There are children who genuinely molest other children. But again, when they are molesting, it's not about sex. It's about power and control.
As for your question, I'm sure you know people who were aware of themselves sexually from a very early age. Five or so. Knew who they were attracted to (boys or girls), knew how to masturbate, etc.
102. KurtMondaugen - June 17, 1998 - 12:23 PM PDT
Scott:
Are you saying mature sexuality is, by nature, lewd and lascivious? I think Christin's examples and a child's innate curiousity towards biological matters exemplify things pretty well. Do you remember wondering about, say, your arbitrary erections as a child, or being shy or adept around girls and perhaps wondering why? Again, I'm not saying that a child is mature enough to behave in a concrete sexual way, responsibly or not, but I do think that putting blinders on them, or not communicating properly with them in regards to such matters, may only serve to prolong their immaturity, for better or worse.
103. ChristinO - June 17, 1998 - 12:32 PM PDT
Excerpted from #91
" It's not being suggested that all sexuality is nasty and apart from the innocent purity of chilhood, is it? I mean, that's a bit what it sounds like to me.
"Catch and Kiss" is still a popular schoolyard game that as I recall hits around first grade. It's most definitely sexual, but there's nothing nasty about it. "
104. chloel - June 17, 1998 - 12:38 PM PDT
ScottLoar -
No, the description I have of teens & twenties in the Chinas is not that they're working so they can form families; it's that they're not supposed to be thinking about forming families at all yet, that they flirt and marry and leave home much *later* than average Americans. Sexually, an extended prepubescence. Since we've been discussing adult vs. child sexuality, relevant.
105. ScottLoar - June 17, 1998 - 2:06 PM PDT
re Message #102: In my opinion the subject was headed toward the conviction among some that children understand sexuality "the quality of possessing a sexual character or potency" and so I used the phrase "lewd and lascivious" to bring it up short. Listen, of course young children are conscious of gender (appearances and activities instruct them so) but rarely are they naturally conscious of sexuality and its attendant concerns. Examples to the contrary are so rare as to be notable and usually the result to exposure by adults.
106. NuPlanetOne - June 17, 1998 - 2:12 PM PDT
Re/ On the subject of 'sexual attraction.' (Or, how PlanetOne amuses himself with a laptop at Speedy Muffler with two hours to kill.)
These are just my opinions based on an ongoing observation of life from the womb through puberty. I offer no corroborating science. Though there was an intimation in the Slate article that perhaps a sexual attraction toward children could somehow be considered natural, I think it best to define where exactly one considers childhood to end. I will focus on girls since my first-hand expertise and observational experience has now reached nearly eighteen years as my baby girl will soon enough celebrate that distinction. I will also define the physical end of childhood for a girl as the onset of puberty.
From the second my daughter emerged from the birth canal I experienced the most profound and indelible love that I ever imagined possible in a world and life that oft-times left me cynical and suspicious. I knew, of course, that it was a natural and primal response that nature had established to secure the continuation of the species. I also knew that being free-born and financially secure, after a fashion, allowed me to immortalize and miraculize the experience more, than say, the average impoverished individual living in more dire circumstances. It was the fairy tale, and I would raise a Princess. But at the base biological level the bond and protective inclination, I believe is the same. \
/cont...
107. NuPlanetOne - June 17, 1998 - 2:12 PM PDT
As a young father in love with his wife and child I enjoyed the fascination and attendant anxiety normal for my situation. There were child rearing books tossed aside and exasperating time-outs and doctors and diapers and all the crazy little moments that make us wonder why or if it is all worth it in the end. But I watched her grow and noted in those thinking moments how each phase of her development fit each phase of her identity. In all her pre-pubescent joys and crises, a consideration of a sexuality, by no natural means, ever presented itself. Sure, she would imitate jealousy and steal me away if mommy demanded a hug or we were caught showing a confusing degree of affection. She would also inhabit the role of mother and wife within her play of emulation that is natural and healthy along the road to pubescence, but things sexual, by design, were not an interpretation that could be conceived as something of natural origin. She was a little girl fortunate enough to enjoy a natural progression, unhindered, I hope, by any unnatural exposure to forces that would pervert an otherwise genetically programmed, (for lack of a less controversial description), advance to adulthood.
/cont...
108. NuPlanetOne - June 17, 1998 - 2:13 PM PDT
Now, this programming, if you will, initiated a new set of circumstances and hormones. She reached the age where little girls begin to exhibit the physical characteristics of a woman. And although they are either ashamed or revel in their new found curves and bumps, or lack thereof, it is my experience that even at this stage a coherent nor definitive understanding of things sensual should be said to have developed as well. It can be said that they will test what innate understanding or curiosity which is a part of this early *awakening,* but anyone who believes that an attractive set of attributes denotes an equally well formed sensual understanding should be forced to endure the arguments a fourteen year old will proffer in defense of skinny dipping at the lake in the presence of boys, (or girls!), who have already progressed to a corporeal level of sexual understanding. Here the child is ever present, and I do not know at what exact stage to let the child evolve. The argument is arduous and torturous, but a valid one nonetheless. I know that in other cultures historically and currently once puberty has been established the girl is thereby considered ready to make the jump to womanhood merely by virtue of an ability to bear children. And pedophiles would argue this is a natural basis validating their attraction to very young females. I am not interested in intellectualizing that argument. From what I have observed, most girls from puberty to sixteen would not sanction, nor fully comprehend the fetish or overt desire by a mature individual to ogle or fondle one of their kind, and most definitely would not submit willfully even if their comprehension permitted a mild understanding of a motive. They will choose wrong, as we all do, out of trust and persuasion. But they cannot be said to have acted out of a consensual sense of sexuality. /cont...
/cont...
109. NuPlanetOne - June 17, 1998 - 2:13 PM PDT
So, to counter this idea that a sexual desire toward a child, or for that matter, an adolescent, could be somehow justified as a normal or natural inclination, I say not according to what I have observed in my children, the children of others, or in my experience *as* a child. Anyone who claims that such a thing is so and thereby acceptable, should be ostracized from children. They must be made to understand that children are incapable of sharing this belief at a reasonably cognizant level of understanding or maturity. For however they came to formulate such an ideology, I am sure, once dissected, would uncover a sensual violation somewhere at sometime in their formative development. The important thing to me is that they do not harm a child in turn. It is why I am part of the obsessed and over-reactive herd spoken of in the article. And since I do not waste much space outside of the Poetry Thread, I doubt that I talk just to oblige some subliminal urge to fantasize or dwell in some heightened state of taboo and sexuality. I think all behavior is psychological, it is only when it is manifested mechanically that we need to act. Abuse children, stop the machine.
110. ScottLoar - June 17, 1998 - 2:14 PM PDT
re Message #104: I'll stand by my post Message #99 and add that sexual activity (probably less among Chinese and Taiwanese teenagers that among American) is no index of extended adolescence. By definition adolescents are capable and interested in sexual congress ("sexual congress", a quaint expression). And after they have finished their educations teenagers and young adults in China and Taiwan are expected to have families and children which is the rite of passage into adulthood.
111. ScottLoar - June 17, 1998 - 2:25 PM PDT
NuPlanetOne, a well-written essay. I agree.
112. chloel - June 17, 1998 - 3:00 PM PDT
NuPlanetOne;
Both CristinO and I have reported having sexual feelings much earlier than physical puberty. Both of us remember friends who did too. I hid them from my parents; it was an innocent and private matter.
A gap I keep seeing in the way I and you see the issue comes up in "From what I have observed, most girls from puberty to sixteen would not sanction, nor fully comprehend the fetish or overt desire by a mature individual to ogle or fondle one of their kind".
No; in the language of the age, eeeeuw, gross! But did you mean that as evidence of not *having* sexual feelings? because having them, and wishing to be the object of somebody else's, aren't related (especially at that age).
113. ChristinO - June 17, 1998 - 3:06 PM PDT
NP1: No one here is arguing that it's okay to sexually desire children or that children are prepared to enter into mature sexual relationships. My apologies if you were only responding to the article.
By this:
"But I watched her grow and noted in those thinking moments how each phase of her development fit each phase of her identity. In all her pre-pubescent joys and crises, a consideration of a sexuality, by no natural means, ever presented itself. Sure, she would imitate jealousy and steal me away if mommy demanded a hug or we were caught showing a confusing degree of affection. She would also inhabit the role of mother and wife within her play of emulation that is natural and healthy along the road to pubescence, but things sexual, by design, were not an interpretation that could be conceived as something of natural origin. "
Do you mean YOU had no sexual feelings toward her or SHE had no sexual feelings at all? If you are speaking only of yourself then I congratulate you on being a well adjusted parent. If you mean to imply that your daughter had no sexual feelings until well into puberty I would have to disagree with you.
114. joezan - June 17, 1998 - 3:07 PM PDT
There is no doubt that young children are sexual. Untaught and unprovoked, they will masturbate. But it is generally accepted that children are not capable of reaching orgasm until puberty, or close to it, although it may "feel good" before then (that's why they do it).
As part of their emotional maturation, children learn innately to separate sex from emotion. The point at which this happens is so arbitrary, that I don't believe there can even be established a reliable average. In more primitive cultures it happens at a younger age. But in developed countries things get alot more complicated. Factors such as self esteem and general emotional health play a much bigger part (than in "simpler" cultures).
Depending on the circumstances, children in, say, the U.S. may not be emotionally ready for sex until their late teens. The fact that their developed bodies and raging hormones tell THEM and others something totally different, is where all the confusion comes in - for them, and for society, which has to deal with the consequences.
Before this separation of sexuality and emotions, sex, especially with someone considerably older, is utterly confusing and wreaks emotional havoc.
Unfortunately, children who are not emotionally ready for sex, for a number of other reasons, are the easiest to take advantage of. So, whether they are 2 or 16, I believe it's wrong, morally and legally, for anyone adult to have sex with children. And 18 is probably a good cut-off age.
115. ChristinO - June 17, 1998 - 3:08 PM PDT
Chloel:And there was no way in HELL I would ever have told my Father about it in the first place.
116. joezan - June 17, 1998 - 3:12 PM PDT
Nu:
You've said it better than I ever could. Excellent posts.
117. ChristinO - June 17, 1998 - 3:16 PM PDT
JoeZ: Is it generally accepted that children do not have orgasms long before puberty because it's "unthinkable"-----------I mean, there's nobody out there studying child orgasms is there? That would be sexual abuse.
118. ArielTheSprite - June 17, 1998 - 3:17 PM PDT
Yes, NuPlanetOne, exceptional post(s); many kudos.
119. ScottLoar - June 17, 1998 - 3:17 PM PDT
"There is no doubt that children are sexual. Untaught and unprovoked they will masturbate. But it is generally accepted that children are not capable of reaching orgasm until puberty, or close to it, although it may 'feel good' before then (that's why they do it)".
So the only difference between the child scratching himself (it feels good) or stroking his privates (it feels good) is that you style the second as "sexual", seemingly only because the sexual organs are involved? That seems poor evidence for the supposed "sexuality" of children for even when it feels good what evidence do you have that the child understands the sexual character, potency, the interest in sexual activity which is "sexuality"?
120. ScottLoar - June 17, 1998 - 3:24 PM PDT
So, too, I cannot understand your agreement with NuPlanetOne when his essay - particularly Message #107 - seems to contradict your first paragraph of Message #114.
121. KurtMondaugen - June 17, 1998 - 3:34 PM PDT
NuPlanet:
Very eloquent posts. But, as Christin pointed out, nobody here has suggested that it's natural for adults to desire children sexually. And, to be honest, I'm not that's what the article implies either (though perhaps the author obscured their point by being too illustrative in its "little tummies" tangent). If, taking the example of your daughter ("a consideration of a sexuality, by no natural means, ever presented itself."), it can be established that children are pure, sexless beings, then why is it that adults routinely project a given sexuality onto them (as I brought up before, through conditioning, the media, etc.), or why is this conversation even taking place? Is it because, as Loar says, Americans on the large are inappropriatly obsessed (likely)? Is it because even the most well-intentioned adult cannot, as a sexual being, help it (maybe)? Is it an unconscious acknowledgement of the type we've been talking about (probably not)? Or is it because eroticizing children is natural, after all (doubtful)? I'm not trying to be combatative here, I'm just looking for some possible consensus.
Joe:
Also very well said. One very minor quibble re: "So, whether they are 2 or 16, I believe it's wrong, morally and legally, for anyone adult to have sex with children." In my state, it happens to be legal for an 18 year old (adult) to have sex with a 16 year old (while the age of consent is 16, there are provisions for large difference of age between partners). Whether or not this is moral is a whole 'nuther conversation, probably.
122. joezan - June 17, 1998 - 3:37 PM PDT
ChristinO:
"I mean, there's nobody out there studying child orgasms is there? That would be sexual abuse".
There are studies on child sexuality which address the issue, yes. But what you seem to imply in your question is that one would have to have children masturbate (or something worse) for such a study, in order to reach such a conclusion.
No. Teens and adults are questioned as to whether they remember masturbating as children, and when their first orgasm occurred. Admittedly, alot of people are fuzzy on these kinds of details, but from the answers obtained from those who do remember, a reasonable conclusion is made.
123. Msivorytower - June 17, 1998 - 3:46 PM PDT
I've seen several people now say that America is obsessed with child abuse, and also with child sexuality compared to other countries.
Do you mean to suggest that child abuse is lower then, in these other countries as a result? Or that children have a *freer* childhood without adult imposed neuroses?
If so, how would you compare this across countries? What is the yardstick?
Personally, I'm not convinced this is a valid comparison, nor am I convinced that less obsession with child abuse means lower incidence (as we would define it here).
124. joezan - June 17, 1998 - 3:54 PM PDT
Kurt:
I also suggested that 18 would be a good cut-off age. Of course, "adulthood", being such an arbitrary number, would in a perfect world be considered on a case-by-case basis. No doubt there are teens of 14 who are emotionally ready for sex, and would therefore suffer no psychic damage.
But reality dictates that this sort of thing cannot be decided on a case-by-case basis, and so we must have laws regulating such things.
And, btw, judges are empowered, and do in most circumstances take much more into consideration than is generally believed. For instance, in cases where it can be proven that there is a serious relationship between a 19 y.o. boy and his pregnant 15 y.o. girlfriend, judges sometimes suspend sentencing for rape on the condition that the two get married.
125. joezan - June 17, 1998 - 3:59 PM PDT
ScottLoar:
I don't see the disagreement between Nu's and my posts that you do. Perhaps if I also explained that masturbation in young children is the extent of their innate sexuality...?
126. ChristinO - June 17, 1998 - 4:00 PM PDT
Ms: America has an extremely high rate of sex crimes period. I've asked before if this is due to our legal system or our puritainism or an actual higher incidence of these acts. I don't know that anyone knows.
127. Msivorytower - June 17, 1998 - 4:00 PM PDT
I think the waters get muddy when you try identifying when is a good time to no longer consider it child abuse.
My own take is that 16+ is out of the child abuse range, regardless of what the arbitrary lines are, and particularly in the culture we live within. I don't know what sexual relations between 16 year olds and older men (or women) would be classified as, but to say this is child abuse feels wrong to me.
They can drive, they have independent lives in many cases, they are increasingly making consumer choices, holding jobs, etc. This classifies them as a gray area for me, not quite adults, certainly not children.
I am more confident about my sureness of child abuse when it involves kids under 16, and each year below that increases my certainty.
128. 109109 - June 17, 1998 - 4:01 PM PDT
Kurt
"Is it because, as Loar says, Americans on the large are inappropriatly obsessed (likely)? Is it because even the most well-intentioned adult cannot, as a sexual being, help it (maybe)? Is it an unconscious acknowledgement of the type we've been talking about (probably not)? Or is it because eroticizing children is natural, after all (doubtful)? I'm not trying to be combatative here, I'm just looking for some possible consensus."
FWIW, I think sex obsession, even now, with present day levels level of saturation, does not explain child molestation. I just don't see the connect. Is a prson so charged that they pey on the meek? Or are there too manu Jon Benet Ramsey fashion shows out there, populated by the sex obsessed ("Oh, I haven't tried this?)"
Whereas, we are in a large enough country that the aberration comes out in big numbers, numbers big enough to make us question our own thoughts, desires, motives.
129. Msivorytower - June 17, 1998 - 4:03 PM PDT
ChristinO
The point gets to the Foucaultian stuff.
What are the social constructions, the genre, the stories, that differ wrt child abuse across countries. Is it that other cultures don't define it the same way we do? Is it that they don't care? Is it that they accept child exploitation and abuse moreso than we do?
I don't know, it's why I ask these questions.
130. ChristinO - June 17, 1998 - 4:11 PM PDT
ScottL: Playing "Doctor" and "Kiss Tag" and "You Show Me Yours and I'll Show You Mine" are all sexual in nature.
And, yes, stimulation of the sex organs is different from scratching an itch. Otherwise, it would either be illegal to scratch one's head in public or perfectly legal to masturbate.
This doesn't mean that children understand sexuality or are capable of understanding it. Understanding feelings is not a prerequisite for having them.
131. CalGal - June 17, 1998 - 4:20 PM PDT
Niner,
"I think sex obsession, even now, with present day levels level of saturation, does not explain child molestation. "
CalGal repeats her mantra, "It's not about sex, it's about control and power."
Also, and I'd have to find the book where I'd read it at home, there is a decent (but not absolute) correlation between offenders and their childhood history. Sexual offenders were usually sexually abused (or were severely emotionally abused around sexual issues) and violent offenders were usually physically abused.
The reverse *isn't* a given (all people sexually abused don't become offenders, etc.)
132. ChristinO - June 17, 1998 - 4:29 PM PDT
Joe: Then the results seem out of synch with my experiences and those of women that I've discussed this with. The consensus among my girlfriends and friends of my mother's is that most of us were masturbating to orgasm long before menstruation. The youngest account being six years of age but the average being 9 or 10 with menstruation on average beginning at 12 or 13.
Talking with my brother about it he said that he and his friends discovered it somewhat later than we girls. That's most likely due to the correlation between male orgasm and ejaculation I would guess.
133. 109109 - June 17, 1998 - 4:31 PM PDT
Cal
But what starts the process. What created the abnormality to look at a child and say, "Hey, yea."
134. KurtMondaugen - June 17, 1998 - 4:41 PM PDT
109109:
Well, at this specific point, when I refer to adults' projection of sexuality onto children, I'm not talking about molestation. I'm speaking of more benign, culturally accepted forms of sexualizing children (social conditioning, the teacher/student come-on soda commercial, Baby Spice, etc.). I'm not sure if there's a correlation between molestation and projection or not (though I'm not one who buys the 'porn made me do it' or the 'Ozzy Osbourne killed my son' defense). What I'm asking in this case is, if children are asexual beings, then why do Americans (as a whole) spend so much effort force-feeding them while expressing (legitimate) outrage at the less benign forms of exploitation?
135. joezan - June 17, 1998 - 4:43 PM PDT
MsIt:
"They can drive, they have independent lives in many cases, they are increasingly making consumer choices, holding jobs, etc. This classifies them as a gray area for me, not quite adults, certainly not children".
I hear the same thing from an awful lot of people. Because most of my friends are well adjusted-people, raising well-adjusted children. However, I can assure you that there are many, many kids who do all those things, and do them well, who are emotionally 9 or 10 years old.
136. joezan - June 17, 1998 - 5:09 PM PDT
ChristinO:
I don't doubt anything you're saying regarding age of first orgasm. In fact, in my post to which you refer, I stated that it is generally believed that kids attain first orgasm at puberty, or very near.
The fact that boys are generally not capable of orgasm till puberty (and I would say from personal experience not until some months after puberty has started), while girls are capable a couple of years before puberty, then averaged together it would seem to be very close to the figures I stated.
Also, it occurs to me, based on the questions I am being asked, that I may not have made my point very cearly, which isn't that unusual. My point was not that kids reach sexual maturity once they are capable of orgasm.
FWIW: A psychologist with whom I worked many years ago told me about a very unusual phenomenon which occurred in his native Puerto Rico. It seems that, in order to increase milk production in their dairy cattle, the country embarked on a wreckless campaign of over-supplementation of milk-producing hormones in the feed.
The result (according to my colleague) was that for years, Puerto Rican girls were reaching puberty at an alarmingly accelerated rate - with menses in many cases occurring at age 7 or 8, followed by physical maturation by 11 or 12. He explained that the way most families dealt with this problem was by marrying the girls off at age 12 or 13, with no national calamity. I believe this illustrates my point that in less developed countries (this was during the 50's) there is a difference in the age of sexual maturity.
137. ScottLoar - June 17, 1998 - 5:11 PM PDT
re Message #130: You've completely missed my point and misunderstand the meaning of sexuality which necessarily requires conscious projection of being aware of one's own sexual nature. Sex (and the adjective sexual) and sexuality are not the same.
138. ChristinO - June 17, 1998 - 5:11 PM PDT
Joe: I know plenty of 40 year olds who make 10 year olds look mature. We cannot test each person individually.
I'm with the Ms on 16. If we entrust them with 2000 pounds of speeding, metal death then they aren't exactly children, are they?
139. Msivorytower - June 17, 1998 - 5:13 PM PDT
Zan
That begs the question. There are legally defined adults who have the emotional maturity of 9 and 10 year olds. There are adults who go through their whole lives and never get beyond this level.
How far do we carry this *protection for one's own good" scenario. At some point the lines become very arbitrary, and clean decision rules go out the window.
1) Under 13, absolutely NO QUESTION its child abuse.
2) 13 to 15, physically maturing, precociously provocative, but almost always in the child abuse category.
3) 16 to 18, a very hard one to call. We now move into the high end of arbitrariness, and should proceed on a case by case basis. Costly, time consuming, controversial.
140. 109109 - June 17, 1998 - 5:14 PM PDT
Kurt
If children are asexual beings, then why do Americans (as a whole) spend so much effort force-feeding them while expressing (legitimate) outrage at the less benign forms of exploitation?"
I just don't want to miss you -
Force-feeding them what?
What benign forms and what concurrent outrage?
I'm gone for a bit. Will check back.
141. joezan - June 17, 1998 - 5:16 PM PDT
MsIt:
I agree. I also believe that, were it possible, every such case, over the age of, say, 14 should be judged on a case-by-case basis.
142. ChristinO - June 17, 1998 - 5:21 PM PDT
Joe: Gotcha on the orgasm thing. My point was that 7 and even 9 are nowhere near puberty if it occurs around 12. I just wondered if it was "unthinkable" to adults that children could be capable of orgasm so early so they just dismissed it.
This is getting ready to lead into my discussion with ScottLoar, though so I'll leave off here for a minute.
143. ScottLoar - June 17, 1998 - 5:21 PM PDT
"If we entrust them with 2000 pounds of speeding, metal death then they aren't exactly children, are they?" That assumes you who entrust them are wise stewards, for trust does not make a man or child does it? Also, drive at 16 because it's a social necessity, deny them liquor, for example, because there is not social justification for drinking booze.
No, what divides the child from the man is personal responsibility, which the law unevenly defines depending on the offense, but which our society (varying from state to state) defines somewhere around 18 with the right to vote, drink, drive, and engage in other adult activities.
144. ScottLoar - June 17, 1998 - 5:21 PM PDT
"If we entrust them with 2000 pounds of speeding, metal death then they aren't exactly children, are they?" That assumes you who entrust them are wise stewards, for trust does not make a man or child does it? Also, drive at 16 because it's a social necessity, deny them liquor, for example, because there is not social justification for drinking booze.
No, what divides the child from the man is personal responsibility, which the law unevenly defines depending on the offense, but which our society (varying from state to state) defines somewhere around 18 with the right to vote, drink, drive, and engage in other adult activities.
145. ScottLoar - June 17, 1998 - 5:23 PM PDT
Double-post not the result of trembling hand.
146. ChristinO - June 17, 1998 - 5:28 PM PDT
ScottL: It seems more to me that you think sex and sexuality is only about screwing. "If we acknowlege that children have sexual feelings that means we're saying it's okay to have sex with them." That's not true at all. We don't assume this about adults why should we assume it about children?
Where are you getting your definition of sexuality as a cognitive awareness of sexual stimuli and attraction?
147. KurtMondaugen - June 17, 1998 - 5:29 PM PDT
109:
"Force-feeding them what?"
Adult sexual projections. EG: Paying a child to wiggle suggestively to sell soda-pop, or giving a male child the implicit or explicit message that if he can't hit the ball he's not adequately masculine, or Baby Spice (an inept, vulgar parody of the child-seductress icon who's quite popular, I understand, among female children), etc. etc. etc.
"What benign forms and what concurrent outrage"
LESS benign forms of exploitation, ie. molestation, sexual attraction to children. The outrage part should speak for itself. I'm repeating myself, here...have you been reading my posts at all, or am I truly not making any sense?
148. ScottLoar - June 17, 1998 - 5:35 PM PDT
Message #146: Where did you get the quote? It's surely not mine, nor would I assent to such a statement, and for you to presume it is my position is unconscionable. And I truly don't understand your question because that is not my definition of sexuality. Look it up in the dictionary.
149. chloel - June 17, 1998 - 5:47 PM PDT
ScottLoar -
You twice called children asexual - "Children are asexual but vulnerable, totally dependent on adults until they reach their teens and the beginnings of true sexuality "; and then you asked for evidence of lewd or lascivious behavior in prepubescent children. There's been considerable evidence given that some children masturbate to orgasm before the age of reason; do you agree that that's lewd, lascivious, or just sexual behavior?
In any case, what relevance does the sexual behavior of a child have to do with the sexual behavior of an adult towards that child? What difference would it make to a definition of child abuse if the children were or weren't sexual?
KurtMondaugen -
I'd say we forcefeed examples of children being sexual for the pleasure of others, and avoid examples of children being sexual for their own pleasure. When I'm really cynical, I'd say the explanation is easy: the latter doesn't have any marketing tie-ins.
No wonder we're so screwed up, though.
Prudery and prurience are ever hand-in-pocket.
150. KurtMondaugen - June 17, 1998 - 5:51 PM PDT
Scott:
Quick clarification...you already agreed that 'latent' was a good term to describe a child's sexual state of being. The term then became 'asexual'. Perhaps this is a tiny semantic quibble, but to me latency implies a presence, though one in a state of dormancy, rather than one which is altogether nonexistent. Do you favor one term over the other, or do they essentially mean the same thing to you?
151. KurtMondaugen - June 17, 1998 - 5:52 PM PDT
chloe:
"Prudery and prurience are ever hand-in-pocket."
Ah, the wicked (Foucaltian?) ouroboros.
152. ChristinO - June 17, 1998 - 6:49 PM PDT
ScottL: It's not a quote it's Hypothetical Man speaking what I was beginning to think might be the reason behind your extreme reluctance to admit that children are capable of sexuality.
I'm still looking for the definition of sexuality that says it is necessarily a cognizant awareness of sexual stimuli. As I always understood the word it means "of or pertaining to gender and sex issues". A class in Human Sexuality isn't confined to what we as people consciously know about our sexual identities.
153. CalGal - June 17, 1998 - 6:55 PM PDT
chris--email me at hotmail with where you are now.
sorry, all.
154. ScottLoar - June 17, 1998 - 6:56 PM PDT
KurtMondaugen: Latent. The thing is there but far from being aroused or expressed. I lobbed in asexual (having no evident, I repeat evident, sex or sex organs) for that's how children appear to most of us adults and indeed, that's how children appear to other children. Again, they are conscious of their own and each other's gender but not sexuality, for sex is not only not potent in their lives but in their normal life it is altogether missing (some correspondents here as children seem to have been in a class apart). Children seem to have a stronger sense of themselves as children - distinct from adults - more than they do as boys or girls and this is shown in their play amongst themselves, especially the very young.
155. resonance - June 17, 1998 - 6:58 PM PDT
Children are sexual beings. They just mostly don't know it yet. And, yes, we force feed them a great deal of distorted sexual crap. Sex sells stuff, you know, and it especially sells stuff in a society where sex is presented in such a dualistic fashion as ours is -- 'naughty' and 'desirable' all at once, with a strong leavening of 'forbidden'. IMHO that pushes a lot of buttons.
156. resonance - June 17, 1998 - 7:00 PM PDT
I think you may be underestimating the potency of latent sexual feelings, Scott.
157. ScottLoar - June 17, 1998 - 7:00 PM PDT
ChristinO: Rather than search for dark motives or a hidden past why not just grow up and address the argument on its own merits? I've been posting in this public forum for years, my comments are straightforward, my points of view open to review, and enough know me to vouch for my intellectual integrity. Do you understand?
158. phillipdavid - June 17, 1998 - 7:02 PM PDT
(I wish I knew what ouroboros means)
159. ScottLoar - June 17, 1998 - 7:02 PM PDT
My explanation of the lewd and lascivious phrase and its purpose was given before to KurtMondaugen; don't make me repeat myself, please.
160. KurtMondaugen - June 17, 1998 - 7:04 PM PDT
PD:
It's that crazy snake what eats its own tail.
161. KurtMondaugen - June 17, 1998 - 7:06 PM PDT
Scott:
That clears it up for me, thanks.
162. ScottLoar - June 17, 1998 - 7:11 PM PDT
re Message #149: Last paragraph, there is no relevance, why in the hell do you ask me the last two questions? What have I written here that prompts you to ask me such questions as if I would say that the presence of sexuality in children justifies abusing them? Science may one day prove children are sexual monsters (I doubt that, as my writings here have been clear on the subject - or so I thought before reading your post) but that would not change adults' relationship or obligations to them.
163. phillipdavid - June 17, 1998 - 7:19 PM PDT
Thanks Kurt,
I just went through every post of ScottLoar in the thread looking for it. Lesson: have patience.
164. ScottLoar - June 17, 1998 - 7:27 PM PDT
Erh, PhillipDavid, I never used "ouroboros". I hope you did not go through all my posts thinking it was a lewd and lascivious phrase. If so, the wasted search serves you right and will further check your prurient interests in future.
165. ScottLoar - June 17, 1998 - 7:29 PM PDT
Warning to all scouts: the posting #164 was an example of dry humour.
166. chloel - June 17, 1998 - 7:31 PM PDT
ScottLoar -
I asked you what relevance the asexuality or sexuality of children has to child abuse because you have been a eloquent proponent of the belief that children aren't sexual. Why does it matter?
*No-one* here has claimed that a child with sexual feelings should be protected less than one without. This is why your arguing that children have none, when explaining why they should be protected, seems relevant to your reasons for the protection. Why does it matter?
167. NuPlanetOne - June 17, 1998 - 7:39 PM PDT
Re/ Message #112 & Message #113 chloel & ChristinO
Since the questions you both raised are similar, I will respond to both here in a single post. No, chloel, I do not doubt that children experience sexual feelings. And I agree that having them is 360 degrees different from being the object of someone else's. Especially so for a child. And ChristinO I hope that I am more than just a 'well adjusted parent' by virtue of the fact that I did not harbor any sexual feelings for my daughter. It may be my reading of it, but your tone suggests an inquisitive surprise, as if I were not in the majority, that I did not have these feelings.
Anyway, as I hoped to convey earlier, the important thing here for me is not the intellectualizing or debate about the intricacies or symptoms of a so-called child sexuality. I will give you that they have one, that they explore it and that it is a natural inclination to do so. I had one as a young boy and no one messed with it and it seemed to me that it did what it was supposed to do at all the proper times. (O.K. My X might disagree. Nothing new there.) The important issue is that we in no way allow it to be conveyed that a child is capable of entering into a sexual relationship with an adult. To say that we cannot determine just when a child stops being a child is nonsense. A cut off has been mentioned. That is one way. Yet however we do it, it must be done in a way that leaves no room for predatory or pedophilic philosophizing that would make it in any way acceptable behavior for an individual to justify a sexual relation with a child. The reasons behind the urges one may have to act upon an interest in such a relationship are, I am sure, interesting and lively topics of study within psychiatric circles. The article did imply that we cannot stop such behavior. More fodder in the circle. I am just looking for ways to protect against it.
168. ScottLoar - June 17, 1998 - 7:40 PM PDT
re Message #166: I truly do not understand your questions. The presence or lack of sexuality in children has not relevance to child abuse (it was a point brought up that I felt competent to criticze), nor did I ever imply pertinence, nor could a reasonable person infer pertinence from my writings. So for the sake of the argument about child abuse a child's sexuality has no relevance. I cannot be plainer.
This is now very, very tiring.
169. coralreef - June 17, 1998 - 7:41 PM PDT
Message #157 I think this forum is not yet two years old. It just seems older. Internet time.
170. ScottLoar - June 17, 1998 - 7:48 PM PDT
Coralreef: The exact date of my entry was post #16 (I think) on the Vietnam thread prompted by the anniversary of the photo of Kim Phuoc running from napalm. Any one know when that was? Any one care to know? But the volume of my posts pale in comparison to most here, and my best comment during the course of one or two weeks barely compares with those casually made daily by some of the contributors to this forum.
171. ScottLoar - June 17, 1998 - 7:50 PM PDT
Corrigendum: (subject-verb agreement)pales
172. KurtMondaugen - June 17, 1998 - 7:51 PM PDT
I kinda hope Message #170 is more dry humor, Scott.
173. chloel - June 17, 1998 - 7:52 PM PDT
NuPlanetOne;
CristinO and I have both argued today that a widespread and inaccurate belief that children have no sexual feelings is apt to backfire. Each child discovered to have some can then be thought of as abnormal, or no longer a child, or whatever; and that difference in the view of the child is just the sort of thing with which loathsome scum justify themselves. In worse eras, it's been used as justification for mutilation or shock therapy for the child 'for its own protection'.
So. That's why I think it's relevant.
174. coralreef - June 17, 1998 - 7:58 PM PDT
What Mondaugen said, Scott.
175. ScottLoar - June 17, 1998 - 7:59 PM PDT
KurtMondaugen, no, actually a statement of conviction. What draws me here again and again is that there are so many people who know such great stuff that I don't know, especially those who express themselves well, like you when reviewing movies. So, too, there are occasional flashes of intellection, and when the flashes turn to lightning there's just no better place to be.
176. KurtMondaugen - June 17, 1998 - 8:02 PM PDT
Scott:
Okay, but the way you put #170 makes me wanna ask 'who died and made *you* Grace Kelly?'
177. NuPlanetOne - June 17, 1998 - 8:03 PM PDT
\Re/ chloel
I understand the distinction and appreciate the implications you and Christin foresee. It is just that if we are to educate people as to the existence of these feelings within children, which we should, it should only be because we are trying to protect them from a perversion of subsequent interpretation. Any other fascination with the subject is suspect, in MHO.
178. ScottLoar - June 17, 1998 - 8:09 PM PDT
KurtMondaugen: I admit to occasional bombast to punctuate the melodrama of life. You should see me at business meetings; even the secretaries are hugging the door frame with the look of is-he-for-real-and-did-he-really-say-that?
179. ptboya - June 17, 1998 - 8:46 PM PDT
The subject of sexual feelings in children is central to the understanding of the depth of damage that occurs in sexual abuse of children. I myself was abused...but only physically (I use the word only advisedly). There was nothing remotely pleasureable about the experience of being physically battered and psychologically humiliated as a young child. Thus it was somewhat easy for me to place the blame outside myself. The situation was black and white. This is often not true for children involved in sexual abuse. Children are too inexperienced to grasp the neutral observation that nature has designed sex to be pleasureable, and because children sometimes can and do experience pleasure, even while being sexually abused, they can be deeply conflicted. Sorting out the blame can be very difficult; the child mistakenly shoulders some of the blame. The trauma resulting from sexual abuse is thus deeper and far more difficult to cure.
180. CalGal - June 17, 1998 - 9:24 PM PDT
PT,
Interesting.
I think that the difference between sexual and physical abuse is not something that can be categorized as "only". And trauma from either is awful.
In general, I think shame overrides anger in sexual abuse. Anger is more likely to become an issue with people who were severely physically abused.
Obviously, shame and anger are huge for both types.
As for placing the blame outside yourself--Did the abuse not start until you were older? That's the only way I can figure it.
I was told once that young children who are abused have two ways to process it:
1. The world is bad and I am good--these kids off themselves or become deeply disturbed, figuring everything is allowed.
2. The world is good and I am bad--some of these kids can get better. Because they have hope. They can fix themselves, they think, if they just try hard enough. Of course, they end up with self-esteem for shit, but it keeps them alive through childhood and somewhat sane. They also have the ability to work at changing. While children, they try to change to stop the violence, of course, which is never possible. But it gives them practice that serves them well in therapy later on.
This is incredibly simplistic, of course, but it's always worked for me.
181. ptboya - June 17, 1998 - 9:35 PM PDT
I was not living with my father for the first 21 months or so. It was during WWII. So the abuse began after that, if that fits into your calculation.
Very much agree on the shame and anger dichotomy. Shame is, IMO harder to shed.
My solution was neither of your two. It was simply...hey it's not me who's fucked up, it's him. The rage that rendered him unable to control himself was so visceral that I felt he lost all context, while I felt I did not. This nascent feeling gradually proved itself true and I never had the burden of guilt. My anger took some time to work through however.
182. CalGal - June 17, 1998 - 9:50 PM PDT
PT,
Interesting again.
Maybe it depends on whether it's purely physical abuse or has emotional abuse tagged on with it.
Did you (or do you) get VERY angry at sudden, sharp pain? (stubbing your toe, jamming your finger, stuff like that?)
183. ptboya - June 17, 1998 - 10:01 PM PDT
No. I only get angry at things I think people, me or others, can control. Accidents don't count unless someone puts themself in a position so that the accident is clearly waiting to happen. I used to get angry while driving (so many stupid drivers) but I've gotten over that too (though they're still stupid).
184. CalGal - June 17, 1998 - 10:05 PM PDT
Wow.
I'm like the Eskimos and snow--I have 15,000 words for anger. (g)
185. KurtMondaugen - June 17, 1998 - 10:14 PM PDT
pt:
Thank you for your excellent Message #179. Your first sentence concisely explains why I've been centering on that topic so far. My experiences with abuse are different than yours (as are anyones). Specifically, on the sexual front, my abuse was an isolated incident in my early teens, though it had a profound impact (I cannot imagine the experience of prolonged sexual abuse, and hope this doesn't belittle such a situation at all) both on myself at the time and today. In any case, while I was incredibly, tangibly angry (to put it politely) over the incident, I did, to a large degree, also blame myself for the circumstances, and questioned the extent of my role in what I thought at the time had to be at least partly a give-take situation. This led to a deeply confusing stage in my life, which in turn led to a great deal of isolation, experimentation and self-abuse. This was a while ago, and I've since been able to accept myself and the situation, and of course, move on. In retrospect, however, I still feel strongly that the experience was a personally defining one, and that the resultant period has given me a sense of knowledge and identity I may not have been privy to otherwise. I won't say I'm 'proud' of these events at all, but at the same time, what I've retained is singularly "mine" (if that makes sense) and as such I have no related 'shame'.
186. ptboya - June 17, 1998 - 10:18 PM PDT
I kind of caught wind of that on some previous occasion.
BTW haven't you heard of "The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax." The anthropologist Laura Martin documented the growth of the legend..succesive exaggerations that grew like yeast. They have actually no more words for snow than we Northeasterners do. But probably more than you sunbelt types.
Got to go now. See you around campus.
187. ptboya - June 17, 1998 - 10:22 PM PDT
Sorry Kurt. 186 was directed to CalGal.
I understand completely Kurt. Self-knowledge is sometimes attained with profound pain and difficulty. The consolation is that a little goes a long way.
188. KurtMondaugen - June 17, 1998 - 10:30 PM PDT
pt:
Bingo. Now, before this turns into a nauseating therapy thread, I'm still curious as to why our culture accepts adult sexual projections onto children while remaining outraged over more dangerous forms of exploitation.
189. CalGal - June 17, 1998 - 11:05 PM PDT
Kurt,
Did I misunderstand? They should be outraged over the more dangerous forms, shouldn't they? But up until that sentence, I've agreed with your posts on that subject.
I'll try not to be too nauseating, but it's probably a California thing. I was physically abused from the time I was four until I left my husband at the age of 28 (I'm clearly a slow learner). Both parents and two brothers in my immediate family, my grandfather and then my ex. I'm not talking the occasional slaps or spanking, either; I'm very familiar with the "I walked into a door" excuse. Or tripped and fell, dammit!
I was interested that PT didn't feel any shame; maybe it was because he was able to see that his father had no control. My parents (particularly my mother) made it very clear to me that it was my fault; I bought it. It never even occurred to me to wonder.
In fact, if my parents screwed up at all it was when I was 15 and they started denying that they hit me. My brothers and sister agreed with them (it was a scary family, they had to survive.)
This fucked with my reality big time (hit me most days, the days they didn't they denied it). But it also gave me something different to cling to--hey, they hit me, but they DID hit me. I'm not nuts. Clinging onto that probably kept me sane. (as much as I'll ever be, of course.)
As I said earlier, I'm bothered by the equation of "child abuse" with sexual abuse. Physical and emotional abuse can be equally damaging. It usually depends on the kid and what external support they can find as to how well they'll survive it.
Our culture is so much more comfortable with violence than sex that we potentially overreact in the case of sexual abuse, but only pay attention to, say, cigarette burns, in the way of physical violence towards kids.
190. KurtMondaugen - June 17, 1998 - 11:28 PM PDT
Cal:
"Did I misunderstand? They should be outraged over the more dangerous forms, shouldn't they?"
Absolutely. Without question. That last post was rather carelessly thrown out, for which I apologize. Please, look to some previous posts for better articulation of my position, at least on the sexual abuse angle. Thanks for your honesty and disclosure regarding your experiences with abuse, and again I hope I didn't belittle your POV with the 'nauseating' crack...I'm wary of too much personal disclosure here, as it may not seem terribly inviting for other participants. But, having said that, let me add that I experienced physical abuse in my "family", as well, more often as a witness, but also as a victim, and your story is a tough one, especially the denial on your parents' and siblings' part. I realize that there is a distinction between physical, emotional, and sexual abuse (and I wholeheartedly agree with your contention that our culture is more comfortable with violence than sex), I do also think it's rather a fuzzy one...unless I'm wrong, abuse is abuse is abuse.
191. TheCatintheHat - June 18, 1998 - 12:04 AM PDT
Child abuse sucks. Kids beat me up and take my money all the time and I hate it.
==):-)
192. CalGal - June 18, 1998 - 12:22 AM PDT
Kurt,
Actually, I wasn't thinking so much of the distinction but of the complete acceptance that "child abuse" = "sexual abuse" in the article and here.
Abuse is a boundary violation. As parents, the most important thing we can teach our kids is that they have personal space that is *not* to be violated. Physical and sexual abuse, to me, do that in equal measure. Abuse causes children to either have poorly delimited boundaries or overly restrictive ones.
Sexual abuse *sometimes* has a pleasurable aspect; physical abuse does not. Also, sex is strongly equated with shame in our society.
But getting hit causes anger and pain that must instantly be suppressed. Why is that any less bad? (Again, I want to stress that I'm *not* minimizing sexual abuse.)
Imagine a father saying, "hey, I only touched the tip of my finger into her. It's hardly like that's ABUSE, for chrissake."
Then imagine any number of parents saying, "hey, a swat on the fanny. It's hardly like that's ABUSE, for chrissake."
Yet I have trouble seeing how a two-year-old makes a distinction. And if so, that seems to me we should be evaluating our attitudes towards physical violence and children.
We define a spectrum for physical violence that we would never tolerate for sexual violence. In terms of what parents can do, certainly. And when we're talking long-term abuse of either sort, it's family members (parents particularly) at issue.
193. TheCatintheHat - June 18, 1998 - 12:32 AM PDT
CalGal, are you minimizing sexual abuse?
194. TheCatintheHat - June 18, 1998 - 12:33 AM PDT
The fact is, all parents abuse their children, all people abuse each other, life's a bitch, or something.
195. Msivorytower - June 18, 1998 - 5:45 AM PDT
Actually, while CatintheHat has stated the issue with his normal excessiveness, there is a good deal of truth to what he says. If you define *abuse* so broadly, then any negative experiences from childhood potentially become abuse.
What is emotional abuse? Physical abuse? Where are the lines drawn? Sexual abuse is easy to define, physical abuse is possible to define, and emotional abuse is the most difficult of all.
We can define what clearly is emotional or physical abuse by the extremes: excessive or repeated degradation verbally, and physical violence that leaves wounds.
What about a spank? What about grabbing a child who is about to hit another, or who is biting another? What about a stern talking to? Some people believe that spanking isn't a form of abuse, but is discipline. And almost every parent loses their temper and yells at their child, sometimes even without real cause, at some point in a childs life (often frequently).
Parents are not perfect, and even when they *think* they do everything right, they turn out not to have done so, at least from the child's point of view.
Without some type of precision definitionally of what constitutes abuse in the majority of cases, the discussion becomes tautological.
196. bubbaette - June 18, 1998 - 6:03 AM PDT
Ms IT
My oldest sister grappled with those questions when my nephews were young. The "talking to" didn't seem to make a lasting impression -- no longer than till they were out of mom's earshot. She didn't want to spank them. She settled on snapping them on the arm or leg with a small rubber band. This served several purposes. First, the warning: "Honey, have you seen that rubber band?" Second the sting of the rubber band, if applied, made an impression on the kid but the sting quickly faded. Finally, it's not like she could loose her temper and go wild with a rubber band. After the first few months, she never needed to use the rubber band -- the warning was enough.
197. Msivorytower - June 18, 1998 - 6:07 AM PDT
Bubbaette
Do you think it's possible they will be terrorized by rubber bands when they are adults? That the snap of the rubber alone sends them cowering?
We never really know the full extent of our effect on children until they grow into adults and tell us the traumas they suffered at our hands.
198. bubbaette - June 18, 1998 - 6:16 AM PDT
Ms IT
HaHaHa. The boys are 15 now -- I'll have to ask them, but I haven't noticed any strange aversion to rubber. I wonder if sis has created young fetishists?
Maybe I should just sneak up behind them some day and snap a rubber band and see if they jump.
199. CalGal - June 18, 1998 - 8:02 AM PDT
Ms,
"Sexual abuse is easy to define, physical abuse is possible to define, and emotional abuse is the most difficult of all."
As I said. We can see spectrums in two, none in one.
But is the spectrum due to our comfort level with violence and our discomfort with sex?
200. ptboya - June 18, 1998 - 8:09 AM PDT
"Without some type of precision definitionally of what constitutes abuse in the majority of cases, the discussion becomes tautological."
Who was the Supreme Court justice who said he couldn't define pornography but he knew it when he saw it?
Abuse is almost impossible to define. There are so many intangibles that even identical seeming situations will produce fundamentally different reactions from a child. I'm speaking here of only the borderline cases that Msit and bubbaette referred to. Abuse that is severe is not at all borderline to the child and is already well defined.
Cat's, life's a bitch, I find just weird. Life's tough even for those who feel in control of their surroundings, but for those completely at the mercy of others it can be hell personified. This applies to both forms of abuse we've been discussing. The fact that pleasure is sometimes associated with sexual abuse is what I think shifts a slight bit of the feel of control to the abused. This is why I think it is so insidious (CG please note). For me it has nothing to do with social morays wrt sex vs. violence; for the most part I could care less what the common wisdom dictates. For the young child this distinction (sex vs. violence) just does not exist.