| Theory |
|
"Protecting" Adolescents From Their Own Sexuality November 25, 2005 by RedStar2000 |
The idea that human adults should express their sexuality only within narrow judicially-imposed limits (based on archaic superstitions) has been thoroughly discredited in the "west".
But the impulse to "regulate" adolescent sexuality has not yet passed away...even among some "leftists".
For some reason, it is particularly the "welfare" of adolescent females that arouses this impulse...among some males.
It wouldn't have anything to do with the ancient idea of "women as property", would it?
You decide.
====================================================
quote:
There is also the cultural myth, exemplified by movies such as "Summer of '42," "Men Don't Leave," and "My Tutor," that sexual contact between an adult female and a young boy is a desirable initiation into manhood. Hunter has witnessed this during training sessions at the offices of various district attorneys. Often, he says, "there will be a female attorney on staff who is trying to prosecute a female perpetrator [of a male victim], and the male attorneys will say, 'Look, we're not going to waste the taxpayers' dollars on this. This is every man's fantasy.'"
If it's "every man's fantasy", then how is it "abuse"?
It strikes me that there's something about the character of the "child abuse industry" that compels a reckless expansion of their concerns into areas that are really none of their business.
Adolescent sexuality is none of their business...unless violence or the threat of violence is involved or unless some combination of authority and status is used to intimidate the adolescent.
It's probably not a great idea for young high school teachers (male or female) to initiate sexual encounters with high school students (male or female)...but that is very far removed from the sexual molestation of children.
What makes the sexual molestation of pre-pubescent children so devastating in its effects is that children do not understand what is "expected" of them in a sexual context...it is a baffling and incomprehensible experience.
On the other hand, it's very difficult to get adolescents to not think about sex "all the time" -- the hormones are pumping away more strongly than they ever will again. The opportunity to be sexually initiated by an attractive and experienced partner is one they rarely decline and frequently initiate.
That's not "abuse"...it's the way humans learn about sex.
--------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on July 2, 2005
--------------------------------------------------
quote:
If I had a daughter and I found out she was having sex with her male teacher, I'd kick his ass and bury him under his house.
Indeed.
You don't recognize her right to choose her sex partners; you assume she must be the "victim of male lust".
Or perhaps you still think of daughters as a kind of property...and pre-marital sex "damages" her value in the "marriage market".
May I extend my warmest welcome...to the 21st century. *laughs*
quote:
In any case, most of the females who I know that began having sex before 16 or so are almost unanimous in their belief that they started too soon, i.e., weren't emotionally prepared for the repercussions.
Heartbreak comes to us all...no matter "when" we start.
--------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on July 6, 2005
--------------------------------------------------
quote:
I disagree with that...under our current system people who assist in, and video tape the rape of 14-year-old girls only get a month in county jail, even if their record is as dirty as Capitalism.
I think there are details here that you're not telling us...because what you're saying doesn't make sense.
For example, video-taping the rape of a 14-year-old female just by itself would probably expose the perpetrator to a child-pornography charge.
Now, if we're talking about a bunch of young teens having sex with each other and video-taping the proceedings for the personal use of the participants only (not selling the tape on the internet)...that's a very different matter indeed and shouldn't involve the legal system at all.
You may personally disapprove of such behavior, but that confers no right to prohibit it.
quote:
I've never seen any problem with that law in all honesty, it is to prevent adults from preying on children...
Unless they suffer from mental retardation, 15-year-olds (in the "west") are not children, sexually speaking.
In fact, the age of puberty in the "west" for both sexes is, I believe, around 12. Sexual initiation usually takes place in the 13-16 age range.
quote:
...do you really think the 15 year old will end up loving the 20 year old for the rest of hisher life?
Do you really think that "planning" to "love someone" for "the rest of one's life" is the "only reason" to have sex with them?
quote:
And it's not just five year gaps that law applies to, it's also applied to 40 year gaps, let's say a 13 and 53 year old have sex, is that right? No.
The funny thing about this "example" -- which I've seen brought up many times -- is that it completely ignores the mind of a 13-year-old female.
Do you think that females of that age group find old guys "really hot"? That if the law did not exist, they would be dragging old guys behind the bushes at every opportunity?
From my observation, 13-year-old females are interested in guys who are 15-18; 14-year-old females are usually interested in guys who are 16-19; and so on. I'd say 99.999% of the time, the age-gap never exceeds 10 years and is usually closer to 5 years.
When I was 25, I had a girlfriend who was 17...but that was pretty unusual as she was very far from a "typical" 17.
But let's say we ran into that "one-in-several-million" cases...a 13-year-old girl is having regular sexual encounters with a guy who is 53.
Under capitalism, we'd assume that he's paying her...the sale and purchase of sex being a normal feature of capitalism. By capitalist logic, this cannot be criticized...no matter how "unhealthy" or "immoral" one might consider it.
If this happened in a commune after the revolution, we'd be very puzzled indeed. Why does she want to have sex with this old fart? Does he look/act considerably younger than his years? Does she like it because he only wants sex once a week or so? (Younger guys tend to want sex two or more times daily...and some young women find that excessive.)
Is he saying/doing things to/with her (other than sex) that make her feel especially good about herself? Does she think that this old guy is "the best she can do"?
I don't think any kind of "crime" is necessarily involved here...just something pretty unusual that ought to be looked into a bit.
quote:
Imagine your daughter having sex with someone that old at that age.
Well, why would she want to do that? I would certainly be curious about such a relationship.
After all, just because I am her biological parent does not mean that she is "my property". She is an individual who will choose her sexual partners according to her tastes, not mine.
Of course, if he got her drunk and then had sex with her while she was semi-conscious/unconscious, then that's not consensual sex, it's rape.
And I'd want the predatory bastard executed!
--------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on July 6, 2005
--------------------------------------------------
quote:
No I'd think she is the victim of some sick bastard's lust. Teenage girls can be lured just as male boys can, but what she is looking for is more than likely some form of companionship.
Your insight into female sexuality is truly "awesome". *laughs*
I feel very sorry for any daughters you might ever father.
quote:
In the 1860's in the south, respect for women was a part of the culture.
Missing the Confederacy, are we?
So, um, which women are we talking about here? The pampered dolls of the landed aristocracy? The wives and daughters of laborers and small farmers? Slave women???
You sound very much like a modern apologist for Islam...who would claim that Islam "really respects women".
To you (and to him) I would reply that you don't have the faintest conception of what respecting women entails.
The very idea that she is a person with her own agenda is as incomprehensible to you as quantum mechanics...or communism.
If you truly want to "protect women", the best advice I can offer you is to enter a monastery at the earliest possible moment...at least that will protect them from you.
--------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on July 7, 2005
--------------------------------------------------
quote:
And to redstar, I was a bit disturbed by your post on sexual encounters; in this sick world we live in, we can not trust older people to initiate or teach younger folks about sex; there are very real personal power dynamics that will be abused; the safest thing is for young people to explore sex together; hopefully they will be less likely to carry a lot of the hangups and fucked up power shit around sex that most adults have not learned to get past.
The decision "who to trust" is always an individual one...you can't "make a law" about who is trustworthy and who is not -- well, you can make such a law but your efforts to enforce it will generate more tragedy than it will prevent.
It would seem to me, in one sense at least, that sex is like any other learned skill -- it works out better between one experienced person and one inexperienced person than it does between two inexperienced people.
The question of "power dynamics" exists in every relationship...and trying to figure out if there is real abuse going on can be a thorny problem.
Particularly for someone outside the relationship.
But unless we have actual evidence for violent abuse, we must leave matters to the people involved...regardless of the age difference between them.
Human emotional entanglements are probably the most complicated part of human life...all of us are really beginners, when you get right down to it. Trying to make laws about this stuff just leads to more grief and misery.
The main thing is to make sure that when people weary of a particular relationship they are free to dissolve it without hindrance (much less any threat to their personal safety). One of the greatest hazards that women still face today comes at the end of a relationship -- when some violent men refuse to let go. And age is no protection from this hazard -- a woman of 40 is in as much danger as a girl of 14.
There are many tragic stories of women of all ages being murdered by their ex-husbands/boyfriends...and the protective mechanisms in place are woefully inadequate. I don't think it would be unreasonable for municipalities to provide a publicly-paid bodyguard for women who are in such danger.
--------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on July 7, 2005
--------------------------------------------------
quote:
But it is your duty, your job to take care of her. I hear too much from leftists that children are not property of their parents. A parent is a servant to their children's need to live a healthy, safe, and productive life. Maybe since many leftists, at least from my knowledge, are 18ish they don't know that every parent is a parent first and a leftist second. The revolution is so we can build a better future for our children.
I don't think the idea of "parent as servant to their kids" is a very good one.
Do you want your kids to think that they "deserve" servants?
That they are "entitled" to have others wait on them as if they were little princes or princesses?
I think it would be much better to raise kids to take care of themselves, physically and emotionally. No one likes a whiny, clingy, dependent individual who always expects others to "clean up their mess".
There's actually something psychologically unhealthy, in my opinion, about parents who "sacrifice everything" for their kids. For one thing, it's often accompanied by emotional blackmail -- "I sacrificed my whole life for you, therefore you must do what I want." And for another thing, it often results in parents trying to live vicariously through their kids...instead of living lives of their own.
Actually, it's really a pretty bad idea.
--------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on July 8, 2005
--------------------------------------------------
quote:
Teach your daughter how to make sure she gets treated right.
I agree absolutely! Don't give her any of that crap about "this is just how men are" and you "just have to accept that" or else "you'll always be alone", etc.
Tell her bluntly that it's better to be alone than to put up with being treated like shit!
Men can change the way they treat women...but most of the time, that change is a response to women's demands!
--------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on July 8, 2005
--------------------------------------------------
Some years ago, I suggested the following:
1. People who have reached puberty should not be permitted to have sex with people who haven't.
2. People in positions of authority should not be permitted to have sex with anyone subject to their authority.
People Are Not Property -- Part 2 (June 15, 2003)
I have not, since then, seen any reason to modify those criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 14, 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Could you please define authority and who would be in a position of authority?
Are you in a position to make someone's life more unpleasant unless they do what you want?
That's authority.
quote:
When does one become pubescent?
Ask their doctor.
A crude "rule of thumb" is that period when they start to "think about sex" all the time.
-----------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 14, 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I have a friend who was dating a computer technician at our school when we were 15/16; he was in a position of authority over my friend but nothing bad came of that; in fact it became useful for her to be dating a member of staff, although it is true to say that every case is different and should be treated so.
I must disagree. The "bad" that came from that arrangement is that your young friend learned that sex is a "useful" tool to manipulate authority for personal advantage.
Some years ago I read of a bourgeois sociologist with nothing better to do than to research the average university grade received by young women who have sex with their professors. It was an A. *laughs*
It is perfectly understandable in a class society that young women may conclude that their sexuality is a commodity to be traded for preference...financial, academic, or whatever.
But I think communists should seek to put an end to that sort of crap.
People should have sex when they want to and with whomever is willing...for mutual pleasure, period. A climate in which sex is seen as a tool is not conducive to either good sex or an egalitarian society.
-----------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 15, 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I'd have to disagree with redstar's second point, though. Not only would it be impossible to measure or determine, most interactions one has in society are based on unequal power relationships.
But we are egalitarians as a matter of principle, right?
We may not be able to "abolish" inequality in some mystical "absolute" sense...but I think we would like to create a "social climate" which praises relationships between equals and discourages unequal relationships.
It's not a matter of "laws", "prisons", etc. It's more along the lines of what we think a "communist culture" should be "like".
quote:
Most adults could be seen to have authority over teenagers in some sense and older teenagers can have an authority over younger teenagers.
Well, there is the "authority" of greater experience -- you "should" do "what I say" because "I know more than you".
But that's not what I had in mind when I suggested the formulation "no sex with those over whom you have authority".
I'm talking about implicit coercion..."I can make your life more pleasant if you agree to have sex with me and less pleasant if you decline to do so".
Indeed, such an arrangement is not really even about sex any more; it's about the exercise of power.
I don't think communist society should permit that to happen.
quote:
Has anyone else observed how people who can drive tend to get all the girls. A car seems to be the key to teenage girls hearts.
Dating is more convenient and pleasurable when private transportation is readily available.
But the reason goes deeper than that. Young women growing up in class society learn (often as a consequence of explicit parental instruction) that the financial resources that a young man might bring to a potential relationship are "very important".
It used to be said quite bluntly: It's just as easy to fall in love with a rich man as it is to fall in love with a poor man.
In addition, it was common to speak of women "marrying up" (a "good" thing) and "marrying down" (a "very bad" thing).
Only reactionaries use this kind of language now...but the cultural prejudices that reinforce this kind of thinking are still quite wide-spread.
You cannot "blame" young women for, at least on occasion, thinking in this way...it's just part of what it means to "grow up female" in a patriarchal society.
She must carefully consider her financial future and that of her potential children...she can't "count on society" to look out for her interests.
Needless to add, in a communist society every young woman (and young man) would have every confidence that their future material needs were 100% secure.
And I think that will make a significant positive difference in how women and men relate to each other.
-----------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 16, 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I hope that a communist society would have guidelines to ensure that those children under the age of 16 are not put into a position of thinking, like many today, that it is cool and trendy to be sexually active.
Don't get me wrong; at that age I would have jumped anything, but the point is, with hindsight, children at that age are not able to comprehend the consequences.
Free love does come with a price.
What part of that "price" is inherently a consequence of sexual activity and what part of it is a product of the existing society itself?
It was once widely believed that a woman who had sex with a man that she was not married to was a "whore"...someone who was unworthy of the respect shown to married women who only had sex with their husbands.
We now know that this "price" for "unlicensed sexual activity" was a social construct and, moreover, that the real purpose of that construct was the control of female sexuality in the interests of male inheritance of property.
So when you suggest the "free love" among people "under 16" has "a price", what are you getting at?
Do you refer to the existing "cultural disapproval" that might make the participants "feel bad about themselves"?
If so, then communist society will "let you down" in this respect. We will no more "disapprove" of adolescent sexuality than we will "disapprove" of eating, drinking, or breathing.
I can't imagine what else you may have in mind here. I know there is a mythology about the so-called "emotional damage" alledgedly "suffered" by those who become sexually active at a young age...but I have no reason to believe that there's a word of truth in it. It sounds like an idea made up by those who envy the young their youth and would like to spoil things for them as much as they can.
Sort of like "masturbation causes blindness and insanity".
-----------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 16, 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------
quote:
quote (redstar2000):
2. People in positions of authority should not be permitted to have sex with anyone subject to their authority.
In communism, I thought we would eliminate authoritarian relations.
The promise of communist society is that a good deal of institutionalized authority that presently exists will no longer be around to plague us.
Our "cultural bias" with be against arbitrary authority no matter what kind of "legitimacy" it attempts to invoke.
But imagine this: a bright young (and rather attractive) woman wants to join a collective that is doing some kind of work that appeals to her...and she gets the not very subtle hint that her chances of getting accepted into this particular collective would improve sharply if she was willing to have sex with the guy who was conducting the interview.
That's abuse of authority even in a communist context.
And, as I noted, we should not permit that to happen.
quote:
The facts are out there about early sexual behaviours having caused serious problems further down the line.
Perhaps you should be more specific about this.
In particular, what portion of these "serious problems" are a consequence of living in a society which "officially" condemns adolescent sexuality?
Not to even mention, of course, all the "serious problems" that arise just from attempting to survive in a class society.
I rather doubt that there's much research into those kinds of "serious problems."
quote:
Utopian ideas of children being equal to their parents does not bode well for the future.
Well, they certainly don't "bode well" for certain kinds of "futures"...those who desire to "restore the ancient bonds" between parents and children seem almost certain to be deeply disappointed with the passage of time.
You know, of course, that all proposed changes in human society are customarily derided as "utopian".
That usually translates into something like I don't like it and "therefore" it will never happen.
quote:
Children have all kinds of ideas which may sound fine to them, but in the harsh reality of today would scare the hell out of all parents.
Well, it is precisely "the harsh reality of today" -- known as capitalism -- that we propose to overthrow and destroy.
quote:
The historical practice is that of mother knows best, because historically who picked the child up when it cries, who looks after it, would teach it how to interact, who feeds it.
Yes, but surely we have learned that "mother" and, for that matter, "father" as well do not necessarily "know best".
We are not simply animals that "instinctively" know how best to raise our young. It's something that must be learned.
quote:
Will we be issuing the pill or condoms to children like they do now and hope that they act properly, for the good of society?
I do not know what you mean in this context by the phrases "act properly" and "for the good of society".
I am completely certain that whatever the birth control/disease prevention technology of future communist society might be, it will be available to anyone on request.
I expect that technology to be a considerable improvement over what is presently available.
quote:
Or are you advocating an anarchist approach to under age sex?
Perhaps in your eyes I am. Certainly the very concept of "underage sex" sounds medieval to my ears.
Modern neo-puritans have a more "scientific-sounding" phrase: age-inappropriate sexuality. It's the same old crap but with a "new image".
quote:
This society has over the years put in place guidelines to stop children being taken advantage of.
No, I don't think the "guidelines" of which you speak have anything at all to do with "stopping children from being taken advantage of"...although that is often the rationale behind repressive legislation directed against the young.
quote:
Responsibility within a communist society falls on everyone to insure those unable to comprehend results of said activities are steered away from decisions that could affect them in the future.
Are you suggesting an "anti-sex" movement that goes around preaching to adolescents "just say no to sex"? *laughs*
Won't happen.
-----------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 17, 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------
==================================================== |
|
| |
|
|
Navigation |
·
Welcome
·
Theory
·
Guest Book
·
Hype
·
Additional Reading
·
Links
·
Contact
|
|
Latest Theory
Collections |
· Communists Against Religion -- Part 19 June 6, 2006
· Conversations with Capitalists May 21, 2006
· Vegetable Morality April 17, 2006
· Parents and Children April 11, 2006
· The Curse of Lenin's Mummy April 3, 2006
|
|
Defining Theory
Collections |
·
What Did Marx "Get Wrong"? September 13, 2004
·
Class in Post-Revolutionary Society - Part 1 July 9, 2004
·
Demarchy and a New Revolutionary Communist Movement November 13, 2003
·
A New Type of Communist Organization October 5, 2003
·
The "Tools" of Marxism July 19, 2003
·
Marxism Without the Crap July 3, 2003
·
What is Socialism? An Attempt at a Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
What is Communism? A Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
A New Communist Paradigm for the 21st Century May 8, 2003
·
On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts May 8, 2003
|
|
Random Quote |
| The "rule of law" is just another way of saying the "rule of the rich"...since they are the ones who make the laws.
|
|
Search |
| |
Statistics |
|
·
There have been 2 users active in the past 15 minutes.
|
|
