Sex In The Public Square - kids - Comments

Clowns and cars and metaphors

Elizabeth — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 10:25:12 -0700

More accurately, your daughter writes for this site! And with your permission, of course.

The bigger problem with your use of the metaphor is that you were appropriating the car aspect for your own body instead of letting the car remain symbolic of the female. You should have been comparing your own body to the clowns, I think ;)

My Vagina

Lou FCD — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:59:28 -0700

is fortunately attached to my wife. Otherwise, I'd never get anything done.

I prefer to think of it as an attached garage for my... geez, I'm just not even going there. My daughter reads this site.

lol

Few things worse than another human next door. . . .

Zelda — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 21:27:16 -0700

Yes, the "It's a vagina, not a clown car" joke is very funny, lol. But really, truly, there are too many of our species, way too many. Making more humans is no more "miraculous" than making more puppies or bunnies or canaries. The parents think it's miraculous and amazing and wonderful because we spend so much time as screaming, un-housebroken babies that our species would surely have fizzled out if parents weren't in a state of hormonal delusion! I wish the religious types could stop thinking of "go forth and multiply" as a command, and instead consider it something on a to-do list; just mark it "done" and bring home a nice homeless puppy. If you must have more humans around, then adopt one of them rather than a dog or cat!

my vagina is a triumph spitfire

tracya — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:29:33 -0700

too funny chris....i must have missed some great jokes!!

My favorite statement about this case to date: "It's a vagina, not a clown car."

i realize this may have been more higly discussed in the states than it was in the UK...in fact nobody at work had even heard about it!!!

army of god? oxymoron??

why would an all seeing, all knowing benevolent master of creation need an army? (tongue firmly in cheek)

Quiverfuls

Chris — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:29:25 -0700

As I understand it, these people are members of the "Quiverfull" movement. They believe that their purpose is to create "quiverfulls" of "arrows" (aka children) for the Army of God. That, of course, makes it even creepier. My favorite statement about this case to date: "It's a vagina, not a clown car."

The question is meaningless

Lou FCD — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:02:42 -0700

Well, not so much the question as the answer. Bear with me, this gets a little long winded and perhaps more than a little pompous and presumptuous.

People, like everything else in the universe, are a continuum. We tend to categorize things in neat little boxes, but the truth is that those divisions are completely artificial.

Take the issue of heavenly bodies - what exactly is the difference between an asteroid and a minor planet, between a minor planet and a regular ol' planet, a rocky planet and a gas giant, a gas giant and a brown dwarf? These boundaries are our attempt at using language to differentiate between things for which there is no difference. One gram of matter more or less and an object is suddenly something different?

I view sexuality the same way. I don't think it's really accurate to describe someone's sexuality in terms of three or four or five little checkboxes, this one, that one, or the other one. It's more like a sliding scale, a long line with people falling at all points along it. I daresay as well that people fall at different places on that line depending on what day you look.

Children/teenagers/young adults/adults/old farts seem to work the same way to me. As a society, we assign specific numbers of years since birth to apply rules and language to what is really a continuum.

I've had this discussion in different forms with both of my kids. "How come you let her .....when she was my age, but not me?" or "He gets away with.... but you get upset when I do that!"

They're two different people, at different places along the continuum of maturity, and with different aspects of themselves at different places, and in different places on different days.

I don't have a good answer to the question, but I'm not sure there is one, or could ever be one, if all that bloviating makes any sense.

But at the end of the day, we need lines between this and that for practical reasons. Those lines should be based on well thought out and well educated consensus, and I'm of the opinion that in many cases those lines are currently based on nothing more than one or another group's agenda-driven whim.

Case in point - What sense does it make to say that a person is mature enough at seventeen years since birth to make the decision to lay down their life as a member of the armed forces, but in the next breath say that same person is not mature enough to enter a strip club and have a glass of wine and look at naked people? Hello?

harmful to minors

tracya — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 01:08:16 -0700

i think there is a huge difference between nudity, self exploration, witnessing sexual expression between adults and graphic and explicit representation of sexual acts between strangers.

i don't think even a 5-7 year old should be seriously protected from mom and dad having sex...excluded, yes..but if they were to walk in the bedroom to find mom and dad naked and engaged in sex, i think that would be an opening to a good discussion.

i would certainly agree that pornagraghic images and ones sexual practices should be kept discreet, indefinitely. i have 2 sons, 16 and 23 and i would never share my sexual material with them. not because i think they don't know what goes on or think i can protect them, i just feel it's not a subject i would discuss with them just like i wouldn't discuss it with my co workers.

somewhere in between those two scenarios is a big grey area....i think it's just a deal with it as it comes up, in way that feels comfortable for your family/child situation.

Harmful to Minors

Chris — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 05:09:33 -0700

I read in a book called "the story of V" of a woman having an ultrasound in France, and the technician and the woman watched the screen as the girl child masturbated for at least 20 minutes, well, she had a hand between her legs and was undulating as if in orgasm. The whole thing was on tape, and has answered the question, when does the sexuality of children begin? In the uterus!

I've read of this, too, and although it has some really interesting implications, I'd be hesitant to jump to conclusions about whether it can be called "masturbating" at that early a stage. Sexuality has not only physical but psychological implications, and there's practically no psychology in a fetus, which is one of the whole points driving the pro-choice movements.

One thing I wonder about this whole topic is: if you're a parent, how can you raise sex-positive kids? There are both ethical and legal ramifications. Even if you ethically believe that your kids are ready to handle the details of mom and dad's BDSM sex play, there's only so much that you can tell them before it triggers alarms at Child Protective Services and your kids wind up in a foster home and you wind up in police custody. I can't cite specific cases off the top of my head, but there are some interesting examples of the results of hysteria in Judith Levine's Harmful to Minors. The approach that we have now -- of pretending that children are or should be asexual until their late teens (and presenting their parents as asexual) -- is clearly harmful, but there are very few models for people who want to take another path.

just to add...

Belil — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:58:04 -0700

www.sheriwinston.com is a wonderful site of a woman that has a beautiful perspective for women and men... check it out!

There is also an hour interveiw with Dr. Tonya Freeman and Sheri that covers heaps of places, including this moment of the child in uterus.

www.freewebs.com/mrnarchive/WisdomTalks.htm is where the conversation takes place.

Enjoy!

The sexuality of children...

Belil — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 07:40:35 -0700

It's a great question, and one that I can't help respond to...

I read in a book called "the story of V" of a woman having an ultrasound in France, and the technician and the woman watched the screen as the girl child masturbated for at least 20 minutes, well, she had a hand between her legs and was undulating as if in orgasm. The whole thing was on tape, and has answered the question, when does the sexuality of children begin? In the uterus!

If our sexuality begins that early, and continues to develope as we grow, what are we protecting our children from? For me, and my daughter, now 15, we have had a long, gentle on my part, unfolding of the sexual being that she is. Begining with her as an infant, just exploring her body, then as a toddler, enjoying her body, when I eventually had to educate her to create a private place for this enjoyment. I attempted to do this as respectfully as possible, trying not to convey that she was doing anything wrong, but that this kind of enjoyment of her own body, was just that, her own, and best private as it will upset the adults around her. What I felt VERY protective of was her freedom to explore herself without projection from the adult world. When adults see sexual acts we judge them with an adult mind, for me, when children see (or commit) a sexual act, they have a different perspective, usually quite innocent of judgement.

Our cultures pre-disposition to declare sexual nature a negative, dirty, suspect or.... the list goes on, and usually as long as the number of people representing the "culture" at the time... well, what I am trying to say is, monkey see monkey do, if we illustrate a balanced, respectful expression of sexuality around our children, then they have better chance of mimicking that. If we hide, or censor our environs (and good luck with that) we are condoning the negative projections... imho.

whew.. that was a longer wind than a I thought I had...

Enjoy your world! For it is yours!

Sorry folks, that comment was by me, RC

RC — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:54:39 -0700

...forgot to log in...

Good question...

Visitor — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:13:23 -0700

...by which I mean, hard question, and one that's on my mind. I have two very young kids, neither of whom reads yet or can really decipher adult-themed images (I think...) But my partner and I are already thinking about how to handle their exposure to sensual and/or explicit material - there's no shortage in some parts of the house - and how/when to introduce our sexual politics and practices, which wouldn't be considered mainstream. Even if I'm confident in our ethics and practices and don't think they would be harmed by knowing about them - they could be harmed incidentally by unwittingly exposing themselves and us to the judgements of others.

Or this?

Elizabeth — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 05:55:03 -0700

And then there is this story from Melbourne, Australia, where kids' sex play is being described by one outraged parent as a "sex club." What is the difference between sex play and coercive sexual behavior?