In response to:

Genderfication of Adolescence

jaybird8 Wrote: Feb 22, 2013 12:16 AM
"No one would wish back the bad old days of repression and double standards rigidly imposed by cultural institutions." Speak for yourself. The culture was far more moral and civil back then. Just look what we have now. This is better?
Auspex Wrote: Feb 22, 2013 10:31 AM
Was it really? Or was it just more occluded? In this argument, I always remember the story on Little House on the Prarie when little Jack had a girlfriend and was accused of getting her pregnant, only to find out her father was the father. But daddy was really good at occluding the truth and had his girl too cowed to tell the truth. In the end the girl was murdered by dad, but the truth came out, albeit too late.
soliton2 Wrote: Feb 22, 2013 10:42 AM
Another example of occluding is the events at Benghazi, but that is real.
Or how about the occluding of the facts that undisciplined behavior often results in udesired consequences?
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Feb 22, 2013 8:42 AM
Research does not support this. The culture was far more segregated, violent, and deviant. For most of human history, the average person toiled and labored hard for a very subsistant existance. Far more children died before they reached age 2 and far more women died in child birth. Even if you go back to the 50s, there was still racism and violence. And if you actually research trends from the Bureau of Justice, you'll see that deviance has gone down a great deal since the 50s. So I think objectively, we can say that we're better now than we were 50 years ago.
soliton2 Wrote: Feb 22, 2013 8:48 AM
Murder, drug, crime and all other rates are higher according to research.
>>The culture was far more segregated, violent, and deviant.
Not true, according to research.
>>Far more children died before they reached age 2 and far more women died in child birth.
Adjusting for health availability and advances, not true.

>>Even if you go back to the 50s, there was still racism and violence.

No one said there wasn't.

>>And if you actually research trends from the Bureau of Justice, you'll see that deviance has gone down a great deal since the 50s.
Not true. Also note that deviance has been redefined.

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Feb 22, 2013 9:54 AM
Please cite the research that indicates that murder, drugs, and crime is higher. And what do you mean by health availability and advances? My point was that before those advances, things were substantially worse. And even for the traditional forms of deviance (theft, murder, rape, etc.) the Beureau of Justice has indicated that those are all down too. Again, please cite your research.
soliton2 Wrote: Feb 22, 2013 10:26 AM
Please cite you research also. FBI , Uniform crime report. Peaks were in the 90's
soliton2 Wrote: Feb 22, 2013 10:34 AM

Please also define what things were substantially worse.
AZYaateeh Wrote: Feb 22, 2013 11:36 AM
Murder rates would be five times what they are without modern medicine to turn murders into assaults.
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Feb 22, 2013 1:38 PM
This is where I obtained my research. If you have data that conflicts with it, I would certainly like to analyze it.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=31
David3036 Wrote: Feb 22, 2013 7:14 AM
So you're OK with double standards? Men do what comes natuarlly but if women do it they're sluts? If a girl gets pregnant it's her own fault and not the guy's?

If you think things were more moral "back then," you probably weren't there in whatever era you're talking about. I was a teen in the uptight 1950s when TV couples slept in twin beds. But I can promise you that people were NOT more moral. They just hid their behavior better. Pregnant girls were sent away to "visit relatives" and parents forced them to give up their babies for adoption. Today's openness about sex is a LOT healthier.
soliton2 Wrote: Feb 22, 2013 7:59 AM
Big improvement. Soaring rates of unmarried teen and unwed mothers. Abortion (rip the baby out) rather than adoption. A lot healthier?
rhough Wrote: Feb 22, 2013 8:01 AM
It's a demonstration of what the author alluded to - a desensitization to sexual deviancy rather than the special union be tween a man and a woman within the bounds of marriage as God designed and intended. But the perversion of man grows and becomes more acceptable as we move into a more 'enlightened' state. Right... The reckoning is the results we see now in the broken relationships, more unwed mothers abandoned by men who have no respect for women due to the callous nature of 'hooking up' and of course children who suffer (along with society forced to support all forms of sexual deviance) from lack of parental support... You always reap what you sow, more than you sow and keeps you longer and costs you more than you want to pay.
Rhcrest Wrote: Feb 22, 2013 8:08 AM
Not to mention an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases with lots of new antibiotic resistant mutations. Diseases that will led to all sorts of cancers 40 years later down the road. Having indiscriminate sex is literally taking your life in your hands
Kenneth L. Wrote: Feb 22, 2013 8:36 AM
Today's openness to your anti-intellectual vacuity is embarrassing.
"Pregnant girls were sent away..." Yeah, there were rare cases of pregnant girls. Now there are plenty of them in our inner-city, poor, mostly minority populations who raise kids without the benefit of education, a father, proper nutrition, values, role models, etc., etc. So we're living with large areas of lawlessness, nightly shootings, drug wars and early incarceration.
But at least we can enjoy sex without the guilt burden of the '50s. And at least we're not guilty of a double standard.
soliton2 Wrote: Feb 22, 2013 9:02 AM
KL

I envy your ability to shoot down stupid comments.
rmccarthy Wrote: Feb 22, 2013 12:55 AM
It is both better and worse. The extreme example would be "The Crucible" and it could apply to both religious and secular dominance.
soliton2 Wrote: Feb 22, 2013 8:23 AM
<
Another extreme example could be Rome circa 60 AD. Government dominance and complete freedom (at least in the aristocrtic classes). Where did that lead?


Not so long ago, "gender" was something mostly of interest to flirtatious nouns. But then, as the culture became both more vulgar and more squeamish, "gender" replaced "sex" as the distinction between "him" and "her." Now "date," which described how him and her got acquainted, is replaced by "hook up."

Gender used to tell us about language; now, it describes behavioral roles. The word sex was unambiguous, referring to the natural biological differences. But the genderfication of sex expands to encompass the experiences of the transgendered, lesbian and male homosexuals.

Whereas sex refers to two, gender creates a crowd -- emotional...