I'm going to explain the controversial thinking of a friend now, who happens to be a woman, in case it matters to you. There are theories about the Victorians' "invention of childhood" as a time of idyllic innocence and purity which others on this board have alluded to; this friend also notes the hysteria surrounding issues of child sexuality now, and how it parallels hysterias around women's sexuality before women were emancipated -- this friend's hypothesis is that the hysteria is partly rooted in a genuine concern about a form of harm that was not recognized as such before, but partly rooted in a threatened relation of exclusive ownership and domination, and enjoyment by (even healthy) parents of their children as objects of eros (which in no way implies sexual activity, at least none that society recognizes as such).

Indeed, there is a lot of dishonesty, I observe, about the relation between parents and children. And one doesn't have to posit mysterious subconscious forces, a la Freud. Besides, Freud posited the eros as a purely one-way affair, with the children desiring the parents, and not the other way around. Much of the eros and sensuality that exists (I'm talking about healthy relationships here, not pathological ones) between parent and child, but is not verbally recognized as such -- because of false consciousness and lack of self-knowledge -- is plainly there for the observer to see, though it is not conceived sexually or expressed in acts that our culture recognizes as overtly sexual. This aversion on the part of parents to recognizing their own feelings leads to the complete denial of the existence or the healthiness of sexual feelings that I would wager most children experience. This denial is in turn destructive. That's what Ms. Levine is writing about, I take it. When I read it, it seemed pretty tame. Children have sexual feelings and experiences. She's not advocating that children have sex with each other, still less that adults should have sex with children, or that there's nothing wrong with pedophilia, or that it doesn't exist. She recognizes all those things as problems, she's criticizing the extreme hysteria which brands even the healthy expression of child sexual play as pathological. So what's the big deal?

quote:

---

Tony could be mean to his sister, Jessica, one year his junior, blonde and plump where he is dark and slender, slow in class where he excelled. Their relationship, it seemed, was fierce -- fiercely affectionate and fiercely antagonistic. One evening, they sat touching, playing quietly. Another time, she climbed into the car and he slapped her, unprovoked.

In November, 1993, the San Diego County Child Protective Services pronounced Tony Diamond a grave danger to his sister. Jessica told someone at school that her brother had "touched her front and back." Mandated by the 1974 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to report any suspicion of child abuse, even by a child, the school called the Child Abuse Hotline. The social worker who did the family's intake interview elicited a record of Tony's earlier offenses: In elementary school, he used sexual language and looked under girls' skirts. At four, he lay on top of Jessie in the bath.

---

What does Judith Levine say?

quote:

---

I do not say that what society calls sexual abuse is actually healthy sexual expression. I say that much healthy sexual expression is called abuse. Sexual abuse is real. I deplore it.

[...]

I do not say that pedophilia was invented as a monster to restrict children's and teens' sexual freedom. Some reporter said this, and Mr. Ibbitson repeats it. I say that anxieties about children are expressed in exaggerated fears about child molestation. There are molesters, but fortunately far fewer than most parents fear.

---

Now that that's cleared up, can we avoid INANE STUPIDITY in this thread please? Thanks. I pretty much exactly agree with what Judith Levine says.

That quote, btw, is from her response to John Ibbitson'smoronic piece on the book. It's impossible to link to that, so I am just going to cut and paste here:

quote:

---

Storm erupts over book lauding youthful sexuality

By JOHN IBBITSON

Saturday, April 20, 2002 - Print Edition, Page A1

WASHINGTON -- Even as the United States is gripped by the unfolding scandal of pedophilia within the Roman Catholic Church, a controversial new book has hit the stands, arguing that what society calls sexual abuse may simply be the healthy expression of youthful sexuality.

This month's publication of Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex by journalist Judith Levine has caused a furor not only on talk shows, but within the publishing and academic industries.

Pressed by legislators, the University of Minnesota is reviewing the acquisition policies of its press.

"The University of Minnesota should admit its mistake and scrap the book," said Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women of America's Child and Family Institute.

"Miss Levine is advocating criminal sexual activity with children," Mr. Wright said.

The university published the book after it was rejected by several other houses.

For the author, such criticism proves her thesis: that North American society, gripped by political and social conservatism, has created a fictional monster of pedophilia in an effort to control and suppress young people's freedom.

"It is the triumph of the right, and it is an immense triumph," she said yesterday in an interview. "The combination of the rise of the moral right and, in this country at least, the dismantling of many of the institutions and supports that make family life easier -- good schools, good housing, health care and so on -- leave parents feeling very insecure, and then we attach those anxieties to sexuality."

There is no denying that many of Ms. Levine's contentions are highly controversial.

"Sex is not ipso facto harmful to minors," she states in her book, "and America's drive to protect kids from sex is protecting them from nothing. Instead, often it is harming them."

The hypocrisy is what galls her. Society, through film, television, advertising and the like, exalts teenage sexuality, then makes any action on that sexuality, by adults or teens themselves, illegal and immoral.

Ms. Levine also contends that true pedophilia, a desire by adults to engage in sex with prepubescent children, is extremely rare, and the fear of it is used by the state and parents to restrict freedom and independence of the young.

But many others consider Ms. Levine's assertions wrong, even dangerous. The Minnesota state legislature majority leader Tim Pawlenty tried to force the University of Minnesota to cancel the book. And editorials and columns in newspapers from Oregon to Washington have condemned the decision to publish the text.

---

One case in a new "epidemic"

'Blasphemy'From the book they tried to stop: A 9-year-old trapped in sex-therapy hell

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: rasmus_raven ]

Increasingly, humans are atomizing in industrialized nations, and this is showing up in many trends which, harmfully, reinforce this pathway.

What do I mean?

Consider!

Restrictive sexual harassment guidelines that effectively prohibit conversations without the presence of a witness in all cases.

The increasing trend in the use of courts of law to settle interpersonal disputes of all kinds.

The increasing lack of proper conflict resolution skills in North American youth, leading to the use of physical force as the only outlet with which differences can be settled.

The increasing tendency towards what the Chinese once called Legalism, a doctrine which proposed that humans were inherently evil and needed to be kept in line with harsh laws and rules.

All these indications reinforce the atomization of society - the corrosion and erosion of the glue that holds people together and eases interpersonal relations, obviating the need to bring in outsiders to resolve conflicts.

Whether I believe 13 year olds should have sex or not is a bit different than whether I believe that 13 year olds should have sex with 19 year olds or 50 year olds.