| THE CULT OF CHILDHOOD AND THE REPRESSION OF CHILDHOOD SEXUALITYby Bill ParisCOPYRIGHTED 1995 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED(Author's note: The following should be regarded as a preliminarydocument. In it I attempt to highlight issues in which I have had aconsiderable interest for a number of years, about which I have done someresearch and about which I have even written in a previous paper, "TheBody, Sex and Christianity". I intend to continue my study and produce amore comprehensive report later, perhaps in a different form. However, theunderstanding of childhood sexuality in our culture is deplorable at thispoint. The attitude of both Christians and even secular people seems to begrowing more reactionary and paranoid in spite of the notion that oursociety is becoming more liberal sexually. In addition, questions andissues related to childhood sexuality are often raised in our Internetdiscussions. These reasons seem to call for an attempt at this time tobegin dealing with some of these critical issues.)WHAT IS CHILDHOOD?In my opinion, much of the confusion that exists in our society aboutchildhood sexuality traces to a failure to understand historical andcultural developments. There is, for example, a prevailing view in oursociety that "children" shouldn't "have sex." When this is said, what ismeant by "children" and what is meant by "having sex"? Should childhood bedefined by civil law that indicates the legal age at which a person mayengage in sexual intercourse (is this what is meant, by the way, by"having sex"?)? What about the fact that in the United States this age,referred to as the "age of consent," varies widely among states? Theseages range from a low of 12 in Delaware to 18 in many states. Or doeschildhood end when a person can legally buy and consume alcohol, whichalso varies state to state and does not necessarily coincide with the ageof consent. Or does a person become an adult when he can drive, vote ormarry? These ages, also, do not necessarily coincide in any state, muchless among the states. The age thresholds above are legal boundaries. What about biological andpsychological ages, especially puberty? Should a person be legally"qualified" to have sex at puberty? In fact, in the few states where theage of consent is quite low, puberty and legal age do roughly coincide,but these states are in the minority. And what does "having sex" mean? In the popular mind it probably meansengaging in sexual intercourse. (By the way, civil and criminal laws donot use the popular term "having sex," but instead refer to sexualintercourse or other forms of sexual contact.) What about these "otherforms" of "sexual contact"? State laws discuss such things as oral sex(still illegal even for adults in many states) and mere "touching" of thegenitals or breasts in terms of punishable sexual offenses when "children"are involved. Some of these provisions differ depending on whether oneperson is a legal adult or not. Do these other kinds of contact, which canbe very erotically pleasing or even produce orgasms, qualify as "havingsex"? One could go on about the confusion, both popular and legal, which existsin our society on the subject of childhood sexuality. Perhaps this smalldiscussion is sufficient to point up the problems. This desperate situation in which children and adults find themselves inour sexually ignorant and repressive society seems to me to call for anunderstanding of how we got to where we are. HOW DID WE GET HERE?: CHILDHOOD IN HISTORYThe Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, the period of theEnlightenment of the 18th century and the Industrial Revolution of thesame period produced profound effects in Europe and America on theattitudes of society and church toward children. These changes alteredpermanently the definition of childhood and adulthood and the sexualroles, rights and obligations of youth in society. Prior to these historical developments, children had been regarded mostlyas potential adults (infants and toddlers) or actual adults (olderchildren and adolescents) in terms of the economic structures of families,tribes and larger social groupings. Children were seen as essentialworkers in these structures. The focus of this phenomenon was in themostly agricultural societies of the entire world prior to the IndustrialRevolution. In these societies the hard physical work of the entire familywas necessary for survival. These spiritual, intellectual and mechanical revolutions ultimatelychanged the way in which human beings looked at themselves and theirpersonal and societal relationships. This period of time was probably thebeginning, in Europe and North America at least, of the kind of humanself-consciousness and self-analysis that ultimately produced the socialsciences, especially psychology and related fields. As for the Reformation, driven partly by a new spiritual freedomChristians became more concerned for the health and social welfare of oneanother. It is not that works of mercy towards the poor and sick had notexisted before, but this period saw a tremendous explosion of suchefforts.One development in this period was the growing consciousness that childrenwere perhaps not physically suited for much of the hard labor that theywere typically called on to do. There was also a new concern for orphans,who often went about in bands of beggars or thieves and were generallyneglected or even abused by society. The Industrial Revolution was the engine that began to drive thepopulations of Europe and North America away from the farms and into thecities where manufacturing and its supporting enterprises demanded workersto produce the goods and services that offered the promise of a betterlife. During this period children often suffered, being coerced intofactory work that was probably harder than what they had done on thefarms. Yet the churches and other caring people also took notice of their plight,eventually leading to the development of child labor laws for theirprotection.The focus of life in Western Europe and America shifted even morecertainly from the rural to the urban in the late 19th and early 20thcenturies. Life really did get "better" and easier for almost allclasses, compared with the previous few centuries. Physical health andlife expectancy improved. Diseases were better controlled. Warsdiminished, enabling the human race in these societies to get on withliving rather than dying. As these developments occurred, the lot of children improved, but theirrole as productive, even essential, members of society diminished. The development that closed the circle of the "cult of childhood" wascompulsory public education. It was the product of the earlierdevelopments that lessened the practical usefulness of children. It wasalso a new force that restructured childhood so that youth would from nowon be socially defined as "children" and "students," not proto-adults.From now on the child's task, never entirely clear to him, but steadfastlymaintained and managed by the educational institutions, was to pilothimself through many years of schooling toward the abstract goal of"graduation." After graduation there was either college (more years ofeconomically unproductive activity) or possibly work and, finally at somepoint, marriage. Even the church got involved in the 19th century with "education," creating the SUNDAY "school." The development of institutional education for children was both theproduct of and a shaper of another incredibly important development ofthis period of time, namely the change in family structure from theextended family to what we know today as the nuclear family. Prior to thisperiod families had lived in larger units, including grandparents, aunts,uncles, cousins and so forth. Within this structure most of the educationof children took place. While in older times probably little verbalinstruction was given about sex in the modern sense of "sex education," children learned by seeing and hearing what went on in these largerhouseholds and what verbal instruction was given was of a very practicalsort--the how-to's of male-female bonding. And there was a variety ofperspective included in this education because there was a variety ofadults, not only parents, to do the instructing. As the extended familydisappeared and outside institutions took over the education of children,this natural, family form of sex education began to disappear along withmuch of the rest of traditional instruction.With these developments, children were now to be completely "protected," cared for, nurtured in various ways, treated as fragile and really viewedas an entirely different class of beings from adults. Thus was created a"cult of childhood." The result in our day is that, in some ways, childrenare almost worshipped and certainly "spoiled," yet have little to do withthe practical, productive life of our civilization.THE TWO CHILDHOODS:BIOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL CONFLICT AND THE CREATION OF THE NONSEXUAL CHILDSomething appears to have been missed during this several-hundred-yearperiod of the development of the cult of childhood. This was theprogressive development of a clash between the biological and sexualmaturity of children and the social roles now assigned to them, whichincluded no socially sanctioned outlet for their sexuality. Indeed, when this conflict was eventually noticed, both the secularsociety and the church were forced by their own bondage to the childhoodculture they had created to essentially declare children to be nonsexual. When faced, however, with a pesky biological reality which wouldn't goaway --the "nonsexual" child who could not help feeling and actingsexual--the adult social, educational and religious powers turned to avariety of repressive tactics to keep the little beasties down. Thesetactics ranged from instruction about how "good" children didn't "playwith themselves" or others to physical and legal punishments for sexualbehavior. (The 19th century was the heyday of chastity belts anddiabolically ingenious mechanical devices to prevent masturbation.)The church began to create, virtually out of whole cloth, a set of dogmas,mostly hitchhiking on a misunderstanding of the New Testament Greek term"porneia," whose purpose was to prop up the socially developed notion ofthe nonsexual child. (For discussion of the real meaning of the term"porneia," mistranslated "fornication" in most English Bibles, see otherLiberated Christians' biblical studies.)These doctrines are not biblical at all. In Old Testament times sex wasseen as much more natural and normal than in our day, even though therewere certain sexual restrictions that were necessary either because of thelack of birth control or because of the necessity of preserving familyheritage in a patriarchal society. (See other Liberated Christian studieson adultery and the patriarchal system of the Old Testament.) OldTestament culture was also an extended family culture in which the kind ofnatural sex education referred to above would have taken place. It shouldalso be remembered that the modern ideas of childhood did not exist inbiblical days.Through the use of these doctrines the church could justify what hasamounted to the persecution of its own children the name of God for theiraudacity in attempting to express their sexuality, a sexuality actuallygiven them by God himself.Persecution is a harsh word, but I think that nothing less has gone onthroughout church history and goes on today in the way children aretreated in terms of their sexuality. I am only one of countless numbers ofpeople who can recall the fear, the reprimands and even the physicalpunishments connected with sexual development as a child. Beginning withtheir own ignorance and following the negative teachings of traditionalChristianity, millions of parents have passed on to even more millions ofchildren the belief that their sexuality (and bodies) is something to beashamed of, hidden and not talked about. Indeed, what is God-given ishated and constantly put down as evil. What else is this than persecutionand an imprisonment of both soul and body? One of the areas in which this treatment of children has taken place ismarriage. Throughout most of human history societies have allowed marriageat or near the time of puberty. The church itself for centuries tended tofollow the Jewish pattern of a minimum age of 12 for girls and 13 forboys, though by no means did all marry that early. In effect, childhoodended at that point and adulthood began. In many societies just prior tothe permissible marriage age came the "rites of passage" or "pubertyrites," which formally signaled the entrance of the youth into theprivileges and responsibilities of adulthood. These practices remain insome cultures today and in some modern American Indian tribes young peopleare expected to be sexually active at least by puberty and some beginraising families at that age, even though white man's law may forbid it.As will be discussed later in this article, in societies that expect earlymarriage it is typical that children are at least permitted or evenencouraged in sexual play and experimentation from a young age. This isseen as the beginning of a natural process that prepares them for fullroles as sexual adults. Perhaps one of the worst kept secrets in thesexual life of our culture is that our children also participate invarious kinds of sex play. Yet, because that play is either ignored,actively discouraged or even punished, it becomes part of the secret lifeof our youth and contributes significantly to the whole pattern of livingour sexual lives in the dark. In spite of much-hyped liberal sexual attitudes of our culture, thereremains the notion that real sexual activity only begins in marriage. Evenif healthy sexual functioning in marriage was not inhibited by thenegative teachings we receive as children, more damage is done by thetypical postponement of marriage far into the years of sexual maturity.In the affluent nations of the world (not coincidentally the nations thatso greatly stress the importance of formal education) the marriage age hassteadily advanced through recent centuries, especially in the UnitedStates,where in the mid-nineties the median age for first marriage hasrisen to 26. Not lost in theory on some professionals in education, medicine andpsychology, but utterly ignored practically, is the inconvenient fact thatthe age of the onset of puberty has been steadily dropping in affluentcountries at least for all of the 20th century, while the marriage age hasbeen rising. I have already said that God created us to be sexual adults at puberty andto be sexually active at some level much earlier. The implication of thisis that the historical and modern efforts to repress youthful sexualactivity are in fact in opposition to a God-created normality, rather thanbeing supportive of his "moral" will, as claimed by conservativeChristians.In my opinion, the evidence from history, culture, biology and psychologyis overwhelming: our Creator intended us to be sexually active as childrenand adolescents, each age at its own level, capacity and purpose, and thatactivity should prepare us for the more permanent relationships ofadulthood. Yet our culture so inhibits this natural growth process that weenter adulthood seriously crippled sexually and often unable to enjoysatisfying lives of sexual intimacy. It should be said very clearly andwithout apology that the primary source of these sad results is the sexualpersecution and bondage inflicted on children by the traditional negativeviews of Christianity and a Christianized culture. It is said that a military commander once referred to a "retreat" as an"advance to the rear." I think it can be seen from the history I havepresented that the "advances" of our civilization in the social welfare ofchildren, the changes in family structure, the improvement of health andthe creation of public education have been an "advance to the rear" interms of childhood sexuality.The advance of civilization is always a mixed bag: often true advances inhuman welfare are offset by losses in other areas. Ancient abuses ofchildren have diminished. The slow death of the patriarchal system hasprobably benefited children, especially girls, as well as adult women. Inspite of these positive examples, the natural, God-created sexualdevelopment of children, on its psychological side, has been sacrificed onthe altar of other progress.CHILDHOOD SEXUALITY IN OTHER CULTURES:THE ROLE OF PARENTAL NURTURE AND INTIMACYParents and other adults in some cultures observe what parents in ourculture observe, but see entirely different implications. Biologically,children in all cultures are alike and infant girls lubricate vaginallyand infant boys experience erections on a regular basis. In some culturesthese events are understood as natural phenomena that will develop in timeinto greater and more conscious efforts at sexual self-exploration andexperimentation with their peers.In cultures that recognize these events as normal and natural, there isoften the involvement of parents themselves in stimulating the genitalareas of their infants, an activity that is simply accepted as a way ofheightening their children's interest in a very positive aspect of theirdevelopment. It would never occur to these parents that such an activitycould be considered harmful to their children as is the case in ourculture. In other cultures parents even teach their children how to masturbate andsome fathers or other male adults initiate daughters by having intercoursewith them. There is no indication that these practices in any way harm thechildren, but are in fact the parents' way of teaching their children goodsexual skills.Children learn how to do everything else, from writing the alphabet tohammering a nail, from older, more experienced people. But when it comesto sex--gasp--such is taboo! Yet, this is purely a cultural prejudice,based on a long history of sexual repression and negative teachings, muchof it religious. It is not based in any psycho-developmental reality ofhuman nature.On the island of Mangaia in the South Pacific "infants are special people,rocked and indulged by all family members. Bare genitals are playfully orcasually stimulated and lingual manipulation of the tiny penis is common.""Privacy is unknown, as each hut contains five to sixteen family membersof all ages. [Remember our discussion of the extended family and its rolein sex education?] Adolescent daughters often receive lovers at night andparents 'bump together' so that young children may be awakened by theslapping sound of moist genitals. Although adults rarely talk to childrenabout sex, erotic wit and innuendoes are common."At the age of three or four, children band together and explore themysteries of the dense tropical bush....Sex play flourishes in theundergrowth and coital activity may begin at any time."Children also learn about sex from one another and "young girls also learnfrom elderly women who teach by telling stories and by direct practicalinstruction. The young boy is taught at puberty by older males. [Rememberthe puberty rites discussed above?] [He] is coached in techniques such asthe kissing and sucking of breasts. He is told about lubrication andtrained in methods of bringing his partner to climax several times priorto his own ejaculation." (Alayne Yates, Sex Without Shame: Encouraging theChild's Healthy Sexual Development, pp. 71-72)And so on and on goes the description of the sexual education processes inthis culture, processes which are natural and practical and are based onan acceptance of sexuality itself as normal and natural. Children in sucha "primitive" culture grow up with greater knowledge, understanding andacceptance of their own sexuality, as well as sexual competence inrelationships, than almost any children in our culture. And yet, not onlywould most Americans criticize the general permissiveness of this culture,but the notion of the explicit peer and adult instruction would beregarded as unacceptable, if not abusive.It should be obvious that the contrast between the typical Americantreatment of children's sexual development and that of Mangaia is acontrast between bondage and freedom, between emotionally unhealthy andhealthy attitudes and really, if I may put it so strongly, betweenunloving and loving ways of relating to children.Even in our culture studies have shown that infants who experience greaternon-sexual physical intimacy with their parents are more likely tomasturbate than children who receive less such attention. One studyreported that when there was tender, loving care of the infant by themother, genital play was present in all the infants in the study. According to this researcher, such autoerotic activity on the part of aninfant in the first 18 months of life may be a reliable indicator of thequality of parenting. (Human Sexuality--An Encyclopedia, p. 112) Not to be overlooked here are the non-sexual physical and emotionalbenefits of physical touch between parents and children. Children whoreceive positive physical affection generally develop better emotionaladjustments both as children and adults than children who do not receivesuch positive touch or who receive mostly negative touch (physicalpunishment). Their long-term relationship with their parents also is morepositive on an emotional basis. This is beneficial not only to thechildren but to the parents as a very satisfying result of parenting. Formyself, I never received a great deal of physical affection in childhood(at least so far as I can remember). By others, however, I was taught thevalue of this for my own children and have seen both them and myself reapthe benefits as they near adulthood. They have even seen their parentsdivorce, yet remain physically affectionate with me. (I would point outthat there have never been any sexual implications in our demonstrationsof physical affection.) As pointed out in earlier material by DaveHutchison, physical touch also stimulates healthy endorphins in the bodythat promote physical and emotional health.The fact that physical touch combined with emotional intimacy promotesboth physical and emotional health for children makes the failure of somany parents in these areas all the more serious. It could probably beargued that much of the emotional and even physical sickness of oursociety traces to the lack of such intimacy in childhood.As the infant develops, its exploration of its body becomes progressivelymore complex and sophisticated. While not capable in its first year ofthe complex movements that characterize deliberate masturbation, thesimple handling of the genitals can be noted as giving pleasure. Betweenthe second and third year the infant develops rhythmic manipulation of thegenitals with the hands, which foreshadows the deliberate masturbationtechniques of later years (Human Sexuality--An Encyclopedia, p. 113) AMERICAN CULTURE:PARENTAL AND RELIGIOUS REPRESSION OF CHILDHOOD SEXUALITYWhile in some cultures the parental awareness of these developments bringsthe satisfaction that the infant is developing normally in an area ofgreat importance, in our culture it is typical that such behavior producesconsternation in parents whose own sexual experience is troubled withrepression of the past and who are often neurotic regarding masturbation. Since mothers are generally responsible for the sexual socialization oftheir infants, the way the mother reacts to her infant's sexual play iscritical to its future development. In the encyclopedia referred to abovethe authors say that in our culture the mother's task has"generally...been to discourage sexual self-stimulation, inhibit sexualimpulses toward family members, supervise and thus frustrate attempts atsexual play with peers, and teach children to be wary of strangers."Parents also attempt to control what their children learn of the "facts oflife" and from whom. There develops a "conspiracy of silence [in which]parents maintain a secrecy and privacy concerning their own sexualactivity...," closing bedroom and bathroom doors, separate bathing forchildren, especially segregating by sex in later years, the inculcation of"modesty" regarding nudity and dressing and undressing habits, etc. Thesemethods have "an implicit goal of keeping dormant the young child'spervasive curiosity and imitativeness, postponing the onset of sexualself-gratification, and limiting sexual activity." (Encyclopedia, p. 114) Of course, Christian parents have become quite skilled at such repressivemethods, all the more so because the "doctrine" I have mentioned provideswhat they believe is a God-given mandate to discourage sexual activityamong children of any age. Yet it is impossible for Christian and cultural taboos to eradicate theneed and desire young people have for sexual intimacy. When young peopleseek sexual intimacy, with or without the approval of church or society,they are simply following God's natural way, even though at later agesthey may do so in careless ways because of the inadequate teaching theyhave received. These are not "wicked" children. The wickedness lies in the sexualrepression of church and society. Instead of being badgered about the evilnature of their sexuality and intimidated into an unnatural and unworkablecelibacy (or, worse, forced into irresponsible sex), children should betaught how to love, respect and care for others and to enjoy their ownsexual urges safely, without any harm coming to them.A recent TV movie portrayed the uneasiness of a father and teenage songrappling with the potential sexual involvement of the son. The dialogwent something like this: Father: "So you're going out tonight? Are there girls involved?" Son: "Yeah, there'll be girls." F: "I think its time we talked." S: "Oh, is this the 'facts of life' thing?" F: "Yes." S: "OK, Dad, what do you want to know?" F: "Very funny. I suppose you know all about being safe?" S: "Sure, Dad." F: "Well, just be sure you don't do it tonight with someone you won't care for in the morning."This scene can hardly represent an adequate piece of sex education, but Iwas struck by the father's small spoonful of wisdom about caring for theperson with whom his son might become sexually involved. I am afraid thatmost Christian parents whom I know would not even try to determine whethertheir children knew about sexual safety in the fear that such knowledgewould encourage "promiscuity." This neglect of teaching, combined withrepression, could lead their children to careless or thoughtless sexualinvolvement with partners about whom they would not "care for in themorning." In my own Christian community I believe that the moralistic blinders wornby many parents would cause many of them to actually prefer that theirchildren become pregnant or contract STDs than to teach them safe,responsible sexual behavior. Such parents go on humming the tune that sexeducation promotes promiscuity and that telling their children to "justsay NO" is still the best advice, even while their children pursue theirnatural sexual inclinations behind their backs. At the risk of appearing harsh and unkind, I must ask if peopledemonstrating the attitudes just mentioned are really looking out for thebest interests of their children? I think not. Sadly, most of these wouldbe horrified to think that they were actually harming their children bytheir constant harping about abstinence and other sexually repressiveadvice. In fairness, it should be said that few have any idea of theshabby history of the traditional negative views about sexuality; fewChristian professionals (pastors, biblical scholars, even churchhistorians) even realize that these views arose out of the non-Jewish,non-Christian philosophies of the ancient world and were imported intoChristian teaching by Christian teachers in the early days of the faith,teachers whose formal education had been based on these philosophies.These terroristic, abusive tactics have become part and parcel of themeaning of Christianity for most people and are simply not recognized forwhat they are. It is this situation, of which I am so painfully aware, that has given methe burden to write this paper, with the hope and prayer that some parentsand other adults may implement real change in the way children aretreated. The Christian message is a message of FREEDOM; it is time thatwe applied that message to our own sexuality and that of our children. A number of researchers and child development psychologists haverecommended for years the kind of sexual openness with children that hasbeen traditional for centuries in some cultures. They suggest that notonly is sexual self-play normal and healthy, but sex play among peers isalso. They suggest that it is actually harmful to stifle such play, notto mention being rather futile. A recent Internet message suggested thatwith all of the overwrought emphasis on child sexual abuse in our society,much of it degenerating into witch-hunting, the real abuse of childrenlies in not recognizing and encouraging their natural sexual development,including its play and experimentation aspects.NORMALITY IN BODY AND SEXAnother critical issue concerning "God-created normality" in the lives ofour children is that of the attitude towards the body. Dave Hutchison andI have written extensively elsewhere on the issue of nudity and bodyacceptance. Suffice it to say here that what most children are taught issome form of body shame or body hatred. I mentioned above that parentscommonly teach their children "modesty" about nudity and dressing. This isno more nor less than teaching children that their bodies are shameful andmust be covered up to avoid sexual activity or "temptation." The teachingof body shame and sexual shame necessarily go hand in hand--you can't havethe one without the other. This is often overlooked even by professionals. While the social nudist movement is flawed in its overdone attempt todismiss a link between nudism and sexuality, many nudists are aware (andresearch studies have proved) that nudist children generally havehealthier sexual attitudes than non-nudist children. ADULT-CHILD SEXUAL CONTACT:HEALTHY OR SICK?Patterns of the Past And Other CulturesFrom the above discussion we understand the importance of healthy sexualdevelopment for children and the importance of parental understanding andnurture in this area. We also realize that parents in other cultures donot hide their own sexual activities from their children and may even havesome physical involvement with them in developing and encouraging theirsexual growth. The question, then, may be asked : How far should adults goin helping educate their children sexually?The taboo of all taboos, as far as our society is concerned, is that ofadults engaging in specific sexual activity with children. We recognizethat even people who consider themselves open-minded about sexuality mightcome down on us pretty hard for raising this issue. Are we discussingthese things in order to find justification for adult-child sexualactivity? The reader will have to make up his or her own mind as to ourmotives. We are not raising this issue to offend anyone or to propose suchactivity, but it is critical to remember that we discussed earlier thedifficulty of drawing a clear line between childhood and adulthood from acultural/historical point of view. We then pointed out that in realitychildren are sexual adults at puberty. It must also be said that in older cultures, before children began to beregarded as excessively fragile and in need of a kind of care that hasreached pampering stages in our culture, sex between "adults" and"children" was not at all uncommon. Marriages between very young girlsand much older men have been common throughout history in many cultures. Isay this without passing any particular value judgment on the wisdom ofsuch unions.It should also be noted that both religious and social rules and laws onthis issue are culturally conditioned and not God-given. Among all the sexlaws of the Old Testament, for example, so far as I know there is not evenone on the subject of what we would call adult-child sex. Is the whole religious, social and legal pattern, which so severelystigmatizes adult/child sex, really an improvement on the patterns of thepast? We might wonder in the light of the practices of other cultures andthe silence of the Scriptures.Sexual Abuse: Problems and ParanoiaLet's look at some of the results of this negative modern attitude. Thelast fifteen to twenty years has seen the creation of almost a cottageindustry devoted to convincing us that there are probably sexually-abusingparents on our block or among our relatives and child molesters among ourchildren's teachers, neighbors and loving uncles. This began in the late70's and climaxed in several notorious pre-school molestation cases andthe "don't-talk-to-strangers" push in the 80's. The 90's has seenaccusations of adults coming out of the repressed memory craze. Undoubtedly the huge increase in the "discovery" and prosecution of abuseand molestation cases in this country during this period is due in part toa greater awareness of the possible problems, whereas such activities inprevious times were simply overlooked or more successfully hushed up. On the other hand, the trail of both discovery and prosecution of suchcases in this period is littered with witch-hunt tactics and coachedtestimony by even accredited child "experts," social workers andprosecutors, as the notorious and failed McMartin Preschool case attests.Numerous other high-profile cases have been thrown out or reversed onappeal, but not before people accused of being society's greatest monstershave been ruined emotionally, professionally and financially. There are several classic cases in the 70's in which the children ofnudist parents were taken away on the basis of sexual abuse accusations byvindictive relatives or nosy and self-righteous neighbors. The childrenwere eventually returned, but in at least one case were separated fromtheir parents for five years while the case snailed its way through courtafter court. Perhaps it is understandable to some extent why socialnudists labor overtime to convince the public that nudism and sex havenothing to do with each other. Newly-hatched crusades typically engage in excesses and this one, whichplays on both instinctive desires to protect children and theculturally-created notion that children couldn't possibly choose any kindof sexual activity with adults, is no exception. Parent and Child in Healthy IntimacyReturning to Human Sexuality--An Encyclopedia, we learn a lot aboutparents' intimacy with their children or the lack thereof: Long beforethere is any possibility of much mutual adult-style enjoyment of sexualactivity between children and adults, the children of our culture havelearned without verbal instruction that adults, even their parents, areseldom physically intimate with them on any level, especially beyond acertain age. Child-parent intimate interaction becomes restrained and thechild's experience of intimacy enters a stage of deprivation that lasts atleast until adolescence and the beginning of the dating stage."'Too much' touching, especially for boys, causes discomfort for manyparents." "Sons, imitating their fathers, express noticeably less physicalaffection than do daughters for friends and relatives as well." Homophobicattitudes among males develop early and researchers think that theseattitudes play a significant role in the intimacy fears of boys and men. (pp. 114-115)The abuse and molestation obsession of current culture adds dramaticallyto the fears of adults in touching children, even their own, and the fearsof children in being touched. We have reached a point where parents andadults have been brainwashed to think of themselves as perverted if theyare very physically intimate with preadolescent and adolescent children,especially of the opposite sex, even when such physical contact can'treasonably be construed as sexual. Internet correspondents with Dave Hutchison have pointed out that it isacceptable to display shocking degrees of violence to children, includingRambo movies, violent war games and violent sports such as boxing orhockey, but it its not acceptable to allow them to see sexually explicitlymotion pictures, to display physical affection towards them in public ortalk explicitly to them about sex. Different studies have drawn different conclusions about the connectionbetween children seeing violence on TV and in movies and committingviolent acts. Yet some youth violence has clearly been copied from whatyouth have seen in the media, according to their own confessions. But the same Internet correspondence mentioned above points out that thereis no clinical evidence that observing the sexual activity of others is inany way harmful to children, especially when it is explained to very youngones as not being an act of violence or pain. Healthy curiosity, evenfascination and then acceptance is the usual reaction. Some evidence alsoindicates that some sex offenders have received little or no sexinformation as children and have been exposed to little or no sexuallyexplicit materials. This is exactly the opposite situation to that claimedby some conservatives who crusade against sex education, pornography andsex in the media. A 13-Year-Old Who Enjoyed His "Abuse"Recently a male adult posted this message on the Internet: "I haveexperienced a situation of sexual approach myself as a 13 year old. Whatmost people forget is how a child is affected is largely due to thereaction of and conditioning by society at large. I wouldn't have had halfthe trauma if it hadn't been for the implantation [of the idea] that sexis bad for anyone, [but that the adult] who approached and touched me wasan evil scumsuccer and I had been 'violated'--even though I did enjoy theexperience while it happened and had a good orgasm. It felt good! Whatfollowed was an aftermath of confusion and distress because what I hadexperienced was 'improper.' So I went through a few years of difficulties,not because of the actual incident itself, but due to my antisexualconditioning." He continues with an account I cannot independently verify: "A few yearsago (on a talk show) a 16 year old boy said when he was 13 he had anaffair with a female school custodian that lasted two years. He laterstated that while it lasted it was great--he loved every second.... Well--his parents threw a fit. Boy was sent to a shrink and is told he wasabused. A year of conditioning later he sits on this talk show and sayswhat a horrible thing this woman did to him--and still stated that hethought it was great while it lasted--he didn't know he was being abusedat the time. Now who the hell I ask you caused the damage here?"The Confusion of Culture and a Word of CautionThis person's report perhaps demonstrates more eloquently than I or aline-up of professionals could how the confusion in our culture aboutsexuality and childhood, the impossibility of drawing a line betweenchildhood and adulthood and the general ignorance and misunderstanding ofsexuality calls into question the popular and legal dictums aboutadult-child sex. Variations exist among professional researchers regarding the harmfulnessor benefits of sexual experiences shared by children and adults and someprofessionals are suggesting that there may be no harm at all innon-coercive experiences. Such opinion seems to fit with the testimony ofpeople such as the one just quoted. This shift in opinion among those whostudy childhood sexuality at least suggests that adults are not committingthe "unpardonable sin" merely by rethinking these issues. In spite of not wanting to need to say this, we must say that we do notadvise or condone adults having sex with youth under "legal age" for atleast two reasons. The first is JAIL (no small reason, unfortunately) andthe second is because the psychological implications of such activity inour culture could be vastly different from the implications in cultureswhere such activity has long been the norm. We cannot suddenly convert ourselves to the permissive and radically opennorms of other cultures, no matter how attractive they may be. That is notthe point of this discussion. I would, however, like to summarize what wehave learned in this discussion of childhood sexuality. Then I will makesome suggestions that, if followed, might help parents and others towardsa healthier and more practical approach to dealing with childhoodsexuality. Before this, however, I would like to cite some recentmedia-reported examples of the weirdness that goes on in our culture todayregarding children and sexuality. SEXUAL WEIRDNESS IN OUR CULTURE: TWO CONTEMPORARY CASESFirst, the recent flap over the Calvin Klein ads using teenagers, ads thatwere pulled from magazines and TV after public allegations that they were"obscene" and exploitative of minors:So far as advertising is concerned, these ads are clearly intended to usesex to sell clothes--no new phenomenon in our culture. The reactions tothe ads by irate parents and the "moral" high-brows and even the FBI areexamples of the ridiculous and futile efforts to deny that "children" (teens, no less, in this case) are sexual. Second, the same religious and cultural narrow-mindedness is illustratedby the conservative outcry against the new fall TV shows in prime-timewhose content the media coyly refer to as involving "adult themes." This,of course, is in contrast to the formerly sacred "family viewing" hours ofearly evening programming. When we clear away all the smoke-screenlanguage, what this controversy is all about is the new inclusion of sexin prime-time. The traditional bottom line is that sex is not a "familyvalue." WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED AND WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? These are just more (tiresome) examples of our denial that children andsex should have anything to do with one another. It is precisely this kindof nonsense that should light a fire of reform among those who claim to bemore open-minded about sexuality. It will do little good for futuregenerations if those of us who make such a claim do not begin acting tochange attitudes in our families, churches and communities, including ourschools. What is needed is sane, sensible, practical, open-minded teaching andmanagement of childhood sexuality in order to raise children whoappreciate their sexuality, accept it as normal, recognize its spiritualdimensions, respect the sexuality of others and enjoy sexual activity inappropriate ways. What is needed is to abandon the ancient religious andcultural shortsightedness of seeing sex as only or primarily forprocreation (and therefore only permissible in marriage), help our youthto enjoy it responsibly for the sake of building relationships now, aspreparation for the relationships of later life and for the sake of itslegitimate role of pleasure giving and receiving. What have we learned from this discussion of childhood sexuality? 1.The change in attitudes towards children in the past severalcenturies has produced the belief that children are nonsexual. Thisresults in the reluctance to educate children sexually in the belief thatthey shouldn't engage in sexual activity and that they cannot reasonablyconsent to such activity with their peers or with adults. 2.The distinction between childhood and adulthood is not hard and fasteither biologically or psychologically, varies from culture to culture andhas changed through history. 3.Ancient cultures and some modern ones regarded sexuality as normaland sexual activity among youth as natural and to be encouraged ratherthan repressed. 4.There is an appalling ignorance and many negative attitudes towardssexuality in our culture, which are the result of both Christian and othercultural prejudices. 5.The Christian church has created doctrines to support its negativeattitudes to sexuality and civil governments have created correspondinglaws to enforce the moral values enshrined in these doctrines. Thesedoctrines and laws are not founded on true biblical teachings and in factcontribute to a physical and spiritual bondage by inhibiting the fullpotential of our humanity in its sexual aspect. 6.Children of all ages are sexual beings, capable of certain types andlevels of sexual activity and enjoyment. 7.The sexuality of children is God-created, normal and beneficial,rather than sinful and harmful. 8.Children develop their sexual attitudes towards themselves andothers based on the attitudes and teaching of their parents; in ourculture the repressive tactics of parents result in negative sexualattitudes in children. 9.The negative sexual attitudes developed in childhood inevitablyproduce negative sexual attitudes and functioning in adulthood. 10.The most serious sexual problem in our society is not premaritalsex, unwanted teen pregnancies or even AIDS; it is the failure to acceptour children's sexuality and teach them to accept it and enjoy itresponsibly. 11.The examples of other cultures and the bizarre and harmful resultsof the overemphasis in our culture on child sexual abuse suggest that ourculture is far from mature in its views of adult-child sexual activity. Where do we go from here?: Suggestions for growing sexually healthychildren 1.Christian laypersons and ministry professionals should committhemselves to restudy the Scriptures in the light of historical andlinguistic evidence to determine whether the traditional negativeteachings of Christianity regarding sex are what the Scriptures reallyteach. They should also be aware that the Bible is not a textbook onsexuality and that, therefore, many issues cannot be resolved directlyfrom its teachings. This suggests that we are given freedom to choose ourown preferences in relationship to many sexual issues and that God is notconcerned about them the way many Christians are. (One case in point: theBible makes no reference to pornography [better called "erotica"]; thus itis a false use of the biblical text to reason that passages dealing with"lust" can be applied to pornography.) 2.Since most conservative Christians cannot accept radical newinterpretations of Scripture that challenge their tightly-held traditionalviews, people in conservative churches who have greater light on theseissues should try to get the attention of more open-minded pastors andyouth leaders and show them from Scripture that the traditional views donot stand up under serious study. It is likely that only respected leaderswill be able to help the rank and file of Christians to change their viewsabout sexuality. 3.Adults must tackle the problem of accepting, healing and exploringtheir own sexuality as a God-given aspect of their humanity andspirituality. They should seek out people, published resources and evenprofessional therapy that can help in this process. There is hope forchildren only if the significant adults in their lives begin dealing withtheir own attitudes towards sexuality. 4.Adults, especially parents and church leaders, should search forquality sex education materials prepared to help them help their children,as well as materials specially prepared for children of various ages. Conservative Christian parents will have to go outside their traditionalboundaries and into the materials of more "liberal" churches or secularsources to locate such materials and then adapt them to their ownChristian perspective. 5.Parents and other concerned adults should seek out one another todiscuss and pray regarding their own sexual issues and those of theirchildren. They should find strength in one another to plan and execute,perhaps with professional help, new ways of teaching their children. 6.Parents should not go on a guilt trip if they realize they havefailed to promote healthy development and freedom for their children interms of sexuality, but have tended to follow the negative ways oftradition. Rather, they should realize that these way can be changed, noteasily, perhaps, but with determination and help from other sources. 7.With careful help and support from one another, parents shouldrethink their tendency to back off even from general physicalaffection-showing towards their children. This may be scary and it may bevery difficult to recreate this affection with older children who have notexperienced it in recent years--and there is no guarantee of success.Parents of younger children should examine their physical affectionpatterns and realize that it is better to err on the side of too much thantoo little. These challenges may confront adults with their own problemswith physical intimacy (not sexual activity), which may demand that theyseek their own healing in these areas. 8.Children need to be taught that it is OK to explore their ownsexuality and, with proper direction and support, to experiment with theirpeers. The difficulty with the latter is that parents of other childrenmay not be open-minded about such things. Interestingly, children carryout some of this without their parents' knowledge, so it may be best tosimply let your children know that such exploration is OK with you and bewilling to deal with other parents if necessary. 9.Adolescent and teenage children need to be taught the details ofsexual life and the techniques of sexual relationships. Most of all theyneed to be taught how to LOVE others and to understand that sexual lovingis acceptable to God at any age. They need to be taught about trueintimacy in relationships and not just how to "have sex." Then they needto be taught how to be responsible in their loving, which includessafe-sex procedures. 10.Children need to see that their parents are not ashamed of their ownsexuality. Parents of small children should seriously consider not hidingtheir own sexual encounters from their children so they grow up realizingthat there is nothing shameful about these activities. 11.Parents should become aware of what their children are being taughtin school about sexuality. Among the reasons given by the religious rightfor opposing sex-ed in the public schools is that such things should betaught at home. They are technically right, but not only are their motivessuspect (they don't want open-minded thought on sex reaching theirchildren), but they don't really teach their children much at all aboutsex at home. If all parents did so, then perhaps public school sex-edwould not be necessary. If parents feel inadequate to teach theirchildren, then they should at least support healthy school programs thatreally teach children responsible sexual behavior and not just abstinence,which really doesn't work. 12.Parents should stand up for their own sexual rights and not let thembe dictated by the religious right and their legislative or over-reactingenforcement authorities, whether this is in the area of censorship ofsexually explicit materials, anti-nudity legislation or the rights ofadults to enjoy any area of sexual activity that does not infringe on therights of others. 13.I have no great advice to give in the area of adult-child sexualactivity. Changes in this area will come slowly, as in all areas whereancient prejudices are at work. Parents should search their own motivesand their consciences and seek to create healthy, responsible and alwaysnon-coercive ways to relate physically and emotionally to their children. In spite of the controversial nature of these issues, perhaps parentsshould at least break the silence taboo and talk with others about theirfeelings, ideas and what they may be learning from materials such as thispaper. Perhaps future generations will more fully recognize the mergingnature of childhood and adulthood, rather than insist on the present viewof a radical break between these phases of life. Perhaps these generationswill look back on some of the overwrought concerns of our day withamusement that we were so immature. 14.Finally, I invite readers to give Liberated Christians theirfeedback to the ideas in this paper. Dialog is never bad and shouldpromote understanding, especially in difficult areas of thought andpractice. We are not experts, but are open to sharing what we believe weunderstand, creating means for group discussion to take place and learningfrom others. END |
|
