Are you defining as a "child" anyone who is under 18? 16?

If so, is your concept of human sexuality that it springs into being fully formed at that age? That people before the statutory age, in effect, have no sexual thoughts, feelings, or behaviour?

If so, why?

But if not, why not?

I'm basically on your side about commercial entities going too far in sexualising youth. Primary example of this include:
-That whole cottage industry of child beauty pageants and their creepy, pushy parents (which you don't mention);
-The faux-edginess manufactured to surround raunch culture that the entertainment industry and media use to target young people; and
-The proliferation of tawdry female pop stars, and all those R&B video clips which feature the worst elements of dance hall.

I'm pretty libertarian personally, but even I can see how these phenomena create am environment which can negatively impact youth development and health sexuality and body image.

However, I fear you lost me a couple of times with the overly wowser tone of the article. For example, your fixation on those gimmick t-shirts slogans. I didn't see any need to include them in your piece as they don't bolster your argument and simply make you easier to dismiss as a humourless fringe cultural critic.

A free word of advice for future cultural criticism: pick your fights carefully and don't object to all gimmicks because it's convenient. When you do, it appears that you are conflating judgements about taste ie. that something lacks class, with judgements about harm (ie. that something is really anti-social or regressive). Taste is mostly subjective, whereas you should be arguing from objectivity.

An excellent article Elizabeth.

You're going to have a tough time though, trying to educate some idiots who might have a hard time differentiating juvenile knowledge about sex in general, with the rather more abstract perceptions of peer acceptance and views of self and social behaviour and lifestyle- and also the understanding of the role sex may play in life, that seem to permeate in almost every teen movie- that you have outlined from the studies in your article.

It's strange- nudity and actual sex scenes (normal) are considered totally evil and carefully regulated- yet somehow a woman dressing like a hooker and straddling random strangers in a music video is somehow totally okay.
Stranger still is so many people don't seem to grasp it, and the superficial aspects seem to dominate their judgement (that the music video material is less 'sexual' than nudity- which is less sexual than 'sex' because that's how the media rates it.

It's actually harder to debate than it sounds- I've debated with people about alarming sexual harassment cases that couldn't figure out what the big deal was.

We are now reaping the fruit of the promiscuity promoted in the middle of last century. Parents are now paralyzed from placing any decent boundaries around their kids because of their own lack of character. These days we see wrinkled men and women still trying to hold on to their youth by tatooing their bodies. Why they insist on everyone having to be sickened by looking at it I really don't know. The rejection of God has led to a generations worth who is found only in body image. Gutless parents who allow the likes of Kylie, Madonna etc to be role models are as much to blame as anyone. Any attempts to change this culture without a heart change is vain. The problem is the sick heart more than the exposed body. A cleansed healthy heart will produce a dignity and modesty where children are no longer sex objects but people. Christ is the Only One able to do this heart change.

“Boys are absolutely being provided with sexualised role models to aspire to, just as much as girls."
No. It doesn't make this issue any less important, but this is overwhelmingly girls' problem. Boys have their own problem, being pushed to be tough from a young age. Few things are more heart-breaking than seeing a young boy who wants a cuddle being told to toughen up.

Girls will always want to get sexy while women who act in this are seen as powerful. The girls are simply practicing the behaviour that seems to be valued. When we tell older women about the negative consequences of this behavior, girls will stop wanting to act in this inappropriate way.

Benk <"...but this is overwhelmingly girls' problem. Boys have their own problem, being pushed to be tough from a young age. Few things are more heart-breaking than seeing a young boy who wants a cuddle being told to toughen up."

Benk, haven't you seen the men's underwear adverts showing good looking men with bulging biceps and bulging jocks? These show what men are supposedly supposed to look like in order to attract women.

Haven't you seen the adverts about erectile dysfunction or premature ejaculation? Young boys or teenagers are bound to be asking each other about these things, and comparing each other.

These sorts of things are shown on TV while young boys and teenagers may be watching, and you think they aren't being sexualised at just the same rates as girls?

Your comment is typical of many men these days. While jumping up and down about the sexualisation of young girls (and yes it is a problem), you seem to think that young boys are immune.

Yes, young boys, teenagers and men (as well as females) do need plenty of hugs and affection in their lives. But let's not confuse that fact with the media's sexualisation of our children

'It is all worth it If just one child is saved....'

I notice that seniors are in the gun too for not acting 'proper' (ie as they are told):

'Health and aged-care professionals have reported a jump in the number of over 65s leading an active sex life, including multiple partners.

The Council on the Ageing is calling for ''safe sex'' workshops and guideline policies to be implemented into aged-care and retirement facilities to help staff deal with promiscuous behaviour.

Council spokeswoman Anne-Maire Elias said over 65s were more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviour than their children.

''They were a generation who missed out on all the safe-sex education that was going on when this generation were in their 50s,'' she said.

''We love that these older people are sexually active but, with an increase in Viagra and multiple partners, aged care facilities should welcome safe-sex workshops for their residents.'''

http://www.theage.com.au/national/sex-and-the-seniors-plan-for-lessons-20100220-omrq.html

Where Oh where would we be without the moral majority and the university gender units telling us how to behave. Ban everything, 'people' just can't be expected to do the RIGHT thing, even where they have been programmed as school students to accept the new order of things.

suzeonline, benk was not, denying that boys are being sexualised as well, but merely linking in, to related issues of raising children to be adults, too early. As usual femanists are too busy trying to critique everything an "evil man" says to seriously discuss issues in an "adult manner".

Want a simple solution? How about one that will fix many other problems as well simultaneously? From global warming to binge drinking, other pollution, junk food, tobacco smoking, etc. You simply introduce changes to corporate law and taxation to encourage, "Good Corporate Citizens". The most obvious being company tax, offer a lower rate to businesses that "don't misbehave" or comply with a "good behaviour code" for their industry. EG, children's clothing manufacturers/retailers not sexualising children.

We could also add in individual people by offering lower personal income tax rates to good, or more concerned/committed citizens as opposed to people who merely live or were born here. If you register & vote, volunteer for national service, jury duty, clean up Australia day, don't smoke, drink, do drugs, watch your own weight & keep within a BMI range considered medically healthy, etc, all voluntary of course, if you or your company are happy, paying the higher tax rates, then you don't have to be a good boy or girl, etc.

Now, will you be honest enough to admit that, a man, with his 15% bigger brain solved all your problems for you? Or continue, "the gender wars" like, ChazPropaganda & all the other gender terrorists want you to?

More laws, controls and experts are not needed, this is an industry trying to prop itself up by finding more work to do and more government grants.

Parents already have effective means to ensure to ensure that their children are raised in a wholesome way, while at the same time are proofed against bad influences. Whatever happened to saying 'no', turning off the child-minding tele (always on) and not providing free caccess to the magazines and clothes racks that carry the offending 'sexualising' information and goods?

Here is an excerpt from story from Britain with an example of a fool of a mother who is astonished to find that her daughter follows her own behaviour modelling:

'The mom of Saffron Davies, a young girl who preferred the skinny image of herself, blasted the cult of airbrushed size zero models for making normal children think they were too fat.

"Saffron looks through my magazines and says her legs are fat," Amanda, 40, from Coventry in central England, said.

"There is a worrying culture of girls thinking they're overweight from a very young age." '

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/half-of-girls-aged-six-want-to-be-thinner/story-e6frfkui-1225832539394

It was that woman's choice and that of millions of other parents, mothers in particular, to choose how they raise their children. To demand State intervention through the crude, indiscriminate hammer of laws is an admission of failure and a waste of money. How many parents abuse booze, fags, analgesics and whatever in front of her daughters and sons and then demand government action to control the inevitable outcomes?

For there to be a 'worrying culture' of youth doing the wrong thing there has to be a break-down in parenting and the family (waste of time mentioning the now long-lost, but eminently useful extended family).

Formersnag <”Now, will you be honest enough to admit that, a man, with his 15% bigger brain solved all your problems for you? Or continue, "the gender wars" like, ChazPropaganda & all the other gender terrorists want you to?”

Formerneversnag, always a total pleasure to converse with you!
It might surprise you to know that being a feminist does not necessarily mean that she dislikes men.
It merely means that she is looking for gender equality and dislikes men that hate women. Fair enough?

Yes, a human male brain is larger than a human female’s brain.
You can thank this supposed male megabrain for the predominantly male politicians in Australia who have allowed the drafting of the Family Court Laws and centrelink payments etc
(Oh I forgot,, according to life in formerneversnag’s narrow world, the rabid feminazi paedophiles(?) caused all these things to happen)!

I, on the other hand, tend to believe that this extra male brain capacity is used to direct the activities of their sexual organs myself :)

A little joke for you now, formerneversnag :

God created ADAM and informed him that he had given him a brain and a penis.
The brain was a good gift as it allowed him to do many things.
The penis was also a good thing as it allowed the race to continue. The problem was that He (God) had only given ADAM enough of a blood supply so that he could only use one of them at a time...

suzeonline:"It might surprise you to know that being a feminist does not necessarily mean that she dislikes men."

Silly Suzie, of course she hates men. Have you read any of her rants? She's also pretty stupid, so you shouldn't find it too hard for you.

Cornflower:"Where Oh where would we be without the moral majority and the university gender units telling us how to behave."

Oh, we'd all be rooned, without doubt. After we blokes finished raping and killing all the women, the race would die out. After all, it's not as if we managed without them for the last 300,000 years or so...

Console yourself with the thought that Douglas Adams was right and when it comes time to leave this planet to escape the impending comet collision, along with the social workers they'll be the ones on the "B" ark; the one that's headed straight into the sun...

Your body image example is a good one. My ex is significantly overweight and has always had a tendency to be solid, if not hefty. One of her persistent themes is her "need to lose weight". My 13 year-old daughter, who is naturally slim, having inherited a light frame from my mother's side, is now starting to imitate her. She complains about having "puppy fat" and declines food "because I'm watching my weight", despite being naturally slimmer than most of her contemporaries. She's by no means anorexic, but the meme has been transferred.

Oh come off it antiseptic, you cant go around blaming women for anorexia. Everybody knows it's all mens fault for being attracted to woman.

Suze,

Lovin' the misandrist jokes. I love it when a feminist finally shows a sense of humour once the jokes are denigrating men.

Men, on the whole, just have a thicker skin than women. There may be men on TV with a six pack, but most men laugh happily at each others beer gut, thinning hair etc. A highly valued trait among men is not being vain or precious and being able to laugh at yourself.

Oh, and I can imagine the feminist outcry if women's sexual 'performance' was even discussed on TV, with adverts laughing at their inability to reach orgasm or bemoaning that it takes them too long to do so. It would be an outrage! Men on the other hand seem happy to shrug this kind of nonsense off.

benk is right. Men are taught from an early age not to be so thin skinned. And a good thing too.

For some reason, men seem to be able to distinguish between TV/advertising and reality. Maybe woman cant for some reason. Maybe that's why feminists think porn is so damaging. Women believe their relationships with men should reflect sex and the city and the latest romantic comedy, where men understand not many women look like the airbrushed images in magazines and on the internet.

Maybe most women really can, but it's just we only ever hear from the loud minority of feminists who talk for them. But then, why don't we ever hear anything from masculinists about the sexualisation of men.

Here's me thinking the topic was about the avariciousness of the sexualisation of children.

Apparently anyone who believes that men and women are equally responsible and entitled as part of our society, are man-hating feminists (especially when they make jokes at male expanse - as if men haven't been doing the same to women for eons).

But Houllebecq asks an interesting question:

<<< But then, why don't we ever hear anything from masculinists about the sexualisation of men. >>>

Why don't we? While we are not hearing much about the sexualisation of children from men (or if they do it is all the fault of single mothers) nor are they up in arms about the portrayal of men as sexualised beings. Hmmmmmm, must think about the reasons for that.

BTW what is a masculinist? Is it someone who believes men and women are equally responsible and entitled as part of our society?

Fractelle (Severin) you seem to have missed my point entirely.

It's only a small proportion of women who seem to be upset about sexist jokes. Nobody here is objecting to men being the but of jokes, rather objecting to the hypocrisy of your average feminist who likes a laugh at jokes denigrating men while being offended by similar jokes about women, and putting up the very existence of jokes denigrating women as evidence of a generally misogynist society.

'as if men haven't been doing the same to women for eons)'
That illustrates the mentality nicely.

'Hmmmmmm, must think about the reasons for that.'
I've already told you. Men have thicker skins. Probably most women also do. It's just we only ever hear the shrill cries of your average feminist that looks to be offended and upset and blame men about... everything.

'BTW what is a masculinist? Is it someone who believes men and women are equally responsible and entitled as part of our society?

I used masculinist as an antithesis to feminist with respect to gender. So I would say it would be someone who was interested in 'equality for men'. Not equality perse, but to leave all gender inequity in place where men are advantaged in comparison to women, but to make a lot of noise about every perceived inequality the other way around at every opportunity, and to twist any social phenomena into an example of an abusive women/victim man dichotomy. Hope that clears it all up.

So I suppose in the same way you'll never hear a feminist use women and responsibility in the same sentence (unless in 'the responsibility of men for/towards women'), no, your definition would be inaccurate for masculinists also.

I don't think you'd find too many masculinists. Most of the men I know are accepting of true equality for men and women, and take responsibility for their own vanity, can have a laugh at sexist jokes about either sex, and understand the difference between what they see on TV and real life.

Houellebecq:"I don't think you'd find too many masculinists. Most of the men I know are accepting of true equality for men and women, "

And that's the nub of the matter, isn't it? Feminism has thrived because most men are very happy for the women in their lives to be as fulfilled as possible. The trouble is that the women who get most fulfillment out of Feminist doctrine don't actually want any men in their lives.

You should start a separate thread about feminism: perhaps one with a clear issue?

By talking of the sexualisation of children the author does not define what she means by ‘child’, and thus fails to distinguish between children properly so-called – people who are physically sexually immature - and people who are physically mature but under the age of consent. To confuse, or fail to distinguish between these two categories in a discussion of sexuality is culpable ignorance, or deliberate dishonesty.

By referring to the problem as sexual*isation*, the author assumes a theory of *causation*. People have no sexual thoughts, feelings, autonomy or activities themselves. People are just plastic blobs under the impress of rugged exploiters. All their sexuality comes from what *others* have programmed them with as automatons.

But the author is in a separate category. She looks on tempests and is never shaken. She knows not only what values *she* should live by, but what everybody else should live by too; and if they don’t agree, why it goes without saying they should be forced.

She advocates reversing the onus of proof. Every communication by everyone about anything should be presumed guilty; its author should be imprisoned unless he or she can prove that it was *not* intended to sexualize “children”.

After I read this article, I saw a five or six year old girl on the street wearing a spangly T-shirt saying “My [heart symbol] belongs to Daddy.”

And I thought “What criminal pervert has abused this innocent child, by his expression purposely assimilating the concept of filial love with romantic or erotic love, thus seeking to confound them and to normalize incest and child sex abuse? Rape is commonplace in prison, but is not part of the formal sentence. If while imprisoned, some demented muscle-bound gorilla, with ‘love’ and ‘hate’ tattooed on his knuckles, were to beat this guy’s brains to a pulp, and ream his arse to excrutiation, who could say that would be such a bad thing?”

After all, to those who say my view is extreme, I say “But what about the children?”

Peter Hume<" By talking of the sexualisation of children the author does not define what she means by ‘child’, and thus fails to distinguish between children properly so-called – people who are physically sexually immature - and people who are physically mature but under the age of consent."

You are skating on thin ice here Peter.
The legal age of sexual consent in this country is 16 years and over.
Naturally most educated people would assume that the children the author is discussing are aged under 16.

We weren't discussing the difference between pre and post adolescent children.

A human being under the age of 16 is a CHILD no matter what they look like, whether you like it or not.
That's the law, and we should fight to keep it that way.

suzeonline, "A human being under the age of 16 is a CHILD no matter what they look like, whether you like it or not.
That's the law, and we should fight to keep it that way."

Not in Australia or at least not for some children, where multiculturalist and feminist alike turn a blind eye when it suits them. Some may have seen this story, but did anyone note that the offender was not charged with a sexual offence and his punishment was far less than one would have expected for his crimes, even despite his shame?

'During a 10-week reign of terror Morgan, of Moama, subjected the girl, who was his under-age sexual partner, to a series of attacks, where she was bashed, stabbed, humiliated and held captive.

He threatened to kill her, smashed a full plastic water bottle over her head, threw a knife at her, which struck her on the neck, and bit her nose.

Morgan made a weapon of a water hose and repeatedly struck her on the legs, threw a heavy tool, cutting her head, and forced her to stay in a bedroom for nearly a month.

Morgan pleaded guilty at La Trobe Koori Court to eight counts of causing injury intentionally, two of assault, one of making a threat to kill and one of false imprisonment.'

http://www.news.com.au/national/koori-reprieve-for-teens-shamed-attacker/story-e6frfkvr-1225833209499

Sex was no problem, huh? Exactly how did she come to be in his clutches and from what age? What about informed consent, how was that obtained from a child? Might there be an OLO article about about this case I wonder? Maybe not.

Houllebecq

I am well aware that your raison d'etre is to provoke and inject levity. So be it.

I find your interpretation of a 'masculinist' << So I would say it would be someone who was interested in 'equality for men'.>> interesting indeed. Does this mean that along with women, children continue to be sexualised? In the interests of men?

You talk of taking responsibility, most people (female and male) do take responsibility for their actions, it is always the nasty minority who fail to do so and cause all the grief.

Instead of acknowledging that both men and women can fail miserably in caring for children and working together to find a better way, you and the indefatigable Anti prefer to dispute anything any female poster here has to say.

In the interests of the topic as opposed to arguing over male and female rights; Steven Biddulph has suggested a that not having TVs in children’s or teenagers’ bedrooms as the best single protection of developing sexuality and mental health. He has also called for the establishment of a national organisation to monitor advertising and other products specifically aimed at children.

What say you?

Fractelle,

It's a long bow... actually it's not even an ACA standard segue from me using 'equality for men' (mocking the feminist definition of 'equality for women', which in itself is self contradictory, or maybe a deliberate way to position women as being universally disadvantaged) to 'sexualising women and children in the interests of men'.

I don't know what kind of women you know, but all the women I have known have been sexual beings. I don't know how one would sexualize a sexual person. It sounds good though. Maybe I can ask my partner to sexualise me tonight.

With regards to children, I am of the belief that children will see the world around them, and should rightfully and sensibly observe how it works. TV is one aspect of this, but I would personally not give my child a TV or computer in their bedroom, and not because I'm cheap.

Being a parent I see it as my responsibility to have a hand in educating my children about the forces at play in the commercial world, and being an informed critic of popular culture and advertising. So I intend my children to be perpetually annoyed by my cynical musings at each and every advert and show they watch on TV.

I will definitely teach my daughters that their body is their own and they are boss of it, that people judge by appearances even though they shouldn't so you should think about how you present yourself, that life isn't fair, people lie sometimes, that young women have more to lose than men in the case of failed contraception, to respect themselves and be kind to themselves, that sex is fun, flirting is fun but you should be careful people understand the messages you are giving them, boys have feelings too even if they don't look like they do.

Well there's heaps of other stuff, I'm making it up as I go. But the point is, well, I don't usually have a point. Feel free to mock and castigate me for my parental advice as you would Tony Abbot.

Houellebecq, I for one would not mock you for the advice you say you will give your daughters. It sounds exactly like what I have said and continue to say to my daughter- even though she is now 18.

You are so right in saying that the girl has so much more to lose if she agrees to unprotected sex. Unplanned teen pregnancies can ruin their lives in so many more ways than that of the young fathers.
And some of the dreaded sexually transmitted diseases can be fatal to both present and future partners.

With some of the truly dreadful stories I have told my daughter about some STD affected patients I have cared for in the past, I am amazed she even looks at a boy!

Unfortunately we can only vaguely control what they see and hear while they are with us at home. Much of the problems they face are presented to them when they are away from us out in the cruel world.

We can only do the best we can.
Good luck to you with your girls.
So far so good for me and my daughter, I think. :)

Houllie

Great advice, I get in trouble from Suze for saying more or less the same thing.

Suze

"haven't you seen the men's underwear adverts showing good looking men with bulging biceps and bulging jocks? These show what men are supposedly supposed to look like in order to attract women."

One problem that teenaged boys face is that the men that they idolise tend to be footy players or wrestlers. Very strong, blokey sorts of guys. The men that teenaged girls admire tend to be singers in boy bands and actors. There seems to be a huge disparity between what boys want to be (and have been socialised to respect) and what girls want. The women that teenaged boys admire are often the same as the women that many teenaged girls want to be. Sorry for introducing another men-are-worse-off-than-women theme, but boys do face some different problems to girls.

BTW I'd like to hire you as storyteller when my children reach puberty?

Suzeonline:"You are so right in saying that the girl has so much more to lose if she agrees to unprotected sex. Unplanned teen pregnancies can ruin their lives in so many more ways than that of the young fathers.
And some of the dreaded sexually transmitted diseases can be fatal to both present and future partners."

Me(in the sexual revolution thread):"until only 40 years ago a woman who opened her legs too readily was likely to end up pregnant in short order, while a man who put it about faced no such risk. Up until only 80 years ago, with the invention of penicillin, if someone got a venereal disease they had it for life. Both men and women shared the risk, yet only the woman risked passing it to an unborn child."

Funny how I was attacked for saying that, when it's an identical sentiment to that offered by Suzie...

I went on to say:"These facts lead to certain cultural prejudices designed to make it less scoially acceptable for women to engage in promiscuity: for their own protection rather than for any oppressive motives."

It seems that these social prejudices are still in full swing, but only for "girls", not "women". If a woman puts it about and gets duffed up or a dose, she expects everyone to be "understanding" and the State to drop everything to make her mistake as consequence-free as possible. If a man does, he expects to pay, one way or another.

Well I'm impressed, a sincere straightforward response from Houellie.

I agree with the points you have raised - particularly in raising your daughters to have self-respect - always a good antidote to any who would try to intimidate them.

What I find amusing is that both Benk and Anti are actually agreeing with Suze, I guess they must have actually read her post and considered all her points instead of reading in some "male demonisation". I'd say "well done" but that would be condescending of me, so I won't.

:-P

No comments vis a vis Steve Biddulph's suggestion of regulating children's television & advertising?

Nah, too much to hope for. Instead just another piece of nonsense from Anti claiming that pregnant women are just a leech on the state - no surprises there.

Fractelle,

'always a good antidote to any who would try to intimidate them.'

Well, of course. They will obviously be in grave danger, seeing as how all the men in the world are out to intimidate and probably rape them huh?

I did stupidly also advise them that boys have feelings and that flirting is fun but be careful about misunderstandings. I suppose one cant be perfect, and obviously that kind of information is redundant as women never tease or are cruel or abuse power in any way.

'No comments vis a vis Steve Biddulph's suggestion of regulating children's television & advertising?'

Naturally. The guys a tosser, and anyway I look after my own responsibilities and I'm not really interesting in telling other people how to bring up their own children. He can suggest what he likes, I'm sure people who advocate a free and open society will thwart him at every turn.

Severin:"Benk and Anti are actually agreeing with Suze,"

Actually, she's agreeing with me. I always knew she was more capable of learning than most of the rest of you lot.

BTW, I love it when the childless try to tell parents how to bring up children...

Severin

"What I find amusing is that both Benk and Anti are actually agreeing with Suze"

I would dare disagree with Suze, that would be controlling.

Benk is quite right...he would disagree with me at his own peril :)

A detailed and frank discussion with young teenagers about the pus oozing out of a syphilitic penis, or the large blisters of herpes covering the male or female genitalia so badly that they need a catheter to pee; usually holds off the thoughts of sex for awhile longer Benk!

'Septic, I would never go so far as to say I agreed with you, because I so rarely find any gems of wisdom from you that did not include a barb aimed at any and every woman known to man.

Even during this current discussion of the fight against childhood sexualisation, you still find a way to bring up your so called 'evil, money grabbing, child-stealing, loose single mothers' that seem to inhabit your narrow world.
How boringly predictable.

Silly Suzie:"Even during this current discussion of the fight against childhood sexualisation, you still find a way to bring up your so called 'evil, money grabbing, child-stealing, loose single mothers'"

erm...I did? Where?

Never mind hon, it must have been a shock to realise that you actually agreed with me and put it in black and white.

You'd best be off for a nice cuppa and a good lie down, you poor old dear. Perhaps you'll have that lovely dream where all the penises of the world ooze syphilitic pus... you know that one always makes you feel better.

Benk: <"One problem that teenaged boys face is that the men that they idolise tend to be footy players or wrestlers. Very strong, blokey sorts of guys. The men that teenaged girls admire tend to be singers in boy bands and actors. There seems to be a huge disparity between what boys want to be (and have been socialised to respect) and what girls want. The women that teenaged boys admire are often the same as the women that many teenaged girls want to be. Sorry for introducing another men-are-worse-off-than-women theme, but boys do face some different problems to girls.">

I've come back to read this a couple of times and think about it Benk. You've hit on something very important.

Could you talk a bit more about it?

If girls want boy band/actor types; and boys want to be tough-types - isn't what girls want strong enough to influence how boys shape themselves?

If girls are wanting to be like the women boys are interested in - why so? Why do girls want to be like that? (To be what men want, maybe?).

I'm interested in hearing more (especially male) opinions on all of this. I hope you all post a lot of opinions so that I can read and think about it at length.

Benk: Further to what you were saying. When I read your post it reminded me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxpblnsJEWM

One of my favourite clips. I think the main singer is the most attractive - blokey enough isn't he? - but a younger protege of mine (she being about 20 yr old) MUCH prefers the fine-boned androgynous fellow playing the guitar. He's not the first dark haired guitar player but the second one.

Is that the sort of difference you meant? If so, we seem to be witnessing a very interesting socio-cultural change between the generations don't we.