I don't see a meaningful difference between 17 and 18. They are both "too young" for me, a 40-year-old man, to see as sex objects. But when I was 19? Both were fair game.

I'd rather question why there is still a 21 drinking age in the U.S., when childhood ends at 18.

I dunno, it's rough. When I was 16 and 17 (and through college in my early 20s), I would have loved clothes like that. I loved showing off. I super sexualized myself. But, I also didn't really understand what it meant. I thought sex = being loved. At 27 now and in a happy marriage, I look back at me at that age and feel protective, and understand why my parents were upset and protective. I see that girl in the video stripping and wonder what kind of feels she has about it, and if she feels both as flippant as I was about flaunting my sexuality and desperately seeking approval (for her, in the form of record sales and a change at stardom, maybe).

Actually, this got me thinking: how was Cherie Curie percieved?

I wasn't alive yet during that period, so I can't really know, but I somehow feel this is different. Even though both are 16-17, front a rock band, and wear lingerie (very little of it, in fact), My initial reaction to this is "tsk tsk tsk" while to the Runaways it's "yeah, you go girl!".

I'm not sure why. Maybe I feel that Curie's antics are more "genuine" than Momsen's? (Whether or not it's actually the case).

If this video were someone about ten years older, it wouldn't be of note at all.

Momsen is out to shock, so it makes sense she'd dress like this.

The syncing in that video seems really poor, like its not even her singing. She has a much older voice than her age would suggest.

It seems more appropriate, in a sense, for 17 year old Momsen to sex herself up as someone older, than for the Glee adults to sex themselves as younger, high school kids.

This is a difficult one: we can all remember being sexual beings at the same age and earlier. Additionally, 'underage' is a moveable feast: here in the UK it's 16 and other countries in the EU have a lower age of consent. Audience matters here too: it's not creepy for people of roughly the same age finding her attractive, but the wider the age gap, the creepier it is - but of course our cultures have institutionalised a cult of youth as perfection.

There does seem to be a paedophilic aspect to American pop music videos (and throughout 1960s-1990s pop music). Just think of the Britney Spears in school uniform video. It's only a few years since reactionary tabloid 'newspaper' The Sun ran a 'Countdown to Legality' as Charlotte Church's 16th birthday approached (she's a popular, feisty Welsh singer) and made comments like 'blooming' and 'bursting out' about the 15 year old daughter of Prince Andrew (I've forgotten her name).

What slightly disturbs me about this video is that it's an invitation to consume the (semi-)naked teenager, disguised as female empowerment. Just because she's taking her own clothes off doesn't mean that she's a powerful sexual woman, just that she's learned what gets attention in our cultures. I note that the men in the group keep their clothes on…

"On the one hand, because Momsen is 17, one could argue that this video is encouraging the sexualization of underage girls and child pornography (which involves, by definition, children under age 18)."

On the other hand, a people with a functioning cortex might not think a 17-year old is still a child. Especially one that's involved in the professional performing arts.

I love how you pretend to examine a social construct by invoking it.

Maybe some better questions revolve around the use of the word "child" when referring to a 17-year old, and why we're beholden to the whimsical "18".

I'm a bit disturbed, more by the fact that I had NO IDEA Taylor Momsen was 17. The show Gossip Girl came out when I was 16 or 17 (I don't remember exactly), and at the time she played a 14 year old (I have no idea where the show's progressed to by now, since I only saw the first season). Given Hollywood's penchant for "Dawson Casting," I'd assumed that she was at least 16 or 17 THEN, because she certainly hadn't looked like any 14 year old I'd seen. So my initial squick is not so much 'she IS seventeen' as it is 'WHAT? She's seventeen?!' I might have a different reaction if I kept up with celebrity birthdays.

However, I don't know whether this ENCOURAGES sexualization in underage girls. I can assure you that this is not encouraging pornography; a female being naked does not inherently equal pornography. There are certainly sexual elements in the video, and I still am not sure why she is taking her clothes off, but that isn't porn. As for sexualization....the thing is, Taylor Momsen has a very specific demographic, and that demographic seems to be made up almost entirely of girls her age and younger. The fact that this is aimed at 15 year old girls and not 40 year old men does matter (not that 40 year old perverts WON'T ever see this and find it arousing, perverts could do that if she was wearing a snowsuit so the point is moot). I don't personally think she is encouraging her audience to be sexualized as she is appealing to her audience. Many teenage girls want to have sex appeal, and the fact that the majority of them want to be sexually appealing to teenage boys as opposed to much older men removes the disturbing element of 'underage and sexual.' Taylor Momsen's video certainly isn't going to change the number of girls who think 'I want to take my clothes off and look sexy.' However, teenagers (and children, and adults of all ages) do tend to mimic their favorite idols in certain aspects, so I certainly don't doubt that for those who idolize Taylor Momsen, this will encourage them to buy clothes similar to what she's wearing in the video, which many probably won't find appropriate for a 17 year old to wear in public.

I feel bad for the girl sometimes because as she notes, she's been working as a model since she was a baby. A lot of this from her perspective is probably, "Ok, fine. Look at me. Is this what you wanted?" She's rebelling by doing exactly what is being asked of her.

That being said, I dressed like a 'ho when I was 17 too.

I'd say it's natural (i.e. not a psychological perversion) for men to feel sexual attraction to women who are sexually mature, i.e. old enough to get pregnant. I imagine that typically happens well below the age 18. Men who don't feel attractive to such "women" are, I'd say, responding to cultural norms, which stigmatize attraction to "too young" of women, which emphasize additional desirable properties in women (which tend to be acquired with more time), and which question to what extent a (young) woman can freely and/or fully reciprocate such feelings in an older man.

I think laws policing sex with young women should be largely about this last point, i.e. concern that social pressures inhibit their ability to freely engage in the activity. If it were up to me, I'd phrase laws in terms of maximum age gaps between "consenting" partners when either is below the age of 18, where 18 is chosen arbitrarily as the age we decide one takes full individual responsibility for personal decisions.

If a young women engages in a sex act on film, I think it would be appropriate to consider the filming / viewing of the act as "effectively" sex, with the viewership. So if two 16 yr olds have sex and film it, and sell it on the internet, I would say a crime has occurred, because while I'm OK with two 16 yr olds consenting to sex with each other, I'm not OK with either consenting to sex with the audience of such a video (the crime is committed by whatever adults are involved in the process, producing / selling or buying / viewing). This is how I would reason against pornography involving under-18-but-sexually-mature women (and men).

However, I'm not so to what extent merely stripping to underwear should be viewed as a sex act (between the stripper and some distant viewer of the video). I'd say it's not (especially since legal swimwear is now must as revealing as underwear). If it were nude, I'd go the other way.

Momsen is a 17-year-old teen idol who strips naked over the course of the video. Her naked body is eventually obscured, but not before we get a good look at her in her bra and underwear.

I don't know that this is technically correct... At no point does one see Momsen strip naked. True, she strips down to bra, underwear, and fishnets (which is sexualized enough, imho), but strips naked? Not unless you were watching a different video.

Now, people can argue as to whether she was still clothed, actually naked, or simulated to be naked while she was wreathed in flame/light. However, at no point was she shown to be removing (or simulating removing) her bra, underpants, or fishnets. (At least on the version I saw.)

True, it's a small point to make, but for lisa to say that the singer strips naked when there is no evidence for the action is problematic. Especially when the near-nakedness of such a young woman's stripping is cause enough for discussion.

I think it is also important to ask who else is involved in the making of this video. There is a good chance that wardrobe, make-up and the direction of the video were orchestrated by many other people. When it comes to young, sexualized pop stars there are almost always much older men and women calling the shots. I don't see how adults filming a young girl stripping for the purpose of public consumption and profit can be seen as anything but problematic. I think this is sexual exploitation of children and I find it sad.

I'll say it since no one else has: Of COURSE she is taking her clothes off, everything is catching on fire because of the flaming meteorites! It must be hundreds of degrees where she is, and even before that pretty warm when she starts undressing. That kid in the cloak must be roasting! And also her taking off her rosary necklace was probably a "the world is ending, don't need this anymore" gesture.

That being said, I think this was very tame. No gyrating or booty pops, no stripper poles, just walking around in underwear while things are burning. No big whoop.

It just came to my mind, but i thought that if I was a 14 years old, I might find her an interesting, maybe "cool" character (i was not much into the "cool" business then), but i think there is something else in the power in demonstration than the "looking sexy and desirable for the male gaze". As someone said : there is no pole dance, no mimicking of relating to another, it's mostly sexy clothes, showing off underwear and attitude. Somehow, beyond the sterotypes and what really goes in her mind then, one might see in this something somewhat liberating : daring to show sexy underwear or clothes, and to show skin while not being considered a sex object is quite a challenge! If it's not those who objectify you, it's those who fear for your purity and attribute the same sins to a bit of lace and a cleavage. I'm not saying about age here- it's another question- but for once I'd like to lift the taboo and the ooohs and aaahs off the territory of the female body and lingerie. That's what i thought when watching the video, with the end of the world, and a lone girl undressing : wouldn't it be nice not to wait until all hell is loose and we only have minutes to live for girls to undress without a second thought ?

"Not to mention the fact that the average age of virginity loss in the U.S. is about 16."

Where did that number come from?

According to Wikipedia the average age of first sexual intercourse in the United States is 17 for males, 17.3 for females. The citation is: http://www.newstrategist.com/productdetails/Sex.SamplePgs.pdf Other studies I find from quick web searching also turn up numbers firmly in the 17 to 17.5 range. According to this, the number of females that have had intercourse at age 16 is only 30%.

I'm disappointed that you'd baldly state a "fact" that appears to be clearly unsupported. It's a "fact" I've heard all my life -- hell, usually I hear even younger numbers tossed about. This "fact" (that "on average" people start sex surprisingly young) always made me feel like I was somehow retarded and socially inept to have *finally* had intercourse at the ancient age of 18. Only years later do I understand I was a very normal kid.

What does it mean that even you, who should know better, get this wrong? It seems to me like propagating such an erroneous perception only contributes to the culture of pressuring youth to have sex earlier, by creating a sense of "peer pressure" regarding what the "average youth" is doing.

damn y'all. I don't know how old you are/were, but freaking just a'int shit these days, you know. I mean one day your playing tony hawk pro skater with your friends the next your freaking some girl for a cigarette in brown county you met at the mall fifteen miles away. Like, you gotta realize that women are women for a reason, we can have sex with them. That's the main reason were alive, I mean damn. I am in college and I didn't just ace my sociological and gender studies exams because I don't understand how to undress my girlfriend and make love to her, it's because I take ridalin and touch my ballz. think about it.

Above the influence.

I think the question of "How young is too young?" is more important, and more difficult, in matters of sex. It's hard to find a balance between protecting young people from predators, and denying them their own sexual feelings and desires.

As for the video, I don't have too big a problem with it. The shot of her in her underwear is pretty distant, and as others have pointed out, she's not really undressing in a sexy way. It's certainly not the most meaningful video I've ever seen, but it doesn't bother me a whole lot.

So, a blonde, thin, large-breasted girl-woman in smoky makeup walks through a decaying landscape, shirking off her clothes and moaning in the camera while saying "You make me wanna die".

Rly?

It's a bit much. I don't care how old she is. The last message I want floating around in my cortex is an emaciated woman on some suicidal rant. Poor thing needs to eat a sandwich and take a shower. That alone can cure some serious ills.

Considering the music sucks, it makes sense they'd put a woman taking her clothes off in the video.

In previous cultures, this 17 year old would have been married, have a household to take care of, and quite possibly a few kids. I'm not certain why this particular culture that we live in feels a need to infantilize it's children far beyond the age of need.

While the frontal lobes ARE still developing, if one examined the actions and thoughts of children of less-privileged cultures, one might find that younger children are indeed capable of quite mature and rational thought. For an in-culture example, consider that many of the NCO's in our armed forces are possibly 23-25, and capable of command under quite hazardous circumstances, while the average 23 year old in the States is still living with mama and not even self-supporting.

Bloggers are quick to judge on the sexualization of Miley and Taylor for their risque music videos and live performances. True, they both only wear (expensive looking?) lingerie and heels.

Still, how is this different from what you see at the beach any given summer? Ever since I was in 8th grade, my female counterparts have rushed to the beach in bikinis and flaunted their pictures on facebook/ myspace. No one had a problem with the way they dress, and they were all 3 or 4 years younger than miley.

I don't really see a problem with this video. Taylor has often said that she does not wish to be a role model to anyone, as she is only living her life, maybe in the wrong way but she loves what she does and doesn't give a damn what everyone else is saying. People say she's a slut and she doesn't care, how is that a bad example?

As to her age, at 17 many girls have a pretty developed sexuality and are sexual being, regardless of what older people might think. She is the mind behind her own work, which is really rare for singers these days.

And I think the music is good.

I've been reading this blog for a few months, and I must say, I am very pleased to see this post (not that you don't normally post interesting and thought provoking articles!) I myself am a 17 year old female (I was born in March.) I just finished my third full-time semester at college. I rarely tell any of my classmates or instructors my age. When people do find out how old I am, they are always surprised. "Really?! I would've guessed you were 22!", is along the line of most peoples' responses.

I believe that ageism is a form of discrimination that goes un-checked in our society. While there is arguably a need for many things (driver's license, alcohol consummation, voting, etc.) to be determined by ones chronological age, I think that it is over emphasized on a person-to-person basis. Does it really matter in the classroom (and else where) that I'm 17 years old? Shouldn't my accomplishments stand on their own--without my age appended to them? Shouldn't I be judged on the strength of my character, what I am able to accomplish, and my interrogatory as a person--and not how many years I've been on this Earth?

I also believe that there will be no significant difference between the day before my 18th birthday and the day after, in regards to my ability to make decisions concerning what I do sexually (besides the legality.)

80s-riffic, apocalyptic music video

More 90s, to be honest. My first thought was that they were pulling off the Soundgarden thing reasonably well. The video was really reminiscent of Black Hole Sun.

Sorry, it just feels unfair to not talk about the music.

So first off, I agree with everyone who said that she's less naked than most of the people I've seen at beaches and pools, even in Minnesota. I also think that saying she strips naked is unnecessary and inflammatory on that basis. What really bugs me about the video is that there's no possible reason for her to be stripping her clothes off. If it's social commentary of some sort, it eludes me.

I feel that adulthood is an obvious social construct. At the same time, I feel that our government is obligated to protect its citizens from many things, including sexual predators. This is really a question that can only be answered by culture.

Although it's obviously arbitrary and far from a perfect answer, I would suggest that there be a Federal law that is as lenient as possible (say, a 14-year-old is an adult) with individual states (or even counties!) given the authority to raise the age limit to whatever the local community deems appropriate.

I know this is an old post so maybe no one will see this, but interesting postscript to mention that this actress/singer just "won" the Fug Madness title (from March Madness bracket game) on the pop culture website "Go Fug Yourself." The comments that often accompany her photos are, "Where are her parents?" and "Look into pants."

I'd just like to say, as an eighteen-year old, that I am very tired of other people arguing about the sexuality, capacity for judgement, maturity, or autonomy of people my age. Let us speak for ourselves. Whether or not we are adults, however you would like to define that, is a moot point. We are growing human beings just like everyone else, and we deserve to be respected and listened to, not doubted and second-guessed based on our youth.

Upon reading some of the last few comments, I am glad to hear from Julia as well on this subject.

Although I do realize this is an old post. I needed to say me piece.

Child pornography is a market, like gay pornography. The correct term should be child abuse.....

Just saying.

I don't know. Do you think it should be you?

Very well said, Alanna!. People who shout abuse, pornography, insensativity
are shallow, lonely, uneducated people that have no life of their own, thus, they make it their lifes work to interfer, judge, and condemn everyone else for everything from fat-seating on airplanes to childrens swimwear. Pornography is in the eye of the beholder!

Keeley, are you out of your mind. The average 17 year old isn't sexually mature? You mean she isn't over-weight, corns on her feet, and hasn't dropped two or three brats? I have never know a 17 year old that wasn't, in fact,a grown woman, regardless of what people like you think. GET OVER IT!!!, worry about your OWN sexuality rather that someone else's.

Holy hell.. am I the only person that got the opposite message from this? A lady screaming about not being good enough and wanting to die and the conclusion of the video is her stripping and then throwing herself into a flaming grave?
If this was meant to titlate people I think its going about things the wrong way. Before I read this post I saw it as potentially a rebellious anthem against conformism.. which is, I repeat, her not being good enough, which she says makes her want to DIE.
Also she is never unclothed in the presence of a male, acting as if its for the purpose of attracting them. The shots of her with the band are fully clothed. The undressing Momsen is walking at a steady pace towards the camera, looking unhappy to say the least, without notable camera focus on the undressing itself. No zooms, more focus on the act of tearing stuff off. And she gives it to homeless people as she passes- perhaps it was meant to symbolise giving everything up in preperation for the eponymous suicide wish? She's covered up by fire at the very end, never fully undressing, and then horrible flaming death. REAL arousing, yeah..
If this was genuinely meant to be a standard 'look at me I'm sexy jailbait' song I think they should fire the coreographer.. or am I just looking at things too literally?