On 30 Jul 2002 at 20:27, Mermaid . wrote:
> [Walpurgis]What rules? Whose rules?
>
> [Mermaid]The rules of survival. Play safe and dont spread anything
> vile or itchy.
We agree here. The rules of informed consent should govern these (and IMHO,
any) actions.
What we seem to be disagreeing on is how much information is enough, and at
what point a person can consent (and perhaps also, what consent is) and what it
means to be a child (conceptually and experiencially).
> [Mermaid]I imagine the above was for Nurgle, but here is a thought
> from my corner. "We" are wary of children having sex/intercourse
> because children are not supposed to be engaging in intercourse.
This is part of the disputed point.
Though you oppose penetrative sex for the young (which makes some sense as a
general rule, given the immature state of their bodies), you seem to agree that safe
non-penetrative sex is fine:
> [Mermaid]Anything other than intercourse(i.e. the 'fun' aspects of
> sex)is alright so long as safety is employed. And as long as it is not
> an abusive and as long as it is a consensual relationship. I do
> believe that children towards the end of puberty are perfectly aware
> of themselves and those around them. Most of them are and some of them
> are not. This is how society works. Our needs are sacrificed for the
> sum of all our differences.
However, even "penetration" is rather vague. I assume you are referring to penises,
but objects and fingers are used to explore and stimulate. That said, encouraging
"outcourse" (non-penetrative sex) is probably best, because it allows more careful
and communicative explorations.
> However, children are very aware of their bodies, but they are still
> not ready for the pleasures of the body.
Not ready for pleasures? Here I disagree. so far your argument has seemed to be
"no genital intercourse, especially with older penises". As you know, this isn't all
there is to pleasure. Children show that they are quite ready for pleasure by
masturbating, looking at each other etc.
It might be pertinent to point out that most young children don't see such
play/interest as sexual (and all the wieght that comes with it). We teach them it is
sexual. You children are usually ver physical, affectionate, curious and playful -
these explorations are part of that.
If "exploring" children were known to be disease free, would you leave them to their
games? If someone told me to put rubber gloves on everytime I lifted a girls skirts,
I'd probably have a rubber glove fetish by now or something...
> There are five stages of puberty.
Source please.
What you say seems fine and recognises the blurred lines (that an 8 year old can
be as physically mature as someone almost twice his/her age).
But what to infer from this? Nothing can be said of how informed a child is, or what
their psychological state is. These physical changes mean almost nothing regarding
masturbation, looking or outcourse. At most, fluids help with disease exchange.
Again, the same point (for all stages) stands - avoid penetration *that hurts*, be
safe.
> I hope this is clear enough for an explanation about how puberty
> proceeds. In the last stages, in the mid stage between child and
> adult, the body of the adolescent is still growing. While externally
> and emotionally, the individual might feel like he or she is an adult,
> they are not. I cannot stress this enough.
This is a different issue. How one feels emotionally is due to life-experience (again,
age is just a rule of thumb). I'm sure you're aware of the arbitrary nature of what a
"cilhd" and what an "adult" is. Again, the main point seems to be, how much
knowledge is enough? Can the person is question consent to safe sex (safe sex
being use of contraception and not being hurt)?
> Physical growth is not an
> indication of full growth.
Irrelevant. You don't need to be an adult to have safe sex.
> This growth is natural and it takes it own
> time. It should not experience interruptions.
Interruptions being a euphemism for penis?
What do you mean by interruptions? Is this the same as "interfer"?
Does sex stunt your growth or something?
> This is not an invitation for all and sundry to taste someone else's
> youth.
Can youth ask to be tasted?
> [Mermaid]My sympathies are with you if you grew up in an environment
> where mastrubation was taught to be wrong.
No at all. My privacy was respected at the ages I could understand its value. This
including giggling with other kids under the sheets.
> There is no need to teach
> children how to pleasure themselves. They know it by themselves. It
> just comes naturally. If it doesnt, there is obviously no need for the
> boy or girl to go seeking it. Hence, no mastrubation classrooms are
> required.
I'm not suggesting any kind of erotica techniques should (or even could!) be taught
in today's classrooms.
At the very least masturbation should be understood as a postive thing - if feels
good and hurts nobody.
> [Walpurgis]Of course it wouldn't fulfil other need (anothers
> body, interacting/relating to/pleasuring another).
>
> [Mermaid]This is where sex education goes horribly wrong. On one hand
> is the theoratical aspects(like the five stages of puberty...as
> mentioned above) and on the other hand, there is the need to educate
> young adults the risks of unsafe sex, the need to protect oneself from
> nasty diseases, responsible sex etc. It is imperative to convey both
> these important messages. In the meantime, these teenagers need an
> outlet to test their new found knowledge and bodies.
Could one option for that outlet be a responsible adult who knows what they are
doing, who the teenager desires and who can teach with direction and caring?
> [Mermaid]If things go their normal course, then boys and girls would
> discover each other. Unfortunately, it is not that simple. Even before
> girls and boys attain puberty(never mind stepping out of puberty),
> they begin to date. Sexual awareness begins along with expectations of
> performance.
Yes. Many of the expectations are big problems, especially as they are structured
by a particular aesthetic, gender inequality and enforced monogamy and
heterosexuality.
> [Walpurgis]Generalisations. Character, not age, is the measure, young
> or old.
>
> [Mermaid]Please refer again to the five stages of puberty. While, it
> might be difficult to slap an age of puberty for everyone, it does
> occur within a specific range of years in a person's life. It is all
> inclusive in the term pre-teen and teen.
Again, character is the true measure. Only inter-relating persons can ascertain this.
> [Mermaid]Penetration and exchange of fluids for the sake of safety.
> There is a time to sit back and observe and absorb. There is a time to
> act on the basis of knowledge gained. A girl who is still not an adult
> does risk getting pregnant. A young boy might act out sexually before
> he is an adult and get away without any scars,
Scars? I find these assumptions a little annoying. Sex is only likely to hurt the young
if adults do not inform them (and help them inform themselves), and if they are
informed wrongly. There is nothing instrinsically bad about young sex.
Even if a child *is* hurt, then this does not leave them ruined for life. Wounds heal,
at every age. Often, when these children make sexual decisions in later life, these
decisions are dismissed because of past hurt. Rape and abuse do not always
destroy a personality. Victims are not always and forever victims. I know people who
have experienced rape and abuse and I know that what happened to them hardly
matters to some of them now (it was a long time ago), and that sexual decisions
they make are not necessarily informed by these experiences. I also know some
people who had sexual experiences at early ages - and they were good. All
anecdotal, but they inform my understanding.
> but as with all things,
> such an act would disrupt the balance.
Balance?
> He can either impregnate a girl
> and that, as mentioned above, is not something to be thrilled about...
> or he might engage in sexual activity with an older person which is
> highly unlikely and i couldnt care less. I wish the boy best of luck
> and hope that he emerges out of it clean.
Yes, and great expriences can also be had.
> [Mermaid]It just struck me right now that homosexual activity of any
> kind between either sexes is actually beneficial. While all children
> go through a phase when they are attracted to both boys and girls,
> there isnt really much room for them to make a choice because of the
> stigma attached to homosexuality. Sexual orientation, for many, is pre
> destined by their gender. The joy of exploration may be marred by peer
> acceptance and jeers from the locker/powder room.
Agreed to a point, though you make homosexual feelings sound like a fleeting
phase for most. Pigeon-holing sexuality is a mistake and part of the problem.
Gender should only be relevant as to the safe-sex techniques involved. Let them
explore/invent for themselves without pinning a label to them.
> [Mermaid]Walpurgis, I detect a tone in your post that urges me to make
> something very clear. I am not being conservative nor am I ignoring
> the needs of semi-adults. I do understand the rollercoaster ride that
> is puberty. I also realise that there is a large crowd of weirdos
Large? I'm afraid this is a misconception. Unless you are referring to the majority of
people at large and their twisted ideas about sex and relating?
> There
> are very few adults who understand young adults and lead them with
> patience and kindness. There are some others who like to think of
> themselves as guardians while only drowning in the pleasure of the
> power that they receive from their younger paramours. And then there
> is the majority who is just out there to exploit and use anything that
> is functionable between a pair of legs.
There are also caring lovers and understanding advisors. It sounds like we need to
be teaching adults more than children. I think children would mainly do fine if left
alone in a disease and conception free/protected situation. Its adults interferring
that messes it all up.
> [Mermaid]I am also aware that sex education gets the lowest priority
> in the rearing of a child into a young adult. Knowledge about STDs and
> how they are transmitted is a quick flick instead of in depth
> discussions and counselling. Most importantly, there is no time
> because of societal pressures for enjoying an important transistion in
> one's life. Maybe abstinence will work. Maybe children will learn to
> be children again and enjoy growing into adults instead of being
> rushed into it.
Sexuality is part of being a child. Enjoying sexual pleasure is part of childhood. It is
not being rushed into adulthood. Increasingly I find the child/adult distinction as
arbitrary, nonsensical and ideologically informed as notions about age.
> [Mermaid]I agree. Absolutely. Maturity and responsibility can turn up
> anytime. What I would like to see is the implementation of abstinence
> with all the freedom to break the rule of abstinence.
If you mean there should be less pressure to have sex, less fear and anxiety about
sex, less moralising about sex - then I agree.
> [Mermaid]
> Every structure
> needs a ceiling and a floor. Every system needs its limits. This is a
> safety net, not a fence.
The option and power to say "no" is quite enough. If saying "no" is what you mean
by abstaining, then I agree.
Walpurgis.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.noumenal.net/exiles
Take the following two scenes enacted in a shopping mall, say, or on the street or in the park: in the first
an adult is striking a screaming child repeatedly on the buttocks; in the second an adult is sitting with a
child on a bench and they are hugging. Which scene is more common? Which makes us uneasy? Which
do we judge to be normal? Which is more likely to run afoul of the law? A society, I believe, which
honors hitting and suspects hugging is immoral.
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~under006/Library/Antisexuality.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:17 MDT