I'm glad you understand. I wasn't trying to be a jerk. I know online where we lack the ability to see body language and hear the tone of a person's voice it's not difficult for things to get misconstrued. :/ I know I shouldn't form strong opinions about things I know little or nothing about. I felt having read twilight, knowing this was a twilight fan fic, and reading large chunks of the book itself (when this blogger did the analysis she went chapter by chapter with large chunks of it) I felt I had a good enough grasp on it. When I read twilight the relationship made me uncomfortable to be perfectly honest. Even more so because it was first person. So having the opinions I have about twilight and having read a ton of excerpts from fifty shades I figured I had enough knowledge. I know it's possible I am wrong about that. To top that all off I'm not a huge fan of men who are overly pushy as I've had too many poor experiences with those types. It only takes a couple times of being called names for refusing someone's advances or having someone pursue you to the point of making you feel endangered to put you off of that type of man. :/ To me, someone who refuses to take no for an answer is dangerous and unfortunately many people are too naive to draw those lines between what works as a fantasy and what is acceptable in real life. I'm fairly certain most everyone (including myself) has guilty pleasures and that's really not a bad thing so long as it's not hurting anyone. End of the day I don't care what people do so long as they don't hurt themselves or someone else. Everyone is different and everyone likes different things and that's alright with me.
Well, I don't know about the "very big mistake," I've more or less ignored it because it seems to be wrapped in turd (I tried to read it, but I wanted to shoot the protag after three pages and then just put it down), but there definitely is something there, that I won't deny, just like there is in Twilight that appeals to a modern woman. Fans of 50 Shades should read Story of O by Pauline Réage too. If only she had written it 50 years later, maybe we'd be talking of that novel instead of 50 Shades? And I think I've said it earlier, I'm happy if the novel(s) (or is it called 'a saga' too? The usage of that term is hilarious from my pov 'cause it means "an epic tale" or "history" over here ) makes someone happy. Nothing like a hot cup of troll first thing in the morning.
Yeah, that basically covers it. I read it all, and it was very burdensome at times, it really needed professional editing service desperately. I was hooked on the mystery subplot, had to see it to the end, so I skipped huge parts of books 2 and 3. But when I finished reading it, I knew why it became so successful. The best way I can describe it is that it had a 'life' of its own. The story came alive, it had a spark that many narratives are missing, and the readers responded.
Aren't you contradicting yourself there? Seeing as how "green," "yellow," and "red" are, in fact, safety words. Also, I've encountered people who use other safety words when they dabble in BDSM, so saying no one uses any other safety words except the color codes is just... how to put this... oh, that's right: wrong. On a mildly related note, I think obtaining a lot of sexual experience in one's teens is a very good and healthy thing for both, guys and girls (especially since it doesn't necessarily mean one-nighters: it could be lots of sex with just one person over the course of several years), just as long as it all happens between consenting individuals of around the same age, give or take a year or two. That way when they get to an age when they're ready for more serious, long-term relationships, they already know their bodies and what they do and don't like, which makes choosing partners much easier and the relationships have more chances of lasting long.
Maybe it's because I'm the mother of a pre-teen, but I just cringed slightly while reading this. Although I think the argument has some validity, I don't think it's a good idea to apply it to all teens, and I'd actually say it's not really a good thing for teens under, say, 18. I know I'm at risk here, for giving an age that a lot of you might consider to be pretty damn old in this respect, but there is just so much maturation that happens during those years, and in many respects, the brain isn't even fully developed until the early twenties. There's a lot of risk, emotionally and physically, and I just don't think kids who especially are about 15 and under can handle. I'm not saying that this doesn't happen with young teens. I just don't think it's a good idea. We have to deal with the fact that it happens, but I don't think we should be actively encouraging it.
Liz, to each their own. I get what you're saying, but when thinking back to when I was 13-15, getting laid and finding a girlfriend were the most important things in the world. It was pretty much all me and my friends talked about. I know some people are too immature at that age, some are too immature throughout their entire lives, but that's why I said "consenting," because to me it seems most kids who aren't ready yet, choose (and rightly so) not to have sex until they feel comfortable with the idea. Nothing wrong with that either. Heck, I know a guy who, when he was 14, refused a girl (who wanted to have sex with him) because he wanted to wait for the right one. Funnily enough, 4-5 years later he told me he deeply regretted that and should've just gone for it. Naturally it's a given that I hate the very idea of pressuring anyone of any age in any way into doing what they don't want to do. That's where parents come in: they should make sure their kids have good self-esteem, a solid understanding of social norms etc. so they don't sell themselves short, trying to boost a non-existent confidence by sleeping around or thinking they have to sleep with anyone who asks for sex. I've met girls like that, as young as 14: they fuck guys left and right at the drop of a hat just to feel accepted, they don't seem to grasp the notion that they have every right to say 'no' and don't need to fulfill every sick thing propositioned to them. Every single one of them came from families where their parents (or parent / guardian) didn't have an active role in their lives and had offered little in the way of real world guidance that would've prepared their children to face what's out there. Needless to say, none of them had a shred of self-appreciation, self-esteem, and the frequent one-night stands didn't help one bit. Quite a few also had psychological disorders like anorexia / bulimia, bipolar etc, and it may sound cruel / unjust, but I place most of the blame on their parents because it's their job to prepare their kids to face life and those parents had failed miserably. Naturally I don't advocate that sort of "experimenting" because it does more harm than good, but I do believe teens can have positive experiences too when it comes to sex, even one-nighters as long as both know it's nothing more than two consenting people enjoying each other. I know this is a bit unconventional, but I just can't help thinking that people who think teens under 18 shouldn't have sex, have either forgotten what it's like to be that young or they are reflecting their own negative experiences or fears on others. That's not to say that teens shouldn't use caution, they should, and that is, again, where parents come in: they need to teach their children the right values, morals, and other intricacies regarding human interaction so that the teens understand what's going on, what's okay, what isn't, and so on and so forth. I could even tie this loosely to the topic: without such guidance, kids may read books / watch movies like 50 Shades, even porn, and get totally the wrong idea of what sexual interaction should be like. For instance, my friends and I did get such guidance, so even at 13 we knew that what we saw in porn was nothing like what real life sex would be like and didn't expect girls to do the things we saw on the videos. However, I've met guys much older than that (around 20) who still thought sex was supposed to be like an XXX movie and they mostly treated girls like commodities. Anyway, if we're talking about two reasonably smart, say, 15yo kids who truly like/love each other (yeah, I believe a person can love at that age), both want to have sex with one another, and they trust each other... well, I know if I was in their shoes, I'd hate anyone trying to prevent that. Those years fly by quickly and never come back, and that time of discovery, of trying your own limits, experimenting (not necessarily sexually) etc. can be an amazing experience you'll cherish forever. Granted, most people make some mistakes along the way, but that's just a part of the process of growing up. I know I've learned from those experiences, even the bad ones (or especially the bad ones), and come out slightly less stupid. I also know I would be a different person without those experiences. You just need to be prepared. Fio para bellator.
*SIGH* Oh, I just knew the response would include something along these lines, and I realize we're drifting off topic. I do respect your position, T. And I realize I'm a lot further away from 18 than you are, and I'm sure a lot of folks will discount my opinion on this just due to my age. I do remember what it was like to be 18, though, and I knew nothing. I was nowhere near ready to have sex at 15. I know that doesn't mean that everyone is just like me and therefore no one should have sex just because it wouldn't have been right for me. It's just that relationships are complex, and I don't think 15 year olds are really ready for that sort of relationship, and all that sex entails. They just don't have the maturity and experience to handle it. I would even consider the same position for some 20 year olds -- a position that would have really irritated, irked, and downright pissed off my 20 year old self. But I really don't have any issue with 20 year olds in general having sex, because 20 is vastly different from 15. (Anecdotally, I know people who started having sex at 14 and when they were older they said they were too young and wished they'd waited. This has even been said by people who had the sex with the person they eventually married.) It doesn't really have anything to do with how smart the kids are. It has to do with emotional maturity and experience, and it doesn't really matter how smart or how mature in other ways they might be. Although it's important for parents to have an open dialogue with their children, and having a good relationship can help the teens mature, it really isn't something that can be "taught." Real emotional maturity can only come with time and experience, and yes, there are some people for whom it takes a really long time. The porn issue is different, and that is a big problem, especially with the easy access to pornography these days. At any age, regardless of the level of sexual experience, watching too much porn can really harm a person's ideas about sexuality. I read a really interesting piece a few months ago, written by a guy in his mid twenties who discussed how his sex life was hugely messed up because he had watched too much porn. But that's really a separate issue. I don't expect to change your mind on this issue, and I know that teen boys spend a great deal of time thinking about this. I know it's always happened and will always happen. Some kids will have terrible experiences, and some will have perfectly fine experiences. I just wouldn't advocate it as a good idea.
[MENTION=53329]T.Trian[/MENTION] and [MENTION=38553]chicagoliz[/MENTION] : It's likely there isn't even any "right answer" to what you guys are talking about. So much is tied to the cultural background, personal values, even religion, and people can be so different in this regard. What works for some teens, doesn't work to someone else. I'd imagine the world was also different to him when he was 18 and to you when you were, and you two come from different cultural backgrounds which might also affect your perceptions and opinions. While Nordic countries are rather "uniformly liberal", there's more cultural variation in the US. I think one reason why I don't see it as a negative thing to "start early" is that if you live it up in your teens (sex being a part of it), you might be less likely to turn into a teenager when you should be an adult because you regret missing out on stuff as a kid. So you sleep around, get hammered every weekend, and act childishly and destructively in your relationships. But if you did dumb stuff as a kid, burned your fingers a few times, learned a couple of lessons, there's a chance you'll enter the adult life more maturely and can handle it better. Of course I don't say this applies to everyone. And maybe it's just me. I for one find adults who act like teens somewhat sad. Women mature (that verb is too vague for this purporse, but oh well) earlier than men, though. In general. I was quite mature and independent for an 18-year-old, but some of my female friends were e.g. still unable to make life decisions. Well, we do get sex ed when we're in junior high school, which kinda implies that "hey, this is the age you kids start experimenting with each other so you gotta know this stuff." No one said you should wait till you're 18 because it's the right thing to do. I don't really even know how else to mature that sexual & emotional department in your head but by experiencing stuff, and I can't see too much harm in teens growing up sexually with their peers, learning the ropes together, so to speak. That's kind of like what we humans have done since the dawn of time. I've sometimes wondered why people say this. Do they think the first time would've been better if they were older? Do they think they'd feel less or more exhilarated and less confused afterwards? A part of me does think that "yeah, woulda been nice to lose it to The Love of my life", but if that had been the case, I wouldn't be the person I'm now. Better regret something you did than didn't do and all that jazz. It's somewhat related to this thread though, 50 Shades being called "mommy porn", though many younger women read it as well, probably many virgins too. It'd be interesting to hear their stories, whether a cultural phenomenon like this has affected their ideas and expectations of sex. I also wonder if men feel pressure or confusion when it comes to these "dream men" recent hit novels or tv series portray. Not sure if any parent would, not to their own kids anyway. And I bet there're people out there who agree with you and aren't parents. [tongue-in-cheek] I suppose if at least boys started earlier, they wouldn't find their perceptions skewed by the time they're 22 and spent half of their life watching porn, thinking that's what sex is like.[/tongue-in-cheek] Curiously enough, I'm discussing this subject in our WIP (T and I write together. Btw, that's not why I'm more or less siding with him here) to which I wrote a 15-year-old boy from a religious background who loses his virginity to a rather free-spirited girl and ends up emotionally (and physically) battered as a result. There is no way I could credibly write him to deal with the situation like a 25-year-old would, so the lack of maturity definitely affects the portrayal.
I think it's due to different connotations. In conservative countries such as America, where it's perfectly ok for children to read and watch extreme violence every day of their lives, but a bare female nipple is a national scandal, sex is quite obviously a very controversial topic. Contrast that with another place where underage sex is seen as an optional part of normal human development, and these two teenage couples will be getting it on in two very different contexts. So the rebels from the conservative place will be much more stressed, inexperienced, ignorant of how to do it and how to keep themselves safe from disease and pregnancy plus if they get found out they are risking extreme punishment or, in some cases, being disowned, expelled from school, becoming a ridicule etc. It won't be a nice experience to remember, for most of them. It's just peer pressure in reverse.
A lot of people see it as normal human development, but the fact that in some cultures and contexts it's still stigmatized, tick me off. I can't wrap my head around it. It feels like needless social control. "Let's make your environment such that you will feel like shit for losing your virginity at 15 which will prove that daddy was right, it's a good idea to wait till marriage." Sorry, I editorialized there, but maybe this is something I will understand better when I'm older, more mature. I suppose this sense of liberalism also makes it difficult for me to want to burn every 50 Shades out there on stake like a good ole nazi, no matter how terrible I find the writing.
Despite growing up in America this is something I still cannot wrap my mind around. People get very up in arms about breastfeeding in public. Most women will drape a cloth over themselves and as far as I'm concerned when your kid is hungry your kid is hungry and so it shouldn't be such a big deal. As for the violence, I don't understand why that is more acceptable than sex. One would think if someone was uncomfortable with one they'd be uncomfortable with the other. Gore is more acceptable than artistic nudes but why? I can see where you're coming from on this even though I'm not a parent. It's natural to want to protect your kids from all potential harm. There are some serious creeps out there and no good parent wants to see their kid fall victim to that. Obviously not all people are bad unfortunately there's a lot of bad people out there. Some kids are taken in by that without realizing it and others can spot it. It depends on a lot of different factors. So I can definitely understand your concern and I don't judge you for it at all. You just want what's best for your child and that's a great thing.
Some sexual experience in one's teens is normal and healthy. But based on personal experience, lots of sex at that age is horrible. Most commonly, girls that lost their virginity early and/or were promiscuous in high school ended up utterly jaded and lifeless. They lost much of their passion and energy for life as well as sex. It was really sad to see in most cases. The girl that was once bright and energetic became dull and lifeless. Fucked-out. While not as pronounced in guys, there are comparable ill effects. Tying this to literature, numerous writers have documented this, with examples including F Scott Fitzgerald ("First Blood") and Mario Puzo ("The Godfather"). Reading further through this topic, many of the arguments are aimed at convenient strawmen. My initial post was about lots of sex during one's teens, as was chicagliz's reply, where she worried about teens 15 and under. However, T.Trian responded with Luckily, no one in the topic made this argument. As a guy who has regularly watched porn since he was 13...I partially agree.
I think this is why we shouldn't base our arguments on personal experiences as heavily as we do, especially on internet boards. People have so many different stories to tell. I for one find the bolded point somewhat dubious. Utterly jaded and lifeless? Hah! I mean, I'm sorry for these girls if lots of sex made them this way (yes, I'm sure it was just that), but how come we have such contradicting experiences? Which one of us is right? Or maybe we both are? Maybe we have to push the research button again and find out if there is a connection between lotsa sex as a teenager and losing one's joie de vivre. On a sidenote, Fitzgerald was a sexist who wrote a lot of sexist crap, a lot of men back then were that way, and I don't exactly hold it agains them; times were different and that was pretty much the norm. Many women accepted their inferiority and the control bestowed on them (and many didn't). While his stories are interesting portrayals of the roaring '20s, they were still his documentations sifted through his conscience. Well, I don't blame him. If I were a guy, I too would slander a lady who dareth be damaged goods when I got to bang her, let alone came home carrying another guy's load. Trollop!
[MENTION=53403]KaTrian[/MENTION]: I honestly don't know why it's so, but I noticed that Americans are rather isolated, culturally. Due to Hollywood, and all the modern conveniences, a lot of people in America are under the impression that everyone else shares all of their values, and they get confused when they realise they don't. I grew up in socialism, but in the background was catholic church, so I'm familiar with all the non-arguments that try to justify views such as 'no sex before marriage'. I once wrote a paper titled "Catholicism as a form of Stockholm Syndrome" where I theorised that repeated trraumatising of children in order to 'put the fear of God in them" with all the fantasies of fire and brimstones, goes a long way in messing society up, sexually. But I don't know America very well. Also, they are largely protestant, so maybe that makes the difference. It's just that with this obsession with violence and phobia of sex, it all seems a bit 'death cult'-ish to me, like Aztecs or something. It makes no sense, and yet, there it is. [MENTION=18047]TerraIncognita[/MENTION]: I lived in many places and the only place where breastfeeding in public, as well as sex-ed in primary school were completely normal, was the socialist country where I grew up. And from what I know, all the European socialist and communist countries had a liberal view toward this. Since all that fell apart and capitalism and church came back with the vengeance, everywhere I go it seems people have developed a severe phobia of female nipples, unless they are accidentally revealed to the paparazzi. It's an interesting phenomenon, to say the least. I am not saying that politics has anything to do with it, but deep down, I'm thinking it might. Perhaps the consumerism is driven by shame and depression about our own bodies, as well as obsession with sex, so free view of the nipple, because it's not profitable, needs to be abolished?
Based on the subsequent discussion, I do feel that I need to clarify that the reason I don't think it's a good idea to encourage teenagers to have sex isn't based on some kind of religious or moral philosophy. I think the abstinence only sex education is one of the most harmful and terrible ideas out there. I don't believe that sex is bad or that people (even teens) should be ashamed that they engaged in it. The reasons that I think it is better to wait are based on emotional, psychological, and physical considerations. Many teen relationships (not just romantic ones) are fragile. Teens are growing and discovering who they are, and many friendships can come and go. In addition, teens are constrained in many respects -- many major aspects of their lives are simply not within their control to change, such as where they live, where they go to school, rituals (religious and other) in which they engage, where they travel, how they travel, etc. One major cause of stress is having responsibility without authority, and in many circumstances, this applies to teens. As I mentioned, research has shown that some parts of the brain and thought processes, particularly those that deal with non-immediate consequences, are not fully developed until people reach their twenties. There are also a lot of aspects of relationships and general outlook that can only really mature after some time for rumination and reflection. When sex is added into the mix, all of the stakes are raised. It is a complication that can make many things much more intense, and much more difficult for many people to deal with it. Obviously, some people are better equipped to deal with these than others, but it always makes things more emotionally charged and more complicated. Just one practical aspect to deal with is the worst case scenario, or one very bad scenario, which is a pregnancy. This is a hugely stressful issue. Even having an abortion is a stressful and emotional decision, and unfortunately in many parts of the United States, there are a lot of people in power who have made this either impossible or as burdensome, stressful, and complicated as it can possibly be. The alternative of having a child is life-altering. It is not easy in this country to raise a child, and especially for a woman, regardless of socio-economic status or education levels, having a child lowers economic earning power. There was just a study released about professors -- women professors with children had lower salaries and lower positions than anyone else. There are obviously other considerations, and many people willingly accept this trade-off. But having a child when one is very young will create a huge obstacle in terms of education, and career choice. There is, for example, no low-cost or widely-available child care. In some areas, caregivers don't even need a license and aren't regulated. And even they are not particularly cheap. So if someone doesn't have some sort of family support, a young person, or even two very young people are put into a situation where enormous obstacles are stacked against them. I wish that it weren't this way, but unfortunately, in this country, it is the reality. Of course, the U.S. culture has this schizophrenic attitude toward sex, with the added complication that many Americans are not well-informed about other cultures. We've got some very scary, radical, religious-based groups over here who would like to impose a theocracy, and it is disturbing how much influence they have. A lot of that is based on keeping women subservient, and keeping people ignorant about sex is one way of doing that. I do not, in any way, advocate keeping young people uninformed about sexual issues. And I don't believe that a young person knowing about sex will lead to them engaging in it. It is a biologically based urge and remaining in the dark about it won't prevent it from being expressed. It's just that, given the way our society is structured, and the practical repercussions, combined with the higher stakes emotions that accompany sex, it is best not to tell teens that it's a great idea for them to run out and do it. It is better to wait until one is emotionally and psychologically ready for it, and should bad consequences result, that they are able to deal with those in a way that doesn't maximize the harm that can occur.
Thank you for explaining that chicagoliz. I agree with everything you said, and it's interesting, especially this deeply religious fringe. Do you think it's basically the same devout kind of religiousness as Puritans once had? I agree that practicalities supersede any philosophy and the most important thing is to help kids stay safe, but do you think that if, hypothetically speaking, kids in America were really well educated at how to protect themselves from the std's and pregnancy, and they also freely discussed the meaning of sex and the issues surrounding it, and if there wasn't any particular peer pressure surrounding it because enough kids were doing it or not doing it for the right reasons, that it would be ok? Because I'm just wandering about teens carrying the burden of society's hang-ups, about something so personal.
It's a slippery slope. Experimenting teens today turns into 5 year olds doing it in the bushes tomorrow (Brave New World)
Never said anybody did. If I did claim someone made that argument, could you point out that part of my post, because I must have missed it. Thanks for the clarification. And I agree with pretty much everything. I'm not saying we should pressure teens into having sex, not at all. I just would like to see a world where they are not judged for having sex, where they have been well informed about all the aspects regarding starting a sexual life, its consequences and ramifications etc, a world where it's okay for teens to experiment without fear of judgment if they wish to do so. If nobody is coerced or pressured into anything, the only teens to have sex would be those who honestly want to.
Agreed, although I find it just as pronounced in men, the only difference is the subsequent behaviour is more socially acceptable in men. The guys I know who were "players" back in high school, I find almost intolerable. One of them is a bizarre serial monogamist, who can't keep a girl for more than three months, and the others are, for lack of a better term; pigs. They are maladjusted. Just as many of the girls who were promiscuous in high school (generally with older men) are absolutely fractured. That said, I know a couple who have been together since they were 13, now married with one child (29) and they seem fine... I don't know them that well though.
It's a complete mystery to me how such damaging views can survive for so long. Imagine the generations of frustrated, freaked out people. This might explain the Cosmo statistic that something like whatever (too big!) percentage of women over 40 never experienced an orgasm with a man. Or at all. Or that g-spot is a myth.
It's hard to really compare the Puritains or any religious group from earlier eras to today. Our social mores are different, and we have so much more scientific and medical knowledge upon which to base our world view. Throughout much of history, it was safest for women not to have sex at all, given their lack of power and of rights within most societies, and the relatively high rates of death from pregnancy and childbirth, as well as the lack of any treatment for a lot of diseases. So, given the state of affairs, trying to convince a woman not to engage in sex probably was in her best interest, even if there were other consequences. I'm not entirely certain by what you mean by "would it be ok?" I don't really know what "ok" means in this context. All relationships are complicated and teen relationships are especially so. Having sex generates a lot of intense feelings, and when one is young that can make things all the more difficult. That said, what can one do? Not much. If despite having an open dialogue, sex happens, then it happens. Everyone just has to deal with it. I would tell my kids that I'd really prefer that they not have sex until they are in college, but if they don't want to listen to me, I want them to be able to still talk to me with whatever issues they might have. Teen drama is often difficult, and again, sex in the mix just raises the stakes. So, I wouldn't tell my kids that they should go have sex. But if they do, I want them to be careful, in all respects. Being dumped by a girlfriend with whom one is having sex is probably much worse than being dumped by a girlfriend with whom they have not crossed that bridge. (And seriously -- what girl in her right mind is ever going to dump one of my sons??? ;-) )
Actually, that's not true. Give the historian Foucault a read. It was being talked about all the time. Also, here's an article concerning the Puritans and sex. Rather than not talking about it, they talked about it all the time. As foucault would argue, they talked about it while making laws on the issue of adultery, they talked about it at adultery trials, they talked about it during sermons, etc. etc. Furthermore, because adultery was forbidden, instead of secreting the children away from each other, parents instead pushed the sexes towards each other through marriage at a young age so that they could have sex. In short, a lot of what we think about the Puritans and sex is myth. As far as age is concerned, one thing to keep in mind is that a teenager (and the younger, the more true this is) does not have the physical ability to think through consequences of actions to the degree the adult does, and thus, his or her choices are not based on the same level of information that you or I would bring to the decision. What is my justification for saying that? From the HHS website (I was going to link studies, but this says it much clearer) Here is the link to the overall article on the subject (it's about five or so clicks on the forward button in). The question, then, is what is the best way to both deal with the raging hormones of a teenager, and also deal with the susceptibility to making reactionary and/or unhealthy, and possibly life-defining choices at a point where actual brain development has not yet allowed them all the tools to make such a decision in the best way possible? As much as we might want to think otherwise, the average sixteen year old simply is not an adult and does not have the ability to think and reason like an adult. It makes you wonder if, at least in a certain sense, the Puritans were onto something. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating marriage at thirteen in our current society. Rather, just that in light of everything we now know about the brain and in the world they lived in, how bad was it to have a society set up where the parents help their kids make choices about a mate, and then allowed them to join together in a sexual relationship in such a way that the majority of outcomes would be either neutral or positive, rather than negative?
At some point, one makes decisions based on the evidence of one's eyes. When I observe the same effect in dozens of examples, with hardly any exceptions, it would be foolish to discount all of that, no? I find this claim absurd and baseless, considering how outstandingly Fitzgerald wrote female characters (with both deep insight and sincere sympathy), and their status as the main protagonists in his stories. Then again, I'm hardly surprised, either; nowadays, it's very popular to dismiss any thinker or writer as a sexist, racist, and/or homophobe. Best of all, you don't need a shred of evidence to do so! Perhaps if your books become bestsellers, you too will one day share in the joy of having your works disregarded as racist, sexist, homophobic nonsense by random people on the Internet! Back on topic; Mario Puzo and F Scott Fitzgerald wrote about the same ill effects from girls having sex too early and too much. Is their life experience and knowledge also worthless? This is just plain ignorance. Fitzgerald never, ever disparaged a single female in any of his stories for being sexually free. Have you even read "First Blood"? Josephine Perry is a very sympathetic, if flawed protagonist. Very much agreed. I have also noticed that guys who had too much sex with too many girls in high school rarely have much respect or consideration for women, and have severe difficulty maintaining relationships. (Not just with the opposite sex, either) Then why bring it up at all? If no one made such an absurd and extreme statement ("no one should have sex before 18!"), then why did you feel the need to mention and then beat up on the strawman?
Honestly I think it is driven by that. If you look at all the ads for beauty products and weight loss and break them down to their core elements it's all the same. Make someone feel ashamed and make them feel our product is the only way to fix those feelings. If there's not a need for it create one. I quit buying fashion magazines many years ago and more recently have primarily watched tv after it was recorded so I could skip commercials. I felt like I was being brainwashed. There was no evidence to prove my worth was derived from my looks other than a general societal attitude of such. There is no scientific evidence to back up only those who fit in the media's narrow beauty ideal are healthy. There is also no evidence to prove a person's worth is derived from their health either. I realized after eliminating so much of those ads I was bombarded with from my life that it got easier to love myself as is. I think it's sick and it's mentally unhealthy to fill your head with that garbage. It creates a small mindedness that leaves a very narrow idea of worth, happiness, and beauty. I can't be happy until I have x, y, or z. I can't be worth something until I fulfill x, y, or z. It's the epitome of greed to drive people to eating disorders, suicide, and just a general hatred of themselves and others to sell crap no one really needs. I'm not saying it's wrong to want nice things or even useless things that make you happy for whatever reason. It's unhealthy and wrong when it becomes the end all be all of a person's life. It's wrong and unhealthy when it causes people to become so narrow minded they are hateful to anyone who is unlike them. And these are the reasons I will probably never be rich. I just feel like advertisement is such a slippery slope. People have found every way possible to bend the rules regarding false advertising to the point of no one being able to be sure if a product is what it claims to be or not.
