truthseeker1
Of course, a countdown is distasteful, but its actually a joke.
With respect, as long as minors are regularly being sexually abused and expolited by people, it won't be a funny joke, at least not for me.
There is a different between finding a pretty girl of that age attractive and making jokes that hinge around whether or not it's legal to have sex with them yet. One is normal, the other somehow legitamises those who would care which side of the divide she was on...
And there's a difference between an 18 year-old 'porn star' being spoken of like she's a slut-in-waiting, and two girls who were in kiddies movies.
If an adult (and 18 is as good as it gets in coming up with a dividing line) works in erotic entertainment, then so-be-it.
I just think the Olsen girls didn't ask nor deserved to be spoken of like that; and as I have been saying, no one's been rash enough to claim they'd say that sort of thing to their dad's face, have they? So funny, maybe, offensive, undeniably.
funkyderek
I find the best method of putting distracting beauty in girls that age in context is to think of boys that age... teenage boys can be a nightmare to deal with and are obviously immature... and apart from the 'wrapping', teenage girls are just the same... bleugh
I think part of the intended humour of the countdown sites derives from the (perhaps necessary) absurdity in having an age of consent; that these two attractive healthy young adults are to be considered children until they've been alive for 6575 days, at which point it's morally acceptable to consider them as sexual beings.
I think that most people who put a web-countdown like that up would use that as an excuse if they had seen it written somewhere and needed to defend their actions.
I do agree that the idea is absurd; but then having to make murder illegal is equally absurd if you think about it. Do people need to be told it's bad?. In an ideal world eveyone would be responsible enough to decide based on the circumstances and individuals involved.
In the real world a quasi-arbitary number has to do. Personally I think 18 is silly; the stepped ages-of-consent in much of Europe (especially the German law which protects 14-17 year olds who are being sexually exploited by an adult in the opinion of the parents/social sevices/courts) seem far more sensible. But if there's a law like that in place to protect minors and we don't give it creedance...
... well, we're again making life for those who break it easier as their actions are somehow less shocking if we joke about exactly the same thing.
The problem is the jokes all started when the Olsens were pretty much indisputably kids, and were being made by adults. I don't think that's healthy for the reasons I've given.
I also think that the rape compairison is a very very bad one. I know at least three close female friends who've been raped, and I'm pretty sure all of them would rather pose for something non-sexual ('cause those Olsen photos are non-sexual) and have someone jerk-off using the photo than be raped.
Flying
Although most people are not remotely mature at 18, you have to draw a line somewhere, else you end up with ludicrous situations where you have voting working driving drinking adults who can't legally have sex.
hillary
Cheers.
Another pet peeve of mine. I notice that a poster alluded to you as self-righteous. I have seen this bandied around a fair bit on these Boards, when what the person really means to say is, "Your argument is much stronger and better presented than my own". Defeat an argument by presenting a stronger case against it, or accpept that we need to learn. That is the only way these discussion Board debates can work.
I agree 100%. Unfortunately some people are bad losers. I never understood what the big deal about being proved wrong in an argument; it generally means you've learnt something, and isn't that a good thing?
Valis
These two have been objectifying themselves for years now...
Yeah, and The Little Mermaid is a crack whore, and Belle gives knee-shakers on the corner of 11th and Grand. If by you 'objectifying' you mean appearing in kiddies movies that some men watched because of their sexual attraction to adolescents, then they weren't objectifying themselves. It was the men who did that. As I have yet to see an Olsen movie (my excuse is I have daughters) where they were being "overtly sexual", I can't see how they objectified themselves in any sexual way.
If Mary-Kate appears in 'Barely Legal', then tissues-away for anyone who likes that; she's objectified herself and is being paid for it. No harm, no foul. Probably a little tacky still though...
undercover
There's nothing wrong with enjoying a woman's appearance in a situation like that, provided you don't make her feel uncomfortable or threatened. This has been more about the hijacking of teenage children's movie stars in to some distastful coming-of-age fantasy; it's rather different.
And that photo of Lindsay Lohan ; well, pretty young girl. For christ-sake, I spent three weeks last summer on a nudist camp where there were plenty of examples of pretty young girls without bikinis. Does that mean I found it sexual? Nah. Look at another photo of her;
Now she just looks like a kid... which is what she is... and this is under 'new photos' on her website. Stick a 17 year-old in a bikini and genetics and biology can make her a babe. But a sexual object? That's just silly.
