I don't think that his behavior is limited to boys. It may be that the people whose circumstances you use as examples are not representative. I think that there is a real emphasis on "cracking down on "predatory boys" who distribute or possess pictures of girls that come into their possession -- often from girls not boys.

I think that parents are/and have been less concnerned about younger boys sexual experimantation because of social norms -- -- bad girls/fast women -- but it is my belief that these norms largely are the creation of women and girls not men -- kind of social self-regulation standards. When I was much younger, most young men of my acqauintance did not look askance at girls who were sexual -- we were pretty happy to find some who we could understand -- whether or not we had sex with them.

So, maybe, it might be useful to look at which gender is creating this double standard and determine whether there is some agenda behind it in addition to/ instead of stereotypical historical sexism as your blog seems to suggest.

Thanks for the reply.

I agree that females often do stuff to other females that exploits them sexually (like passin sexual pictures without permission etc). But when females do it, it seems like it is 100% bad no matter who is making that moral decision. However, when males do it, like I wrote, it is met with ambivalence, depending on the extent/severity of the act. It is punished, but not as severely in most cases. And further, in some ways, it is almost approved off.

Perhaps, there is a point where male acts like this become blatently wrong and are not met with ambivalence. But the majority of the time, it seems like they are met with both hositility and approval.

I find it hard to believe that women created these standards as self-regulation, but maybe I am missing something. That doesn't mean that both males and females dont help maintain these double standards.

I have done at least 4 experiments, that are consistent with a lot of other research, that show that women and men both are more hostile toward women when focused on a woman's appearance. But males arent (typically) impacted negatively when focus is on their appearance. It shows that, like you say, it isnt just male's fault for some of these standards/effects. But, it also shows that women face obstacls than men don't. It is interestin however, that, like you hint at, females in many cases bolster these norms as much, if not more, than men.

I can see these circumstances originating from the thought of pregnancy and the overall protection that a father feels for his daughter, contrasted with the view of fathers wanting their sons to be "real men".

As for young males, I think a large majority of parents would prefer to have a straight son, maybe not even because of the basic premise of being homosexual, but moreso because of the trials and troubles that a homosexual male might face in life.

Also, most people think its more normal for young boys to be sexually "interested" at a young age, but I think that is more of an opinion than anything.

Kevin F,

I totally agree that some people are explicitly anti-gay, but would want their son to be straight for other reasons, like those you discuss.

Father's want to protect their sons and daughters, but it is interesting that protecting males doesn't lead to protecting them sexually (as much as females). And it also is interesting that being a "real man" involves being sexual (and straight), but being a "real women" seems to involve a need to be protected.

(p.s. let me know about the wedding!)

In understanding the descriptives of the human condition, one must pay careful attention to the words humans use--not because of the meaning of the word according to Webster, but according to the meaning as understood by the humans who used the term.

Here, the important term is "protected" or "protective". In most human vocabulary, male and female, "good" women are protected women in some form or fashion. The bad girls were those out on their own and unprotected--especially as promoted to impressionable minds in stylized early Hollywood; the bad girl B movies in the '50s & '60s; and living on in horror genre with the sex kitten being the first one to buy it as she sneaks a snuggle away from the group, as well as the bad girls being subject to, and otherwise part and parcel of, sex and/or violence in the video game universes. Shoot, even Wonder Woman got no respect until she joined the Justice League (see early WW comics...oy vey).

Sometimes, a bad girl gets sympathy because it is her unprotected state, or her natural protector, that caused her downfall; sometimes she gets stoned because she "should have" known enough to protect herself and didn't, and is judged on that basis of lack of self protection (aka self esteem or self worth in common modern woman fembot parlance)--it depends entirely on the situation, not upon the female personage. Females are always classified as reactionary.

And, once a female is off the pedestal--especially if she jumped--she's generally off for good. We are much more unforgiving of a fallen female than of a fallen male. Somehow, for some reason, we are just supposed to be better at being "good" so failing that, we really must be bad. I believe Mad Men (another example within the collective western consciousness) had an episode exploring the two-holder classification of type: Marilyn vs Jackie which is still very much alive today a la Ashley Dupre vs Silda Wall.

I think we, especially among the philosophical, religious and psychological universes (places of thought and intent) especially have a hard time with this very basic facet of human classification methodology. No, it doesn't apply to all of the humans all of the time but the ratios are such as is equally silly to deny the existence of, as it would to embrace the concept as a universal law to be obeyed, as in more oppressive communities.

It applies more amongst the uneducated (who are not reading this; trolls are just willfully ignorant people or a designed plant). Often, educated people do not have enough access outside their own universe to really understand how pervasive some primal human behaviors--which have been classified as being dead or dying--still are out in the wild, as it were. Some of us are so mystified by the continual reappearance of said behaviors, that we slap a mental health issue tag on it i.e. if one "still" thinks of X in this fashion, one must have ASPD.

If your son makes out with another man's unprotected daughter, then that behavior, if considered a fault, isn't your son's fault, or your fault in how you raised him. The girl's father should have been looking out for her and if her father (or family) isn't, well...being unprotected, what else could anyone have expected, leaving a teen-aged boy alone with an unprotected girl? (Being realistic in translation here, not sympathetic, for those of you who cannot tell the difference).

There is a reason birth control is slanged "protection" and most pharma ads for long term female coverage highlights the word in different sentences and dioramas. The non-thinking part of being human will buy into it because it is a important factor in our memes and morays of survival. Whole marketing empires are based on this simple law of the universe.

Back in the day, the boy's father would have taken him to see an unprotected female as a right of passage before picking out a protected female to carry on the family line securely (males still needing female input for that accomplishment). Further back in the day, the boy became a man by going out and snagging an unprotected female and bringing her back to the tribe (to keep the gene pool fresh). Your late-curfew/unchaperoened/"trusted" daughter is just the current politically correct substitution for this practice. It is simutaneously a test that SHE must pass in order to gain one of two classifications within her tribe. That thought should make anyone pause to think a moment before jumping to deny it.

This is well understood amongst modern teens and we understood it ourselves when we were that age, whether we participated in or were excluded from that behavior. Heck, our teens do it because they are busy doing what we do (as we did) rather than doing as we say...as has always been the case and always will be until some generation wises up and decides different actions leads to different results and not coming up with four hundred different ways to say a thing. Even though I'm a genX, I have great hope for genY. My own? Not so sure we can catch up. Lost hope in the BB's when they started caring more about starting their portfolio's than what they started in SanFran and Woodstock.

Strip this ongoing situation down to it's barest facts, taking out all the gilt and embroidery of "modern" western society, and this is what we are talking about, people. We talk smack about less developed countries behaving this way but the only difference I see is in the use of words, not in expectations or actionable beliefs. At least they are honest about their unrealistic expectations. We, as a society, are merely hypocrites about ours.

Even if we do not behave this way within our family sphere and tell all and sundry that we abhor those primal beliefs, we still make sure our own daughters are protected and talk smack about the girls who "fail" (i.e. the formerly beloved mouseketeer Britney Spears and the current consternation surrounding middle-america's teen darling, Mylie Cyrus).

We support the entertainment and other societal myths that transmit these subliminal thoughts (thongs for girls; barbie's & bratz; pageants etc. etc.). I have never known any pro-women woman with daughters, NOT buy them a Barbie. The super-educated make the girls leave the doll in the box and call it a collectible but still, people. Not saying every such described woman, just every one I've known. And they have all been either ashamed of it or overtly defensive about it, and don't admit its existence until you see the doll in their house and they have to explain it.

But heck, on the surface I know the innocent reasons we like Barbie and pageants too--most of us just like pretty things and being pretty to some degree, some more than others. In our increasingly casual society, it is a place for those so inclined to get their grove on and show off. It's a miniature form of dress-up that has the potential to backfire later in life if we don't grow out of it. And, as the American, at least, society becomes increasingly infantile, we are growing out of less and less.

I know dozens of women who have watched Sex in the City religiously with their teen daughters as part of mom-n-me, girl-power time, including (and sometimes under the guise of) "serious" discussion about the topics brought up. All the while denying them unchaperoned time with their boyfriends SPECIFICALLY because of the behaviors they are afraid they will emulate "before they are ready." But to understand that sort of duplicity we have to see it and we humans, even in western society, haven't evolved that far yet as a whole.

I leave homosexuality out of this for now because: 1) our western societies are still deciding in their infinite wisdom and tolerance (sarcasm for those who missed it) whether homosexuals have a right to exist regardless of the fact that they do and always have; 2) western society is the only currently existing human community that at least attempts to include homosexuals at this time of human development; and 3) even western society is apt to classify exploratory lesbian behavior (show and tell at slumber parties) as "girls being girls" and do not have difficulty with girls and/or women kissing, snuggling and holding hands unless and until one of the pair starts looking a little too masculine. The "girl-crush" is a commonly accepted situation amongst tween and teen girls, and mothers. So, in addressing the question of homosexuality, in this one arena the females fair better than the males at least during the teen years under discussion.

Yes, as you point out, society is expecting the boys to try, and the girls to cut them off at the pass. If the pass is breached by a boy, it is the girls' fault for falling down on her job--an idea bought into by both girls and boys as evidenced in the very mean labeling usually practiced by the tribal girls not directly involved (or in retaliation).

I sometimes wonder if any guy, even a grown guy, can ever REALLY understand how vicious teen girls (and their mothers, as evidenced by the online initiated suicide of Megan Meier) are with each other in jockeying for societal position. Guys know how awful it is when they know their girl is pushing their buttons and running circles around THEM...can you imagine what it is like to have two or more individuals capable of that kind of search-and-destroy going at each other, or tag-teaming a less capable? Teen girls (and many adult women) have not yet learned, or chosen to use their power for good, so to speak.

Boys used to establish pecking order by school yard fights or other display of brawn; and even if this is discouraged now, its primal urge has been placated by organized sports. Girls have no similar alternative since sports do not fulfill for us the same positional functionality--we like to out-think each other. The dumb pretty blonde is lovable and goofy; the clever pretty blonde is a force to be reckoned and is viewed warily.

Females have to master each other with brain or beauty in the social arena, not brawn (Martina Navratilova vs Chris Evert), so manipulation of opinion is the methodology of choice...right, wrong, or indifferent. We females can precipitate this phenomena without any help from the male half of the human equation but the competition for males and/or the societal status conferred (with its inherent survival benefits) on a protected female, increases this jostling to a literal feeding frenzy.

Primal female survival depended on the strength of our protector and any protector was better than none. We are capable of more than the sum of our parts of course, but there are still those of us who are developmentally trying to master those pieces and parts, nevermind the sum.

We adults forget--in our world of sex, politics and religion--that hormonal teens are hardwired biologically to focus on the first of the former almost exclusively and our Lord-of-the-Flies public school set-up exaggerates that effect. Although our kids "should" be focusing on better life-starting goals, we sublimely sidetrack them at every turn and then punish them when they fail the tests.

Every public school adult reading this went through it and knows exactly what I'm talking about from one end of the spectrum or other, whether we will now acknowledge it or not. Some of us won't admit it because we would have to own up to our kids that we are intentionally perpetuating something that sucks, simply because we don't know of any other way (or too comfortable with the devil we are familiar with) to fix it.

Instead of expecting our children to run their own gauntlet, we need to change the gauntlet. But no one (but the home-schooler) wants to chance it in case they end up with a homosexual, single (no grand-kids), or otherwise not quite right kid, because that somehow effects their own status in the muck pool.

I have known many people who would rather see their son convicted of rape than to come out of the closet (REALLY!!! Said out loud in mixed company as a debating point and agreed with!!! by females!! Unrelated groups over periods of years!!). And, many of these people were otherwise solid, upstanding, moderately (and sometimes highly) educated community humans (who however don't generally keep up with psychology, et al.).

I experienced all of this double standard first hand during my own teen years when all of a sudden a distant, distracted father of a heretofore tom-boyish daughter suddenly felt the need to start "protecting" me at 14, upon mother allowing me to start wearing make-up and a bra (the bra I had been needing for two years and had been actually sneaking hers).

This was after 10 years of my fending off pedophiles (yes, met the first one around age 4/5) by myself as the loner, odd child always hanging out in corners waiting for overwhelmed modern parents. A significant portion of my experiences were with designated care givers ranging from babysitters to school teachers but I was in college before I learned officially what a pedophile was (no worries, it all turned out well). But my daddy did love me whatever parenting classes he missed. I think every girl with a loving father hears: "I used to be a boy; I know..." in worried tones, at least once.

I then experienced this again as my "former lady's man" partner faced the same conversation with his own turning teen, absolute boy-magnet, extremely independent daughter who's mother is a SIC girl-power sort, raising her daughter to roar and roar hard. This was a highly amusing (to me) growing period for him (especially with a Don Quixote type female like me thrown into the mix). A gentleman who was always all for horny-female-freedom-of-choice-all-the-time (ever since his own initiation at some ridiculous age like 12), had to really face what that expectation granted: all females...not just the ones you want to cart off for five minutes, five years, or five decades.

disclaimer: I am not a SIC fan on many levels but recognize the correlations between the show and modern (urban) womanhood, real and perceived, however uninterested I am in its entertainment value. It was not allowed on the TV when I was home (but is still inescapable especially in my home city).

Hello.

You make several very interesting points. Thanks for the reply; I enjoyed it and it was very informative.

Nate