Comments on: Your generation was more into sexualizing young girls

By: Misha

Misha — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 00:57:18 +0000

The reason why the data sometimes differ between Wikipedia vs. Playboy's official website and books is because Playboy doesn't tell the truth all the time. They admit to Elizabeth Ann Roberts being under 18, because of the legal case, but they make it seem as if it was an accident and that she was nearing 18, when in fact she had just turned 16 and she told me that Hefner knew exactly how old she was all along. They pretend Cynthia Myers posed at 18, but she herself has repeatedly said in interviews and at her official site that she posed at 17 three months before her 18th birthday.

In fact there are a dozen more Playmates under 18 besides those two, and that's just counting the American edition!

Linda Moon is passed off as an 18 year old by Playboy, then and now, but her photographer said she was 16. Another is Patti Reynolds, who was 8 months shy of her 18th birthday when her centerfold got published, based on her undisputed birthdate.

The most recent one seems to have been Penny Baker, who posed at 17 and was published in January 1984, just 3 months after her 18th birthday. Big magazines like Playboy require months of lead time, especially for important features like the centerfold, which are made well in advance of publication.

The Wikipedia data on Playmates is actually pretty reliable most of the time. I don't know if its claim that Gina Goldberg was 17 when she posed in 1981 is right, however.

The current hysteria in the United States and Australia over "teen sexualization" is social engineering by totalitarian-minded people who deny the facts of nature, and it's high time the debate was taken back from fanatics. Otherwise we'll continue to witness the farce of big magazines pretending all their models and actresses are 18 or older (Playboy isn't the only one that's lying) and their subscribers pretending they dislike looking at women before midnight on their 18th birthday.

By: arosko

arosko — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:32:44 +0000

Remember that better time when college coeds frolicked on the quad lawn, safe from the eyes of older males, who were drawn instead to the allure of a mature woman?

I hope this is sarcastic...

That's hardly evidence of their being sexualized, though -- no guy is actually looking at them as a sex object, and dressing like an adult doesn't make you behave like one sexually.

Are you really that sure of this? With girls under 10, and for the vast majority of the adult male population, I would agree. On the other hand, with teens? While it may be culturally unacceptable, I would have to say it does happen. I would have assumed that the highly discerning and often taboo-disregarding readership at GNXP would be aware of this distinction.

By: McGraw

McGraw — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:40:25 +0000

STDs were high in the 1950s. It might be fair to say that Americans have been sexually “immoral” for as long as they can remember………

By: daveinboca

daveinboca — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:48:28 +0000

Diana is correct about a breakdown in public morality. I can remember the first Playboy hitting the stands with Marilyn M. on the blanket in the altogether.

The explosion of technology & the complete collapse of the nuclear family because of the explosion of drugs & breakdown of the urban landscape were symptoms of this overall breakdown.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Tim Russert's mentor, wrote at length about the downfall of the nuclear family & Tim's memories of a warm & caring family seem a century or two ago.

The public sector has intruded into private lives & the family's autonomy with disastrous effects.

When 70% of kids in the black community and 30% of white babies are born to unmarried parents, I call that a breakdown in morality.

No doubt about it.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:12:32 +0000

This is a very interesting report; although I feel that I bring to your attention that I have tried to use Playboy data before, and there's a number of problems with it, which could possibly skew your results, and possibly render them inaccurate.

1. Wikipedia data on Playboy models often differs from data given on Playboy's website (I assume this is because of transcription errors with one handed typing and not because Wikipedia editors have more accurate sources).

2) Various literary sources mention that Hugh Hefner insists on choosing the Playmate of the month for each issue himself, so the data could be more about just one man's preferences, rather than a change in societal preferences.

3) According to Leif Ueland, models often don't know their vital statistics. In his book about the search for the playmate of the millennium, he reports a story that when the girls were filling in their photo release forms; if they didn?t know their measurements, then the model coordinator would tell the girls to list their bra size, for both bust and hip measurement, and then just subtract 10" for their waist measurement.

Hope this helps,

Jonathan

By: Thursday

Thursday — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:34:19 +0000

I already presented nationally representative data showing that's not true.

Follow the money.

By: agnostic

agnostic — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 02:13:04 +0000

Porn consumption went way up with the introduction of videocassetes, where you didn't have to go to some sleazy theatre.

I already presented nationally representative data showing that's not true. Anyway, this deserves a post of its own.

By: Thursday

Thursday — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:46:28 +0000

Uh, ever hear of the Hays code or the even stricter censorship on television. You couldn't even say the word "pregnant" on TV.

Elvis' dancing could only be shown from the waist up. And now we have Dirrty being blasted into livingrooms everywhere.

In my own lifetime, I can remember even during my undergrad years almost no one in polite converstion would admit to watching porn. There was none of this stuff about coming up with your porn name or whatever.

Porn consumption went way up with the introduction of videocassetes, where you didn't have to go to some sleazy theatre.

By: TGGP

TGGP — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:49:04 +0000

Reminds me of what John Derbyshire said about Lolita. It's one of the few examples where our society has gotten more socially conservative.

By: agnostic

agnostic — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:39:35 +0000

rather penalties for providing anything even hinting of that nature were so severe that every provider played it safe.

I kind of doubt that -- they were just forced to keep records of age, and it's not like it's easier to keep records for older vs. younger females. They still produce materials themed around schoolgirls, coeds, etc., and the phrase "barely legal" appears in many titles.

Guys really do seem to go more for older females than they did before.

I wonder if that's a result of feminism or of greater male immaturity

Remember the details -- these trends started in the early 1960s, about a decade before feminism became visible, let alone powerful. How do you measure male immaturity? (Aside from doing a principal components analysis on a database of GNXP contributors and loyal readers.)

By: Peter

Peter — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:59:09 +0000

whiskey -
I believe (not 100% sure, however) that there is a “safe harbor” for pornography producers. If they obtain certain forms of identification from actresses and maintain records thereof, they won’t be subject to prosecution if the ID turns out to be false and the actresses underage.

By: SFG

SFG — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:07:28 +0000

What about the increasing masculinity? I wonder if that’s a result of feminism or of greater male immaturity… I remember when male nerds used to fantasize about cheerleaders instead of nerd chicks…

By: whiskey

whiskey — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:16:31 +0000

Trajan23, that is because most entertainment is by and for women. Selling them fantasies that they're still hot and desirable as a 20 year old at age 40 or older.

One of the publicity stills for the Sex and the City movie has Sarah Jessica Parker, in some ridiculous dress, looking stringy, with an "in-love-with-herself" look on her face, being gaped at in awe by a bunch of much younger, hotter women passing by on the sidewalk.

That is the fantasy.

I'm shocked no one has commented on the most OBVIOUS reason for the increase in ages for Playboy Centerfolds, Miss America, and most particularly porn stars.

What happened in the 1980's to drive up the ages so dramatically? Why, Ed Meese, his commission on pornography, crusades against porn in Congress and the media, and the infamous Traci Lords incident (she worked as a porn star while way under 18). Thus the incentive for porn makers to choose women who were never in doubt as to being well over 18.

Similar pressures being brought to bear (obviously not as extreme) on Miss America and Playboy would also skew things, far from demand, but rather from a legal liability standpoint.

You can't discuss American culture without discussing how legal penalties shape things. I doubt men stopped liking hot young chicks, and got preferences for older women, rather penalties for providing anything even hinting of that nature were so severe that every provider played it safe.

Certainly the evidence suggesting that in teen pregnancies, the fathers were about 6.7 years older on average (IIRC, don't have the cite, just working from memory here guys) does not indicate a preference for older women.

By: trajan23

trajan23 — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:16:26 +0000

To carry on the chorus, the teenage bride theory does seem to carry a lot of weight ; prior to the 1960s, people were a lot franker about what constitutes a woman’s aesthetic peak; Hence, the need to put a young girl on display, as it were, during her prime. Modern day society goes to rather extravagant lengths to persuade itself (SEX AND THE CITY, etc.) that a woman in her 30s can effectively compete with women in their late teens and 20s.

By: agnostic

agnostic — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:38:05 +0000

First of all, in the past the culture was a whole lot less sexualized period. To name only one example, porn is way more mainstream now. Whatever sexual images or ways of dressing that were out there may have featured younger girls, but those images and ways of dressing were a _lot_ tamer than the images put out today.

Is that true that it was less prevalent? According the to General Social Survey, a huge national poll conducted every year, the percentage of Americans who've seen an x-rated movie within the past year goes up and down somewhat, but has stayed within roughly 15 - 25% of the population, from 1973 to 2006. Granted, this only tracks if they've seen an x-rated movie at all -- maybe there are more people who've seen *lots* of porn recently. Still, about 75% or more haven't even seen one.

Also, 1973 is about the earliest time you even could see an x-rated movie, so for pretty much the entire history of porn movies, they haven't increased much in popularity.

Playboy's peak circulation was in the early 1970s, when there was a smaller population, so the fraction of the population reading it is even smaller than absolute circulation would suggest.

It's only Wikipedia, but their entry on the history of pornography suggests that there was quite a bit of softcore, hardcore, and nudie stuff going around at least since the turn of the 20th century (and explicit, cheap prints going back further). Neziha mentioned tijuana bibles:

http://tijuanabibles.org/cgi-bin/hazel.cgi?action=home

My impression of the past is that it was a lot seedier -- maybe not smalltown life, but that's not overrun by debauchery now either. Think of how clean and pure New York is today compared to the 1920s through the 1980s. Or look at Berlin!

http://archive.salon.com/sex/feature/2000/11/22/weimar/index.html

I haven't done a lot of research here, obviously, but I don't think most people who claim the past was less sexualized have either.

Since the teenage years were a prelude to matrimony, not a career, people were pretty realistic that these young girls were going to be trying to attract husbands at that age.

That sounds plausible. Again, I'm not trying to argue whether it was good or bad, only whether or not what the declinists say is true -- and it's not.

By: Neziha

Neziha — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:24:05 +0000

Just because pornographic materials were more undercover doesn't mean they were any less "depraved". Look up Tijuana bibles sometime for a taste of what the people of the 1920s-1950s were looking at/passing around under the school desks ;)

Playboy replaced them, and was a lot less explicit - but only because it wasn't black market.

As the stuff became legal, it adhered to community standards more, so it ended up tamer.

By: Thursday

Thursday — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:07:35 +0000

By: Ben Capoeman

Ben Capoeman — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:31:32 +0000

Increase in living standards? Those 20 year olds in 1950 were born in 1930 and survived the great depression. Average life span in the United States was 69 in 1950, as opposed to 78 in 2006, according to Gapminder. In time of famine a higher body fat percentage is popular because it's not as easy for poor people to obtain. It's hard to remember that America was once a place of famine, because, well, I had Grandma put away. Today, with America's food surplus dropping prices around the world the only skinny poor people in the US are crack addicts. A well toned figure means you can afford a gym membership. One of the drawing attractions of my workplace is its on site gymnasium and workout rooms. (I leave my cubicle and waddle past it several times a week.)

By: trajan23

trajan23 — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:48:40 +0000

The increase in living standards might have something to do with this; George Orwell once remarked that a more youthful appearence was one of the key demarcaters of social class in Britain, with a middle aged Upper class individual nearly always looking younger than a working class person. Perhaps this Uper class tendency has simply spread more evenly throughout the population.

By: trajan23

trajan23 — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:43:33 +0000

One possibel explanation for the increasing age of beauty contestants and playboy playmates is the trend towards a prolonged youth in our society; look at stars from the 1930s through the 1960s. A man or woman in his or her 30s looks substantially older than a perosn of similar age today.