Posted on 11/05/2007 3:40:48 PM PST by wagglebee
Tila Tequila has been Playboy’s Cyber Girl of the Week. She has self-published singles titled “F--- Ya Man,” and “Playgirl Central,” where she proclaims “I don't want no love, I just wanna get screwed!" She’s got more “friends” than anyone in the history of MySpace. She recently announced her bisexuality, and stars on a popular new MTV reality show. Tila has become a sign of the times.
Tila Tequila and her career have prompted ruminations on the nature of celebrity in The New York Times, and she’s been profiled in TIME magazine. But more than anything, the Tila phenomenon highlights a pernicious trend in American culture: Celebrating young women only for their “sexiness” and their willingness to flaunt it -- rather than for character, intelligence, or talent.
On “A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila,” both straight men and lesbians vie for Tila’s affections. To do so, they engage in a variety of sexually explicit activities features lewd behavior among the contestants, encouraged and applauded by Tila herself, including group sleepovers and raunchy rounds of “Truth or Dare.” It is the most popular show in its time period among people 18-34, and no doubt has many younger viewers.
Certainly most young people understand that what they’re watching is more than a little over the top. But seeing the behavior also normalizes it – and allows women like Tila to set standards for young people all across the United States. When the culture tells girls that sexual decision making comes down to nothing more than “if it feels good, do it,” they become pressured to conform to a sexy ideal that’s as unwholesome as it is difficult to attain.
That’s quite a contrast from the days when American society (and media of all sorts) reflected a consensus that took into account the dangers – not only physical, but also emotional, psychological and even spiritual – of giving too much too soon. Now, girls have lost much of the social support that once buttressed decisions to abstain from sex, and parents and clergy are left trying to protect them from a culture that glamorizes sexual promiscuity and exhibitionism. Because of the example set by “celebrities” ranging from Tila Tequila to Paris Hilton (who came to prominence after the release of a sex tape), it seems more difficult to resist the advances of boys interested in nothing more than sex, appropriate to wear revealing clothes, and acceptable to behave in suggestive ways that would have been unthinkable even twenty years ago.
The results are devastating. Giving too much, too soon can result in girls confronting emotions including regret, anxiety, guilt, shame, and lack of trust in males. In fact, recent academic research has suggested that even modest sexual experimentation increases the risk of depression for girls, so it’s worth asking: Does the widespread sexual behavior celebrated by teen culture explain in part the CDC’s latest report finding that suicide rates among preteen and young teen girls had spiked by a whopping 76%?
It’s not easy to fight the pernicious messages being purveyed by the culture – but making the effort is important for the mental, physical and spiritual health of America’s girls. And as difficult as it may seem to bring about change, it is possible to create a more wholesome teen culture if people realize that their objections to the status quo are hardly idiosyncratic. After all, concerted effort and dedication on the part of environmentalists have brought us to a point where retailers are beginning to package detergents in smaller, more “earth-friendly” bottles and businesses brag about how “green” they are. Government involvement is unnecessary (and, when it comes to free expression, unwise) when Americans themselves are willing to confront the sexual saturation of the culture and demand something better.
It’s high time for a change. After all, a culture in which someone like Tila Tequila can be vaulted even to the outermost rings of the celebrity galaxy isn’t anywhere that America’s girls belong.
Remember, if ‘for the children’, just like SCHIP.
Yep! One of the reasons the left supports a sexualized culture is that it produces more Democrats and leads to real nanny statism. As opposed to the imaginary nanny statism we keep hearing about from the libertarian types who think America was a Taliban-style theocracy until the 1960s or 70s.
That is enforcing your value systems on somebody else who does not adhere to the same set, and by external action, pressures him or her to take actions they otherwise would not take through free choice. Coersion.
You and I are simply arguing degrees.
There is a difference. Those are real crimes committed by one person against another. The purpose of coercion in this case is protect people from themselves, which the govt has no business.
I think there are definite cause and effects here in that regard. We can take a laissez faire attitude as members of society, and allow generations of women to be abused, and end up as votes squarely against us in the ballot box for the true nanny state of Hilary, running on the fuel of their anti-male sentiment, correction, hatred of males because of deep scars.
Some of the so-called entertainment out there is toxic and a lot of it is just dumb. However, a lot of stuff in modern society is toxic and more than a little is just plain dumb.
Of course, countries like Sweden and Holland that are very libertine on matters such as these are the ultimate nanny states. Government in virtually all western nations has grown exponentially since the sexual revolution in the 60s, and there’s a reason for that. A sexually libertine society by nature becomes a weak, dependent society populated by people who want to be taken care of by mommy, and mommy turns out to be nanny state government.
I encounter them every day. College kids awash in sex and dependency. “The government should, like, provide us with stuff.”
Your view of Society, and its potential and propensity for erosion—which is what I am addressing—and the “coercive” effect that popular culture accordingly has upon myself as an individual and minors in my charge, versus, my view, must differ somewhat and there is probably no meeting of the minds here I would assume.
A sexually libertine society by nature becomes a weak, dependent society populated by people who want to be taken care of by mommy, and mommy turns out to be nanny state government
That ranks up there as one of the oddest things I’ve ever heard.
Take a look at the magazines on any store shelf. Sexualization is aimed at younger demographics than ever before. Sickens me to think some suits in a carpeted room decide this is good for business.
That we will be able to forget her might be her best attribute.
I think most of popular culture is garbage. I rarely watch sitcoms. I trying to figure out how Tia tequila figures in all this.
Todays problems in high schools go beyond popular culture. If a teenage girl or a woman in her 20s feels the need to model her life after “Sex in the City” then there are bigger problems than the culture. Where are the parents???
The problem with woman voting for Hillary is not because they are man haters because of the culture, it’s because they have never been taught that their lives were their responsibility. The nanny state has grown out the economy becoming less labor intensive and more dynamic. And individuals are told by politicians that they are entitled to govt subsidies. No one has the coconuts to tell people that they are responsible for their own lives.
Like I said, we probably won’t come to agreement.
"Is our sex-obsessed culture hurting young women?"
Some here would say "Yes", and some would say "No".
It is as simple a debate as this.
Well, then, I'm sure you can give me a list of places that are sexually liberal but filled with rugged individualists who hate big government. Let's see....
San Francisco?
Massachusetts?
Canada?
Sweden?
Hollywood?
Am I getting warm?
yep tween that and fembots who never got dates or even like men so much
You do realize that every location you named is thriving economically?
As much as it pains me to say this, rugged individualists are pretty much a thing of the past. Inherent in the concept is the idea of a generalist with a wide skill set. The kind of guy who can bandage a wound, shoot well, and change the oil in his car.
Those people who are succeeding and thriving in the modern world are specialists with very narrow high level skill sets.
Well, you’ve moved the goalpost here. I said sexually libertine areas tend to become nanny states. You said that was ridiculous. I cited some examples and asked you to cite some counter examples. You now respond by telling me the places I cited are doing well economically, which, of course, wasn’t the issue.
Madison was right when he said only a moral people will remain free. Europe is learning that the hard way as the EU leviathan state engulfs them. We’ll learn the hard way, too.
I agree with you. A sexually promiscuous society ends up leading to more government. It doesn’t promote responsibility that’s for sure.
You’re correct on that — I didn’t keep my eye on the topic.
However, I maintain that libertines don’t necessarily create nanny states. I just don’t see the connection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.