Mermaid,
Thorough response thanks :)
I think a few point rest on some communicative misunderstandings - my apologies, I
shold write more clearly. I'l address your points:
> [Walpurgis]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]Information that safeguards individuals from STDs, pregnancy
> and creepy characters on the prowl is just sufficient. Sex should not
> be spoon fed. It should be discovered.
[Walpurgis] Agreed - so long as there is the option to ask whatever questions seem
necessary. The basic mechanics of intercourse would need to be explicitely taught
to that pregnancy/STD issues would be understood. My parents were good enough
to leave accessible books on the shelf when I was a child - an enyclopedia (which
defined terms, many of which I'd never heard of, which made others in awe of me in
the playground), an advice book for men (including a chapter on the fretful penis
size!), an advice book for relating (for hetero mono partners) and some (poorly
written) erotica (the nudity on the cover was more interesting). They knew I had a
curious mind and I think this worked well. I have never asked them their intention
regarding these books, and I don't remember when I first picked them up. Any kid
with (uncensored) www access would have an even greater informative range.
Allowing such exploration lets kids go at their own pace. Its still a shame most
parents can't talk openly about it though.
> [Mermaid]
> A person has the right to
> consent only when he or she can face the consequences of the consent.
[Walpurgis] Can most adults do this now? Many negative consequences
necessitate outside help.
> [Mermaid]
> When a young person is dependent on adults, they are expected to toe
> the line. Unfair? Tought shit. I'd say to a kid to get out the house
> or pay for their own herpes medication or abortion.
[Walpurgis] I'd pay for it. The slim chance of STD or conception during safesex is
worth the risk, so I'd understand any accidents.
> [Mermaid]
> Let me try a
> different example. Children are parasites. Lets not forget that.
[Walpurgis] I'd rather think of them as symbiotic beings. Adults that don't learn from
their children, who lives aren't enriched in turn (which parasites don't do for their
hosts), have a very bad relationship with their child IMO.
> [Walpurgis]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]I agree to no such thing. I have no intention of running the
> lives of pimply, horny teenagers with my ideas. 'Safe non penetrative'
> sex, if it involves exchange of bodily fluids is not appropriate
> unless the child(or teenager or adult, if you wish to call them
> that)understands the act which, of course, must be consensual.
How could safe non-penetrative sex involve the exchange of fluid? Even safe
penetrative sex won't let you do that!
> [Mermaid] I do
> not consider touching and carressing as 'sex'.
[Walpurgis] I do. We have different definitions. I try to move the point of sex away
from penetration to a full-bodied experience in my definition.
> [Mermaid]
> Non penetrative sex
> also requires informed consent.
[Walpurgis] Of course. We are both agree that informed consent structures all
sexual interaction.
> [Walpurgis]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...
>
> [Mermaid]Disease. Pregnancy. Physical harm. (kid sticking a
> pencil..sharp end up...into his asshole just out of
> curiosity.)Expenditure. Kids can suck on themselves for all I
> care.(Yea, its possible) and btw..thats not true for all..I do not
> have a rubber glove fetish at all.
[Walpurgis] I'd rather accidents happen then be constantly monitering/intervening in
childrens games.
> [Walpurgis]But what to infer from this? Nothing can be said of how
> informed a child is, or what their psychological state is.
>
> [Mermaid]I dont know what is being inferred, but what should be
> inferred is this...all children dont mature at a certain age. By
> allowing sexual freedoms for all,
[Walpurgis] Its not about freedom for all. Its about changes in adults attitudes to
sex, and moving away from legalism/generalisation.
> [Mermaid]
> the ones who are not ready to accept
> the challenges of sexual maturity suffer.
[Walpurgis] Again, if informed consent structures relation, suffering is unlikely.
> [Mermaid] The only way is to educate
> children so that they learn to listen to their bodies and recognise
> their needs instead of imagining that there is a certain age to date,
> a certain age for sex and a certain age by which one is expected to
> lose virginity. This works both ways. Children should be taught among
> other things to be able to observe themselves and listen to their
> bodies intently. This is just not re sex. This applies to all physical
> messages we send to ourselves.
[Walpurgis] Good stuff, good health advice. I was reading a while ago about how
meditation can help kids with emotional expression too.
> [Mermaid]
> One definitely does NOT need adults
> championing the need for a teenage sexual revolution.
[Walpurgis] Indeed. I'd rather a sexual revolution for *everyone*.
[Walpurgis] On that not, it'd be worth mentioning much of what we have to say
applies to the mentally disabled/ill and the aged. Children are the contentious issue
right now, but there are times in people's lifespans where they become as
vulnerable or as ignorant as children can be.
> [Walpurgis]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)?
>
> [Mermaid]Informed consent, imo, is essential. Like I said before, too
> much has been made about 'teaching sex'. Only the guidelines of safe
> sex needs to be taught and that when one means no..he or she means NO.
[Walpurgis] What I'm trying to get at here is a definition of "informed" and of
"consent". Most people dismiss children "no child can consent". Other than asking
them - "what is a child", I would also like to know what consent is (for them) and why
children can't do it.
> [Walpurgis]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?
>
> [Mermaid]I dont know if sex stunts growth.
[Walpurgis] It doesn't. It's a threat used to stop children having sex.
> [Mermaid]
> Not from what I have read
> and heard. By interruptions, I mean the pesky pressures and
> expectations to be sexual while still lacking the equipment to be a
> physically sexual creature.
[Walpurgis] These interruptions are a matter of perception. It depends on how the
person in question responds to certain stimuli and ideas.
> [Walpurgis]Again, character is the true measure. Only inter-relating
> persons can ascertain this.
>
> [Mermaid]You are right. I do not expect strait-laced kids when I mean
> responsible. When they are no longer dependent on others to clear
> their messes, children are absolutely free to make their messes.
> Unfortunately, having a back up to clean up one's messes extracts a
> price that is parental control.
[Walpurgis] Why not parental help rather than control?
> [Mermaid]...at the very minimum, every parent should be fully aware of
> what parenthood means before they decide to start a family.
[Walpurgis] "Means" for who? Different people define and understand parenthood
differently (as we seem to). How would such advice be given?
> [Walpurgis]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.
>
> [Mermaid]'young sex' is inexperienced and is often confused. Again,
> assuming that the rest of the young population resembles a precious
> few intelligent ones is very annoying to me.
[Walpurgis] I'm not talking about intelligence, i'm talking about assumptions
regarding the longevity of harm.
> [Mermaid]I dont understand when this happened. This elevation of
> children, en masse, as a victimised group whose charms, intelligence
> and brilliance is sucked out by the evil adults.
[Walpurgis] probably due to anxiety about sex & romanticisation of childhood
(bolster by awful awful books like "Children are from Heaven").
> [Mermaid]You are more right than wrong. My take on this goes a bit
> further. <snip>
[Walpurgis] Interesting thoughts.
> [Mermaid]I have noticed that you consistently speak for the minority.
[Walpurgis] usually yes.
> [Mermaid]
> Yes, minority rights are important, but there is no point to it when
> there is no way to categorise individuals into camps on the basis of
> their sexual maturity.
[Walpurgis] Agreed. Some minorities are made up of just one person.
> [Mermaid] Demanding that children be treated as
> adults or that children do not experience victimhood while speaking
> for the entire population does not make sense.
That is not what I was saying. As above: "Its about changes in adults attitudes to
sex, and moving away from legalism/generalisation." and "What I'm trying to get at
here is a definition of "informed" and of "consent". Most people dismiss children "no
child can consent". Other than asking them - "what is a child", I would also like to
know what consent is (for them) and why children can't do it."
> [Mermaid]IMO, all children experience homosexual feelings. But few
> have the choice to be who they are...This a glitch
[Walpurgis] Major glitch!
> [Walpurgis]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 think it was George Carlin who said, "You want to help
> children? Leave them the fuck alone!"
[Walpurgis] *LOL*!
> [Walpurgis]Sexuality is part of being a child. Enjoying sexual
> pleasure is part of childhood. It is not being rushed into adulthood.
>
> [Mermaid]Sexuality has nothing to do with age. Understanding and
> acting upon one's feelings of sexuality does..
[Walpurgis] Right.
> [Walpurgis]Increasingly I find the child/adult distinction as
> arbitrary, nonsensical and ideologically informed as notions about
> age.
>
> [Mermaid]A child, more often than not, is not an adult. The definition
> of the words is precisely based on the age factor. Unless you want to
> change the english language, your position does not hold much water.
> An adult, however, can behave like a child. A child can behave LIKE an
> adult. But one cannot be the other.
[Walpurgis] "child" "adult" - Its arbitrary.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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