Underage Sex

[botias]

I get the feeling that a lot of people are squicked by 'underage' sexuality. There are folks that get fired up over Spawn, and folks that are disturbed by HP fiction involving teens shagging each other silly, because they don't like to think about people under the age of 18 as sexual beings. With chagrin, they mention the existence of children of their own that are the same age.

I get it. I would just as soon pretend my parents aren't sexual beings, which is even more disconnected with reality. But in a way, it's really too bad (no, not about my folks) It's too bad 'cause even my babies grope their genitals, with a rather astoundingly vicious enthusiasm I might add, in clear preference to other areas of their bodies. I can remember crushing on guys, and girls for that matter, as early as the first grade. I can remember very sexually explicit, if clearly ignorant, folk tales passed around at sleep-overs and summer camps as early as the 3rd and 4th grades. I can remember feeling like there might be something wrong with me because I was interested in sex. It's sad to make kids feel their sexuality is something to be ashamed of.

I can indulge the pretense that my folks aren't sexual beings because I am not responsible for nurturing healthy and responsible sexuality in them (thank god). But that's fully my responsibility to my children. Even if my idea of healthy sexuality in teens or the un-married were restrictive nearly to the point of non-existance, I could't begin to address this very important responsibility if I'm pretending it doesn't exist.

Comments

[botias.livejournal.com]

At the moment, I'm being quite horrified by the genital mutilation practiced by our culture, originally to discourage masturbation. That we tie days-old infants down and cut off one the most sensitive parts of the their bodies until quite recently with no pain relief... I have no words. That a few hundred die from it every year and many more are impaired (more than intended anyway). I just want to throw up. Isn't that cheery?

Yes, raping children (or anyone) is clearly VERY VERY BAD. I'm glad our culture is addressing this issue, though I think it will always be difficult to police what goes on in people's families and homes, and rightly so, no doubt, given that people disagree on what sexual acts are VERY VERY BAD.
I'm still haunted by a tale I read in Jocelyn Elder's autobiography about a girl who came into her hospital in the 1940s or 50s because she had diabetic complications. She told Elders that her brother and his friends got drunk every weekend and gang-raped her. At that time there was no program or agency or precedent to help people like her, at least not in rural Arkansas, and she was sent back to her 'family'. There was nothing Elders could do, short of kidnapping her. At the time and place, how people treated their children/spouses was not considered society's business.

[elynne.livejournal.com]

On the upside, wossname thingy circumcision is being shown quite dramatically (in, fr'ex, Africa, where they're taking a remarkably keen interest in such things) to quite radically curb and prevent the transmission of STDs, including HIV/AIDS. And I understand that doctors are very reluctant to give small infants any kind of anesthetic, because the dosages are so damn tricky at that size - it's far too easy for the kid to not wake up. And, a percentage of kids die from complications arising from vaccinations - but if the vaccinations didn't take place, hundreds, thousands, possibly millions of kids and adults would die from the diseases that they hadn't been vaccinated against. As a parent, you have the unenviable job of weighing the current risks and future benefits of your child's adult life with choices you can make now. Yet another reason I'm glad I got my tubes tied. ;)

Sex is weird and complicated enough without burying it under the crushing weight of SHAME that prevents most people from thinking coherently about the subject, never mind (oooh) talking about it in a reasonable manner (i.e. without resorting to crude jokes, smirking, or "oh that's nasty!"). Don't you know that SHAME is vitally important to, uh, God-being's PLAN for humans, and by being a pervy sex-talking ATHEIST you're, um, *handwave* and going to BURN IN HELL?? Yeah, whatever. But what we are, as humans in this day and age and place, is a result of our cultural baggage as much as anything else... and a lot of that baggage involves some very messed-up and backwards attitudes about sex. Which brings me neatly back around to my original point, which was: I forgot. :)

[botias.livejournal.com]

Alas the HIV study is quite controversial. For example, most of the circumsized men were Muslim whose faith specifically prohibits alcohol consumption and extra-marital sex. This could account for a difference in transmission rates even if the Muslims were not 100% compliant. The chances reduced were something like from 3% to 1.5%. So yes, 50%, but more people will probably die from the notion that being circumsized provides meaningful protection. Not to mention that surgery in darkest Africa is probably not something to take lightly.

The vaccination thing doesn't really compare. Babies get the vaccines when they do because they are most at risk of perishing from these diseases between the ages of birth and 5 years old. Circumcision, even if it did protect from STDs, presumably the procedure could wait until the child was an adult and able to decide for themselves whether amputating part of their genitals is worth whatever negligable protection such a thing might provide. Certainly amputating my breasts would protect me from breast cancer, men could add a good few years to their life simply by getting castrated, but not to many folks seem to be lining up.

As far as the anesthetic, I'm talking about local rather than general. Fact is, many doctors didn't believe babies felt pain until fairly recently, odd as that may sound. But look how long it was put forth that animals did not feel pain, at least in the scientific community. To me this argument is like saying that it is dangerous to medicate a baby just to peel off a few of its fingernails. My view of course, is that the best way to avoid this risk is to not torture the baby. I don't think there are any bits that it is OK to cut off baby boys any more than baby girls. I think it should be equally illegal.

Pervy, sex-talking atheist :) Me like. *nods* I think I need a license plate frame. Yes, I think shame is a really unfortunate approach to sexuality. Maybe the shame thing partly explains this compulsion to carve on our genitals. Genital mutilation seems like it is pretty much always about trying to control people's sexuality.

[zanthinegirl.livejournal.com]

Interesting point. I'm mildly appalled at male circumcision, but the babies usually don't really seem to mind. It's the female mutilations that horrify me. We have a large east african population here (mostly somali), and the women tend to have large families. Scar tissue doesn't stretch. I've attended a lot of those deliveries; women who have been infibulated have a much higher rate of delivery complications.

::climbing off my soap box now::

[botias.livejournal.com]

I'm mildly appalled at male circumcision, but the babies usually don't really seem to mind.

I find that surprising. The few I've seen or read about the babies were always screaming, and logic would hold that the procedure is painful since the foreskin and the associated frenulum are some of the most sensitive parts of the penis; granted the presenter was almost always anti-circumcision.

Still, even if the babies didn't care, it reduces their sexual functioning and pleasure as adults. Sometimes it leaves them even more damaged than intended or, in rare cases, dead. Further it makes their penis smaller and less stimulating to their partner. Not too many guys would sign up for that.

Yes, the things they do to women are horrible. While male circumcision is bad, at least they don't have to deliver a baby with their bits.