hit globally or in huge regions of the planet and NO TECHNOLOGY appears available or looming to get around such limits. We cannot afford to let the West and much of East Asia, Oceana, and Russia that are going to a replacement growth strategy have that strategy destroyed by high breeders. So we may find utility in pretending a 15-25year old is a child who cannot “ruin herself” with a child…or ethnic cleansing for survival of native culture’s way of life, or perhaps even utility in China’s authoritarian strategy to control its popluation before it reaches environmental collapse.

Jul 12, 2008 - 9:13 pm 21. jefered:

This statement is bothersome:

“In the U.S., there’s plenty of evidence that we aren’t offering girls an understanding of sex that helps them to negotiate its risks and responsibilities well.”

Who is the “we” here? Who or what is this mysterious force that’s responsible for shaping young girls’ sexual attitudes? Society? As we’ve seen, indeed, as has been the entire point of this opinion, society has and will fail miserably at giving *anyone* (let alone teens and pre-teens) healthy sexual attitudes.

For every pre-teen who leaves the house in a mini-skirt and revealing shirt, there’s a parent who’s too busy or too indifferent to stop her. For every kid who gets the wrong message in school sex-ed class (whether it’s condoms or abstinence), there’s a kid who isn’t getting the right message at home. For every kid who is indelibly marred by pop culture, there are parents who have wholly abrogated their responsibilities to that child.

Let’s start to solve this problem by bringing parents and parenting back into the equation.

Jul 13, 2008 - 6:24 am 22. Mary:

There are two great articles on Vision.org (well on is an interview) – “Like Father, Like . . . Daughter?” and “The Lost Relationship: Fathers and Daughters” about the positive and meaningful relationships between fathers and daughters. It is a challenging relationship at best and the sexualization of young girls and women is a very confusing issue for both dad’s and daughters. Hoping there is hope for sane relationships here.

Jul 13, 2008 - 10:17 am 23. glenn:

I was at the mall recently and saw a young lady, perhaps 12, with her parents. She was wearing skintight shorts with the word “juicy” stenciled across the backside. I took the fact that her parents let her out of the house that way as a sign of the apocalypse.

Jul 13, 2008 - 1:43 pm 24. DavidN:

The weird thing is that I’ve never read Lolita either, but I’ve heard, second-hand, a completely different explanation of the plot from everyone else. The book is *narrated* by Humbert Humbert, who’s in jail for his crimes. He’s explaining to the reader why all of his actions are completely justifiable. As a result of this, you shouldn’t take *anything* that he says, especially with regards to the intentions of others, at face value. He is obsessed with young girls, so he *imagines* that Lolita seduces him, when each of her actions is in reality something more innocent, or at least less certain and knowledgeable of consequences. The narrator is insane: taking what he says seriously is dangerous. Nabokov intended for you to question everything he recounts, and I imagine that he also never would have intended for the book to become the icon among people who want to sexualize little girls. It’s sort of like Randy Newman getting tired of people yelling at him “Short people suck!” as if he was serious when he wrote his most famous song. It’s about prejudice, and he deliberately picked the most innocuous characteristic to be prejudiced against: he just underestimated how dumb and literal people are.

Jul 13, 2008 - 2:03 pm 25. Elizabeth:

Huh. There weren’t any responsible, level-headed, financially viable 20 year old males ready to commit when I was 16-20 and nubile (there weren’t even any of those type of males ready to commit who were OLDER than me, let alone my age). And there were a few interested (in pretty much one thing only, but like I said, there weren’t any responsible, etc, etc…)

When I did find a responsible, level-headed, financially viable male (who also happened to be a wonderful guy–good looking and virile, too, even though he wasn’t 16), it took four years for him to commit, and he was 32 when we married (I was 28.) It’s a two-way street–it’s ridiculous to blow raspberries at the 35-year old careerist, feminist stereotype, all the while giving yourselves hearty back slaps and evolutionarily excusing yourselves for ogling teenagers who are just as interesting to you for their lack of complexity (which requires less maturity and work on your part) as they are for their “perkiness”, shall we say. And no, this doesn’t just come from my observation; I once asked my husband about the attraction guys have toward the young, flighty types (regardless of actual intelligence), and he told me they were “fun” and guys didn’t have to work so hard. That’s fine, for a fling, but a fling is not what you all are implying in your talk of evolution and onset of puberty, you are talking about when people are actually biological able to live together and start families. Which, while youth is fine, “flighty” is not. If you marry the fling, best of luck to you, but I’m so sorry. We are not mere animals to be rutting and dropping babies about, we ought to be picking mates carefully and committing to spouses and children. Regardless of what your religious beliefs are. So look all you want, but at least stop making excuses for it and saying immature remarks about older women.

I’m almost 35. I had my first kid at 31 (the ogling stopped about the time I started having babies; no matter how much I run, things just aren’t as “perky” as they used to be. Funny how my husband doesn’t seem to mind that I’m “old”, but I guess he a.) loves and is attracted to me and b.) is a grown up.) I was career oriented because I wanted to do something important with my life (I joined the military) and because, gee, Dad wasn’t going to support me for my entire life while I stayed at home, baked cookies and mended family linens. I’m not even remotely feminist (I left active duty two months after my oldest was born and am now a stay at home mom), but you guys are implying (pretty sure that’s not what you actually WANT) young ladies should be focused completely on finding a man to marry from the time they are physically able of bearing children, which is EXACTLY the type of behavior that will also make a good many of you SCREAM in fright and run away, run away until you’re finally moved out of your parents’ house around say, age 30. See, I can blow raspberries at stereotypes, too.

Come ON. You are grown MEN. Act like it. I get that you like what you see–that’s natural–but just remember that these girls are sisters and daughters, not “pubescent, nubile, and evolutionarily ready” “women” (ie, objects). I’m sure a few of you have sisters and daughters, too, and you KNOW how guys think. So do us parents of daughters a favor and at least try to remember that the next time you find yourself panting after some young thing or describing some young thing as you guys have been describing them. Someday that sixteen year old is going to be MY CHILD. And yes, my husband is totally normal, but he’s also now a father (and a terrific one). He’s got his shotgun ready–10 years will go by fast and he wants to be prepared. I think the universal protectiveness of fathers for their daughters is probably evolutionary, too, somehow, if you believe in that sort of thing.

Jul 13, 2008 - 2:36 pm 26. TalkinKamel:

Cedarford, I wasn’t talking about Europe.

My own view on the subject is that, unless the Europeans start creating families again, they’re soon going to find themselves outnumbered, no matter how desperately they try to limit the birthrate among their “ethnicities”. And, unless they scrap their over-generous welfare system, they’re going to need those ethnicities to keep their economies going. What’s the use of driving them all out, and limiting births if, five years later, you have to invite them—or some new ethnic group—to come in and do the jobs that would have gone to the sons and daughters they never had.

I would suggest that Europeans begin having kids and stop importing people from cultures that are antithetical to theirs, and who refuse to assimilate. Getting rid of their over-generous welfare states would be a good idea, too. Unfortunately, I think too many of them are addicted to the welfare teat.

(This is also assuming that said “ethnicities” are simply going to tamely accept European governments attempting to regulate them, and pry into their personal lives. At this point, I don’t think they’re going to put up with that tamely.)

Also, Europeans, and Americans, are all too often addicted hedonistic post-modernist culture, which encourages people to indulge themselves, and portrays families as drags on fun and freedom.

It isn’t only liberated women waiting until they’re 45 to have kids that’s a problem; there’s also the problem of men refusing to settle down, or not wanting kids because their wife might want to stay home with the baby and not work, and that would decrease their income—or men impregnating one of those sweet, nubile, irresistible teenagers—and then dumping her when she’s 20, and another sweet little teenager comes along—fathering illegitimate children, who then have to be supported by the state, or by their moms going out and getting a job, which brings us back to that supposedly awful working woman, again. But many women work because they have to, and, for very good reason, some of them aren’t willing to trust their welfare, economic or otherwise, to men.

There’s a lot of work to be done, before things start to change.

If you start having the police break down doors, dragging away “excess” kids and bullying parents, those parents are soon going to start fighting back. They aren’t just going to sit back and take it meekly. A totalitarian police state, regulating population, isn’t the answer. China has done that, and has ended up with a surplus of males, many of whom will never find wives, or have families of their own.

Government will take care of population the way the DMV does—or rather doesn’t—take care of what it’s supposed to do.

Jul 13, 2008 - 2:41 pm 27. Elizabeth:

Oh, and I have enough respect for you guys out there that I will make sure my daughters don’t flaunt themselves in front of you. I won’t always be able to make them do what they should, but hopefully I’ll give them a good foundation of self-awareness, modesty, and common sense that they’ll be able to do it for themselves when they leave our household and move on with their adult lives. Hopefully they won’t pick guys just out for a good time who only look at their outsides, but will pick guys serious enough to be looking for someone just as lovely on the inside.

Jul 13, 2008 - 2:54 pm 28. donovan:

It’s breathtaking to witness at my age (45) how females have fallen so far in such a short amount of time. They’re all so incredibly dumbed down as well & even proud of it- and all of them now virtually hookers & starting young. Exactly how long is it going to take for society to realize that when you give women any kind of freedom they immediately turn into garbage.. at any age. Read this- http://theproblemwithwomentoday-reality2008.blogspot.com/ it explains ALOT and it’s loooooong overdue…

Jul 13, 2008 - 7:11 pm 29. TalkinKamel:

Uh-huh, Donovan, it’s all the fault of those bad old females. Men never, ever supported the sexual revolution, or are at fault in the sexual mess of today. Men, as it is well known, never willingly use prostitutes (those narsty females seduce them!) They never look at pornography, prey on underage girls or father children out of wedlock. If they do, it’s really all the fault of those narsty, narsty females. Beat ‘em, keep ‘em pregnant and in the kitchen, lest they turn into garbage.

Yuh. Right.

Jul 13, 2008 - 8:46 pm 30. mylai:

” In the West, the sexualization of girl children is almost always at the behest of the mother, who is making up for her own lost or wasted youth. Men are just the drive-by suckers in that scenario.”

That is bull. Who are most of designers for female clothing have been men. They design the shoes we wear, set the trends for each season, produce the offensive-to-women music videos, write the offensive-to-women lyrics of the hip-hop/rap songs they listen to. And believe me if it wasn’t for the ages of consent in this country, we’d be

Jul 13, 2008 - 9:37 pm 31. mylai:

…have a nation of countless 12 year old baby mamas.

Jul 13, 2008 - 9:39 pm 32. donovan:

“Men never, ever supported the sexual revolution, or are at fault in the sexual mess of today.”

I didn’t deny that men allowed it. Thus the line I wrote, “when you ‘give’ women freedom.” Who do you think gave women their freedom?

Not too sharp in the reading comprehension department are you? It’s not like I’m quoting the Bible here or something.

If you’re going to be a ’smart ass,’ you need to concentrate more on the ’smart’ part- you’ve got the ‘ass’ part down.

“Beat ‘em, keep ‘em pregnant and in the kitchen, lest they turn into garbage.”

Evidence of your propagandized social programming- you are so primitive in your thinking that you believe the only way for women to be pressured into behaving is through violence.

Jul 13, 2008 - 9:57 pm 33. mylai:

Any woman reading this right now was at one time 16. And since this article pertains to the “nubile” I think i can say with confidence that 99% of us has the “assets” T & A to be specific. What i can also say with confidence as all women talk about what we were like when we were 16 and if only we knew then what we know we’d either 1. not have been so naive and gullible. or 2. not be so naive and gullible.

No, to all the horny old idiots that think it’s cool to mess with underage girls, there IS a huge difference between physically capable and mentally capable. No 16 year old, unless they are FLDS zombies, is going to care more about you than she does herself. 16 year olds are self-absorbed, fickle, ego-manical, concerned with fashion, lip gloss, dancing, texting, attention from not only 1 boy but ALL the boys because quite frankly it IS all about themselves. the educated “cool girls” idols are the girls from The Hills because of their cool careers and their clothes, cars, hair, your money, makeup and that’s about the size of it. These are usually the girls with good self-esteem. The world revolves around them and their plans and kudos to them. The last thing they want to do is be tied down with some old guy who’ll tell them what to do. They already have parents for that.

Girls with lower self esteem, from broken homes, low income households can usually fall prey to the old pervs who try to pick them up on myspace or facebook. What they are looking for is also attention but not the kind that a healthy adult mind looks for.

The common denominator between the two groups is age appropriate immaturity.

Jul 13, 2008 - 10:16 pm 34. whiskey:

Elizabeth, the problem is that there are not enough financial resources for women like you and men like your husband to marry to have even replacement kids.

Stalin said quantity has it’s own quality — your child will be vastly outnumbered by Hispanics from Mexico and Mormons, since their children will be the only ones showing up for the future. In that future, THEY will be the discriminated against minority, with little power over their destiny.

Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice has an aside where Elizabeth Bennett comments on how her youngest sister Lydia at 15 was briefly considered for marriage, but discarded by the suitor because of her immaturity. Motherhood is no job for either slackers or immature girls, but the usual way in which humans reproduced was with young women expected and demanded to act maturely.

In most of human history, including that of the West, young women by their mid to late teens (and young men also) were expected to be and act as adults, not live endless adolescent lives into their thirties. Young women married at 17-19 or so (Elizabeth Bennett’s friend Charlotte Lucas was considered and old maid at 27), often to men in their early to mid 20’s. [I have heard it said the a woman's peak fertility is around 17-23, if so Western society has major problems.]

Children should not be sexualized. But teens ought to be treated like adults and expected to act as adults. With an adults understanding of sexuality, it’s value, and responsibilities. If a young woman wants to get married and have kids at 19, it should be socially encouraged if the match is good, and society should help her continue on with her career and studies, since woman’s ability to add to the workforce is important and should be valued. There is no reason at all why women should not receive social security for child care, and get assistance to go back to school and careers after time out for child care. This would get our TFR up to at least replacement rates.

Halving populations every generation of the most productive and native parts of Europe and the Anglophone nations is not a pretty future.

Jul 13, 2008 - 10:42 pm 35. gus3:

Claiming that Lolita is the victim, rather than the accessory, does not take Miley Cyrus off the list. After all, Miley wasn’t taking her own photos in Vanity Fair.

Jul 13, 2008 - 11:02 pm 36. ddc:

donovan = internet bully.

the main reason why (back in day-dawn of man) young girls were taken as wives is because the life span of human beings was comparatively short in comparison to today and child producing was more instinctual. the average man and woman died at 40.

with increased longevity, and the fact that women can safely have babies into their 30’s the rush to “procreate” is not as instinctual.

Ask any male today (outside the black or low income communities which present a whole other set of issues – mainly dispair) if impregnation of any female they desire is paramount in their minds when trying to “hook-up” and they will shutter in fear. The goal is sex, not babies. sex = pleasurable, babies = unpleasurable, complicates matters and presents unwanted responsibility with sex.

when researched, men who gravitated to children (minors) for sex showed issues of low self esteem as children and young women presented the least likely to judge them as well as the easiest to control, having little to do with wish to impregnate. impregnation took attention away from the man and his needs therefore the new added competition.

Jul 14, 2008 - 7:38 am 37. Roy M. Postel:

Wow! As of this writing there are 36 comments posted and not one highlights the thoroughly utilitatian cord present in the entire discussion. Contemporary thought, as represented by this stream, reflects no appreciation that humans make up the highest form of creation. We have free will, a soul, an intelect, with the capacity to love. Because of these unique aspects, human sexuality is more than a biological function, it i a gift to be employed with purpose and dignity.
I’d like to challenge the men reading this piece to make note of any company which uses a “Lolita” image to promote its products or services and withhold doing business with any of them. Be a man and stand for something that matters.
Also, it would be refreshing to see some voice of displeasure from the liberated women of the western world when they are being so blatantly objectified on yet another front.

Roy M. Postel

Jul 15, 2008 - 1:39 pm 38. Joshua:

It’s only a matter of time before the other shoe drops.

A wise man (Orwell?) once said that revolution is merely the act of kicking in a rotten door. Well, as this post and its comments have made clear, the door separating children and sexuality has become thoroughly rotted through to the point where its lock and its bar have become all but irrelevant, and where that door now seemingly awaits only that fateful kick for all hell to break loose.

The only questions now are, who will deliver that kick, and when? If our entertainment and fashion industries have taken childhood sexuality to the brink of the cultural mainstream, how much longer before someone in academia, our education system, the MSM etc. tries to push it the rest of the way in, then lobby for its full legal sanction and political protection (including for the adults who partake in it)? What’s the over/under on when the notion that childhood sexuality isn’t such a good thing starts to be mentioned in the same breath as racism, homophobia, Islamophobia and global-warming denial?

And how will the American people respond when that happens?

Jul 15, 2008 - 4:44 pm 39. deguello:

Brilliant, Joshua, you nailed it. The West is in its last stages of corruption Child-adult sex will be the next stage.As usual with us whatever makes money is good,that has become the guiding”principle” of our culture.We turn little girls into whores, because our capitalists have become whores themselves.

Jul 16, 2008 - 11:40 am 40. Ed Wallis:

“deguello,” your supposition may not be on target, but the CORRUPTION is actively promoted by the LEFT – NOT your imagined so-called “capitalists” – SEE Europe as a model: as they protect those born disabled, they thereby justify legalizing incest (which MEDICALLY PROVEN ensures a highly increased rate of deformed/”disabled” offspring) in that deformities/disabilities are no reason to prevent people from marrying.

Jul 16, 2008 - 6:37 pm 41. deguello:

Ed: You are naive if you think that the leftis the only force promoting premature sexualization of children. Their cultural nihilismand relativism,serve as ideological cover to justify marketing of vile trash. For example: The New York Times pronouncing Eminem a genius,as MTV, the fashion and entertainment industries push hip hop as normal, and therefore marketable.Last time I heard MTV,Madonna, Eminem, Brittany Spears, were all doing it for the money,that is they were capitalists.Unfortunately, they are not figments of my imagination.. Capitalism deprived of corrective morality, leads to decadence.

Jul 17, 2008 - 10:15 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: