I think that “we” think children are non-sexual beings because we believe in this concept of the innocence of childhood. [When I say “we,” I mean a western society with specific norms concerning sexuality. These norms suggest that children should be non-sexual.] We believe, as @ChazMaz suggests, that ignorance is bliss.
Why do we want children to be innocent? I think it is because, as adults, we know the difficulties we have in negotiating our daily lives, and we hope to confer a period of time on our children where they have few worries, or where their worries increase in a gradual manner. There is a practical reason from letting worries increase gradually: it facilitates learning if you don’t dump everything on a child at once. Children seem to have a much harder time when they try to learn everything at once.
We try to protect children from violence, danger and death. Sexuality can be dangerous and harmful if people are not somewhat prepared to understand what happens and how to protect themselves from it’s harms. So can a lot of other things. We don’t throw children into running corporations when they are three years old. We have children gradually assume responsibilities as they grow more capable.
The question then becomes when should we start the process of educating children about sexuality. Personally, I think it should be earlier than what I perceive the normative thinking on this issue suggests. I have no hang-ups about innocence. I feel it is my job to prepare my children for autonomy as fast as possible. I can’t be around them all the time, and they need to learn quickly, including about sexuality. We start training them when we think they are capable of understanding, and only what we think they are capable of understanding.
At the beginning it’s about “good touch” and ‘bad touch.” Defining bad touch can be tricky. As many people have pointed out, most kids “play doctor.” Is that inappropriate? Most child psychologists think not. So kids touch each others genitals, but since they are kids, it is exploration, and not very dangerous. However, if it is an adult touching, then it can be much more dangerous. Adults could seriously hurt children by using them in ways the children don’t understand and are not prepared to deal with.
After “good touch” and “bad touch” it grows from there, as children become more educated and capable of making more sophisticated distinctions using their own logic. I’m not going to trace the course of sexual education, but I will point out that it is an area where there is much disagreement between adults as to when children are ready for what knowledge about sex.
I would argue that not all of us consider children to be non-sexual beings. People who do think that have a limited notion of what sexuality is. I think they think sexuality is confined to things like intercourse and mutual pleasuring, or using another person for one’s own pleasure.
The innocence theory of childhood wants to keep children from knowing things about sex or war or violence for as long as possible. They believe that if you don’t show kids images of these things, and they don’t personally experience any of these things, then they don’t have to deal with them. I think this is looking at the world through rose tinted glasses. Children need and can understand things about death and violence and sex from early on. They can understand more than the “innocence” theorists believe. I’m not saying we dump everything on them; just that they can handle more than the “innocence” camp believes they can.
As such, I think that sexual play is appropriate, in that it prepares children to handle these issues as they grow up. Children can dress up, wear makeup, and apply non-permanent “tramp stamps” without learning they are merely supposed to be sex objects or work in the sex trades when they grow up. It all depends on context, and how children are introduced to these things. We, as parents, can help them understand the implications of these things.
However, since most people believe in childhood innocence to one degree or another, when they see a nine year old with a tramp stamp, they assume the child is innocent and has no idea what the tramp stamp means. So it concerns them.
Should they be concerned? Not necessarily. Maybe the kids do know exactly what they are doing. Perhaps their parents or teachers have already discussed these issues with them. Even if they haven’t, children are not dumb. They see things on TV or in the real world, and they know what happens. In the old days, kids knew about sex because they saw animals doing it all the time.
These days, kids understand about “sexy” as a concept from age three or four, I bet. I know my daughter and her classmates were using the term by age five or six. They did not fully understand it, but they knew that it was a thing that made people like you. It is a thing that raises your status. They probably think it is just about clothes and looking attractive.
When parents tell them not to try to look sexy, I’m sure it confuses kids for a while. Of course, kids are always seeing contradictions between the way people actually behave and the things their parents and others tell them to do. They learn to deal with this confusion in one way or another. Sometimes it creates psychological problems such as enormous guilt when their bodies want to feel a way they have learned to believe is morally wrong.
But life is confusing and there are mixed messages everywhere and children deal with it. Many people are quite successful despite having all kinds of sexual problems. Children can be abused sexually or see death and violence in war and still grow up to be functional adults. They’ll have a different understanding of the world from a child whose “innocence” was protected, but who is to say which one is better, or better functioning?
There are dangers to not preparing children soon enough. It can result in teen pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases. There are arguments on how to prepare (sex education vs abstinence education), but both sides are trying to prepare their kids, and I believe both sides are well-intentioned.
There are probably also dangers to providing more information than kids can handle, or to providing it in a misleading way. Kids might learn about the specifics of sex early on, and then try it out, where they might not have tried it if they didn’t know about it. Some people believe that knowledge is a double-edged sword—it can help, but it can also lead people into danger. Which is more likely? Your answer to that will depend on what you think about childrens’ capabilities.
In conclusion, let me say that I believe in more information sooner. I believe that the information can be provided in a context that will prepare kids, not lead them into danger. I believe that I am a parent who can do that well. I’m sure others doubt their capabilities of preparing children until the kids are much older. I think they would also prepare their kids in a very different way. We might call each other bad parents, depending on our theory of sex education, but beneath all that, we all have the same goal: keeping our children out of danger.
Composing members:
0
Composing members:
0
