Noami Wolf in the NYTimes on three incredibly popular YA series.  The "Gossip Girl" "A-List" and "Clique" series, almost all of which feature status-mad adolescent girls immersed in materialistic, superficial concerns, having lotsa sex on the way.

Wolf is disturbed by these novels, and correctly points out that they stand in opposition to previous generations of similar books for girls, in that the rich, acquisitive, superficial girls are the role models, rather than being the characters who are, in the end humbled. Now, the sex kind of bothers Wolf too, but not as much as the other stuff:

But teenagers, or their parents, do buy the bad-girls books — the "Clique," "Gossip Girl" and "A-List" series have all sold more than a million copies. And while the tacky sex scenes in them are annoying, they aren’t really the problem. The problem is a value system in which meanness rules, parents check out, conformity is everything and stressed-out adult values are presumed to be meaningful to teenagers. The books have a kitsch quality — they package corruption with a cute overlay.

In the world of the "A-List" or "Clique" girl, inverting Austen (and Alcott), the rich are right and good simply by virtue of their wealth. Seventh graders have Palm Pilots, red Coach clutches, Visas and cellphones in Prada messenger bags. Success and failure are entirely signaled by material possessions — specifically, by brands. You know the new girl in the "Clique" novel "Best Friends for Never" is living in social limbo when she shops at J. Crew and wears Keds, and her mother drives a dreaded Taurus rather than a Lexus. In "Back in Black" the group of "A-List" teenagers spends a weekend at "the Palms Hotel and Casino"; brands are so prominent you wonder if there are product placement deals: "Vanity Fair always prepared giveaway baskets. . . . Last year’s had contained a Dell portable jukebox, a bottle of Angel perfume by Thierry Mugler and a PalmOne Treo 600 Smartphone." (The copyright page of the latest "Gossip Girl" book lists credits for the clothing featured on the cover: "gold sequined top — Iris Singer, peach dress — Bibelot@Susan Greenstadt," and so on.)

Ross Douhat calls Wolf on this:

Now, you might that sex scenes aimed at early-teen readers – scenes in which high school juniors have sex in the dressing room at Bergdorf’s ("Nate began to cry as soon as it was over. The Viagra had worn off just in time") and "semi-sex" (though not oral sex, which is "so over") behind a statue at the MOMA – might just possibly be an example of how the pop culture imposes conformity and "adult values" on teenagers. But if you suggested that, you might be a Puritan, or anti-sex, or even a Republican. So just to be clear: Naomi Wolf doesn’t like these books. Not one bit. But she’s still cool – and she’s not, and never has been, against teenagers having sex. They just shouldn’t be, you know, tacky about it.

Exactly. The celebrated lifestyle is all about soul-stripping commodification of persons. Why can’t a reasonable person see that recreational sex is an expression of this, and perhaps even the strongest, most destructive expression of it?

I never stop being puzzled by the walls that some construct around sexuality, its uses and misues. Somehow, sex is exempt from the dynamics to which every other human activity is prone.  Its misuse has no consequences except for those we impose on through our relativistic value systems, so if we can only dispense with the latter, our problems disappear. In dealing with adoloscents, we tell them *all* smoking is bad…even a little bit, and total abstinence from smoking is the only real choice if you value your health. But suggest sexual abstinence, even because of the clear negative physical, mental and emotional consequences of teen sexual activity…PRUDE!

Well, good for Wolf anyway. Nixon, China, and all that.