America's favorite jailbait

August 14, 2003 6:34 AM

The cover of the Sept. 4, 2003, Rolling Stone declares Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen "America's favorite fantasy," joining the publisher of Olsen Twins Countdown and Howard Stern in celebration of jailbait. "What were once adorable pre-pubescent girls on the hit series Full House are now the forbidden fruits of blossoming teenage sexuality." (Via Eschaton.)
posted by rcade (137 comments total)

Yeah, cause you know, having sex with mature women who actually know what they want is all intimidating and stuff.

Ewww.
posted by JoanArkham at 6:42 AM on August 14, 2003

Took the words right outta my mouth, Joan Arkham. I always found the whole little girl shtick aesthetically repellent. Didn't occur to me till I was older what lay behind it.

Plus, Full House really sucked.
posted by jonmc at 6:44 AM on August 14, 2003

What. The. Fuck. Rolling Stone. Anyone recall when this magazine could be taken seriously?

Neither do I. I wasn't born yet.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:45 AM on August 14, 2003

i look at them and all i see are the little brats from full house. this is what men find attractive? makes me long for the days when "actress" jennifer connelly was a sex symbol.
posted by pxe2000 at 6:51 AM on August 14, 2003

Still, seventeen is a dangerous age for a child star -- not to mention a child mogul

Olsen Twins Countdown This site is weirdo-ville, the story about a third Olsen was creepy.
posted by thomcatspike at 6:53 AM on August 14, 2003

NTM, if you ask these two "what's it like being a celebrity?" they can't really give you an answer because they've literally been famous since birth. Even Michael Jackson got a few years of obscurity.

I think they were the first sucessful products of a celebrity breeding farm located just Northwest of Duluth.
posted by jonmc at 6:58 AM on August 14, 2003

the thing that's really weird is that they still look like they did when they were on full house...or, at least, are recognizable from when they were on full house. apart from the low quality of this tv show, their very close resemblance to their baby photos brings this closer to pedophilia than one (okay, i) would like.
posted by pxe2000 at 6:58 AM on August 14, 2003

They're not cute. They're not of age. All they have going for them is that their stage managing parents got them on the biggest, sappiest family sitcom of the early nineties. I mean, they're my sister's age. Just frickin' wrong.

And while we're on the subject, can someone tell me what the appeal of twins is? Because I can't figure it out to save my life.
posted by thecaddy at 7:00 AM on August 14, 2003

Finding girls in their mid to late teens attractive doesn't bother me. Getting off on the whole "forbidden fruit" angle, yeah that makes my gorge rise a tad. Like that Salon piece someone posted awhile back describing a Brazilian bikini wax as "little girl sexy". Blargh. Pederasty chic?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 7:01 AM on August 14, 2003

What Joan said. And I'll add my "eew" to the chorus.
posted by Shane at 7:01 AM on August 14, 2003

I'm a woman, there's only one of me, and I just turned 30 today, but frankly I'd rather be in my flip-flops than in either pair of the Olsen Twins and facing the reality of all this really gross festishization. Yuck.
posted by orange swan at 7:02 AM on August 14, 2003

I remember as a young lad when full-house was on the air, my mama would complain about how freaky those little twin girls looked. She said they looked like those disturbing little troll dolls (remember the little naked toy things with giant marge simpson hair?). She swore that once puberty hit, those girls were in for a harsh surprise.

Mama was so wrong.

PS - have scientists managed to figure out how Full House sucked so much yet?
posted by dgaicun at 7:03 AM on August 14, 2003

I think they were the first sucessful products of a celebrity breeding farm located just Northwest of Duluth.

Hey, I was just up there last weekend. Weird place. But just wait until you see the new crop of boy bands they'll be releasing next spring.
posted by COBRA! at 7:04 AM on August 14, 2003

"I don't kill spiders, because I always feel bad," says Ashley, and points to Mary-Kate. "I remember years ago, when I swatted a fly, you said, 'What if it had a brother or a sister? Do you know how sad the other would be?' "

Their flyitarianism knows no bounds.

This whole thing is still way ick, though.

Of course, I bet I send it to someone at some point during the day.
posted by tittergrrl at 7:05 AM on August 14, 2003

I'd rather be in my flip-flops than in either pair of the Olsen Twins

Someone should definitely put that on a T-shirt.
posted by staggernation at 7:15 AM on August 14, 2003

I just turned 30 today

Happy b-day Orange Swan.

And I agree with staggernation. I'd buy that shirt.
posted by Stynxno at 7:17 AM on August 14, 2003

The Olsen twins are ugly little shits.
posted by angry modem at 7:21 AM on August 14, 2003

I'd rather be in my flip-flops than in either pair of the Olsen Twins

Damn, and I call myself an editor. An apostrophe would have given that sentence the meaning I meant it to have. But for the sake of those T-shirt sales, I'll let it stand.

Thanks, Stynxno.
posted by orange swan at 7:22 AM on August 14, 2003

High falootin' posturing aside, most heterosexual men would if they could.

I find it interesting that their success hinges on them being twins. They've each been denied the experience of being a unique individual.

That's rather sad, don't you think?
posted by aladfar at 7:24 AM on August 14, 2003

My stomach just curdled. Ick.

But you know what, the last time I read RS with any regularity was in the late '80s, early '90s. I remember seeeing some rather unwholesome photo spreads of Winona Ryder (under 18, fresh out of Heathers) and Uma Thurman (just barely 18?, fresh out of Dangerous Liasons). I thought those photos were cool then, but then again, I was a teenage girl. I remember the accompanying articles (written, undoubtedly, by middle-aged men) waxed onanistic about their hot bods. But they lacked the absurdly creepy uncle aspect that this Olsen Twins shit does. Commence to ruminating on America's Lost Innocence.

I'll be in Lexis-Nexis figuring out how old Jon-Benet would be today.
posted by cowboy_sally at 7:24 AM on August 14, 2003

Salon had a good article on the twins thing and how men and women look at it differently. (Sorry, subscription needed.)

Basically, every woman who the author spoke to said "Twins? Isn't that incest?" It never crossed the men's minds.
posted by JoanArkham at 7:27 AM on August 14, 2003

I must be in need of psychiatric attention as I don't find them or the hoopla surrounding their sexual matriculation to be "ick", "eww" or even slightly repulsive.

JoanArkham said "Yeah, cause you know, having sex with mature women who actually know what they want is all intimidating and stuff"

MILFs are "in" again? I thought pseudo-pedophilia was back in style. Damn. Next you're going to tell me that grey is the new black.
posted by shoepal at 7:28 AM on August 14, 2003

I also recall Bob Saget (the guy who played the dad) on some drive time radio show talking about Full House: "Oh yeah, it was realistic. 3 straight guys raising little girls in San Francisco."

But my baby sister (now 17) was a devoted fan. But she also collected Troll dolls. Perhaps it's a generational thing.
posted by jonmc at 7:32 AM on August 14, 2003

These girls have had one hell of a run, selling literally billions in videos, merchandise, books, etc. It'll be interesting to see how they make their move from selling to the kiddos to trying to market to a more mature audience.

That said, hot? Hell, no. At least not until Mary-Kate has her overdose and Ashley starts doing fetish porn. Let's hope that's at least five years away.

By the way, whatever happened to that girl that played Kimmy Gibbler?
posted by Ufez Jones at 7:35 AM on August 14, 2003

I'm also waiting for some club DJ to get all neo-quasi-pomo and shit and call him self a"DJ Tanner."
posted by jonmc at 7:37 AM on August 14, 2003

Damn you, Ufez, you made me look:

http://www.angelfire.com/ca/abarber/
posted by blueshammer at 7:41 AM on August 14, 2003

sorry, I thought http://ed links automatically URLed themselves. I'll stop inventing verbs now.

http://www.angelfire.com/ca/abarber/
posted by blueshammer at 7:42 AM on August 14, 2003

By the way, whatever happened to that girl that played Kimmy Gibbler?

Where R they now?
posted by dgaicun at 7:48 AM on August 14, 2003

Ufez Jones, meet Andrea Barber.
posted by emelenjr at 7:49 AM on August 14, 2003

Ever noticed that Full House was about 15' wide on the outside and about 100' wide on the inside? Always irritated me (among MANY other things, so hard to pick and choose).
posted by orange swan at 7:52 AM on August 14, 2003

thanks emelenjr, andrea barber is certainly a pretty little thing.
posted by johnnyboy at 7:54 AM on August 14, 2003

They've each been denied the experience of being a unique individual.

Well, being a twin and having to deal with people saying crap like this all the time, I'd like you to take a look at exhibit A.

And from what I know about singletons, 99% of them aren't that unique to begin with.

Sheep I tell you! You're all Sheep!
posted by Stynxno at 7:57 AM on August 14, 2003

Happy Birthday Orange Swan. . .. and where I grew up .. they were called go-aheads. .. .
posted by Danf at 8:05 AM on August 14, 2003

It'll be interesting to see how they make their move from selling to the kiddos to trying to market to a more mature audience.

They've got at least another 10 years or more before that happens -- if ever. Through the wonders of plastic surgery they could stick with the kids market pretty much forever...if they wanted to.

On the other hand, the Skinemax soft-core porn market would clearly be a secondary goldmine for them.
posted by me3dia at 8:05 AM on August 14, 2003

The Olsen twins are ugly little shits.

The title of Al Franken's next book.
posted by Danf at 8:06 AM on August 14, 2003

What a bunch of prudes. Those girls are gorgeous and very sexy. (not all of you, just the ones saying "eww" and so forth)

I thought they were kind of bizarre looking as kids and figured they'd hit puberty and get ugly but nature was very kind.

And what's all this talk about peodophilia? They're 17 for Christs sake, that's the age of consent in most states, finding these girls attractive isn't peodophilia. It's normal.

As far as the appeal of twins goes.... 1 girl good, 2 girls better is a general rule of thumb but sisters is too freaky. Maybe date one and keep the other as a spare?
posted by Bonzai at 8:13 AM on August 14, 2003

In defense of the Olsen Twins (hey, THAT is high on my list of things I never dreamed I'd say), they may very well be quite individualistic while being close to one another and necessarily having a huge amount in common. It's just that there's a public perception of them as interchangeable and that they share a career.

At any rate judging from that article they seem quite a lot healthier than a pair of twins with whom I attended high school - they dressed identically, were never ever seen apart, took all the same courses and vowed that they were going to go to the same university, work in the same workplace, always live together and never get married. If you asked one a question they looked at each other. Their parents had done their best to separate them but the girls clung to each other. It was truly disturbing.
posted by orange swan at 8:16 AM on August 14, 2003

Meh, I'd hit it...


...in 303 days!

Wait, if it's twins, do you say "I'd hit them?" I want to use correct grammar here. I mean, I want here to use correct grammar. I mean, fuck.

Which brings me back to my first point.
posted by Hildago at 8:17 AM on August 14, 2003

They are cute kids and they'll be attractive women when they grow up. Too bad they are being rushed into it.
posted by moonbiter at 8:19 AM on August 14, 2003

I'm no prude but ideally sex should be something shared among 2 (or more!) people who consider themselves equals.

Maybe it wouldn't ook me out as much if the subtext was "hey, look at these hot young (adult) women" instead of "hey, look at the forbidden young (child-like) fantasy objects".
posted by JoanArkham at 8:23 AM on August 14, 2003

As much now as when I was in the Navy, I find it fascinating that adult men who go for 'barely legal' are quite proud of being 'nearly pedophiles.'
posted by troybob at 8:26 AM on August 14, 2003

Rolling Stone declares Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen "America's favorite fantasy"...

But they're almost legal! At least here in the UK, we make sure our pedophilic urges are attached to the right age.
posted by Katemonkey at 8:30 AM on August 14, 2003

"What's a paederast, Walter?"

And if we're fantasizing about potentional billionaire females, does it qualify as ironic that Danni Ashe would be a more wholesome fantasy?
posted by yerfatma at 8:31 AM on August 14, 2003

I find it interesting that their success hinges on them being twins. They've each been denied the experience of being a unique individual.

I can't for the life of me remember where I read it, but I know there was some interview where they stated they really can't stand to be apart for any length of time, though one is single and the other has a college-age boyfriend. That's what you get when you've been sold as a unit your entire life, I suppose. Even to ourselves its never just "Mary-Kate" everyone seems to mentally complete it to "Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen."

It'll be interesting to see how they make their move from selling to the kiddos to trying to market to a more mature audience.

I think with the aforementioned "billions" article from Ufez Jones, they wouldn't necessarily have to make that transition, maybe rest on their laurels a bit. It'd be nice to see them transposition into semi-normal life, like Shirely Temple did (I realize politics don't make for a normal life either, but she seems one of the few child stars to make it to and through adulthood relatively unscathed)
posted by nelleish at 8:34 AM on August 14, 2003

who the fuck are these girls anyway?
posted by Pericles at 8:41 AM on August 14, 2003

guess what - people are into things a lot more repulsive than teenage celebrity twins!
posted by chrisege at 8:44 AM on August 14, 2003

They are cute kids and they'll be attractive women when they grow up. Too bad they are being rushed into it.
That's that sad part, not being valley girls or having back stage yuppie parents. It's society, pickin'em young.
posted by thomcatspike at 8:47 AM on August 14, 2003

yes they're hot


whiners.
posted by Peter H at 8:48 AM on August 14, 2003

The only thing creepier than fetishizing underage girls is the whole incest thing. I still don't get the fascination with guys going nuts for fantasies involving them having sex with twins, sisters, or the worst -- daughter and moms. It's incest any way you look at it.
posted by mathowie at 8:48 AM on August 14, 2003

guess what - people are into things a lot more repulsive than teenage celebrity twins!

It's true. This month's O has an article called "Finding your Center Through Watersports".
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 8:52 AM on August 14, 2003

Even to ourselves its never just "Mary-Kate" everyone seems to mentally complete it to "Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen."

I have this dorky image in my head now of the archons from Starcraft. I can picture the two of them just eventually melding into a singular consciousness of etheral energy. Oh, and shooting lightning.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:53 AM on August 14, 2003

I'd rather be in my flip-flops than in either pair of the Olsen Twins

Someone should definitely put that on a T-shirt.

Here you go.
posted by MrMoonPie at 8:56 AM on August 14, 2003

Yeah, cause you know, having sex with mature women who actually know what they want is all intimidating and stuff.

joan - well these olsen girls are rich too! I MEAN THEY'RE LOADED

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
posted by Peter H at 8:57 AM on August 14, 2003

Laughing until I cry, MrMoonPie.
posted by orange swan at 9:02 AM on August 14, 2003

Yeah, I don't get the twins thing either. Threesome - sure, sounds great - but wouldn't you want all 3 people to be able to enjoy each other? I mean, do you really want to watch two sisters getting it on? Is it not incest when the sisters are hot? I guess that's the point of the twins fetish then - knowing that you'd be on the receiving end of all the attention. Hmmph. Give me equally participating partners any day.

And happy bday orange swan!
posted by widdershins at 9:05 AM on August 14, 2003

these are questions as old as man, widdershins
posted by Peter H at 9:08 AM on August 14, 2003

I mean, do you really want to watch two sisters getting it on?

Lord, yes.
posted by bradth27 at 9:11 AM on August 14, 2003

Enjoy, bradth!
posted by JoanArkham at 9:21 AM on August 14, 2003

They're not bad. Give them some fake names and I'd have no problem.

But I just keep picturing them in Full House, and all those bargain bin "Mary-Kate and Ashley Go To The Mall" kids' games and it's an instant turn-off.
posted by Foosnark at 9:24 AM on August 14, 2003

mmmm, olsen twins.
posted by Hackworth at 9:24 AM on August 14, 2003

According to Fonzie, it is acceptible to date twins or even triplets.
posted by condour75 at 9:27 AM on August 14, 2003

JoanArkham-

Thanks. As I have a "thing" for older women as well, I may have to go home after clicking on that link.
posted by bradth27 at 9:32 AM on August 14, 2003

According to Fonzie, it is acceptible to date twins or even triplets.
The kids these days...date, sex are two different words, they just share similar activities.
posted by thomcatspike at 9:37 AM on August 14, 2003

The only thing creepier than fetishizing underage girls is the whole incest thing. I still don't get the fascination with guys going nuts for fantasies involving them having sex with twins, sisters, or the worst -- daughter and moms. It's incest any way you look at it.

Well -- taboos wouldn't be taboos if we didn't subconsciously or secretly find something appealing in those taboo activities. It's just that for most people, their rational, thinking selves are stronger than their scary, subconscious selves, so we realize there's something harmful to society in giving in to such taboos, and so we don't do them.

Or "do them," as it were.

(if you say the word "taboo" too many times, it's kind of funny)
posted by Tin Man at 9:38 AM on August 14, 2003

Oh, please. Like I am the only one that ever imagines Mary Kate dressed in a red vinyl devil outfit while spanking a bare-assed Ashley with a wooden paddle, enjoying her sister's cries of pleasure and pain.

That one photo in the RS images with one of them chewing on pearls is really disturbing.
posted by bargle at 9:48 AM on August 14, 2003

Well, bargle...

You used to be, damn it.

(Going home to wash my skull out with soap....)
posted by lumpenprole at 9:59 AM on August 14, 2003

Well -- taboos wouldn't be taboos if we didn't subconsciously or secretly find something appealing in those taboo activities.

This is Fruedian and incorrect. Incest is naturally avoided by way of an imprinting mechanism, therefore it is a genuine revulsion.
posted by dgaicun at 10:01 AM on August 14, 2003

They've each been denied the experience of being a unique individual. That's rather sad, don't you think?

No more so than most of us having been denied the experience of being a twin.
posted by kindall at 10:01 AM on August 14, 2003

Incidentally, on the whole identical twins/loss of individuality thing--they're not identical twins. They're fraternal twins who just happen to look identical.

Now that's creepy.
posted by Acetylene at 10:03 AM on August 14, 2003

Just for anyone wondering why Rolling Stone sucks so much, blame it on the new editor, formerly of the illustrious FHM.
posted by arielmeadow at 10:04 AM on August 14, 2003

Wait a second, there's two pair of them? Those child labor laws are getting out of hand. Plus, a fella's only so many extremities.
posted by yerfatma at 10:06 AM on August 14, 2003

Well I for one can't wait to start having sex with the Olsen twins.
posted by Outlawyr at 10:22 AM on August 14, 2003

Man, all of this talk of "underage girls" is really subjective. Would it be ok (in your world view) for a 17 year or 18 year old boy to lust after these twins? Probably. So at what age do you reach the cut-off point where it is no longer "healthy" to desire these girls? And after the 300 or whatever days it will take for them to reach 18, will that cut-off point somehow shift? Is the term "underage" exclusive to temporal age or does maturity also play a part? I suggest a viewing of Woody Allen's, Manhattan, to get an alternate take on all of this "underage" nonsense.

Oh, and off course they are beautiful, perhaps not your type, for whatever reason (too young, blonde, too short, too skinny, etc.) but they definitely would be considered attractive by the majority, particularly if their fame didn't create certain prejudices.
posted by sic at 10:23 AM on August 14, 2003

And in case you were wondering, they turn me on.

Alot.


...duh
posted by sic at 10:26 AM on August 14, 2003

right, like any reader of Rolling Stone, listener of Howard Stern or member of Metafilter is ever going to get the chance to fuck an Olsen Twin.

The only thing that the Olsen Countdown has going for it is perhaps a slight easing of your conscience as you masturbate to their pictures.
posted by carfilhiot at 10:31 AM on August 14, 2003

and in case you're wondering, I do that.

Alot.

..duh
posted by carfilhiot at 10:34 AM on August 14, 2003

mathowie: The only thing creepier than fetishizing underage girls is the whole incest thing. I still don't get the fascination with guys going nuts for fantasies involving them having sex with twins, sisters, or the worst -- daughter and moms. It's incest any way you look at it.

As long as it's consensual and between adults, is it your business to judge the action? If someone called gay sex 'creepy' people would pile-on with calls of 'bigot' or 'homophobe' (see responses to 111's comments). Is this situation really different, or are you just using a different set of prejudices/morals to judge what others do in private?
posted by jsonic at 10:36 AM on August 14, 2003

Oh, please. Like I am the only one that ever imagines Mary Kate dressed in a red vinyl devil outfit while spanking a bare-assed Ashley with a wooden paddle, enjoying her sister's cries of pleasure and pain.

Replace 'wooden paddle' with orange swan's flip flops and I'm there.
posted by fletchmuy at 10:43 AM on August 14, 2003

jsonic - that's an interesting point. While I don't find gay sex creepy at all, I do find incest or golden showers or scat play remarkably unpleasant. And yes, you're right, as long as it's between consenting adults, I guess I have no more place putting moral judgements on those activities than I do on, say widdershins sex life, which BTW sounds fanTAStic.
posted by jonson at 10:44 AM on August 14, 2003

sic: you my friend need to learn the "formula"... take your age, divide in half, add 7, the result is the youngest acceptable person you can date..
posted by Pink Fuzzy Bunny at 10:52 AM on August 14, 2003

Pink Fuzzy Bunny, can I just add 4?
posted by maceo at 10:57 AM on August 14, 2003

sic, I agree that they're lovely young women. It's acceptable for anyone of any age to find them attractive. What to me is abhorrent is the fact that, for example, this freakin' Olsen Twins countdown site has existed for a number of years--which means that it's not just appealing to the guys who like their 17-y-o bods; it also speaks to the ones who liked them at 14 or 15 or whatever. I understand that it's not entirely serious, but the premise still creeps me out. Seriously, guys, you want a girl who's 15, 20 years your junior making a pass at you?Especially if Howard Stern is physically representative of these men. I mean, I'm no Mary-Kate, but even *I* wouldn't fuck him with a stolen vagina and someone else pushing. Bonne chance.

and jsonic, can you elaborate on your comparison of homosexuality and incest for the rest of us?
posted by cowboy_sally at 10:59 AM on August 14, 2003

jonson - yeah, it's a shame you don't live closer.

;)
posted by widdershins at 11:05 AM on August 14, 2003

cowboy_sally, read my comment again. I was not comparing homosexuality to incest. I was comparing the prejudices that people have against homosexuality to the prejudices people have against incest. The point being, what consenting adults do in private is their business, not yours. Try not to judge them unless you enjoy being called a 'bigot' or a '*-phobe'.
posted by jsonic at 11:06 AM on August 14, 2003

Incest doesn't usually take place between consenting adults.
posted by orange swan at 11:08 AM on August 14, 2003

Incest doesn't usually take place between consenting adults.

Then there's a more appropriate word for that: rape.
posted by jsonic at 11:15 AM on August 14, 2003

Seriously, guys, you want a girl who's 15, 20 years your junior making a pass at you?

No. It happens to me at work all the time, and it scares the crap out of me. As a kid, I prayed for the summer to never end. As an adult, I pray for the first day of school to hurry up.

Incest doesn't usually take place between consenting adults.

That's true - I was drunk. She took advantage of me.
posted by bradth27 at 11:21 AM on August 14, 2003

jsonic, perhaps you're right. maybe as a culture we simply haven't evolved enough to accept as viable incest between consenting adults. I think I'm fairly openminded, but I admit that I am slightly freaked by the idea of two closely related adults getting it on behind closed doors. I am sickened even more that otherwise sexually vanilla men* would fantasize about it.

Incest is wrong for a number of reasons, the two I can think of off the top of my head being that it upsets the socio-familial hierarchy and inbreeding causes genetic problems. I know that you're position is it's none anyone's business, but it's still upsetting to think about.

And anecdotally, I know two sisters and a brother and a sister--all of whom were/are consenting adults--who've paired off sexually on occasion. And they're majorly messed up. Again, none of my business, but it's unhealthy and disturbing. IMO.

*Who I assume make up the subscription pool of both RS and the Olsen Twins Countdown Mailing List
posted by cowboy_sally at 11:23 AM on August 14, 2003

the olsen twins aren't legally consenting adults. they're children, and nobody's asked their permission.

we have an incest tabboo to protect children from old men. you're porn entrenched vision of what incest is - is simply inaccurate. incest is about a father raping a little girl.
posted by goneill at 11:27 AM on August 14, 2003

I'm glad I wasn't the only person who thought the twins were freakishly ugly when they were little kids.

But now that they've grown up? Eh. I don't know. Looking at those Rolling Stone pictures, I see a couple of cute teenagers. Not hot, not incredible, just a couple of very wealthy kids who can afford all the beauty products, spa treatments, makeup artists, and great photographers necessary to get legions of lonely guys hot.

I kept imagining them with their hair looking normal, without the hours of preparation that probably went into those shoots, and think if they hadn't been raised from ovum to primp and preen for a camera, they'd look like a couple of cute girls. That's it.

Natalie Portman, on the other hand... Man, you could just tell she was going to be beautiful when she did Leon. Anyone else see Beautiful Girls? Gaaah...
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:37 AM on August 14, 2003

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand there's the thread!
posted by solistrato at 11:42 AM on August 14, 2003

goneill- I'm sure Oedipus will be relieved to hear that revision.

Dictionary.com defines incest as "Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom." So technically speaking the Egyptian royal family wasn't engaging in incest either, since it was custom. Also interesting.

-now ending derail- (sorry solistrato)
posted by nelleish at 11:44 AM on August 14, 2003

the olsen twins aren't legally consenting adults. they're children, and nobody's asked their permission.

Never said that they were/did.

we have an incest tabboo to protect children from old men. you're porn entrenched vision of what incest is - is simply inaccurate. incest is about a father raping a little girl.

If I have a 'porn entrenched' vision of incest, then so does merriam-webster:

incest: sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry

Please point to the child-raping father portion of this definition.
posted by jsonic at 11:45 AM on August 14, 2003

Natalie Portman, on the other hand... Man, you could just tell she was going to be beautiful when she did Leon.

Truer words were never spoken. My god, was she sexy in that. And she was what, 12? Of course, I thought Lolita (the book) was great, too. Really made you understand how someone could find a young girl sexually attractive. Hmmm... Should I be worried?

The Olsen twins, though? Bah. What Civil_Disobedient said. Cute, sure, not sexy. Kirsten Dunst a la "I want some more" in Interview with a Vampire? Oh yes.
posted by widdershins at 11:58 AM on August 14, 2003

goneill: So, should there be a separate word for close relations, say brother and sister, who have sex? Is that not incest as well? Or is that, in your mind, not taboo?
posted by Acetylene at 11:59 AM on August 14, 2003

the olsen twins aren't legally consenting adults. they're children, and nobody's asked their permission.

Nobody's asked their permission to do what, exactly? Ogle them? Is that a requirement?

And in many states, including New York (where they will attend college), they are legally consenting adults.

incest is about a father raping a little girl.

That'll be a surprise to women who had sex with their brothers.
posted by pardonyou? at 12:05 PM on August 14, 2003

incest is about a father raping a little girl.

Have you been reading the thread, goneill? The "incest" that people here are discussing involves sexual relations between two twin sisters. You're the first person to bring up fathers, little girls, and rape. Clearly, when "incest" is about two sisters engaging in consensual sexual activities, it is emphatically not about a father raping a little girl.

You'd agree that there's an incest taboo against adult siblings having sex with each other, wouldn't you? Does that taboo exist to protect children from old men? How so?

Incest doesn't usually take place between consenting adults.

Granted; and I think we can all agree that any sexual act involving a nonconsenting participant is a deplorable crime. It's interesting to consider, however, merely from an anthropological point of view, why an incest taboo exists even for consenting adults. Though there are some exceptions (nelleish points out the Egyptian royal family), sex between adult siblings has been taboo in nearly all cultures throughout human history. Many cultures also discourage relations between more distant relatives; first cousins, for instance. Is there an explanation from sociobiology (the taboo evolved as a result of the competitive advantage of a broad gene pool)? Is there a sociological explanation (cultures encourage marriage between families to reduce social conflict)?

Also, why are some people (like myself) repulsed by the idea of adult twin sisters having sex, while others don't seem to be bothered? I certainly have no problem with unrelated women having sex with each other...

And while I'm at it, I completely agree with C_D. If I had as much time and money as the Olsen twins to spend on my appearance, you'd all think I was hot, too.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:08 PM on August 14, 2003

sic: Man, all of this talk of "underage girls" is really subjective. Would it be ok (in your world view) for a 17 year or 18 year old boy to lust after these twins? Probably. So at what age do you reach the cut-off point where it is no longer "healthy" to desire these girls?

I'm glad you asked! As with many things, it all comes down to math.

To determine your skebe (Japanese for "dirty old man") age, simply apply the following formula.

Your Age/2+7=Youngest Partner You Are Allowed To Have Without Being Icky

For example, if I was 30, I could safely date somebody who is 22. You can reverse the formula easily and compute that the top age for a lover to be for a 17 year old Olsen twin would be 20.

You may wish to raise or lower the sleaze factor (which I have set at 7) to match community standards in your neighborhood.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:09 PM on August 14, 2003

I find teen-age girls to be the most attractive in that unsconcious lizard-brain I-see-her-must-mate-with-her instinctual kind of way. My more evolved concious brain distinctly prefers older women. I haven't had sex with a teen since I was twenty. But as sexual objects, yeah, I prefer teens. And I suspect that most men are similar. For all but the most recent times our goal was to find the youngest sexually mature mates we could and I think we're hard-wired for that. When the life expectancy is forty, interest in thirty-five year old women isn't likely to propagate.
But twins? That's weird.
posted by TimeFactor at 12:15 PM on August 14, 2003

Granted; and I think we can all agree that any sexual act involving a nonconsenting participant is a deplorable crime.

precisely...

Your Age/2+7=Youngest Partner You Are Allowed To Have Without Being Icky

Repost (Pink Fuzzy Bunny already filled me in on this). But interesting to see how people codify subjectivity to give it the appearance of objectivity.


As far as young girls...

How about Brooke Shields in her early films, Blue Lagoon and that one where she was a child prostitute (I can't remember the name)? Milla Jojovich in Return to the Blue Lagoon? Or Muriel Hemmingway, who was sexier as an intelligent 15 year old in Manhattan than she is as a rather unremarkable real life adult. And of course Natalie Portman. Young girls can be sexy, there is no denying it. What would be the point?

I sincerely don't find the Olsen twins countdown site any more creepy and pathetic than any of the infinite number of fan sites that idolize famous and beautiful girls, boys, women and men.

I actually find the countdown somewhat humorous (since my take on it is tounge-in-cheek).
posted by sic at 12:24 PM on August 14, 2003

And, what TimeFactor said...

Except for the twins repulsion which I am completely indifferent to.
posted by sic at 12:26 PM on August 14, 2003

Yes, PinkFuzzyBunny did indeed. He phrased it as a word problem, so I didn't notice it. My fault - I never paid attention to word problems in high school and have apparently retained the habit.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:35 PM on August 14, 2003

To me, they look like monkeys, and I think Rolling Stone is on its way out the door if it keeps this sort of thing up, or else maybe it's trying to become the new teen people, whichever.
posted by drezdn at 12:59 PM on August 14, 2003

Also, we know that incest sex leading to children leads to a much higher rate of mental retardation (or something going wrong with the baby's well-being) than offspring from non-relatives. Of course, that doesn't explain the taboo thats been around forever.
posted by jmd82 at 1:06 PM on August 14, 2003

This thread makes me wanna go do something wholesome.
posted by jonmc at 1:08 PM on August 14, 2003

dreszdn:

Please tell me where you have seen monkeys that look like the Olsen twins because I am going to go there and buy them and take them home and hug them and squeeze them and never let them go. I will, I will.
posted by waltb555 at 1:13 PM on August 14, 2003

By the way Joey and PinkFuzzy, I've done the math and your absurd subjective formula comes out about right--anyway as far as the age of someone who I could imagine myself with....

Damn.


I'm not a skebe.
posted by sic at 1:16 PM on August 14, 2003

They look much more authentic and sincere as Little Girl Barbie than they do as Sex Kitten Barbie.
posted by jengod at 1:24 PM on August 14, 2003

Mr. Roboto,

Is there an explanation from sociobiology (the taboo evolved as a result of the competitive advantage of a broad gene pool)?

Read my link above. It's called the Westermarck Effect. Children who are raised together become sexually disinterested in eachother in a built-in process known as imprinting. One of the best examples of nature and nurture working together in a seamless fashion. It is also not sociological, as almost no unrelated kids raised together in Israeli kibbutzim became sexually interested in each other despite no discouragement to do so. In brother-sister and parent-child incest the societal taboo follows the revulsion, it doesn't come before it as Frued asserted.

Many cultures also discourage relations between more distant relatives; first cousins, for instance.

Not exactly true. 80% of pair-bonding through history has been among first cousins. Western cultures are among the few that don't practice it. Our taboo against cousin marriage OTOH is an excellent example of a purely socio-cultural taboo.
posted by dgaicun at 2:22 PM on August 14, 2003

the taboo evolved as a result of...

... the danger of recessives
posted by dgaicun at 2:32 PM on August 14, 2003

This thread is really disturbing.

Do you know how old I was when I was propositioned for the first time?

9

And it just got worst from there: followed in malls and on the street, groped while traveling on a bus, etc.. All of the men were at least 15 years older than me and I'm being generous with that number. One time a guy tried to lure me into a car while I was doing my paper route. I spent a good part of my daily life back then looking over my shoulder and afraid to walk home alone. And because of these sick, fucked up men who thought it was okay to openly leer at 16 (and younger) girls, I became really bitter and wary of anything with a penis by the time I was 12.

If you're going to perv on some girl young enough to be your daughter or niece, at least have the decency to keep it to yourselves. This thread makes me want to take a shower.
posted by echolalia67 at 3:22 PM on August 14, 2003

amen, honey
posted by troybob at 5:46 PM on August 14, 2003

Sic: Someday I will tell you how to recalibrate the formula in case you are Michael Douglas or Anna Nicole Smith.
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:42 PM on August 14, 2003

1) 9 and 17 are not the same.
2) Nobody here is fucking the Olsen twins.
3) A relationship between any of those in here acknowleging an attraction and either of Olsen girls would have a power dynamic completely removed from what you allude to, echolalia67.
and 4) Finding a healthy late-teen person attractive is far from being a perversion.
posted by NortonDC at 7:35 PM on August 14, 2003

echolalia67: I'm not sure what your experiences have to do with this thread. I'm truly sorry that you had such a fucked up childhood, but I don't see how it relates to anything that has been discussed here.


If you're going to perv on some girl young enough to be your daughter or niece, at least have the decency to keep it to yourselves.

I don't even know "perving" means.
posted by sic at 7:56 PM on August 14, 2003

sic: Young girls can be sexy, there is no denying it. What would be the point?

echolalia67: I'm not sure what your experiences have to do with this thread. I'm truly sorry that you had such a fucked up childhood, but I don't see how it relates to anything that has been discussed here.


sic,: I didn't have a fucked-up childhood, I starting going through puberty at 8. Precocious Puberty, is what it's called. Having the brain of a typical 10 year old in the body of a 16 year old is, to put it mildly, a pretty creepy, bizarro-world experience.

You gushed at how hot Natalie Portman was in LEON (when she was 12 years) old, how Brooke Shields was so sexy in Blue Lagoon (14) and Pretty Baby(12). Making a connection between being perved on at 9 and people openly expressing naughty wishes about girls who weren't that much older than I was when they came into the public consciousness is, in this case, entirely appropriate.

Hey, I experienced it, didn't like it, and when it sounded like some folks were about to ruin a pair of pants just thinking about "San Quentin Quail" (a term my dad used instead of "jailbait") I felt like you needed to hear about it from the perspective of someone who's been on the receiving end of the "not yet a woman but no longer a child" attentions of adult men.

The point I was trying to make is that, as someone acknowledged, this perving on the Olsen twins has been going on for for a couple of years. So if it's been happening since they were 14, 13 or even younger, that's not a an attraction to an older teen - that's an on going thing. I'm sorry, but if you've been getting a chubby from thinking about an Olsen since she was 13 year old, you have a problem.

I think it's fine to acknowledge that someone is going to be attractive when they become a legal adult. But having a countdown to when you can, theoretically, legally have sex with her is pretty gross.
posted by echolalia67 at 9:45 PM on August 14, 2003

I'd like to contribute to the general feelings of ickyness in this thread by stating that in Canada the age of consent is 14. I don't think there's an associated "as long as the partner is less than X years old" factor involved.

So by that standard, the Olsen's have legal for several years now. I'm rather surprised that there's so much unease over the idea of a seventeen-year-old having sex. It seems unrealistic to me to have the age limit set that high, given that a good many 16 year-olds are sexually active (not to mention 15, 14 and even younger).

For the record, I think they're cute (in the interview shots, where they're not so glammed-up), but nothing particularly spectacular. I shall now continue to forget that they exist.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:53 PM on August 14, 2003

The point I was trying to make is that, as someone acknowledged, this perving on the Olsen twins has been going on for for a couple of years.

Please grow up. Nobody is fondling them, nobody has tried to intice them, nobody has offered them candy so they'd "Go for a ride in my van." Fact is, some girls are beautiful. That's it. That doesn't mean, "Some girls are beautiful and I want to BANG them! Yeah, ride 'em hard and long! Yee-ha!"

You seem to think that this arbitrary number 18 is the metaphysical demarcater line between healthy and sick! sick! sick! I think you really need to move on from your bad experiences and accept that one can find someone beautiful without necessarily wanting to have sex with them.

And to those who do want sex with 14-year old's, I am not shocked or appalled. When I was 14, I wanted to have sex. Our bodies sexually mature around 12-16. Our society is structured in such a way to prevent mental maturity from hitting until 18-22. The recent trend is liking young girls is neither recent nor a trend; it's a biological fact that is stunted by our culture's desire to push child bearing further and further into middle age, to allow time for "career" and "self-discovery". My great-grandmother was married at 15. First kid at 16. This is not unnatural. Though, these days, it'd probably be illegal.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:39 AM on August 15, 2003

I think it's fine to acknowledge that someone is going to be attractive when they become a legal adult. But having a countdown to when you can, theoretically, legally have sex with her is pretty gross.

No, having a countdown to when you can, theoretically, legally have sex with a millionaire celebrity - like the law is the only thing standing in the way - is pretty sad and delusional. At least when women fantasise they maintain the 'yeah right, in my dreams' aspect of it.
posted by Summer at 8:38 AM on August 15, 2003

And just to add, I think the ickiness that people like echolalia67 are experiencing is not due to the exact age. It's the fact that 'America's favourite fantasy' is based on illegal (incestuous, underage) and therefore taboo and probably exploitative sex. It's fun because it's wrong. The age isn't the point.
posted by Summer at 8:50 AM on August 15, 2003

C_D:Fact is, some girls are beautiful. That's it. That doesn't mean, "Some girls are beautiful and I want to BANG them! Yeah, ride 'em hard and long! Yee-ha!"

Doesn't the whole "America's Favorite Fantasy" thing kinda imply the desire to ride them long and hard?

You seem to think that this arbitrary number 18 is the metaphysical demarcater line between healthy and sick! sick! sick! I think you really need to move on from your bad experiences and accept that one can find someone beautiful without necessarily wanting to have sex with them.

It's a lot bigger problem than my "bad experiences".

Again, it's the whole "just 300 days to open season" tone of the Olsen website that creeps me out. We fetishize extremely young men and women in this culture and we, as a culture, seem to have this attitude that their sexuality is some sort of spectator sport or product to be consumed. There are consequences to this attitude.

From the first link:

California has the highest teen birth rate in the U.S.

3 of 4 births to high school girls are fathered by adults.

Men over 25 account for twice as many teen births as boys under 18 years old.

Men over 20 are responsible for 5 times as many births among junior high school girls than males under 20.

Sure doesn't sound like a bunch of adult guys quietly contemplating the attractiveness of a young girl to me. There is a problem with the "barely legal"/Lolita/Britney Spears sexual fantasies that has social consequences, as listed above. And as Summer noted, it's the exploitative aspect of all of this leering that I find gross.

My great-grandmother was married at 15. First kid at 16. This is not unnatural.

As for your grandmother and the era she lived in - that was the attitude of that time. Young women didn't have a whole lot of options other than getting married. A single woman without a husband or a male relative to shelter her was in a very vulnerable position. My grandmother was forced into an arranged marriage with a man 11 years her senior at the age of 18 - it was not a happy marriage. There are still places where marrying off 15 year old girls is acceptable - rural India, for an example. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to live in that type of culture.

Yes, 18 is an arbitrary number for an age of consent . But it's an arbitrary number that carries a lot of weight - you can vote, manage your own money and property without the guardianship of parents, live independently of your family, etc.. You're considered a fully fledged adult with full legal rights (minus the right to drink alcohol). Psychologically, socially, and legally, you're given the power over your own life.
posted by echolalia67 at 10:35 AM on August 15, 2003

I don't like it, so you shouldn't either.
posted by NortonDC at 11:33 AM on August 15, 2003

We fetishize extremely young men and women in this culture and we, as a culture, seem to have this attitude that their sexuality is some sort of spectator sport or product to be consumed.

Can we quit with the buzz-words? We don't fetishize them as much as we prefer to be them. You know, without wrinkles, with greater levels of energy, with no STD's, with no excessive emotional baggage... that kind of thing.

And your evil consequences of statutory rape!? Come off it. Rape is non-consentual sex. Statutory rape is another beast completely. I don't know if you're aware of this, but the average age for first sexual intercourse in the US is a little over 16. Boy, that's a lot of statutory rapists out there!

As for your grandmother and the era she lived in - that was the attitude of that time.

My point entirely. The culture has changed, but our bodies are still the same. Our desires, and ability to act upon those desires, has not changed. Only now, we have laws restricting the behavior of people that are under this arbitrary number. So, as much as you "wouldn't want to live in that type of culture", you are swimming in it.

Psychologically, socially, and legally, you're given the power over your own life.

Psychologically and socially, the Olsen Twins are already adults, as are a lot of teens. The only reason they can't manage their own money or buy their own property is because people like yourself apply circular reasoning like the above to prevent them from legally acting independently. "You're not an adult until you're 18, but makes sense, because when you're 18 you can do all this stuff that by law you're not allowed to do until you're 18, because you're not an adult until you're 18..." -- &c. ad. nauseum.

Sorry for sounding like a self-rightous teenager; those years are far behind me now, but I still believe the laws applied to teens in the U.S. are morally arbitrary and logically specious, particularly when it comes to sex.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:00 PM on August 15, 2003

The only reason they can't manage their own money or buy their own property is because people like yourself apply circular reasoning like the above to prevent them from legally acting independently.

Wait a minute - I didn't make the law. It's been around way before I ever born. The point I was trying to make is that there's something creepy about wanting to have sex with someone who is not an equal in the eyes of the law. If you lowered the age of consent to 16, with rights to own property, vote, etc., I wouldn't have as much of a problem with guys wanting to sleep with 16 year olds. Wanting to have sex with someone who's, legally speaking, not ones equal makes me question the motivation - is it about simply wanting to have sex with someone who attractive or is there an element of needing to be dominant?

And your evil consequences of statutory rape!? Come off it. Rape is non-consentual sex. Statutory rape is another beast completely.

Statutory rape seems to be leaving a lot of teen girls with babies they're not financially (and most likely psychologically) prepared to deal with. At the least, I'd call that a pretty shitty consequence. When you consider the fact that most of the guys in question are not providing support to the offspring of these unions, I'd feel comfortable bumping it up a notch into to the "evil" category.

Yes, you're correct that the Olsens are probably pretty savvy and worldly as far as 17 year olds are. They are also pretty sheltered, in the sense that they will probably never have to deal with the countdown guy, fact to face. I'm not saying that they don't face weird, unwanted advances. What I am saying is that they are a money-making commodity and as such, are protected and tended to by people with a financial stake in their well-being. Most people, never mind teens, don't have that level of insulation from the world.

You know, if we raised kids to be truly self sufficient by the time they're 18, I wouldn't find it so creepy. But your average "17 soon to be 18" year old can't manage a full-time job, finances, keeping an apartment, being a responsible neighbor etc. They are not mature, self-sufficient adults. A 25+ year old in a relationship with them would definitely have the upper hand.

Raise decently educated kids who know how to balance a checkbook, manage credit cards and car payments; how to spot someone on the scam from a mile away, the basics of the law and their rights, etc. - then the power difference between a 22 year old and a 15 year old won't be as big of a deal.
posted by echolalia67 at 1:12 PM on August 15, 2003

The point I was trying to make is that there's something creepy about wanting to have sex with someone who is not an equal in the eyes of the law.

The state of Virginia thought so too before 1967 when Thurgood Marshall couldn't even legally live in the same house with his interracial wife.

Maybe you should be less circular.
posted by dgaicun at 2:19 PM on August 15, 2003

laws against adults having sex with people who are not yet of an age that's legally considered adult = Jim Crow laws against interracial marriage. Yeah, that's a logical parallel situation to use as an example.

/sacasm

Have any of you thought about this in another way - like what if a 25 year old guy wanted to have sex with your 16 year old son? What if the the guy in question was 30 or 40? Would you be defending your position as strongly?

The issue of intergenerational sex is problematic. For the record, I think if the older person is under 21 and the younger person was 15 and and up, then sexual activity between them should not be defined as statutory rape. I'm sure you would agree, however, that a situation where a 18 year old is having sex with a 12 year old is not a good thing. You can argue biology all you want, but a 12 year old, no matter how physically developed, does not have the life skills and experience that an 18 year old does and the 18 yr old, no matter how gentle and fair-minded, has an unfair advantage. It's what's implied in the phrase, "robbing the cradle".

So where do we draw a line? We need some sort of standard, don't we? 18 is an age when, most people have completed basic education and from it gained enough critical thinking and employment skills to hold your own and participate in the political process. Seems to follow logic that most states consider that to be an age where you have enough common sense to know whether or not you're being taken advantage of.
posted by echolalia67 at 6:27 PM on August 15, 2003

laws against adults having sex with people who are not yet of an age that's legally considered adult = Jim Crow laws against interracial marriage. Yeah, that's a logical parallel situation to use as an example.

Ah, but you're over-extending the analogy. This was in response to a specific sentence and not your general position. What you said was:

The point I was trying to make is that there's something creepy about wanting to have sex with someone who is not an equal in the eyes of the law.

. . . And interracial dating before Civil Rights laws would be such an example. One that is not creepy. So the reason you find lusting after a 17 yr old (!) "creepy" must go beyond differences such as voting rights, which are clearly irrelevant to manufactured concerns such as relationship power differentials. (Even to the extent RPD might be a concern, it is a dubious one for the law to take care of. Should rich people be allowed to date poor people? Handicapped people date non-handicapped people? High IQ people date low IQ people? Ex-felons date non-ex-felons?)

You say that this about "the children" but my guess is that you are pretty disgusted by male lust in general.
posted by dgaicun at 7:35 PM on August 15, 2003

We don't fetishize [young men and women] as much as we prefer to be them.

I call bullshit on that one. Fetishism is obsessive fixation taken to an extreme. The most marginal aspects of teenage appearance and behavior, particularly with regard to sexuality, are portrayed as the norm or ideal by our media, and are more often than not accepted in the mainstream. If this weren't the case, you would not have 60-year-old (not to mention 16-year-old) men and women cutting themselves up to try to get closer to it.

And let's not pretend that heterosexual male lust does not wink its eye at young girls. We know better.
posted by troybob at 8:11 PM on August 15, 2003

Fetishism is obsessive fixation taken to an extreme.

Not really. The distinction is being lost, but traditionally a fetish was defined as something external to the body that for a particular person was elevated to the status of a sexual requirement, e.g. high heeled shoes, satin sheets, a choker, etc.

what if a 25 year old guy wanted to have sex with your 16 year old son?

That's the wrong question. The right question is "What if my 16 year old son wanted to have sex with a 25 year old guy?"

By misplacing the focus on the 25 year old, you are, consciously or not, smearing in all kinds of rape issues where they are not otherwise found.

There may very well be 25 year olds that want to have sex with my 16 year old son, but so what? Unless force is involved, it's not going to happen unless my 16 year old son wants to have sex with that 25 year old guy. Unless, of course, we are talking about rape, which can happen regardless of the ages involved, and therefore is orthogonal to what we're discussing.

Too bad for your position that the idea of constructively dealing with a 16 year old's sexuality doesn't turn the knobs on the bogeyman nightmare machine like imagining faceless sweaty men coming for my teenage boy might.
posted by NortonDC at 10:34 PM on August 15, 2003

I do understand the term fetish in the sense of investing sexual meaning to an external object; however, its definition as 'obsessive fixation' is also valid (while often retaining a sexual connotation), at least as verified by Webster's and Roget's.

The male-male parallel is an interesting one in this case, though. I've long thought that the stereotype (and fear) of gay men as pedophiles arises from a heterosexual male desire for underage girls (a valid generalization considering that--in this particular case--Rolling Stone, Stern, etc. are comforable voicing this desire); the straight man assumes that because he has those feelings for girls, the gay man must have those feelings for boys. (And, of course, this speaks to the more general heterosexual male fear that homosexuals might objectify/lust after them in the same way straight men do women; thus, the term homophobia isn't as much an overexaggeration as some suggest.)
posted by troybob at 11:39 PM on August 15, 2003

I've long thought that the stereotype (and fear) of gay men as pedophiles arises from a heterosexual male desire for underage girls (a valid generalization considering that--in this particular case--Rolling Stone, Stern, etc. are comforable voicing this desire);

Oh, I get it. So your sloppy, highly anecdotal generalizations are "valid", while the sloppy generalizations you critique OTOH are, of course, evidence of pathological fear and bigotry?:

In yet another approach to studying adult sexual attraction to children, some Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult men responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child, pubescent, and mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners. In some of the slides shown to subjects, the model was clothed; in others, he or she was nude. The slides were accompanied by audio recordings. The recordings paired with the nude models described an imaginary sexual interaction between the model and the subject. The recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the model engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming). To measure sexual arousal, changes in the subjects' penis volume were monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989).*

*Note, the study showed rates to be about equal. (Kurt Freund, Robin Watson & Douglas Rienzo, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference, 26 J. Sex. Res. 107, 115 (1989))
posted by dgaicun at 1:16 AM on August 16, 2003

dgaicun: Given that my comment speaks to the heterosexual male perception of gay male desire, and not the actuality (that the rates are equal, which I would expect anyway), I don't get the point of your post. Of course, I could have been more clear about the differences in how our society views each form of desire, but given that gay men who think about teenage boys are perverts who need to be locked up, while straight men who think about teenage girls are simply naughty, it seemed a little obvious. I mean, you're not going to see Rolling Stone celebrating 'almost-legal' teenage boys in this way, and if some radio host started voicing this kind of lust (a la Stern) for an underage male, someone's probably going to call the police.

In fact, your evidence strengthens my argument. The rates of response might be equal, yet straight men are comfortable projecting onto gay men the existence of an inordinate level of predatory behavior toward children (the stereotype), while being comfortable admitting their own 'forbidden' desire for girls (Rolling Stone, Stern) as if it were generally acceptable. (In fact, this, along with echolalia67's comments, kind of point out why heterosexual women have less an issue with male homosexuality than do straight men: they know firsthand the persistence of straight male lust, so they can see the pot/kettle dynamic at the heart of homophobia.)

Nice try, though, dgaicun. Were I not someone who considers our disproportionate sexualization of children so disgusting, I might consider your repeated defense of pedophilia admirable.
posted by troybob at 11:04 AM on August 16, 2003

My major apologies for the last comment. I realized only after I posted that I got dgaicun confused with Civil_Disobedient (whom I was responding to in my original post, which dgaicun subsequently responded to). If course, dgaicun's comments do not reflect a defense of pedophilia, and I'm sorry that I said so. I got confused in the conversational thread, which I should have rechecked more carefully.
posted by troybob at 11:27 AM on August 16, 2003

I mean, really sorry. I feel absolutely horrible about it.
posted by troybob at 11:28 AM on August 16, 2003

I mean, really sorry.

Well, it's ok I guess, but I would think you should apologize to Civil_Disobedient instead. And actually I agree with most of what C_D has said, so your hostile remark can apply indirectly to me as well. I found it highly inappropriate to call anything C_D has said "a defense of pedophilia". 'Pedophilia' is a desire for pre-adolescent children, not the Olsen Twins (unless of course you're watching some re-runs of Full House). People who are attracted to the Olsen Twins, are attracted to them because they have sexually mature bodies, while pedophiles are attracted to pre-adolescents because they don't have sexually mature bodies. The distinction is important. I don't see anywhere where Civil_Disobedient supports the sexualization of pre-adolescents, so I do think it would be best if you retracted the comment all-together, or replaced the charge.
posted by dgaicun at 12:45 PM on August 16, 2003

Of course, the entire last paragraph of my comment was idiotic...not the first time I've done that on Metafilter (and apologized); I try to form a reasonable argument, and then something takes over before I hit the post button and I become an idiot (whose entire argument is undermined, on top of that). And I should have stated in my apology that the comment, even applied to C_D, was ridiculous, and I apologize for that as well.

To try to rationalize an irrational act, my comment was more directed to the argument about the arbitrariness of age of sexual consent as discussed between C_D and echolalia67; my gut reaction was that, in my years in the Navy, that argument was more typically summarized as "old enough to bleed, old enough for me," and the shocking prevalence of that rationale made me hate that institution I had grown to love.

My apologies to everyone; I'll try to be a better community member.
posted by troybob at 1:56 PM on August 16, 2003

A big flap over those purported twins, but they're not "twins" at all. They're Mitsubishi's new android prototypes.
posted by troutfishing at 8:06 AM on August 17, 2003