BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Preteens and the sexualizing of our children

 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
18:25 / 24.10.05
until you realize you're looking at a child

Might be worth noting we haven't really established this was actually the case...
 
 
Unconditional Love
19:15 / 24.10.05
Could the problem be that society has tried to desexualise itself in the past, this having affected individuals brought up with desexualised values and as a culture begins to become a little more contented with its sexuality various fears are fired broad side into the culture by past cultural generations that feel more comfortable living in a desexualised culture?

Especially the fear that puts childhood and sexual experience together, generally with the words victim and abuse, or other words loaded with negative connotations.

The natural sexual behaviour of children is overlooked as if it is unnatural, and cast into the role of predation, as are the media or "social forces" or fashion houses as conspirators in this plot to create sexualised children.

As children are already sexual, wouldnt it be better to educate earlier and create a positive affirming role for childhood sexuality, so its evolution was not stunted by oppressive moralising regimes, so a sense of boundaries and knowing right from wrong regarding adults was educated, so children learnt to understand and experiment with there sexuality among themselves.

Treating children as unresponsible people creates unresponsible children as does treating children as if they are stupid create stupid children. A part of me wonders, why does a desexualising culture want to create stunted children, both sexually, intellectually and morally.

Is it the case that adults must feel that they have power over children, and more power? that adults must be in control?

Is the idea of a child having an awareness or greater awareness of themselves a threat to percieved adult notions of social restraint and power?

Shouldnt children be allowed to define themselves, amongst themselves, for themselves as sexual creatures?

Childhood sexuality is natural , when adults try to interfer in any capacity with that process whether that be mentally,. emotionally or physically, thats when the abuse of a natural process occurs in my opinion.

Society imo cant accept that nature has decided to change its rigid desexualising boundaries.
 
 
matthew.
21:16 / 24.10.05
So nobody agrees with me? Nobody?

Okay.
 
 
Ganesh
21:20 / 24.10.05
I don't disagree with you. I haven't really approached the thread in terms of agreeing or disagreeing.
 
 
Spaniel
21:58 / 24.10.05
Well I have no idea whether your core assertion is anything other than another barbexample of an "I reckon" argument, becuase you haven't given me any stats to get my teeth into. If you want the discussion to move away from your core assertion just let us know and point us in another direction (note: I'm aware you had a go at this earlier).
 
 
diz
22:09 / 24.10.05
So nobody agrees with me? Nobody?

I can't speak for anyone else, but personally, I not only almost entirely disagree with you, I find virtually everything you've posted here offensive. I'm far more worried about attitudes like yours than I am about anything you're trying to raise an alarm about.

Sorry to everyone for the short posts I've "contributed" to this thread, but I seem to be pressed for time every time I read it.
 
 
matthew.
22:48 / 24.10.05
Offensive? Why?

Well, I'm not out to offend people. That's not my aim whatsoever.

Okay, at this point, I'm going to have to give up. Yes, I'm sorry. I still believe there's a problem, but I don't think I'm going to convince anybody of it.

I'm giving up because I do not have time to do the real research. I know this sounds like a cop-out, but at least everybody gets the satisfaction of winning.

I'm also giving up because apparently I'm offending people. I'll shut my mouth accordingly.

I'm far more worried about attitudes like yours than I am about anything you're trying to raise an alarm about.

What exactly is my attitude then? I have not proposed any "solution" or "consummation" of this "problem" whatsoever. I'm not telling people to castrate their children. I'm not saying children should be eunuchs. I'm just concerned about what I perceive is a problem in my upper-North American society. (Now everybody will dissect my use of the word "society", haha).

I wasn't trying to raise such a kerfuffle. I just wanted to say that I thought it's a problem.

Thanks everybody for giving me the chance to do so. I guess this thread has given me the opportunity to do a couple of things. Firstly, I learned that I can't simply state something and leave it at that. I have to learn to argue something. Unfortunately, I'm giving up because of time constraints. I'm getting behind in my school work. Come summer, man, will I argue. Secondly, I learned of assumptions, which apparently I only have. Nobody else has these assumptions....

Anyway, if I offended anybody, then sorry. And that's it for me, folks. Goodnight and see you in the books thread.
 
 
Ganesh
00:07 / 25.10.05
Okay, at this point, I'm going to have to give up. Yes, I'm sorry. I still believe there's a problem, but I don't think I'm going to convince anybody of it.

I'm giving up because I do not have time to do the real research. I know this sounds like a cop-out, but at least everybody gets the satisfaction of winning.


Friendly advice: I think you're slightly missing the point here; it's not about 'winning' or 'giving up' or even requesting a show of virtual hands to see who does or doesn't 'agree' with you. Arguments do not spring fully-formed to the Head Shop, but are challenged, thrown around, chewed over, picked to pieces, reframed and revisited. That's the beauty of the place. It's not a school debating society to be 'won' or 'lost'. It's not a popularity contest. It's about throwing out an idea, getting feedback, reevaluating the idea in the light of the feedback.

I'm just concerned about what I perceive is a problem in my upper-North American society. (Now everybody will dissect my use of the word "society", haha).

I wasn't trying to raise such a kerfuffle. I just wanted to say that I thought it's a problem.


I don't think people particularly need to pull apart your use of the word "society" here. What's in question is whether your perception of there being a problem maps onto any wider reality. That's what's yet to be established.

Secondly, I learned of assumptions, which apparently I only have. Nobody else has these assumptions....

Nobody's claimed that you're the only person to work from the assumption that children are becoming sexualised more early. You've merely been asked to clarify what you mean, and provide more than anecdotal evidence that your supposition is actually the case.

No kerfuffle. Just good, honest challenging of underlying assumptions.
 
 
diz
00:08 / 25.10.05
What exactly is my attitude then?

Basically, you're using incredibly loaded language ("trashy," "victims," etc.) to pathologize something that's not especially abnormal historically or unhealthy psychologically. You're doing so in a way that effectively demonizes sexuality (especially female sexuality) and youth culture in a way that echoes deeply dangerous reactionary trends in American culture as a whole, aligning yourself with the various political and cultural factions which seem intent on obstructing practical progress towards a safer and more enlightened take on the cultural expression of sexuality, sex education, sexual identity, etc. In the process, you're displaying a certain degree of ignorance of normal human sexual development, and the cultural history of childhood.

Your hysterical ranting also ignores broader statistical trends about teenage sex, such as the fact that teenage pregnancy rates have been steadily declining in the US since they peaked in 1957, and that teenagers from more sexually repressive backgrounds (such as ones that have received "abstinence only" education) have MUCH higher rates of teenage pregnancy and STD transmission. To the degree that underage sex is a problem (and I would argue that it isn't really a problem to begin with), your Puritanical approach to that problem actually makes it demonstrably worse.

Also, my general rule is that anyone who goes off on a little jeremiad about how "girls are dressing like sluts these days" is a worthless boil on the ass of humanity. There's just so much nasty and ignorant shit packed into that simple phrase, and it says so many unflattering things about the speaker's attitudes towards sex, gender, sexuality, and fashion that it's hard to know exactly where to begin.
 
 
diz
00:13 / 25.10.05
Oh, and to elaborate further on this:

In my book, the "girls are dressing like sluts these days" speech is to sex what "why can't all these black rappers speak Proper English, and why don't they talk about something Positive and Uplifting instead of guns and hoes and bling and all that?" is to race.
 
 
matthew.
00:44 / 25.10.05
Don't you dare lump me in with those people who make such assumptions about rappers. That's just plain offensive. I won't have that.
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
01:02 / 25.10.05
Diz: Oh, and to elaborate further on this:

In my book, the "girls are dressing like sluts these days" speech is to sex what "why can't all these black rappers speak Proper English, and why don't they talk about something Positive and Uplifting instead of guns and hoes and bling and all that?" is to race.


Additionally, it always smacks too much of "in my day..." when it's more about the change in perceptions of the issue rather than the issue itself. Someone mentioned upthread that sex for pleasure among kids has gone up, but I'd argue that we're just more aware of it now - just because you weren't supposed to talk about Fallen Women in the Forties doesn't mean that a lot of girls didn't get pregnant before they were ready or wanting a child, out of marriage, et cetera. And to assume that the boys in question went into the liasion with any intention beyond pleasure ("By gum, I think I'll get her pregnant!") is self-defeating. They did it, I would imagine, because it *felt good*, or they were driven by hormones that they couldn't talk about.

The argument of "kids these days" just strikes me too much that people are forgetting what kids were actually like in their day, and they've glossed over their memories with a happy pen. I don't know about other people, but I always felt like I was wholly and completely responsible and wanted to be taken as wholly and completely responsible when I was a child - and now I know this is not true. The feeling of "kids these days" sets up an Us-versus-Them that ignores the fact that we -were- them at one point, and they will be us. We survived it for the most part, even with a lot of baggage, I'd imagine a lot of them will as well. They just might end up with different baggage.

One of the weirdest parts of being in my mid-twenties is the mixture of irritation, concern, and laughing memory that hits me when I see teenagers being teenagers.
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
01:03 / 25.10.05
Only, you know, Diz said it way better than me. :/
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
08:13 / 25.10.05
Deva above:

The bigger problem seems to be the way in which a particular virulent strain of heterosexism (the rigid production and policing of gender roles in and beyond sexual behaviour, the colonizing of all experience by sexuality*) is affecting children's relationships with each other. That's where the objectification of women and the sexualization of children seem to cross over most scarily.

*By which I mean the acceptability of (hetero)sexualized metaphors for human interaction in general. I need to think about this more but it has something to do with, for example, greetings cards of five-year-olds wearing wedding clothes and kissing. And probably something to do with evolutionary psychology's desire to explain everything everyone does in terms of a particular construction of heterosexual desire.


I think this is the most interesting aspect of this discussion - maybe we should move towards discussing this? I will try to gather some thoughts...
 
 
Spaniel
08:20 / 25.10.05
People aren't being mean, or picking for the sake of picking, or trying to win. They're simply trying to get you to raise your game.
Matt, I'm trying to be nice, I really am, but if you can't see that this isn't a game of oneupmanship, then I suggest you don't post in the Headshop.

You made a controversial statement.

You didn't back it up with any evidence.

You got it thrown back in your face.
 
 
Ganesh
09:46 / 25.10.05
I was reminded of Deva's point on directed preteen heterosexuality by that advert for soap powder (or something) which shows two 8-year-old (or thereabouts) boys scrambling on to the roof of a garden shed so they can both gaze adoringly (voyeuristically) down the bikini'd cleavage of the teenage girl sunbathing next door. I've always found this advert irritating, but was unsure why; I'd supposed it was the idea of lecherous 8-year-olds. Reading this thread, I think it presses my itchyscratchy button because it's a 'saucy' portrayal of profoundly heterosexual lecherous 8-year-olds - who are presented as cute (rather than creepy or oversexualised or 'promoting the heterosexual lifestyle' or whatever) because it fits comfortably into the familiar man-subject/woman-object view of sexuality. It's difficult to imagine the same advert showing two girls ogling a Speedo-packaged male, or - horrors! - children in search of same-sex titillation.
 
 
sdv (non-human)
11:10 / 25.10.05
The act of sex between two or more partners willing or unwilling does not in itself mean that a human being only becomes sexual or sexually active at this point. Following on from this I would personally recommend - Foucault's three volume opus 'The History of Sexuality' and Jeffrey Weeks similar work on sexuality (title forgotton...) Given the tendency of human beings to sexualize anything that moves or doesn't (fond memories of an IS professor who seemed to have sex with IBM mainframes....).

So to be explicit "preteen sexuality" is not caused by western society and IT IS NOT A BAD THING.... to even 'imagine' that it is, is like accusing the 2nd law of thermodynaimcs of being a bad thing... It is simply foolish to believe that the age of sexual activity has significantly changed in the last 10,000 years.

All human societies - without exception - have engaged in processes of sexualizing young people. It's probably important to identify the differences in the processes before anyone starts apportioning blame to the individual human subjects, the people exploiting them or even perhaps blaming mass-consumptive society for discovering that 'bratz' dolls sell to young children.
 
 
Cat Chant
11:16 / 25.10.05
So nobody agrees with me? Nobody?

Well, I think the issue of young adult, teen, preteen and child sexuality is an important and vexed one, where a lot of complex cultural factors are coming together in ways which potentially reduce children's sexual and emotional autonomy. I think the least bad thing about any of that is the idea that more young people are having sex with each other for pleasure and/or wearing thongs, given the historical context of widespread coerced child/ adult sex (see Louise Armstrong's book Rocking the Cradle of Sexual Politics - I'll dig out some statistics when I'm at home).
 
 
Alex's Grandma
15:51 / 25.10.05
I don't know... I *think* that Matt's original point was something to do with the question of how, and why, pre-teen sexuality is now apparently considered a legitimate target in the contemporary ad marketplace. Pre-teen sexuality, on the basis of this thread, seems to be something that everyone experiences very differently, but I'm guessing that all Matt was really arguing for, in perhaps somewhat indelicate terms, was for the kids to be allowed to get on with it, or not, without this extraneous pressure from the kind of character who feels it''s acceptable to put together a 'presentation' aimed at the 'tweenie' market, whereby pre-teenage girls, really, are encouraged to present themselves as older, ie, to present themselves to the 'adult' world as being more sexually experienced, with the attendant implications as to their 'availability,' than they actually are.

In that sense anyway, I can't help but agree with him.
 
 
Cat Chant
09:57 / 26.10.05
But in that case, what I would see as the problem is a commodified version of heterosexuality which is oppressive to preteens, teens, adults and crones alike. I was thinking about this this morning - why it is that it's only when this becomes visible on preteen bodies that it seems to be a problem (I wondered whether it was like the thong thing - whether adult ambivalence about the commodification of sexuality and the oppressiveness of heterosexism is being projected onto child bodies, because we like to fantasize that they are or should be free of those things...)

(Sorry for hurried phrasing and sentence structure, have to go to a meeting)
 
 
Ganesh
11:55 / 26.10.05
A sort of petty add-on/side-order to Deva's point: might we consider removing the word "our" from the thread title? I don't actually have any children myself, and I don't claim even notional ownership of children in an abstract sense. Unless the title's deliberately worded as a subtle piss-take of 'MUST WE FLING THIS FILTH AT OUR POP KIDS?' type tabloid hysteriaheadlines, I'd humbly suggest that it might be more meaningful without.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
12:23 / 26.10.05
I accidentally just tried to move this thread. Does distributed moderation work? We're about to find out...
 
 
Cat Chant
12:32 / 26.10.05
You also accidentally tried to change the thread summary rather than the title. I disagreed them both - hooray for distributed moderation!
 
 
Lurid Archive
12:57 / 26.10.05
I've been following this thread with interest and dont have much to add except to say that I disagreed the request to change title so as to remove the word "our". As a rule of thumb, I think that mods shouldn't really police language unless there is an issue of offence or clarity. I don't think this is either of those, is it?

Ganesh says it would be more meaningful without, but I for one would be sympathetic to the idea of a "notional ownership of children in an abstract sense". People can argue about that, of course, but I think there is enough room for reasonable debate that the thread starters wording should win out.

Distributed moderation, eh?
 
 
Ganesh
12:59 / 26.10.05
Well, my suggestion was largely aimed at the thread-starter rather than passing moderators, so I'm happy enough to go with his decision. Just making a minor point, really.
 
 
David Batty
13:44 / 26.10.05
I think Deva's comments here are interesting. Pop into your local branch of WH Smiths & take a look at their Playboy stationery range, clearly targeted at young girls...
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply