PDA

View Full Version : Hypersexualized Youth



Siebenbürgerin
Saturday, September 13th, 2008, 10:33 AM
A provocative new book released in Germany on Wednesday is warning that the country's hypersexualized youth is losing the ability to have meaningful partnerships.

Writen by Bernd Siggelkow, the founder of a Berlin youth centre, “Germany's Sexual Tragedy: When Children Stop Learning What Love Means,” describes shocking examples of childhood exposure to sex and pornography, including a 17-year-old who has had 51 lovers, a 12-year-old who invited boys over for sex games, and teens who share lovers with their parents.

“The children cannot mentally organize so much sexual information. The rift between physical and mental sexual maturity is growing,” Siggelkow said, adding that he fears this will increase teen pregnancy and create a more violent and commitment-phobic generation.

Siggelkow, who set up the Arche youth programme in Berlin's Hellersdorf district, describes 30 true stories of children he has worked with at the centre. Most of these children have single parents who struggle with unemployment and other social issues. Siggelkow describes eight-year-olds who watch pornography with their mothers, and 14-year-olds who pass their lovers on to their mothers.

More at source:
http://www.thelocal.de/14221/20080910/

BeornWulfWer
Saturday, September 13th, 2008, 08:03 PM
What are you complaining about? This is the pinnacle of civilisation! This is the nadir to which the liberals and feminists have been spending decades to achieve!

:oanieyes

I'm sure this is why divorces have been made easier so people can treat each other like another piece of consumerist meat.


including a 17-year-old who has had 51 lovers

That is truly shocking. Yet, what are we to expect from a society which plugs 24 hour coverage of loose moral tv shows and education which implores you to be free to express yourself and to be your own person?

I hope that child's parents tanned that sluts face till it bled. What an absolute disgrace.

Jute
Sunday, September 14th, 2008, 03:48 AM
This is really revolting. :mad:

Many people may not believe this, but many German tabloids actually show naked women on the front page (below the "fold"). And this is allowed by the state for some reason. Children can easily see these in the grocery stores or wherever they are sold. :|

Prostitution is legal; but beware if you speak publicly about the scientific findings of Leuchter, Rudolf, etc...

lei.talk
Sunday, September 14th, 2008, 11:19 AM
...many German tabloids actually show naked women
on the front page (below the "fold").

Children can easily see these...3oOCas3geXchttp://forums.skadi.net/member.php?u=7783

ladybright
Sunday, September 14th, 2008, 02:00 PM
It sounds like the book is focused on the extreme cases in this clinic. That just means that most youth are not this messed up but it is happening. They are the at the vanguard of broken lives. My father would have beaten anyone having sex with me at age 14 (because my mother would not let him shoot,she would have gone to police).

The parents are definitely at fault in these cases both the present and the absent parent. Allowing children to watch porn is much worse than a child waking up at night and seeing something in their parents room in my opinion.

I am glad that at one store at least things are properly filed.

Rainraven
Monday, September 15th, 2008, 06:38 AM
Teenagers/children have no respect for themselves these days. It's an awful circle where incompetent parents can't bring up their children properly then these children go on to become teen mothers themselves.

Blod og Jord
Saturday, April 1st, 2017, 11:46 AM
The problem is that children don't really get educated nowadays. They grow up in front of the TV, Playstation, Xbox, Facebook, etc. and the material for children (books, cartoons, games etc.) has also become controversial, showing too much violence and sexuality. Not to mention the clothes and other things marketed like makeup for children, perfumes, and so on.
It's also more common for children to have "partners" earlier and even lose their virginity and start sex lives at younger ages.
Feminism, and the absence of the mother from her child's upbringing is also responsible.

Catterick
Saturday, April 1st, 2017, 03:54 PM
Alarmist rubbish centering on batshit extremes that will exist in any society. This sort of thing has to be done by statistic. In which case certain youth demographics are much less sexual in the UK, USA and Japan. The need, in fact, is for youth to become more sexual not less, within appropriate context.

And an 8 year old cannot be influenced by pornographry one way or the other.

North Vinlander
Saturday, April 1st, 2017, 04:15 PM
The need, in fact, is for youth to become more sexual not less, within appropriate context.

Explanation needed. :-O

Catterick
Saturday, April 1st, 2017, 05:09 PM
Explanation needed. :-O

Well our birthrates are going down, and people are delaying parenthood till their 30s or 40s. Correct? Frankly I want 14 year olds to become parents instead of young people delaying adulthood. Though in normal relationships, of course.

Siebenbürgerin
Saturday, April 1st, 2017, 05:24 PM
14 years old is not old enough to be a parent, they are barely developing their young teenage skills.

At that age, teens are concerned with school and fun, so even those who become pregnant teens, they usually give the baby up for adoption or it's raised by the mother. The father is usually also out of the picture. :|

Blod og Jord
Saturday, April 1st, 2017, 05:35 PM
If you have 14 olds the responsibility of parenthood they'd probably end up neglecting their children and we'd have even more dysfunctional families.
Siebenbürgerin is right, that's no age to start a family.
Hyper-sexualization of youth also opens the door to paedophiles with fetishes for prepubescent girls. No, people have to be taught responsibility and the meaning of a family first.

Catterick
Thursday, April 6th, 2017, 12:59 AM
One can't define politics for scoring points off others, when it leads to suboptimal outcomes. Actual paedophiles with fetishes for prepubescent girls are so rare they are not even worth factoring in. You certainly can't take stances on demographic issues merely to piss off gays or Moslems either. Actually this isn't even about the age of consent as the people who object to teen motherhood think the early twenties is still too early. Even the whiter immigrant groups flatly ignore the age of consent whilst "our" society delays parenthood till the 30s or even later. It is at least better to have parents at age 14 than adults still childless at 40: and if kids sleep around its better a teenage mother than an abortion. What happens with the west is equivalent to what happened to the Shakers. Adopting every antinatalist measure from liberalised abortion to sexual prudery, while everyone else passes on their genes.

Today just about all smart white people have similarities to the Shakers, to the point the entire culture is obsessed with fear of procreation in some sense or other, from abstainence only sex ed to enthusiasm for gay and transgender lifestyles. Both "sides" are signalling against naturalistic attitudes to sexuality and parenthood. The Shakers were technologically innovative and an economic success story, and possessed far more virtues than the modern puritans, yet they doomed their genetic lines to extinction and so they were outcompeted by less conscientous outsiders. If you ditch the prudery you can be among the Darwinian victors: or you can wither and die with the other dead end whites.

There is a lot of class signalling in debates about demography and procreation: the "bad" white people are those with teenage motherhood and early sexual behaviour - even if within a monogamous context. Whilst the "good" white people shelter their kids till they have hangups about relationships at age 30 or later - by which age more successful genetic groups in the next neighbourhoods might have two or emore children. The "good" whites are a lost cause, dooming themselves to extinction, and would given the chance drag us down with them. Survival is essentially about cutting free from their toxic baggage.

TLDR: now is not the time to be sentimental about a "family values" that never really existed.

Here is a litmus test: two white, 20 year old English speaking girls with no further information about their ethics, politics, behaviour or backgrounds. One is a single mother from an American trailer park and the other is a childless college student from a US university who hopes to graduate so she can have a career. Who do you reflexively prefer and who would you prefer to be your daughter? That problem strikes at the root of the problem.

Huginn ok Muninn
Thursday, April 6th, 2017, 02:26 AM
One can't define politics for scoring points off others, when it leads to suboptimal outcomes. Actual paedophiles with fetishes for prepubescent girls are so rare they are not even worth factoring in. You certainly can't take stances on demographic issues merely to piss off gays or Moslems either. Actually this isn't even about the age of consent as the people who object to teen motherhood think the early twenties is still too early. Even the whiter immigrant groups flatly ignore the age of consent whilst "our" society delays parenthood till the 30s or even later. It is at least better to have parents at age 14 than adults still childless at 40: and if kids sleep around its better a teenage mother than an abortion. What happens with the west is equivalent to what happened to the Shakers. Adopting every antinatalist measure from liberalised abortion to sexual prudery, while everyone else passes on their genes.

Today just about all smart white people have similarities to the Shakers, to the point the entire culture is obsessed with fear of procreation in some sense or other, from abstainence only sex ed to enthusiasm for gay and transgender lifestyles. Both "sides" are signalling against naturalistic attitudes to sexuality and parenthood. The Shakers were technologically innovative and an economic success story, and possessed far more virtues than the modern puritans, yet they doomed their genetic lines to extinction and so they were outcompeted by less conscientous outsiders. If you ditch the prudery you can be among the Darwinian victors: or you can wither and die with the other dead end whites.

There is a lot of class signalling in debates about demography and procreation: the "bad" white people are those with teenage motherhood and early sexual behaviour - even if within a monogamous context. Whilst the "good" white people shelter their kids till they have hangups about relationships at age 30 or later - by which age more successful genetic groups in the next neighbourhoods might have two or emore children. The "good" whites are a lost cause, dooming themselves to extinction, and would given the chance drag us down with them. Survival is essentially about cutting free from their toxic baggage.

TLDR: now is not the time to be sentimental about a "family values" that never really existed.

Here is a litmus test: two white, 20 year old English speaking girls with no further information about their ethics, politics, behaviour or backgrounds. One is a single mother from an American trailer park and the other is a childless college student from a US university who hopes to graduate so she can have a career. Who do you reflexively prefer and who would you prefer to be your daughter? That problem strikes at the root of the problem.

There are a lot of good points here. When we had a healthy traditional society, there was social shaming for women and teen girls to behave a certain way, and there were role models for them to see and follow, too. Sure, there was the occassional horny 14yo who went and got herself pregnant, but without birth control and abortion being illegal, she would have the child. Parents and/or charities would usually help her, and she would get a crash course in growing up and becoming responsible. Usually the father would be pressured to marry the girl, giving him a similar awakening to adulthood. Any parent with their heads screwed on straight would prefer this to having their grandchildren's heads crushed in their daughter's wombs. The abominations that have become mainstream now...

People who overcame temptation got married young back in the day. Just watch this...

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1d9vma_amish-a-secret-life-hdtv_tech

Life is a struggle, but procreation is our overriding purpose.

North Vinlander
Thursday, April 6th, 2017, 02:37 AM
If you ditch the prudery you can be among the Darwinian victors: or you can wither and die with the other dead end whites.


I think you've got this idea too deep in your mind about the most animalistic people breeding like rodents while nerds with office jobs and tattoo-free necks wait until 40 to have their first child.

The people we should be emulating (in certain ways) are the Mormons, with a birthrate in America of 3.4 and their upper class outbreeding the lower. They believe in chastity and marrying young, and are the fastest electricity-using White breeders.

Your litmus test is an absurd dichotomy, and neither of them resembles my grandmother who had her first of six children as a married woman of 18 years.

Catterick
Thursday, April 6th, 2017, 03:22 AM
I think you've got this idea too deep in your mind about the most animalistic people breeding like rodents while nerds with office jobs and tattoo-free necks wait until 40 to have their first child.

The people we should be emulating (in certain ways) are the Mormons, with a birthrate in America of 3.4 and their upper class outbreeding the lower. They believe in chastity and marrying young, and are the fastest electricity-using White breeders.

Your litmus test is an absurd dichotomy, and neither of them resembles my grandmother who had her first of six children as a married woman of 18 years.

The black and white choice is not an advocacy of one nor the other. It is to illustrate a principle about value judgement and its consequences.

North Vinlander
Thursday, April 6th, 2017, 03:35 AM
If the principle you're trying to illustrate is that people value women's career success over reproduction I get it, but what people truly like are intact families. Single motherhood is a pitiful situation for both mother and child.

There's a couple on my street who are both professional classical musicians and they have 5 kids. People will reflexively prefer someone like that over either a trailer park single mom or a CEO cat lady.

Catterick
Thursday, April 6th, 2017, 03:38 AM
If the principle you're trying to illustrate is that people value women's career success over reproduction I get it, but what people truly like are intact families. Single motherhood is a pitiful situation for both mother and child.

There's a couple on my street who are both professional classical musicians and they have 5 kids. People will reflexively prefer someone like that over either a trailer park single mom or a CEO cat lady.

When it comes down to it, any mating fussiness has much the same effect. On this forum people old enough to procreate have delayed parenthood despite avowing anti-feminism. Will they die childless.

North Vinlander
Thursday, April 6th, 2017, 04:08 AM
I don't want to get too personal here, but now I'm curious about your own situation. Your profile says single adult. Are you a single mom in a trailer park who lacks the mating fussiness you decry?

Huginn ok Muninn
Thursday, April 6th, 2017, 04:19 AM
I don't want to get too personal here, but now I'm curious about your own situation. Your profile says single adult. Are you a single mom in a trailer park who lacks the mating fussiness you decry?

If I might be so bold, I think Catterick has regrets, as many of us do.

North Vinlander
Thursday, April 6th, 2017, 04:39 AM
If I might be so bold, I think Catterick has regrets, as many of us do.

Probably. Are you suggesting she's too old to have kids now? I have no clue most of your ages. Sorry if this is getting too personal. I kind of assumed she was young (and looked something like the avatar LOL).

Catterick
Thursday, April 6th, 2017, 04:55 AM
Correct about regrets, though it could not have been changed on that point. Wrong about early parenthood.

Sigurd
Thursday, April 6th, 2017, 01:06 PM
In my book I've had way too many romantic partners and sexual partners in my lifetime than any sane man should admit to. The fact it's a low double digit figure on both counts makes me cringe at the amount of times I made a bad life decision. But, all my sexual encounters were as a grown man, none as a youth. :)

It was even difficult to admit this to my girlfriend, I was a little ashamed because I'm her third boyfriend and second person she's become physical with (that, in today's world, is a lottery win as well), in comparison I feel that there've been periods in my life where I might have acted like a veritable "manslut" typically those where I wasn't at all in a stable situation. :|

Then I hear about how many partners and/or sexual partners other people my age, or a few years younger than I, have sometimes had, and I almost feel like I'd be considered a prude if I spelled out my own 'shame count' in turn. It's like but half a generation and I'm already begging to quote Cicero's o tempora, o mores more often than I'd like.

Hypersexualisation and the upper hand of the left in the 'cultural war', plus perhaps a good deal of hopelessness and lack of perspective for youngsters is what leads them to such promiscuity. Perhaps a bit of consumerism also plays it's part, would-be situations that end in sexual encounters are as commonplace as fast food restaurants these days, not a good development IMHO. :thumbdown

I tend to find that people who are at peace with themselves and the world and have a clear set of morals to go along with it tend to be less promiscuitive, whilst people who're having a hard time whether personally and/or on the values end will 'sleep around' much more. It's almost like there's so little perspective and/or involvement in culture with them that they seek confirmation this way, which is sad. :(

Chlodovech
Thursday, April 6th, 2017, 05:16 PM
"Germany's Sexual Tragedy" was written a decade ago. The 14 year olds/teenagers of today are less sexualized than the 14 year olds of 2008 or my own generation.

Good, you'd think, if you haven't seen the youth of today. And you may be forgiven for not noticing them because whenever you see one of these youngsters they'll be looking at iphones, all of them locked inside their own world. Their attitude towards sex and relationships can be summed in two words: not interested. Why that is is a riddle sociologists will have to solve in the future. Maybe it's simply because of the behaviour of their helicopter parents, but cyberspace certainly plays a role too.

Juthunge
Friday, April 7th, 2017, 06:25 PM
[...]
Even the whiter immigrant groups flatly ignore the age of consent whilst "our" society delays parenthood till the 30s or even later. It is at least better to have parents at age 14 than adults still childless at 40: and if kids sleep around its better a teenage mother than an abortion. What happens with the west is equivalent to what happened to the Shakers. Adopting every antinatalist measure from liberalised abortion to sexual prudery, while everyone else passes on their genes.

Today just about all smart white people have similarities to the Shakers, to the point the entire culture is obsessed with fear of procreation in some sense or other, from abstainence only sex ed to enthusiasm for gay and transgender lifestyles. Both "sides" are signalling against naturalistic attitudes to sexuality and parenthood. The Shakers were technologically innovative and an economic success story, and possessed far more virtues than the modern puritans, yet they doomed their genetic lines to extinction and so they were outcompeted by less conscientous outsiders. If you ditch the prudery you can be among the Darwinian victors: or you can wither and die with the other dead end whites.

There is a lot of class signalling in debates about demography and procreation: the "bad" white people are those with teenage motherhood and early sexual behaviour - even if within a monogamous context. Whilst the "good" white people shelter their kids till they have hangups about relationships at age 30 or later - by which age more successful genetic groups in the next neighbourhoods might have two or emore children. The "good" whites are a lost cause, dooming themselves to extinction, and would given the chance drag us down with them. Survival is essentially about cutting free from their toxic baggage.
No doubt it’s ”at least better to have parents at age 14 than adults still childless at 40” but what’s the point if it won’t attack the root of the problem but merely slightly mitigate the outcome?

It doesn’t even need moral arguments or "fear of procreation" or anything, it’s simply a fallacy to believe that, at this point, we could still merely outbreed immigrants. Even if that would be possible and our birth rate grew exponentially, we’ll still have them in our lands, either as a parallel society or, what is more likely and even less preferable, they eventually mix with us.
That way you merely delay the outcome a few decades because no impulse for change ever came directly from an uneducated lower class, they were always lead by an elite.

Besides that, descendants of teenage mothers, at least nowadays, are more likely to miscegenate anyway. Already quite simply because they’re most likely going to be poorer than average and due to that grow up in much more immigrant heavy areas.
They also lack role models and father figures that could point them the way and educate them. No doubt exceptions exist but they’re not the rule.
The same could actually already be said about their mothers, since there is no guarantee and it's actually even more unlikely, that they would merely sleep around with their own people and not immigrants.

We need political and economical power instead, if we are to influence anything.
So it’s better to have children, when it’s financially possible, still better sooner than later, no doubt, to given them the best education possible and bring them into places of power.
Make them hard physically and mentally, make them elite and leaders, make them ride the tiger.

By that time you should also mentally stable enough yourself(that doesn’t even have to happen consciously, people usually simply get more conservative as they age anyway) to educate them as ethnonationalists and racialists, so they won’t give up on their own people and sell their souls merely for money.
Although it should already suffice to shield them from liberal/multicultural propaganda, as love for one’s own comes natural if people aren’t allowed to be indoctrinated.

Catterick
Friday, April 7th, 2017, 07:58 PM
Mitigating problems buys time, and beat the darkies to the state handouts. ;)

Æmeric
Saturday, April 8th, 2017, 12:04 AM
Well our birthrates are going down, and people are delaying parenthood till their 30s or 40s. Correct? Frankly I want 14 year olds to become parents instead of young people delaying adulthood. Though in normal relationships, of course.It is so unrealistic for 14-year-olds to become parents. They do not have the job skills at that point to support a family. They cannot drive. Most lack the maturity, even the responsible ones. In 21st century America (or anywhere) this is a recipe for disaster. What might have worked in a pre-industrial, agrarian society doesn't work, and is not desirable.

Contrary to popular belief, teen marriage was the exception in the pre-industrial West. I know from my own genealogical research that most women in Colonial and 19th century America married in their late teens or early 20s. Men tended to marry in their 20s. Marriage before 16 was rare. Before the 20th century the onset menarche for White American females was between 14-15. For males, spermarche generally occurred at 15-16. Since World War II there has been an acceleration of the onset of puberty, likely cause by exposure to chemicals or the use of growth hormones in dairy cows or the heavy use of soy in the US diet.

I think the idea time for men, in a modern society, to become fathers is after age 25 - time to develop job & life skills and save money to start a family. For females, I would say 22 as they also need to develop job & life skills. They also need to find the right mate. Stating a family after 30-35 is not wrong, it just happens to some people. Women might not be as fertile then as they are in their teens but they can still have healthy children in their 30s and 40s.

My wife and I had our first child when she was 22 & I was 27 (going on 28), we had our fifth when she was 45 & I was 51. The youngest is healthy and frankly he has been easier to raise simply because we have the experience and more financial security then we did nearly 27 years ago. The only drawback is the worry one of us might not still be alive when he graduates from high school, the year I turn 70, but for the time being we are both in excellent health and having a toddler seems to have had an positive effect on our individual health as it keeps us more active and forces us to pay attention to our health.

Catterick
Saturday, April 8th, 2017, 12:14 AM
Have I not made it clear? With state handouts, there is no need to support their family. They have been reading too much crap about how high IQ conscientous people are inherently superior, when they're sending themselves the way of the Shakers. If the average age of spermarche has lowered, it is more reason to advocate procreation earlier if possible: though soy would have the opposite effect as it is oestrogenic.

Æmeric
Saturday, April 8th, 2017, 12:31 AM
Those of us who work and pay taxes are supporting those children born to teen parents. If not for "state handouts" and the subsidizing of illegitimacy and irresponsibility most teen parenthood would vanish and it would be financially easier for responsible White couples to have more children. Better children.

Catterick
Saturday, April 8th, 2017, 02:57 AM
Those of us who work and pay taxes are supporting those children born to teen parents. If not for "state handouts" and the subsidizing of illegitimacy and irresponsibility most teen parenthood would vanish and it would be financially easier for responsible White couples to have more children. Better children.

A circular argument that leads to a misplaced classist one: our views, realistically, correspond to the bottom of the White social pile. People with no father figures or bastard children of their own are more likely to be "racist" or "homophobic" or whatever - it comes with the demography.

Firebeard
Monday, April 10th, 2017, 02:28 PM
Most of these children have single parents who struggle with unemployment and other social issues.
http://www.thelocal.de/14221/20080910/

There's your problem. I don't know about most of the older members on this site but my generation was raised in single family homes. What is the divorce rate in America, 50%? There isn't any incentive anymore. Seeing our parents fight and argue and all the strife that comes with it and everyone we know having an estranged family doesn't make people want to commit. I can see why.

As for the hypersexualization, I think television and media, easy access to porn online, bad parenting, and probably the complete rejection of Christianity is to blame to some degree.

Things look bleak, but I'm glad that I've found someone I enjoy being with, and I can enjoy without fearing commitment. I'm one of the lucky ones. I have plenty of friends that cheat, sleep around, and live extremely hedonistic lifestyles all of the time and it is certainly more prevalent than it was in the past. At least where I live there isn't as much stigma as you think there should be about stuff like that.

I have to leave this place...... :|