January 04, 2007

• It makes my skin crawl a bit to see both young girls and boys here become "talento" - the girls are dressed in tiny outfits and totally made up and the boys are often photographed without shirts on. Some of these kids are 12. I'm amazed their parents encourage these kids to prance around like they do in skimpy outfits.
• I'm doing children's theatre right now, and I have a number of 10-14 year old girls in my casts. It's not even how sexualized some of them are now. What really bothers me is when I learn that a girl I would never have guessed is younger than 15-16 turns out to be 12. Twelve! When I was in high school (only about 10 years ago), girls didn't look like that. Trust me, I would have noticed. Not that I'm advocating censorship or school uniforms. Half the problem is the fact that 9 year old girls are getting breasts and periods. We can't blame Britney for hormones in the food making them develop early. I have no solution, since our culture is omni-sexual. Frankly I like living in a sexually liberated society. I just feel bad that kids can't be kids any more.
• Umm, yup. I think I stumbled upon this topic last week while visiting relatives for the holidays. My 12 year-old niece asked me for assistance in downloading pictures from her digital camera. Seems that she and her friends had lots of fun taking risqué shots... I don't think I needed to see the close-ups of her 11 year-old best friend bending over with nothing but panties... or the temporary tattoos they placed above each other's bum cracks... or the suggestive sucking of phallic objects... Later in the day, another family member begged me to block the "myspace" domain on the computer. During my stay, I noticed that she was allowed to watch R-rated movies unsupervised. She seemed most attracted to the sex-gore type of low-budget flick. Never mind what goes on at school! I just have to wonder... What Weezel said
• You kids get offa my lawn! And put some clothes on!
• I find it interesting -- yet I don't know what to make of this -- that while children, and girls in particular, are being actively or passively encouraged to present a sexual image at younger ages, there's still the push to increase the age of consent. There's a real dichotomy between what we as a society permit in terms of the sexual image and the sexual activity. Mind you, the move by the Canadian government is nothing but easy politics -- it's difficult for a politician to be seen saying that kids should be able to give consent at 14 (a level where it's been since 1890, when it was raised from 12), even though the age of consent law was tempered by the fact that consent at that age was nullified if the partner was in a position of authority over them, in which case they had to be 18. And the new law would do nothing but harm those girls who were working as prostitutes or 'simply' wound up pregnant, by introducing legal ramifications where a different approach of aid would be far more appropriate, IMHO.
• pestbest, sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!
• I'm flashing back to grade 9 when my girlfriend and I arranged one of those let's-wear-coordinating-outfit days. She came in wearing something else, and said that her father hadn't wanted her to go to school in such a short skirt. I remember being so jealous that her Dad cared that much.
• Kids today. Am I right? Hmm... Something about sexuality in our culture being reduced to consumer-good? These girls/boys are just advertising, right? Maybe.
• Prime time TV when I was growing up: Rob and Laura Petrie's bedroom had twin beds for fear that viewers would think that this marrried couple actually slept together. Prime time TV 10 years ago: Elaine's date cannot play the trumpet, as he strained his mouth the previous night performing prolonged oral sex upon her. Prime time TV today: don't know, don't watch it. It's not just the kids. All of us have lowered the bar on what is presentable. I'm not necessarily against that and am definitely not offended by it. My point: all of our behviour has changed, not just the middle school girls.
• I was just discussing these issues with my three cousins over the holidays. They are all schoolteachers and one has two young children. I said that my plan if I have a daughter is to, upon seeing her put on something outrageously sexually revealing, explain to her that dressing like that makes boys want to fuck her. Then tell her that I have no problem with her wearing outfits like that as long as she is ready to be fucked and wants to be fucked. But if she does not want to be fucked, then she can't wear the outfit. If I have a son, I am just going to tell him that he has extremely deformed genitalia and will be mocked relentlessly if he ever shows anyone. My cousin, Vinny, thought that I should be banned from having children. However, his sister, Claire (the one who actually has children), applauded the idea.
• Your cousin Vinny??
• I don't disagree that there's some consensual lowering-of-the-bar going on culturally Ralph, but I also think that as Weezel said there's a shame that kids can't "be kids" except in some kind of cultural vacuum (or other outside-the-mainstream analogy).
• When little girls dress and act like little girls, it helps us middle-aged males in turn maintain correct behavior. The daughter of friends of mine is 14, but could easily pass for over 18 (her father is a former professional football player, her mother has visible warrior-Maori ancestry). She is tall, built, and well-muscled. Fortunately she's mostly in asexual athletic clothes (jock kid), and occasionally still does the painting ladybugs on the fingernails little girl thing. But I still have inapproprate thoughts, and I still feel like shit when I do.
• Seriously, bernockle, you have a cousin Vinny? Like, seriously? What Goetter said.
• When little girls dress and act like little girls, it helps us middle-aged males in turn maintain correct behavior. Not to poke at you personally, goetter, but a statement like this troubles me. It's a little close to the "she deserved to be raped because she was dressed like that" argument for my taste.
• No offense taken, briank.
• don't feel bad about the thoughts goetter, as long as you don't act on them! one of the "benefits" of industrialized, wealthy nations is an extended adolescence. Children physically mature long before they are taught, or expected to take on the roles, responsibilities or capacities of adulthood. This is a recent thing in terms of human cultural history. so your body is merely responding to a sexually viable mate. a 14 year old girl would once have been considered just about ready to mate and spawn. in our culture 14 year olds aren't raised with that expectation so they are not mentally/emotionally ready for it, so there are laws to protect those nubile children from your lecherous intent (!) It does seem like one of those increasingly extreme dichotomies that I personally feel indicate the dysfunctionality of our society: on one hand we have rising age-of-consent stuff (a sign of conservatism?) and on the other hand a sexualization of barely-pubescent, not-quite-sexually-viable-yet kids (a sign of a more "licentious or non-conservative culture?) to me it seems like another one of those teach abstinence only, no sex-ed = higher teen preg rates draconian penal system/death penalty = higher rates of violent crimes type of things....but what do I know.
• At that age, kids ARE sexual, and always have been. I may not have worn short skirts (too sensitive about my thighs), but at 12 I was (sneakily) reading the explicit passages out of romance novels, over and over and over again. And this was at an age when my mother didn't allow me to see AA-rated films, let alone R - and two years before, I didn't watch PG unless it was pre-screened. I went to bed at about 9pm, and I wan't allowed to wear makeup or sexy clothes. I never watched MTV, just hours and hours of Star Trek. She did all the "right" things (actually, the Star Trek was my choice), and I was still interested in sex. It was my hormones, and nothing could be done about it. Canonical age of consent in the middle ages was 12 - the Church recognised that at 12 women were old enough to be married. This didn't happen, for socio-economic reasons (in Northern Europe, average age of marriage was more like 20-25), but the Church (always prudish) was okay with it happening. What parents need to do is to talk to their kids about the realities. That older guys will expect different things. That they have the right to say no, and get them comfortable enough to say no. But you can't just try to pretend that kid's are only interested in sex because of the media or advertising. There is a reason "playing doctor" exists.
• seriously! I was AVIDLY reading (har) my dad's playboys at age 9, 10. definitely before I was ready to breed and I was already interested in, nay, fascinated by, sex. aren't we all?
• and I too had a very sheltered upbringing, LOTTA good it did ;)
• Yes, I have a cousin, Vinny. Is that really so odd? For every person named Vinny, there are probably five or ten people who have a cousin, Vinny.
• As a bit of an aside -- the common law age of consent for males is 7. Under CL, and with the consent of his parents, a seven year old boy can get married to an ten year old girl, on the consent of her parents. Otherwise, she would need to be 12. And even then, the marriage is voidable until he turns 14, as I recall. But still. Mind you, the Province of Ontario isn't going to grant a marriage licence to a 7 yr old, but that bit of common law remains. Vestige of medaeval property law.
• Two words: What parenting?
• Yes, I have a cousin, Vinny. Is that really so odd? Not odd at all. I once dated a girl whose last name was 'Dandy'. And she had an uncle named Jim. She didn't see the humour in it that I did... Good times, good times...
• I think here's a big difference between a child being interested in sex (of course they are) and delibeartely displaying themselves in an explicit sexual manner with the consent, rousing approval, and aid of the adults who are in charge of them. And of course sane men are capable of controlling the urges produced by nubile twelve-year-olds. But that doesn't mean it's right for the parents of said twelve-year-olds to make that task more difficult for the men around them.
• Thanks, Medusa. I'm a comfortably long way from taking any sort of 'action'. I don't even find young (less than 25 or so) folks attractive... they look larval, unformed, to me. But I still find it disturbing to react sexually at any level to a person who has so far to go before we'll grant her the privileges and responsibilities of adulthood. No matter how viable her oocytes. There's certainly more to "correct behavior" than not wanting to bone the child next door. An adult, any adult, is responsible for a certain kind of stewardship of the young. That responsibility attenuates as the child matures. And it's hard to judge that maturing in the face of this precociously sexualized behavior from the children. What children do with other children doesn't much bother me, so long as nobody gets hurt. Let the adults keep this clearly in mind, though: they are still children.
• I think the phrase "viable oocytes" should be included in way more pickup lines.
• Monkeyfilter: how viable her oocytes. Come back soon, GranMa! We can't do this as good as you!
• Don't the people turned on by juveniles feel ashamed of themselves? Don't they realise that they are the people with the problem? They should, and they should.
• ... except Goetter, whom I would perhaps not trust to babysit my girls.
• *Enter chorus of General Stanley's preteen daughters* Chorus: How viable her oocytes How pliable her fishnet tights Continue fine I hope she may And yet she’s twelve but yesterday Tomorrow she may dance again I hear her parents feel no shame Yet people say, I know not why, That she will catch a pervert’s eye! Little Mabel: Did ever maiden wake From dream of homely duty, To go onstage and shake Her semi-covered booty? Did ever maiden close Her eyes on childhood fancy, To dream of such exotic dancing? Frederic: Ah yes, ah yes, my parents liked your dancing! Chorus: How viable, etc. Frederic: Did ever pirate roll His soul in guilty dreaming, And wake to find young girls In body glitter gleaming? Did ever pirate loathed attend With school board leaders An entertainment so replete With young Lolitas? Chorus: How viable, etc. Edith's mother: What ought we to do, Gentle sisters, please? Propriety says no, To seventh-grade striptease; While sympathy exclaims, “Say, 'Oh, never mind' – MTV's to blame – Let them bump and grind.” Principal Kate: Their case may not have been, Be yours, my dear, or mine. But though they're twelve and ten, At least they're over nine. Let us compromise Although they're dressed like tarts: Let us shut our eyes, To their private parts. Chorus: How viable, etc.
• > the mass-culture angle The sentiments (... so stimulated ... so X-rated) are in the songs and openly played on the radio. Kids are very interested in sex and are going to learn what the lyrics in the song mean if they don't understand them. And then of course there's MTV. Short of 24-hour surveillance, you can't keep kids away from this stuff. In any case, most dancing is about sex in one way or another, we've just lost a lot of the subtlety in the past 20 - 30 years. > the parenting angle Here, I think you can make a difference. Address kids' questions about sex openly but explain to them that it's for later; as a corollary, dressing in a certain way is also for later. Remind kids that they should take the time to be kids; teenage years are bad enough without rushing towards them.
• In short, in matters referential, metrical, and topical, She is the very model of an Underpantsing-Monster-Gal.
• How can anyone post or lurk here for any significant period of time and not fall in love with our Underpants Monster?
• I'm with Ralph, I think TUM's described the situation perfectly as I see it: I think here's a big difference between a child being interested in sex (of course they are) and delibeartely displaying themselves in an explicit sexual manner with the consent, rousing approval, and aid of the adults who are in charge of them. That and a rousing song! What's not to love?
• Here's your problem right here.
• The issue really stems from the fact that kids want to be "grown up." All our child lives, we wanted to be important (i.e. adult) which is why kids gravitate towards adult-themed scenes. They desire, but can't handle responsibility. It's the nature of child to aspire to maturehood. I mean, until recently, it was perfectly acceptable to provide your child with a rifle or bb gun for a gift. The insinuation was that if you're responsible to handle an "almost" adult rife, you're "almost" an adult. Kids have always done, and will always do, stupid things. I, for one, would sleep much better having a daughter dressing in a short skirt, than releasing my son (if he's anything like me) on the neighborhood with a bb gun.
• And how did the word "cute" get hijacked? "Cute" used to mean teddy bears and babies and puppy dogs. Now "cute" is used to describe an outfit that consists of five inch heels, a micro-miniskirt, and tassles. Seriously, I will see people in extremely provocative clothing and hear other girls call it cute. "Oh, my God! Did you see me new butt plug? It is SO CUTE!" Why not use "hot" or "sexy" or "slutty?" You think I am kidding, but I think that is part of the problem. Little girls are supposed to be cute. When we change the definition of what "cute" means, then we change what little girls aspire to be.
• It seems that a double standard exists where many parents are letting children (and I'm not talking about teens) take on the priveleges of adulthood (talking back, dressing like bar-stars, celphones) without the associated responsibilities (understanding respect, understanding sex, having income). In British Columbia, children are not tried as adults (unless the crime is exceptionally heinous) and are given a clean slate upon reaching the age of majority. I don't think parenting should be about peerage, but it seems some people think so.
• Here's your problem right here. I hate those goddamn things. And goetter, if you keep listening to Medusa, she'll have you prancing around in ladies' knickers. Not that I *cough* know firsthand.
• Going back up a bit to Medusa's comment about abstinence programs = higher teen pregnancy, I believe it came out in the past year or so that the US currently has the lowest per-capita teen pregnancy rate that it's had in decades. However, it's not due to abstinence "education" programs. Teens engaged in those programs tend to have a higher pregnancy rate than those of similar income, education, etc. There has also been that reported trend where they'll engage in almost any sex act except vaginal intercourse, because the other things "aren't sex." I don't know if that's true or not. Regardless: good sex ed lowers pregnancy and disease rates. So does availability of condoms and birth control. TUM - hey, that's Major-General Stanley. ;) Good show, I say, good show! I had a lot to say about what I thought the problems and blindspots were in InsolentChimp's comment, but eh, it comes down to a difference of opinion. It's worth noting that a study quoted in the New York Times article on charter schools about a month ago showed that working class parents tended to allow their kids a lot of leeway with regard to playtime and imagination, but tended to expect absolute obedience and be strict disciplinarians. Middle-class parents and up tended to structure the kids' playtime as "educational opportunities" - IE, museum trips rather than the ability to play in the yard and make castles out of boxes; they tended to allow kids to negotiate rules within reason and to encourage them to speak up when they felt that authority was being abused. The middle-class children tended to be far more successful in school partly because they understood how to learn, which is a difficult thing to express. I think both parenting styles have problems: the supposed working-class style can veer easily into abuse, the higher-class style into permissiveness. You wouldn't want your kids to be doormats; for example, you would want them to feel completely right about speaking up if another adult (teacher, clergy, babysitter, whatever) were molesting them. You don't want them to be so cowed by authority that another authority figure can abuse them. (The abuse I was speaking of in the first sentence is more the parental physical/verbal kind.) However, you wouldn't want this "challenge authority" thing to go so far that you couldn't parent them anymore yourself. Parental anxiety dictates that it's good for a kid to have a cellphone so that they can communicate with the parents at any time (and vice-versa), which is why they make those sturdy phones for kids that can only outcall to a handful of numbers (usually parents, emergency, and maybe grandparents). Common sense dictates that it's almost always completely ridiculous for a ten-year-old to own a cell-phone to talk to their friends. Etc. As to the rest of the discussion: people are sexual. I don't think it's appropriate for anyone to push someone's sexual boundaries when they aren't ready (which is probably the biggest reason why adults must control themselves around teens and kids, if there's anything to control). I also don't think it's appropriate to withhold proper (classroom/book) sex ed. Yeah, because keeping people ignorant is always the best thing for them and never leads to them making mistakes they didn't even know they could make. *rolleyes*
• Don't the people turned on by juveniles feel ashamed of themselves? Don't they realise that they are the people with the problem? They should, and they should. No shame here. Plenty of 16 and 17 year olds that turn me on, jeezz some of them are honeys, so what? I've got a problem? Well sirk, I don't think so. Simply recognizing the shag-ability of a hot looking teenager ain't a problem as far as I can see. Wanting to actually fuck 'em, or form some sort of relationship with them, that would be a problem. A problem quickly sorted with a scalpel to the scrot. I mean Jesus, they're kids.
• Those articles could have used a few pictures, man... *gets coat*
• Short of 24-hour surveillance, you can't keep kids away from this stuff. And the Bratz crap is a fine addition to that argument. Y'know it makes me think that someone should start a "TV Turnoff week" or, maybe . . maybe post the best thread of 2006 about i-*Ow!* Okay, who threw that??! Well, understanding how media affects everyone, especially children, is essential. You "TV can't tell me what to think" types are barking up the wrong tree on that, but that's another thread. And bernockle, your "dressing like sluts" and "want to get fucked" arguments are missing an essential component, which is that the kids don't understand what that really is. And if they did - it'd be pretty bad. I blame parents. Y'know, just kind of in general. Now get offa my yard.
• "And of course sane men are capable of controlling the urges produced by nubile twelve-year-olds." And therein lies the problem. Not all men (or women) are sane.
• That sounds like some crazy commonlaw, Capt. But it's definitely not medieval. The Catholic Church was strict - no marriage before 12 (it's in Natalie Zemon Davis's book on the return of Martin Guerre). The Catholic encyclopedia clears it up - but since it's hard to read I will quote (some nice Canadian details at the end):

  Betrothals [sponsalia] require seven full years in the contracting parties. The marriageable age is fourteen full years in males and twelve full years in females, under penalty of nullity (unless natural puberty supplies the want of years). Marriages void because of the absence of legal or natural puberty are held as sponsalia, inducing thereby impediment of "public decorum" (Cap. 14, tit. de despon. impub., X, 4, 2). Civil codes generally require a more advanced age than the canonical. Dispensations, however, as to the required ages are expressly granted by France, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Roumania, and Russia. The marriageable age in France, Italy, Belgium, and Roumania is eighteen for men, and fifteen for women (France requires also, under penalty of nullity, the consent of parents); Holland, Switzerland, Russia (Caucasian Provinces excepted), fifteen and thirteen; and Hungary fixes the age at eighteen and sixteen; Austria, fourteen for both parties; Denmark, twenty and sixteen; Germany, twenty-one (minors set free by parents at eighteen) and sixteen years respectively. Marriages contracted in Germany below the ages aforesaid are valid but illicit. In India natives marry under canonical age. So also in China, where there is a further deviation from canonical age, owing to the Chinese method of reckoning age by lunar rather than solar years (thirteen lunar months make a solar year). The canonical age holds in England, Spain, Portugal, Greece (Ionian Isles excepted, where it is sixteen and fourteen), and as regards Catholics even in Austria. While in some parts of the United States the canonical marriage age of fourteen and twelve still prevails, in others it has been enlarged by statutes. Such statutes, however, as a rule, do not make void marriages contracted by a male and female of fourteen and twelve years respectively, unless the statute expressly forbids them under penalty of nullity. The English Common Law age of fourteen in males and twelve in females prevails in all the Canadian provinces, with the exception of Ontario and Manitoba. Ontario requires fourteen years, and Manitoba sixteen years, in both parties. Marriages contracted at more youthful ages than these are not irreparably null and void. They can be, and are, ratified by continued cohabitation after the prescribed age. In all the provinces consent of parents or guardians is required where one or both of the parties have not attained a certain age -- Ontario, Manitoba, and New Brunswick, eighteen years; in Québec, Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Alberta, and Saskatchewan the age is twenty-one. Except in the case of Québec and Prince Edward Island such consent is only directory, and does not affect the validity of marriage after celebration. Such marriages in the former province are not void, and can only be attacked by parties whose consent is required; in the latter province they are null and void by virtue of a pre-confederation law of 1831. The marriage law in nearly every part of the United States requires the consent of parents before license is granted to minors. Such statutes are merely directive, and do not render void marriages without the parents' consent ("Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law," art. "Marriage", 1191). Neither in England is a marriage declared void for want of parental consent (Brown, Hast. Matr. Inst., II, 191).

  So bethrothal was/is allowed at 7, but marriage not until 12 for girls or 14 for boys, unless "natural puberty" (presumably menstruation) comes earlier.
• wow, jb, thanks for that canonical addition! another point along this argument that pete's last comment brings to mind: attractive teenage girls figure out soon enough that the effect they can have on boys and men is a type of power (or they perceive it to be) that can be very heady (ahem, no pun...). but they have NO IDEA of the real life consequences the expression of that "power" can engender. it's fun to act sexy and make teenage boys react, but not all teenage girls are at all ready for the vastly different ways that a man might respond to the same (perceived) enticements....so yes, it's dangerous for them, because they are kids, and to a certain extent they don't know any better. (ie, therefore it is encumbent upon the adults in the society to behave appropriately even when the teenagers don't. crazy!)
• I start by reading about cheerleaders gone bad in Texas, and then I learn that there is a > Chinese method of reckoning age by lunar rather than solar years This is why I keep coming back to this site.
• So bethrothal was/is allowed at 7, but marriage not until 12 for girls or 14 for boys, unless "natural puberty" (presumably menstruation) comes earlier. Two hundred years ago the average age of "natural puberty" came quite a bit later than it does now due to factors such as better nutrition and exposure to hormones. (Crap, meat, dairy, and soy foods as well as shampoos and beauty aids are implicated in stimulating early menses!) In my generation, I knew quite a few girls that didn't start till 16 or 17. (lucky ducks!) It's not unheard of now to find poor 10-12 year olds dealing with it. Two hundred years ago it was poor nutrition and low body weight that were delay factors--now it's likely to be found in obese teenagers. Go figger. My 9 year old grandaughter told me Bratz producers were being sued for going over the top. I haven't researched this, but I'm hoping. It's an amazing world when you can find a 12 year old dressing in the same slutty outfit as a 45 year old.
• ...they tended to allow kids to negotiate rules within reason and to encourage them to speak up when they felt that authority was being abused. Well, verbminx, I'd say that's an example of a child commanding the responsibility associated with the privilege of challenging authority. Note that reasonable limits are still being enforced by the disciplinarian. But, I'm not attempting to describe an environment that's hostile to an individual's growth or ability to successfully socialize; "talking back" isn't an example of lack of respect, per se, but the manner in which that authority is challenged may well be immature and disrespectful. Likewise, a parent might show a distinct lack of respect to the child by not acknowledging the responsibility that the child can handle and trusting them to follow through as best they can. All said, it may be worse, for both parties, to feed the already mammoth ego of a two year old, for example. My comment was more directed toward those parents who would rather be the "cool parent" than a disciplinarian when the ball has been cheated into their side of the court. Some might smile, look the other way and give their "buddy" the points just to stay friends - or maybe just to shut them up. There are incredibly selfish parents out there, unfortunately. I agree with you that there is a balance between discipline and trust in a healthy attitude toward parenting, but it seems that some people would rather throw discipline away in order to coast by or fulfill some immature void. Some parents, I stress. I see more good people than bad, I think. I don't know if we actually differ that much in opinion on this topic. It's an amazing world when you can find a 12 year old dressing in the same slutty outfit as a 45 year old. It's like a play-doh ashtray!
• I'm sad that I came to this thread late -- it's a really interesting discussion! Also, I did part of my dissertation on this stuff (the whole Lolita phenomenon and how it plays out in media), so it's really easy for me to get longwinded and boring about this! (so maybe it's good for everyone else that I've been busy?) Anyway, what I've often found is that: 1) When girls dress in ways that we define as sexualized, they often aren't intending to be taken in a sexualized way -- they just want to be trendy, or fit in with friends. Even when they call themselves "sexy" they often mean something different than when an adult woman says the same thing. 2) Even when girls *are* intending to be taken sexually, it's by their peers, and not usually by older adults (there are exceptions to the rule, here, but I'm speaking in generalities -- and even when girls are directing their sexuality at adults, they often don't understand the power and consequences at work). 3) Often the reaction to childhood sexuality is to insist upon the innocence of childhood -- but too often this just makes (pedophillic) adults fetishize kids further. The whole "loss of innocence" is part of the sexual turn-on, here, as is the juxtaposition of the kid's age and lack of experience with the sexual display at work (Britney Spears' handlers made a science of this not too long ago). 4) I think that what everyone's saying about teaching kids about the realities of sexuality is right on the mark -- I don't think we can get rid of kid's interest in sex, and we shouldn't try (I'm another one who read the "good parts" of romance novels and was interested in my dad's Playboys.). What we should do is try to create space for a childhood sexuality that is *for the kid his/herself and not for adults* and that leads the kid on a path where they can have a healthy, responsible, and satisfying sexual life as an adult.
• meredithea, I think your conclusions 1 through 4 are dead right. My only question is to the last sentence of your fourth point: "What we should do is try to create space for a childhood sexuality that is *for the kid his/herself and not for adults* and that leads the kid on a path where they can have a healthy, responsible, and satisfying sexual life as an adult." How the hell do we do that?
• With the new Care Bear: Fuckbuddy Bear! *thought about googling that phrase first, quickly decided against it*
• Ralph, I know what you mean. Back in the early 70s I read something written by what I assume was a hippy mother who was quite proud of frequently masterbating her infant daughter to orgasm. Maybe the kid turned out to be perfectly fine, but it still makes me cringe to think about it. It's got to be tough for adults to decide what "an appropriate space for childhood sexuality" is. It might also be difficult for many to agree on what "a healthy, responsible and satisfying sexual life as an adult" really means. It's the adjectives, man, the adjectives are tough.
• I think the secret to creating a space for childhood sexuality mean giving the kid enough privacy and free time.
• frequently masterbating her infant daughter to orgasm. *scours eyesockets*
• *keeps scouring up the optic tract clear into the brain, and then some*
• *pushes hand clear through back of skull, but continues scouring just in case there's another speck he might have missed*
• Back in the early 70s I read something written by what I assume was a hippy mother who was quite proud of frequently masterbating her infant daughter to orgasm. There was a cultish family group (probably still is) that I remember reading about on Wikipedia, who thought teaching sexuality to their young children was important and would involve their kids in their sexual activities. The son committed suicide as an adult. It was/is a fairly famous group; anyone know who and what I'm talking about?
• I don't teach sexuality to my kid. I teach how people who love each other can have a big squashy cuddle and I pat her so she feels nice and grows up to be a big girl who can touch others without going zomg. When I got her, given the ratio of carers to babies in the uniquely cheerful place that's a Chinese orphanage, I was a bit worried that something might be broken in that way. As it turns out, it's all OK.
• tracicle, are you thinking of Centrepoint?
• > 1) When girls dress in ways that we define as sexualized, they often aren't intending to be taken in a sexualized way I think one problem is that adults have co-opted a lot of clothes that are suitable for girls. Miniskirts, for example, are ergonomically suitable in a non-sexualized way for young girls who are running and jumping around the place. But it's possible we've sexualized miniskirts to such an extent that young girls can't wear them anymore without evoking the wrong sort of associations on the part of adults.
• Best Post Of 200-!aww crap. But it's possible we've sexualized miniskirts I think they came that way. No pun intended!
• Monkeyfilter: anyone know who and what I'm talking about?
• An artist's take on the meme, or accidental propagation? [NSFW] (Note the sponsors in the "continue reading" link.)
• No, although Bert Potter is a disturbing man. I found it: Children of God.

  The group’s liberal sexuality and its publication and distribution of writings, photographs and videos advocating and documenting adult-child sexual contact and the sexualization of children led to numerous reports of child sexual abuse.