Age-related Questions 11-20

THE QUESTION:
A20: Why is so much youth fashion so aggressively visually unappealing, sexually unappealing or unflattering to the wearer, such as grunge or baggy styles? What is the first impression the wearers of such clothing wish to convey ?
POSTED JUNE 30, 1998
Greg C., 35, male <gregc@NewZealand.Sun.COM>, Wellington, New Zealand
(Similar question regarding the revival of ’70s baggy, loose-fitting clothes posted July 17, 1998, by Rocky S., 50s <fred1c1dobbs@webtv.net>, Las Vegas, NV)

ANSWER 1:
A lot of people wear clothes that don’t suit them because they want to pronounce their individuality and reject the expectations placed on them by society, such as those that state what they should wear. This is how both the grunge and homey fashions began, just like in the ’60s, when teenagers wore brightly colored, flamboyant clothes to rebel against the conservative uniforms of the ’50s. What some teenagers don’t realize is that if they wear these clothes, they are conforming in another sense.
POSTED JULY 17, 1998
Frances S., 16 <novacaine@rocketmail.com>, Sydney, Australia

FURTHER NOTICE:
The reason for the grungy look, dirty feet under the baggy pants (boys and girls) and the long, dirty hair is that they immediately want you and me to be shocked. They hope we think they are rebellious and that they are really different. They want to be outcasts so they will at least be recognized for something. If they don’t turn to alcohol and drugs to be further recognized, they grow out of all of this.
POSTED JULY 21, 1998
Cap’n Charlie <charliep@versoft.com>, Tallahassee, FL

FURTHER NOTICE 2:
We dress as our peers and heroes, just as you most likely dress as your peers and heroes. In the ’50s (at least according to Nick At Nite) people wore tight cloths. It’s the ’90s and we wear baggy cloths. In the ’40s (according to my grandparents’ photos) guys wore suits with very baggy pants. Hang around a few years or decades and the clothes you like will come back into fashion. As far as being “sexy” or not, there were many Native American tribes who wore nothing or next to nothing. We would consider that sexy or lewd today, but they were just following their peers and heroes.
POSTED JULY 24, 1998
Black Male, 22, Oakland, CA

FURTHER NOTICE 3:
It’s in the eye of the beholder. You mean to tell me that previous generations of clothing styles – bellbottoms, psychodelia, etc. – were visually appealing? If you were from a non-Western culture and saw someone in a suit and tie, you’d probably consider that ugly, too.
POSTED OCT. 28, 1998
M.W., 21 <ed375@freenet.cleveland.edu>, Cleveland, OH

FURTHER NOTICE 4:
I wear unappealling clothes because I have low self-esteem about my body and myself, along with many thousands and perhaps millions of teens today. I do not desire to have people look at me and say “Well, doesn’t she look nice!” because I do not believe anyone would truly think that. I would think that they were just trying to be nice to me. I have also been sexually molested twice, so I also do not want to attract people to me.
POSTED NOV. 2, 1998
M. Davis, 15, black/white/Hispanic, Houston, Texas

FURTHER NOTICE 5:
Much of the clothing teenagers wear seems perfectly normal to them; it just seems different to you because it is not the same as what you wore when you were young. To me there is nothing unflattering or unappealing about the clothing teenagers wear today. Through my eyes (checking out a guy), baggy pants are far more appealing than horrible, uncomfortable tight pants of any kind. This is simply the way we are used to seeing ourselves.
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
Anne B., female <Ambush99@hotmail.com>, Brawley, CA

FURTHER NOTICE 6:
The baggy clothes started with the gangs. They use the baggy clothes to hide their weapons, drugs and cash. Others just followed what they saw as a fashion trend. When a young person doesn’t have a positive example to follow, they’ll follow anyone. I feel it’s a sad statement that the parents don’t take the time to find this sort of thing out before they dish out the money to purchase this type of clothing.
POSTED NOV. 21, 1998
Susan B., 24, female, MO

FURTHER NOTICE 7:
I think the whole point of grunge was to be freed from having to be attractive and a sex object. It can make you feel free of hassle about your appearance and you can concentrate on the things that really matter in life. By becoming fashionable, a lot of that side of it changed; you now have to wear perfect make up with your army trousers! I don’t actually find the grunge style of clothing unattractive or unappealing. I find many of the older conventions of dress much more ugly. I hate certain types of suits, frilly shirts, puffed sleeves, and over-fussy clothes of any sort. I dislike them so much because of the sort of people I associate with them – fussy, narrow-minded people. Having said that, I don’t think the style of clothing has all that much to do with how attractive or unattractive someone is. Certain people can just wear anything and look really good.
POSTED DEC. 15, 1998
Beth, preferer of messy clothes, Edinburgh, UK

FURTHER NOTICE 8:
Since we are approximately the same age, I find your question funny. What a lot of the fashion is now is retro ’70s – shirts with Adidas or Charlie’s Angels on them, elephant bell bottoms, shirts with stripes on the arms, etc. They are wearing what people wore when we were kids, just more exaggerated, and the only message we were worried about was that other kids our age would think we were cool. Yep, their kids will laugh at them one day, too.
DEC. 18, 1998
Craig, 35 <cmorris@loft.org>, Minneapolis, MN

FURTHER NOTICE 9:
I think it is unfair to judge others by the way they are dressed. Everyone has their own style and that’s it, period. The “homie” style didn’t even originate as a fashion statement. Kids living in poverty often got hand-me-downs from their older siblings. Very rarely did these clothes fit them and practically hung off of their bodies. After a while this style caught on and all the kids began dressing that way. At any rate it doesn’t matter where it came from, it matters that we all have the right to be individual. No one else should have the right to judge what other people wear, or try and give explanations for the reasons we choose to dress this way.
POSTED MARCH 30, 1999
Female, 18, Latina <arana14@hotmail.com>, Stockton, CA
To respond
BACK TO TOP

THE QUESTION:
A19: Do people become more resistant to learning how to operate things like VCRs and stereos as they get older? I’m looking for a scientific answer, if possible.
POSTED JUNE 26, 1998
John, 42, Chicago, IL

ANSWER 1:
Older people continue with their disdain or attraction to technology rather than transform at a set age. I feel like a pioneer in a most exciting technological time. My husband is the same. Those our age we know who eschew computers, VCRs, etc. had similar feelings toward electric typewriters, tape recorders, CDs, etc. My generation did not grow up with rampant technology, so only those naturally curious about such things expend the effort to master them (many times on their own). Don’t be too hard on them. Imagine, if you will, having all those objects that youtackled in stages as you grew up thrust suddenly into your life instead.
POSTED NOV. 27, 1998
Beth, 60, white female, Orlando, FL
To respond
BACK TO TOP

THE QUESTION:
A18: Why is it that young people seem to think something is wrong with you if you are a virgin? I’m 46 and proud that my wife is the only woman I have ever slept with.
POSTED JUNE 13, 1998
Jay K., jayk01@msn.com, Charleston, S.C.

ANSWER 1:
I am not sure why it is that everyone my age is so critical of virgins. I actually had a girlfriend break up with me because I would not have intercourse with her (even though we did have other sexual relations). My philosophy is that if I don’t have sex, I don’t have to worry about unplanned pregnancy or AIDS. My current girlfriend (who is not a virgin) understands my situation and agrees. My friends at college make fun of me and one other student who admitted we were virgins during a class debate. My guess is they are jealous!
POSTED JUNE 26, 1998
Chris T., 21, white male <thuemmel@globalbiz.net>, Metro Detroit, MI

FURTHER NOTICE:
Sex sells and it’s all over our media, movies, music and magazines. More and more young people are becoming exposed to sex and sexual material every day, and this material is becoming more and more frequent. Because it’s everywhere, it’s becoming a part of what many people think and do, including young people. I’m only 21, and I’ve noticed the increase of explicit material in music, music videos, movies, etc., just in my lifetime. To be a teenager/young adult and to be a virgin these days is to be a minority. History shows that minorities are often ridiculed and joked about. I’m a virgin, too, and have broken relationships because of it, but that’s all right. It’s a matter of choice, and I’ve chosen to abstain until I’m married.
POSTED JULY 16, 1998
Jacqui, 21 <jmclaug@eos.ncsu.edu>, Blacksburg , VA

FURTHER NOTICE 2:
I think attitudes are changing. We have moved from a time when premarital sex was frowned on and never discussed, to the sexual revolution and free love, and now many (young and old) assume that anyone not married and of high school age or older is having sex or trying to have sex. I am a virgin but have watched my friends decide to start having sex just because that’s what you do. I think the pendulum is shifting, though. With the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases and the declining teen pregnancy rates, I think people are becoming more responsible. And I think as part of that more people will make the decision to not have sex or to hold off on having sex, and it will no longer be such a unique decision.
POSTED JULY 24, 1998
Tara, 24 <taraluken@hotmail.com>, Washington, DC

FURTHER NOTICE 3:
Most people I know, especially girls, aren’t ashamed of being a virgin because it shows you aren’t a slut and you have good morals. I am a virgin because I have more self-control than people who go around sleeping with everyone, and plus I am going to wait until marriage.
POSTED AUG. 7, 1998
Kristina, 14, Houston, TX

FURTHER NOTICE 4:
I am only 15, but I am very proud to be a virgin. I intend on saving my virginity until I’m married, which is something not a lot of people can honestly say. Sex is everywhere you look. Even in peer pressure. It’s a sad thing.
POSTED SEPT. 28, 1998
Meg X., 15, female <eyeamabat@aol.com>, Modesto, Ca
To respond
BACK TO TOP

THE QUESTION:
A17: Why do teenagers wear those enormous pants? I see kids with pants at least four sizes bigger than they would normally need, and I just do not understand. How comfortable can it be for your pants to be hanging half off you and have enough extra room for two more people in them?
POSTED JUNE 13, 1998
C.J., 20, white female, Orion, MI

ANSWER 1:
My Orange County, CA, son tells me it is to hide weapons or shoplifted merchandise – i.e. it is the gangster look they are seeking
POSTED JUNE 25, 1998
M. Blake, 52, white male, Springfield, MO

FURTHER NOTICE:
Teens wear baggy pants because teens wear baggy pants. We all tend to emulate our peers. But, what is the big deal? Why stress? If you do not like baggy pants, don’t wear them. I wear baggy pants because I like the way I look in them. I don’t make any “comfort” excuses – I just like the style. And when the style changes, so might I.
POSTED JUNE 28, 1998
S.G.D., 23, gay black male, Oakland, CA

FURTHER NOTICE 2:
As a mother, I love the big pants. My sons can get three years’ wear out of a pair of jeans now!
POSTED JUNE 28, 1998
Lisa, Leduc, Alberta, Canada

FURTHER NOTICE 3:
What if I were to ask you why you wore the clothes you wore when you were a teen? We wear baggy pants because we think they look good, which is probably why you wore whatever it is you used to wear. And hey, don’t knock it until you try it!
POSTED AUG. 9, 1998
Lynette, 14, white female, Battle Creek, MI

FURTHER NOTICE 4:
Who says they aren’t comfortable that way? I think they are more comfortable than when they are all stiff and it’s hard to crouch down without making creaking noises.
POSTED SEPT. 7, 1998
A concerned 17-year-old <snail40@yahoo.com>, Grand Rapids, MI

FURTHER NOTICE 5:
I wear the big pants for two reasons: One, it’s comfortable. I know a lot of people use it as an excuse, but it’s true. It’s much more comfortable than tighter pants. And it’s also easier to dance/move around in them. And two, they look good. Not ones that are five sizes too big, but ones that are just a little larger.
POSTED JAN. 5, 1999
Meg, 14, female <Eyeamabat@aol.com>, Modesto, Ca
To respond
BACK TO TOP

THE QUESTION:
A16: I am 40 and still refer to my friends’ parents as “Mr.” or “Mrs.” Why do kids today refer to adults by their first name?
POSTED JUNE 13, 1998
Marc B., rstnevrslp@aol.com, Modesto, CA

ANSWER 1:
Many people no longer feel it is appropriate to put a barrier between themselves and others, including younger people. It is becoming rare in society at any level to be introduced with a label that is related to anything other than your job, and many of the titles of old used to separate groups and classes have become unfashionable. This is an extension of the breaking down of traditional roles within society.
POSTED JULY 1, 1998
Greg C., 35, male <gregc@NewZealand.Sun.COM>, Wellington, New Zealand

FURTHER NOTICE:
I’m 32 and by default will address anyone about the age of my parents with the honorific. However, I have found that now that I am an adult, many people this age are quite uncomfortable with being called “Mr./Mrs./Miss X” once I am on terms of familiarity with them. “You’re making me feel ancient,” a friend’s dad complained to me. Children of my friends are free to call me “Auntie,” or to use my first name. As Marilla of Anne of Green Gables replied to Anne when the girl said that using just plain “Marilla” seemed disrespectful, if you say my name with respect, that’s good enough for me.
POSTED JULY 28, 1998
Desiree S., Toronto, Ontario, Canada

FURTHER NOTICE 2:
I am young and refer to anyone older than me by more than just a few years as Mr. or Ms., but most young people today don’t. It is easier to get along with someone or be relaxed around them if you feel you are equals. I feel equal to some people because I have grown up, but my parents’ friends and family are still referred to as Mr. or Ms.. Still, for the most part I find people are uncomfortable with young adults calling them Mr. or Ms.
POSTED AUG. 14, 1998
Molson, Windsor , Ontario, Canada

FURTHER NOTICE 3:
My parents brought me up to respect my elders. Every adult is called Mr. or Mrs. So-and-So if I know them. If they are a stranger, Ma’am or Sir. Some adults are now asking teens to call them by their first names because they feel “older” when someone calls them Mr. or Mrs. It’s all a matter of individual circumstances, not necessarily a matter of disrespect.
POSTED SEPT. 25, 1998
Kristen, 18, Southampton, NY

FURTHER NOTICE 4:
I call some of my friend’s parents Mr. and Mrs., and others by their first names. The difference is their preference. I usually do the Mr. and Mrs. unless asked to do otherwise or if I am introduced to them by their first names.
POSTED OCT. 5, 1998
Rachel, 20, white female <Rachel_Kennedy@yahoo.com>, Denver, CO

FURTHER NOTICE 5:
I was brought up in a Southern culture in which it was/is impolite to make a person feel or seem old/er. Catty women of my mother’s and grandmother’s day would stand up when a woman they wanted to insult would enter the room because you always stand when your “elders” enter the room. When I was growing up, I was usually taught that I could call my family’s closest friends by their first names (I must always speak respectfully). Others were “Mr. Bruce” or “Miz Maggie” or the usual “Mr. Smith, Mrs. Smith.” Usually when one “came of age” (went to college), adults gave us permission to call them by their given names. Some of my elders seem to prefer being called “Mr. Smith,” and others exclaim, “Oh, dear! You make me feel so old! Please call me Bill.” I try to keep an ear open for what others are doing that seems to please people I’m unsure about.
POSTED OCT. 15, 1998
Midori, 38, Southern female <midorichan1@juno.com>, Orlando, FL
To respond
BACK TO TOP

THE QUESTION:
A15: Why do older people tend to think of us younger people as “young and immature”? I have a high maturity level and look older than I am, but when people find out I am 15, they treat me like some immature brat. Why? Should we younger people look at older people and think they’re stupid? I don’t think so, so why do you do that to us?
POSTED JUNE 9, 1998
Cyndi J., 15, sytrixacid@hotmail.com, Memphis, TN

ANSWER 1:
It is quite normal for teenagers to want to be seen and treated as adults. This has been a teenage dilemma for ages but has been more emphasized in these times, maybe because of the youths’ exposure to inappropriate information by the media. Just enjoy your childhood, because you are, by all respects, still a child. You need time to mature and gain experience that cannot be learned in books or on TV or in movies. When you look back at your problem in five years or so, you will see what I am talking about.
POSTED JUNE 24, 1998
Lenny C., 42 <casuy@prodigy.net>, Antioch, CA

FURTHER NOTICE:
Pardon me for being a traitor to my generation, but a lot of us are pretty dumb. I look around every day and see “regular” teenagers talking like new-age hillbillies and adopting unrealistic principles while becoming shallow and underdeveloped adults. I see millions of my fellow students buying into empty fads and selling out to corporate America while separating from the high moral standards they falsely portray. Some teenagers are a lot more dependent on free thought than others, but people are and will always be people. Old people will still stereotype us, as we do them.
POSTED JUNE 28, 1998
Chickenman,16 <thekiwi5@aol.com>, Honolulu, HI

FURTHER NOTICE 2:
I’ve seen just as many immature 40-year-olds as I’ve seen immature teenagers. I don’t feel age gives anyone an advantage when it comes to maturity. Maturity comes with perception. If a person (no matter how old) perceives life in a serious way, they are more mature than a person who perceives life as a joke. Society needs to quit stereotyping and just take people as they are, no matter what age.
POSTED AUG. 21, 1998
Susan B. 25, MO

FURTHER NOTICE 3:
I would like to respond to Lenny, who said teenagers should enjoy their childhoods, for they are in all respects still children. I know you didn’t mean any harm, but I resent that statement. How can you say a teenager is in all respects still a child? Granted, many teenagers act like children, but so do many adults. Many teenagers are mature individuals who are in all respects (except for biological age and maybe money) adults. I am a 16-year-old college student who lives at home but works and pays for all my expenses (except food and rent). I am not in any shape or form a child. As for why adults treat us like children, it’s because they don’t understand we’re not children anymore. My advice to teenagers is to act like an adult and prove the stereotype wrong.
POSTED SEPT. 25, 1998
Amy C., 16 <AmyMarilyn@AOL.com>, Dayton, OH
To respond
BACK TO TOP

THE QUESTION:
A14: Why does a person’s hair start to grow so much faster on their ears when they get older, say starting at 40?
POSTED JUNE 8, 1998
jwb, 51, jwb@jps.com, Geyserville, CA

ANSWER 1:
I’m a 42-year-old Asian male and my wife is 41. We do not have more or less hair on, in or under our ears now compared to when we were in our 20s. Maybe your observation is true to only you and your family.
POSTED JUNE 25, 1998
L. Cristobal, 42, Asian <casuy@prodigy.net>, Antioch, CA

FURTHER NOTICE:
Ear hair is one of the only known genes found on the Y chromosome. The gene isn’t activated until later in life. No one knows why a particular gene becomes activated, but a lot of people are trying to figure that out.
POSTED JULY 20, 1998
Shawn, <brerio@hotmail.com>, Chicago, IL

FURTHER NOTICE 2:
I have to agree with your finding. I tend to notice that a lot of Anglo men start getting more hair growing outta their ears and sometimes on their noses when they start reaching 40. But not all get this. Maybe it has something to do with hormones? But I also have noticed that they start losing this hair when they start getting quite older.
POSTED AUG. 28, 1998
Rebekah, 17, San Antonio, TX
To respond
BACK TO TOP

THE QUESTION:
A13: I have always wanted to know: When is it OK to correct an older person on something, especially when they are incorrect about a fact or about history? For example, I have tried to speak politely to an elderly church member about a fact, but she told me to shut up and sit down somewhere.
POSTED MAY 26, 1998
Cheryl B., 22 African-American female <CherylB4U@aol.com>, Memphis, TN

ANSWER 1:
Diplomacy. Don’t force the issue. If you know you are right, suggest they might be mistaken and correct them. If they are open-minded, they will stand corrected. If not, don’t push the issue. If you know you are right, that is all that matters. There is no point in arguing about it.
POSTED JUNE 8, 1998
Ken G., 36, not always right, noochie@pacbell.net, Dana Point, CA

FURTHER NOTICE:
Tact and timing are important. Just remember, if you’re right, you’re right. Be sure you’re right about facts and not opinions. You know what they say about opinions. Old people are wise in experience, but can be inaccurate or make mistakes. Like buying $64,000 worth of aluminum siding on a $32,000 house.
POSTED JUNE 9, 1998
Bob, 31, San Diego, CA

FURTHER NOTICE 2:
Older people enjoy feeling valued for their experience and wisdom. I would correct a much older person only if strictly necessary, such as, “Actually, ma’am, I believe the store you’re looking for has gone out of business.” If I wanted to discuss something more open to interpretation, I would say something like, “It’s very interesting that you say that, sir, because I had always understood such-and-such to be the case.” An indirect approach is less likely to be perceived as disrespectful, and could open an interesting dialogue for both of you.
POSTED JUNE 13, 1998
A. Morgan, 33, white, Houston, TX

FURTHER NOTICE 3:
It is very difficult for some people “beyond a certain age” to admit they could be wrong about anything, especially when the dispute is with a much younger person. In a nutshell, the reasoning must be something like “I have been around long enough to know what I am talking about!”, coupled with a certain insecurity that a new perspective might have some merit and would require them to give up long-cherished beliefs.

This seems to have been more common in prior generations, when not as many people were well-educated. An episode of “All In The Family” comes to mind. (An excellent show, by the way!). Archie and Mike were locked up in the basement together. Mike said that his father was often wrong about things. Archie asked “how can your father ever be wrong”? Truth was often established by power and authority, not by facts and reason. Some older people have a hard time turning loose of this.

In all fairness, it is equally fatuous for a young person to assert that nothing of real value can be had from listening to the elderly and taking heed of tradition, the “tried and true” ways.
POSTED JUNE 13, 1998
S., white, S.C.

FURTHER NOTICE 4:
I had a positive experience seeking an older person’s help in authenticating an incorrect fact he was teaching. I once heard my father relate information in Sunday School that I knew was incorrect. That evening, I called him from campus and told him I had been searching for that piece of information, but I could not find it. “Would you please find it and tell me where it is, for future reference?” He readily agreed, because I was appealing to him as a Bible scholar, not someone in need of correction. A day or two later he called me back and said he had searched high and low and had not found it, either. I don’t think he ever relayed that piece of information again.
POSTED SEPT. 23, 1998
W. Lotus, 29 <wlotus@dreamscape.com>
Syracuse , NY
To respond
BACK TO TOP

THE QUESTION:
A12: Does anyone know why kids are killing kids and teachers in our schools nowadays? What is happening and why? Is anyone out there afraid for their school-age kids?
POSTED MAY 23, 1998
Cheryl G., 44, black <blackcherrie@yahoo.com>, Jacksonville, FL

ANSWER 1:
I heard an answer the other day that made sense to me: Teens today are products of our video culture, which portrays violence as cool and attention-getting. Violence is also depicted as a direct solution to correcting a perceived wrong or a sure way to getting your minute of fame. Teens and others, especially those who think they have to pay back others for real or imagined wrongs, find all kinds of encouragement to take matters into their own hands. The media will give them all the attention they think they deserve, so they convince themselves they must act violently against their peers, in many cases their worst tormentors.

These teens are acting out in their school environments the acts of Tim McVeigh and Ted Kasczinski and the America First-ers. The media doesn’t describe these acts as cowardly and demeaning to the perpetrators; instead, it finds all kinds of “human interest” aspects of these cowards and their anti-human acts. The media plays to our prurient interests, and we read this stuff and give our teens the impression there is something of value there. The teens are acting out our least generous and most anti-social ways of thinking and talking. All the stuff vented on talk shows like Jerry Springer, et. al., gives teens the impression that life is like that – a mess. So why shouldn’ t they act to “clean it up”?
POSTED MAY 26, 1998
Robert, 62, white male <robertgagnon@hotmail.com>, Ottawa, Canada

FURTHER NOTICE:
Many young people do not have the stability to know what is right and wrong to meet the challenges of today. They have the TV image of life: Overpower or kill to make things right. Lack of parental guidance has left them with nothing to determine whether their actions are right or wrong. We must remember that guns and weapons that kill come from a source, and many belong to parents. It is a parent’s responsibility to teach these things, but unfortunately many parents are ignorant as to the way to do right themselves, being victims of their childhood teachings. I don’t think kids want to be bad, they are just not thinking right or have the right direction. Let’s also remember that these kids are in the minority, as I believe the majority of kids show a very high level of behavior and intelligence when it comes to making the right decision.
POSTED MAY 27, 1998
Charlie D. <CTD28@aol>, Ocala, FL

FURTHER NOTICE 2:
I would like to add that the ability to discipline our children is greatly hampered in this day and age. Look at the track records of some of these kids: They seemed to have a very loose leash. I read in a newspaper that the boy in Oregon was angry his parents took his guns away from him as a form of restriction for his pulling stunts like throwing rocks at cars from overpasses and toilet-papering houses. Then he was caught trying to buy a stolen gun in school, after which he sought retribution. Most “problem kids” know that if they are disciplined too harshly, they can call someone and it will be stopped. What else could happen with things working this way?
POSTED JUNE 3, 1998
David B., 21, DHBrantner@worldnet.att.net, St. Petersburg, FL

FURTHER NOTICE 3:
I have a five-year-old and am very worried about the world he is facing. We worry more about the rights of an individual than the rights of society, including raising our children. Parenting is not secondary to your professional success or increasing your income. Instilling values and self-discipline in a child requires time and interest in their growth. It is not easy when television, movies, toys, etc. seem to show them that all behavior is acceptable. Parents are using television and day cares to raise their children. I have been to see Jurassic Park, The Lost World andGodzilla. All had scenes of violence and pretty tense moments. The theaters were full of small children, some as young as three. I was angry with the parents. What are they thinking? My wife and I can’t watch television with our son because of the constant references and displays of sex and violence, and we don’t have cable! When we talk with other parents, I feel we are in the minority. I wish we had more time to spend with our son. The parents I talk to wish they had less time with their kids. I’m not trying to be superior to anyone, but I’ve got to believe that not enough parents get involved with the growth of their children.
POSTED JUNE 17, 1998
Snorget, 34, white middle-class parent <rcoate@robinent.com>, Columbus, OH

FURTHER NOTICE 4:
Single parent homes, little or no parental supervision, lack of rules or restrictions and misunderstanding of personal responsibility are all factors in what causes children to kill and break the law. Yet these young people are making a conscious choice to do something illegal. Our society tends to blame anything and everything for the way people behave. It’s time we take notice that we are responsible for our own actions and choices. It is our job as parents to teach our children right and wrong. I feel that many parents leave discipline and child-rearing to schools, day care providers or other means.
POSTED JUNE 17, 1998
Charlynn, 39, Middletown, CA

FURTHER NOTICE 5:
I would like to point out that this rash of murdering teens cannot be entirely blamed on the influences of television. I go to school in a public, suburban high school, and I can tell you that the way a parent handles a child can warp or redeem him or her for the rest of their life. In my own small circle of five close friends, three have been physically abused by their fathers; another’s mother emotionally breaks her down; my own father committed suicide and my mother is intent on making sure I never feel I am worth anything ever again. And these are not isolated cases: This is through the whole school, if not the whole country. No offense, but why don’t baby-boomers know how to be good, loving parents? Divorce, death, suicide, homicide, adultery and an array of abuses take their toll on children who are as impressionable as a dollop of warm wax. So don’t blame TV or gun culture or violent movies. Blame the parents whose treatment of their child has caused him or her to snap. I think it was Dostoevsky who said that whenever a child murders his parents, his parents are partly to blame.
POSTED JUNE 22, 1998
Kendra N., 17 <englishgoddess@hotmail.com>, Carrollton, TX

FURTHER NOTICE 6:
Kids are killing teachers because they weren’t raised strict enough, and they may want the attention they may have never gotten from their parents. Kids have minds of their own and aren’t influenced by television as much as older people believe. I occasionally watch Jerry Springer, but that doesn’t make me want to become a teen prostitute or go shoot my family and teachers. It’s just a stupid show that brings out the bad in America, and most kids don’t take it seriously. If a child is raised in a loving environment and taught right from wrong, they should never feel the need to do something so outrageous to get their parents’ attention.
POSTED AUG. 7, 1998
Kristina and Cherie, 14 and 15, Houston, TX

FURTHER NOTICE 7:
I’m not wanting to play down any of the terrible acts of violence that have occurred recently, but the fact is schools are among the safest places for kids. The kinds of violent acts that occurred recently in schools represent a miniscule fraction of teen violence in our society. Emotionally disturbed people are everywhere, and once in a while they go berserk in post offices, banks, grocery stores, their own homes and schools. Unfortunately, lightning can strike anywhere these days.
POSTED AUG. 17, 1998
Bruce G., 46 <brucegrnk@aol.com>, Reseda, CA

FURTHER NOTICE 8:
I think the answer lies in our culture of revenge. There are so many lawsuits now that some people cannot even afford to be in business or they live in a constant state of fear that they’ll be found liable for someone else’s decision or action. When I saw family members of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing running out of the courthouse, laughing with glee and celebrating when Timothy McVeigh was found guilty, chills ran over me. I’ve seen this reaction over and over from family members in similar situations. The solution seems to me for each of us to take responsibility for our own actions, teaching our children the same, and learning the freedom of forgiveness. Vengeance will not bring back a life or make a wrong right. It will only add bitterness to the already great pain of loss.
POSTED SEPT. 1, 1998
Rhonda H. <rhonda.m.hazen@juno.com>, Birmingham, AL

FURTHER NOTICE 9:
There is no rash of school violence. Kids are 100 times more likely to be killed by their parents than to be killed at school.
POSTED OCT. 28, 1998
M.W., 21 <ed375@cleveland.freenet.edu>, Cleveland, OH

FURTHER NOTICE 10:
Just one thought, and certainly not the answer, but have you ever noticed that on TV when people get killed, they show up an hour later on some other show? I think there are kids out there who honestly don’t understand what killing someone means.
POSTED NOV. 9, 1998
L. Lashley, 36, Burlington, , NC

FURTHER NOTICE 11:
I’m 19 and throughout my life, I’ve seen a great variety of television shows and movies depicting violence, sexual situtations and so on. I first saw A Nightmare on Elm Street when I was five. Am I out slashing people to bits and pieces because of that? No. Does that mean I have horrible, irresponsible parents because of that? No. On the topic of sex in television and movies, I’ve seen enough of that in my time, too. Do I have 15 children running around from 15 different mothers and diseases from all of those women? No. Sorry, but I’m responsible and know how to use a condom and birth control. Basically, what I think, is that if a teenager is going to commit murder, television and movies aren’t to blame. The weak intellect of the individual and lack of attention from parents is the reason today’s kids are killing kids, pure and simple.
POSTED APRIL 1, 1999
K.W. <edicius@hotmail.com>, Clinton Township, MI
To respond
BACK TO TOP

THE QUESTION:
A11: When I listen to the radio these days, all I find is “oldies” stations or stations that seem to play the same 10 new songs over and over. What are most teenagers really listening to these days? Are they actually into ’70s music? Or what?
POSTED MAY 15, 1998
Colette, 33 <inkwolf@earthlink.net>, Seymour, WI

ANSWER 1:
I don’t listen to oldies. I think most radio stations nowadays are aiming toward the “older” crowd. Every now and then, the oldies radio station in my town will play a song I actually like.
POSTED MAY 17, 1998
Monique, St. Marys, GA

FURTHER NOTICE:
A lot of people my age listen to music from private collections. The most popular bands aren’t the ones we hear on the radio. However, my younger siblings love what is on the radio – they are more into the “pop” music that is played over and over. When I listen to the radio, I hit scan until I hear something that sounds good. I would prefer to listen to my own music, but lack a cassette or CD player in my car, which is the only place I listen to the radio.
POSTED JUNE 17, 1998
Hilary, 20, white female, Lawrence , KS

FURTHER NOTICE 2:
I do like some oldies. However, I do not think radio stations play them for a young target audience. There is a radio station where I live, however, that has a balance between the two.
POSTED JUNE 18, 1998
Trueseeker, 15, Augusta, GA

FURTHER NOTICE 3:
The vast majority of today’s teenagers (14-18) listen to pop/rock. The pop/rock bands of the past couple months would be Fastball, Smashmouth, Semisonic, Everclear, The Wallflowers, etc. The preteens (9-13) like Hanson, The Spice Girls, Backstreet Boys, *N Sync, etc. Since I was about 12, I have always preferred oldies music (late ’50s to early ’70s) over the new music of the day. It’s smoother and makes me feel upbeat and happy. In today’s world, that’s what you really need. If you think you are hearing the same top 10 songs over and over again, it’s because you really are. The top 10 does not change very drastically from week to week, as you have noticed. Just stay away from it and never go back again!
POSTED JUNE 30, 1998
Katie J., 15-year old <kmj2001@yahoo.com>, Grand Rapids, MI

FURTHER NOTICE 4:
I agree with the person who said most of the stuff kids listen to now isn’t even on the radio. Some of the best bands I know rarely get airtime anymore. Also, I think songs are getting played over and over because they’re in a new style – the old alterna-rock style is plummeting to its death, so there are new styles coming out, but only with a few songs. Those are the only ones anyone (not me) likes now, so the radio only has a few options to snag the kids on.
POSTED AUG. 14, 1998
The concerned 17-year-old again <snail40@yahoo.com>, Grand Rapids, MI

FURTHER NOTICE 5:
A lot of kids I know, including me, like the music from 1960s, especially The Beatles and The Monkees. I feel this music has more meaning than the songs of today. As far as hearing the same 10 songs over and over, I have to agree with you on that. Seems like they make one song and have five re-mixes of it. But I also tend to feel that way about oldies stations. After all, there are no new oldies.
POSTED AUG. 28, 1998
Rebekah, 17, white female, San Antonio, TX

FURTHER NOTICE 6:
I love listening to the oldies. I think the reason for there being so many oldies stations is that the baby boomers are getting older and the radio stations want to please their tastes. They want to bring the past into the future.
POSTED SEPT. 25, 1998
Becky P., 18 <becky_peck@hotmail.com>, Indiana, PA

FURTHER NOTICE 7:
I too have listened to “oldies” for several years even though I’m only 21. I find today’s music is completely unmelodic. But at the same time, I don’t really like most oldies stations I hear. They seem to base their playlist on nostalgia and play a lot of crud like Lesley Gore or Herman’s Hermits. The alternative is “classic rock,” which I don’t like sometimes because they play a lot of late 70s/80s stuff that doesn’t sound to me like real rock n’ roll. If I ran a radio station, it would play “rock” music, from Little Richard to the British Invasion to the psychodelic era to the latter-day, “old-fashioned” sounds of Bob Seger and John Mellencamp, with some 60s soul thrown in.
POSTED OCT. 28, 1998
M.W., 21 <ed375@cleveland.freenet.edu>, Cleveland, OH

FURTHER NOTICE 8:
It seems to me, being 15 and classified as a teen, that music on the radio is not a valid interpretation of the music I listen to. A lot of people I know do listen to the radio, especially the ironically dubbed “alternative” music, but it is apparent that they are not as enthusiastic about it as MTV would like the public to think. Practically all the music I listen to is not played on the radio, and I only listen occasionally. As for oldies, no one I know regularly listens to the oldies stations, although the music is much more sophisticated and timeless.
POSTED NOV. 16, 1998
Hannah, 15 <Pixiegrl32@aol.com>, Va

FURTHER NOTICE 9:
By the time someone gets to be 16 or 17, they realize pop music stations will play the same thing over and over again, just as a four-year-old would wear out a Disney videotape until they can memorize the script (or in this case, lyrics) verbatim. It is the realization that good music knows no time, place or person that many of my generation are into the current revival of music from the 1920s to the 1940s (such as swing, jazz and big band), as well as “classic rock or soul” of the 1950s-1970s. It’s just good music, plain and simple. I also hold that record marketing from major record companies during the 1980s and 1990s has become more oriented toward producing music that looks good for MTV rather than being quality tunes.
POSTED JAN. 14, 1999
Jeremy, 17, male <jeremy_craig@hotmail.com>, Macon , GA
To respond
BACK TO TOP