Children Fucking Children
| October 19th, 2007In light of the articles passing ’round about a school that’s giving contraception to twelve-year-olds (for instance and this post and this comment thread), I have to confess that I’m really surprised at the level of vehemence in the liberal blogosphere against twelve-year-olds having sex with other twelve-year-olds.
I don’t necessarily object to individual parents being worried about their individual children. They understand the context of their own individual child’s situation. What I object to are remarks indicating that, without context, it is universally true and observable that any twelve-year-old child is too young to be enjoying his or her sex organs with another twelve-year-old, and which ground the argument in that supposedly objective truth.
Personally, I didn’t fuck until I was legal, but let me be the first to confess that there was some prudery in that. It’s not like I wasn’t having orgasms; I was just having them in private. At the same age as I was when my fingers and I were having an exclusive relationship, my fiance started trading oral. He licked his first pussy in his early teens, but saved the PIV until he was twenty. Is he less implicated in the prevalent tut-tutting because he restricted his activities to tongue and hands, or is he to be condemned for the bad decision of starting to cuddle up with his best friend’s slightly older sister?
At twelve, I wasn’t dating. I resented the slow encroachment of sexuality on my sheltered little life. I have a memory of viewing girls who wore make-up as traitors. Heck, even when I was sixteen — at which point I had started dating — I carried a strong prudish streak like a chip on my shoulder. My twenty-seven year old brother brought home a woman his own age who he hadn’t been dating very long, and they slept together in his bedroom. A few weeks later on a shopping trip, I observed to my mother, “I don’t disapprove of premarital sex, but I think people should know each other longer before they do it.”
She gave me a pitying look and said, “When I was a bit older than you, I used to think sex was a natural out-growth of conversation…”
Back to junior high: my parents would rent R movies, often videos that I myself had picked out because I thought the plot summaries looked interesting. We’d settle down to watch them together. My parents would get interested, and I’d get annoyed. I wasn’t disturbed by the sexual content. I was fucking bored out of my skull watching Jennifer Aniston and male lead trade innuendos, and so after half an hour of mind-numbing tedium, I’d go into my room and read a book.
Sexually, I grew up slowly and out of step with my peers. When I was twelve, I clearly wasn’t ready for sex. So I didn’t do it. All the birth control opportunities in the world could never have changed my mind. As a matter of fact, I had as much opportunity as I needed: I’d been told that when I wanted to become sexually active, I was to inform the parents and be given birth control. My reaction to this was along the lines of, “Ugh, no thanks, I don’t plan to have sex in high school.”
Which was a resolution I kept to. It wasn’t until I got to college and decided I was done being self-righteously virginal that I started fucking.
I was chaste and judgmental, but certainly not morally superior to my happily-sucking and -fingering fiance. We grew up differently. Neither of us made bad decisions. We made the right decisions for ourselves. He was ready for phsyical intimacy with another person his own age, and I wasn’t.
Not every child has the benefit of making the right decision for himself or herself. As people have pointed out on these threads, the likelihood of young girls having their first sexual experiences after being coerced into sex by older men gets higher the younger thant the girls are. This is a tragedy. Other children make errors about what they want. Maybe they think they’re ready for sex when they aren’t and they end up doing something they regret. Some children undoubtedly pressure and exploit other children, and this is also a really big problem that stems from our culture’s fucked-uppedness about consent. But it’s exploitation or making the wrong decision that’s the problem. Clinging to virginity, or slipping early into sexual exploration, are not themselves the indicators of either a good or bad decision.
Two enthusiastic twelve year olds pressing together their sticky bits? Let me sum up the depths of my not caring. Help them be safe and let them make each other happy, and then do what I did when my parents were watching an R-rated movie: go read a book.
October 19th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
I couldn’t agree more. Christ almighty our culture is terrified of sex.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
I don’t approve of, but can understand and accept, providing barrier methods to middle-school-aged kids. That’s what this school (and many others) have been doing.
The new policy will provide hormonal birth control - the pill - without seeing the kids’ individual doctor, without direct parental involvement, to school kids. That seems problematic; hormonal birth control isn’t Tylenol. It has major effects on the body.
Parents have to sign a consent form for the kids to use the clinic - but the consent form doesn’t give permission for specific areas, it’s an all-or-nothing. So if you want your kid to be able to go in and get a splint from the nurse, you also have to open the door for them to be able to get birth control pills. Other commenters have noted the class privilege manifest in this; poor parents who want help for their kid lose the ability to monitor their health decisions with the “context of their own individual child’s situation”, while rich parents don’t need the clinic. Rich parents get to be the gatekeeper for their children; poor parents get to choose between that or letting their kids go without medical help.
I have no illusions that parents always make the right decisions for their kids, but I also think that for an 11 or 12 year old, the parent needs to be the primary arbiter. This policy completely undermines that, and puts the state in the role of health care gatekeeper to children.
And that’s unacceptable.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
I’ve been working with 12 and 13 year olds, since I am ultimately interested in teaching those ages, and they don’t have the maturity to be sexually active. I do not think this because I’m a prude, but because they are emotionally developing, and sex is a confusing thing. Just like I really don’t think 12 year olds are emotionally and intellectually mature enough to responsibly have credit cards, or vote, or drink, or drive, I don’t think they are ready to have sex, either.
That being said, I know some of them DO have sex, and they should be taught about safe sex and have access to the services they need. But I think it’s beyond the pale to state that generally, it’s okay for 12 year olds to have sex, and we should rather consider it to be a case-by-case thing if it’s NOT okay for them to have sex.
But children and teens (heck, and adults) need boundaries and expectations, and call me a prude, but I am 100% okay with saying that, “No, you should not be having sex at 12″ should be one of them.
This comment was written by exelizabeth.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Unacceptable? Funny, the lack of that is exactly what blighted my life when I was that age; I had no access to mental health care or social workers because my father was the primary arbiter and he didn’t want me to have that. I suffered in silence for a little over seven years because that primary arbiter cared far more about his ego than his children. I’d be in favour of all children having direct access to healthcare, advice, and mental health support when they needed it, whatever the issue. What you’re saying there, after all, is that the problem is when poor kids get BC when their parents would rather they didn’t - those privileged kids not getting BC because their parents say otherwise is just fine, you say?
Mandolin: I was a self-righteous virgin too - at first religiously, later due to personal choice, and I honestly don’t think I was being in any way a prude. I think I just instinctively knew that what I was being told sex looked like (woman=body, man=eyes and [disembodied] cock) was not something I wanted. I still don’t want it. I stopped being self-righteous when I finally found out, through reading, stumbling and luck, that there were other sorts of sex.
Have those 12-year-olds had that opportunity to learn what sort of sex they want? Maybe what they’re doing is learning. I’d still hazard it’s wiser to encourage them to leave the practical until after they’ve got the theory test down pat.
This comment was written by Thene.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
It’s such a sticky situation, really. I don’t think it is a good idea for people to have sex before they are ready- but they do. I don’t think birth control is going to mess up too many women- but it could. I think they both are adult decisions that young people are still going to make for themselves. In my opinion, it is better to err on the side of handing out the birth control than restricting it- better to have it in the hands of too many rather than too few.
Kids are having sex, and we need to accept it.
I was the self-righteous virgin (and pro-lifer) as well until my college sexual awakening. I get a little sick when I think about how contemptful I was back then.
This comment was written by JenLovesPonies.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
What you’re saying there, after all, is that the problem is when poor kids get BC when their parents would rather they didn’t - those privileged kids not getting BC because their parents say otherwise is just fine, you say?
Yes.
Someone has to have the final say for children, and that someone should be the parents. I believe that the net harm of that system is less than the net harm of any other system.
But I am really sorry that you went through what you did.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
I was wondering how the sexually active boys were being treated, and discovered on one of the sites I found about the story that the clinics at all three of the middle schools in Portland have been making condoms available for the past seven years.
It seems that didn’t do the job, although I’m glad to know they at least tried that first before trying to offer contraceptives to barely pubescent girls.
But now I have all these other questions.
Did they make the condoms available to both boys and girls? Did they offer sex ed starting in the 5th grade? That’s 8 or 9 years old for most kids, but 10 for some.
Also, how old were the partners of the girls who got pregnant? Were they having sex with their age peers, or boys 2, 3 or 5 years older? Or even older than that?
If indeed the boys were much older, I can see a lot of reason for taking bigger steps to do whatever the schools could to protect the girls from conceiving. But in that case, how much of the experience for these girls was concensual, and how much of it was coerced? Were any of the girls sexually assualted by a family member or family “friend”?
And in that case family consent to participate in the school clinics would be highly problematic, espcially if the custodial parent was also the perpetrator.
If any of this is possible for me to imagine, it’s possible that any or all of the above is part of the posted story’s narrative. In which case, the greatest good is to protect the girls enough so that they can be girls, not premature women, for as long as they need to be. So they CAN decide to be sexually active with someone they genuinely have feelings for when and IF they go to college.
Meanwhile, if the girls and boys ARE age-mates, they should still have the full compliment of contraceptives available to them, if for no other reason than to prevent STDs, because I’d imagine they are not all exclusive relationships, and we all know (but they might not) that the higher the number of sexual partners, the higher the chances of catching STDs.
I’m with the schools in the supporting their students the way they’re doing. I am curious what kind of health and social support outside of contraceptives is available, though, and why those supports don’t seem to be having enough of an effect.
Meanwhile, whatever socio-economic bracket the parents fit into, if they aren’t protecting their girls from way-too-early pregnancies, something is wrong and somebody needs to do something about it.
This comment was written by Eva.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Really? Then I don’t think I’d ever have had sex. Sex itself was what taught me what sex was. Fun but fairly silly, not some kind of moment out of a book.
(Just in case I misread what you were saying, I wanted to clarify: I don’t think I should have had sex, at twelve or before I did at all. I just don’t have a problem with kids experimenting and enjoying their bodies, together or separately.)
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
I couldn’t agree with this post more. I would prefer my 12 year old was not having sex at that age, but if they were, I would hope to hell there was a place that they could go to act responsibly about their choices and prevent unwanted pregnancies. Offering birth control isn’t going to make anyone who doesn’t want to have sex take it. In actuality, it will allow kids who are making “adult decisions” to act responsibly and that’s a really good thing… taking ownership over your own actions. It will only prevent the pregnancies that would already be happening, and also offer a method of monitoring students who are engaging in sexual activity. If a student is getting birth control from a school health center, they can also be given std information, annual exams, relationship violence… ect.
Also, per your other post about many young girls being involved in abusive relationships where their young male partners were actively trying to get them pregnant, this would be a good way for the girl to take control of her own life and body and act to prevent that pregnancy, without the embarassment of telling her parents or having her boyfriend find out.
That, in my book, is win/win.
This comment was written by dylan.Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Deep Thoughts
by Jack Handey
I believe in making
This comment was written by Megalodon.the world safe for
our children,
but not for our
children’s children,
because I don’t think
children should be
having sex.
Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 8:18 am
I don’t think 12 years olds should have sex.
By and large, they’re not ready to do so. Are there some who are? Sure–but so what? The harm from having sex too soon vastly exceeds the harm of delaying sex for a little while. It’s not as if they have to wait very long. If I were to name an “acceptable” (don’t LIKE it, but seems more acceptable) it would be, what, 15? 16? That’s far from a lifetime.
I think most parents agree.
So then what? I balance my desire for an outcome (no 12 year olds having sex) with the benefits conferred by birth control. And I would support it: the BC benefits exceed the BC harms. So sure: give the BC to the kids
BUT I am still vehemently opposed to a general rule that says it’s OK for 12 year olds to have sex. those aren’t opposites.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 8:57 am
I have two young daughters. When they’re 12 I definitely want to be part of the decision on whether they take hormone based BC.
I don’t want someone else telling them that they CAN I don’t want someone else telling them that they cannot.
In general I’m very skeptical about any rule that says other’s are better able to make decisions, especially medical decisions, for children than their parents. I think a 12 year old should be consulted but I don’t think they should have the final say.
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 9:03 am
The post does not argue that people are being hypocritical for approving of the BC and not approving of the sex. Actually, I don’t think it argues anything about the BC, other than that the “making BC available will force 12-yr-olds-to-fuck!!!” meme is stupid.
I just think y’all are het up over very little cause, and generic terms like “too immature” and “not ready” and “it’s wrong” aren’t going to do much to change my mind. I’m not particularly convinced by harm reduction either; I think a society that discourages early sexual play is also, as Myca says, a society drenched in sexual shame, and sexual shame *is* damaging in the long term.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Two enthusiastic twelve year olds pressing together their sticky bits? Let me sum up the depths of my not caring.
Let me see if I follow your logic: Mandolin was unnecessarily prudish as a young’un, so it’s OK if twelve-year-olds fuck?
We’re not talking about masturbation or looking at pictures of naked people; we’re talking about involving another human being in sexual activity that carries certain risks and requires a certain amount of responsibility and maturity.
I imagine most of us would be indignant at a right-winger who said that 12-year-olds ought to be tried as adults. Why, then, do you insist that we should assume 12-year-olds have the judgment to understand and accept the risks of sexual activity?
On the middle school in question, we’re not talking about handing out condoms, but about dispensing prescription hormonal medication, correct?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 10:36 am
In case you were referring to me, i didn’t think you were making a hypocrisy claim in the first place.
But I think you’re using the word ‘force’ to cheat a little. Obviously, making BC available won’t “force” anyone to do anything.
But IMO, there is a time in folks’ lives where they don’t know much about sex. And at that point (which often though not always encompasses age 12) there probably IS some correlation between teaching them how to do it, making it safer for them to do it, acting on the assumption that they’re doing it… and actually doing it.
To use a random parental example, most kids will eventually want to stop shitting in their pants, all on their own. But if you make it easier for them to stop, and treat them in a manner that assumes they want to stop… they’ll get toilet trained earlier.
12 year olds aren’t three year olds of course. So perhaps a better analogy would be this, in a very general sense, illustrated with POSITIVE examples:
If we treat 12 year old children as if they are going to do something (be successful),
and if we make it easier for them to do it (by removing some of the barriers to success),
And if we teach them skills which they will need if they eventually start doing it (by teaching skills which successful people need to children who may not be successful yet)
we IMPROVE THEIR CHANCES of being successful.
i’m not sure why the same analysis doesn’t apply here.
Fair enough–”wrong” is pretty much a value call. What would change your mind?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 10:39 am
“Let me see if I follow your logic: Mandolin was unnecessarily prudish as a young’un, so it’s OK if twelve-year-olds fuck?”
There are definitely no anecdotes involving other people in my essay, so this is an entirely valid conclusion that erases no other discussion whatsoever.
“I imagine most of us would be indignant at a right-winger who said that 12-year-olds ought to be tried as adults.”
Sex is the same as a crime?
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 10:40 am
“i’m not sure why the same analysis doesn’t apply here.”
I’m not sure who you think I’m arguing against… there are a certain number of right wingers who do think that children are being forced to have sex. I don’t vastly disagree with your position.
“Fair enough–”wrong” is pretty much a value call. What would change your mind?”
I’m not sure; I haven’t seen it yet. I know that’s unhelpful, but I’m not trying to be snarky. I just haven’t.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Robert writes:
Robert, is there any mainstream news source documenting this aspect of the new rule?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 11:05 am
The news story that Shakes linked to.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Sex is the same as a crime?
12-year-olds have the maturity and judgment to choose to have sex, but they don’t have the maturity and judgment to refrain from, say, throwing rocks through their math teacher’s window? “We can’t treat them like little adults! Well, except when they’re fucking.”
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Your argument sounded pretty reasonable to me at first glance, Robert. But then I did a bit of research, and it turned out that you’re mistaken about some essential facts.
Robert wrote:
For many of the kids who use the clinic, the clinic doctor is their individual doctor.
This is absolutely untrue. The school nurse, who provides emergency medical care such as splints, is separate from the clinic. See here, and here. Parents who choose not to allow their kids to use the city health clinic located in the school are not cutting their kids off from splints or other typical school nurse services.
Again, not true. A child in Maine can go to any doctor at all, public or private, and have the legal right to have their reproductive health treatment kept private; it’s illegal for Maine doctors to disclose such things without the minor’s explicit permission.
So rich kids, who can come up with the money to pay a doctor or go to Planned Parenthood on their own, already have the ability to get birth control without their parents knowing. All this policy does is extend the same ability to kids without money — and then, only if their parents agree to let them use the clinic.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Robert:
I’m lost. How is the ‘net harm’ of children being able to, say, access mental health care without their parent’s knowledge, greater than the net harm of making the parent the arbiter? Or does that only apply to decisions about sex?
This has been a bit of a deal in the UK lately wrt abortion. It’s legal (also free) for an under-16 to have an abortion without her parents’ knowledge. A mother challenged this in court, saying that she had a ‘right to know’ if her daughter aborted. She lost. I’m still not seeing why a parent should know, especially in a society where contraception and sexual health advice is legal, confidential and free at the point of use. You seem to be implying that the mother did have a right to know - and a right to stop the abortion if she chose? I can’t imagine how giving parents ultimate control is going to help anyone.
If you’re sorry, could you explain how, if parents are the arbiters of medical and psychological care, you’d go about stopping what happened to me from happening to other children too? Do you see it as an unfortunate downside of your system (all systems have downsides, no need to pretend they don’t), or as something which can be fixed from within that system?
Continuing the driving test analogy, I don’t think it’s safe to be behind the wheel until you know the basic rules of the road. You can learn by experimenting, but if you’ve never been taught about contraception and about consent, or if you’ve been constantly told something that’s not true (like that it’s wrong for girls to feel desire), you are relatively likely to suffer, or cause, an accident. Of course you can never understand sex without having it, but I can’t easily believe that many 12-year-old really have a good grasp of the rules of the road. Is it ‘wrong’ for them to try it out? I wouldn’t say so. It’s just often going to lead them toward harm.
It’s often suggested that in cultures that are more open about sex - such as the Netherlands - children are likely to postpone sex longer than in cultures like the USA, because in an open, shame-free culture it’s easier to be sexually curious without fucking, and given the free choice between the two options, a large proportion of young teenagers would rather just look at porn. Some wouldn’t. But given that we don’t have that openness at King Middle School Maine, which is where it matters, I’d err on the side of recommending more theory.
This comment was written by Thene.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Amp - You’re right. I was misinformed about the specifics of the program. You can get nurse services w/o opening things up further. I withdraw the class privilege portion of my concerns.
Thene -
I’m lost. How is the ‘net harm’ of children being able to, say, access mental health care without their parent’s knowledge, greater than the net harm of making the parent the arbiter? Or does that only apply to decisions about sex?
I believe that if children make all the decisions, the total number of children harmed and the magnitude of those harms will be some sum X. If parents make all the decisions, the total harm will be some sum that is less than X. In any specific person’s case, there is probably one person or the other who will make the best decision (whether that’s the parent, the child, the doctor, or some random bureaucrat) - but “let the person who will make the best decision decide” isn’t one of the options we have.
If you’re sorry, could you explain how, if parents are the arbiters of medical and psychological care, you’d go about stopping what happened to me from happening to other children too? Do you see it as an unfortunate downside of your system (all systems have downsides, no need to pretend they don’t), or as something which can be fixed from within that system?
Unfortunate downside, mitigated (broadly) by helpful counsel from other family members, teachers, health care providers, clergy, etc. (That might not have been able to help you; I don’t know the details of your story.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
I think a society that discourages early sexual play
‘Sexual play’ is not the same as having sex with another human being. You don’t need the Pill for heavy petting.
I really resent the paleocon argument that if one is for a more sexually open society, one is in favor of no boundaries at all and think everybody should be fucking in one great orgy. I don’t like it much better coming from the Left.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
In all fairness, you DID say (emphasis added:)
which is why I assumed you weren’t talking about the right wingers.
So to alleviate my confusion, who are we talking about? Left wingers like me, who think 12 years olds having sex is generally a bad idea? Left wing people who think it’s a REALLY bad idea? Or the right wingers?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
The essay is critical of left wingers, including yourself.
The essay wasn’t about BC pills, specifically, except in asmuch as it argued against “BC pills force 12 yr olds to have sex!!!” meme, which is largely propagated against right wingers.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
And again, I’m wondering what the basis of that criticism is. It seems to be that Americans are pretty uptight about the idea that children do not remain utterly ignorant of anything related to sex until the moment they turn 18. I still don’t see how that means it’s no biggie if twelve-year-olds are engaging in sexual intercourse.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Mandolin:
“Sex is the same as a crime?”
Yes.
It is called soul murder.
Not every human being on this planet reacts the same way towards the sex act. And that it is called the sex act, and not intimacy (you hear practically NOTHING about intimacy, just rutting with each other like beasts), says alot about how so many people approach the issue of sex.
Dirty.
Filthy.
Nasty.
Hide it away in shame.
Do it quickly, especially with someone you give not a damn about, just as long as you get your gratification and give not a damn about the other person as a human being with feelings.
Grown men having coerced sex with young girls are committing more than just statutory rape (and that goes for female teachers who have sex with their male students).
These predator adults (male/female) are taking away a child’s innocence.
I can think of no 12-year-old child who is possibly ready for sex. Hell, there are some ADULTS at age 25-,35-, who are not ready for sex.
Yes, children will experiment. Children are curious. But, do I let a child (if I had one) run out all hours of the night because The johnsons down the street let their children run out all night? No. Do I just sit back and not be a part of my child’s life and leave EVERYTHING up to the school? No. Society? No. If I had a child, I would want the very best for that child, and hiding them from the joys (YES, THE JOYS) of sex would be a cop-out on my part. It would be my duty as that child’s parent to calmly and intelligently talk to them about intimacy (not just sex, big difference):
-I would talk to my child about the human body and all its mysteries;
-I would talk to my child about BC and all the many types, the failure rates, the success rates depending on the type of BC used;
-I would talk most especially about how the act of INTIMACY should be paramount in all people’s approach towards merging their bodies (and hopefully hearts and minds) with another human being.
But, I would also truthfully tell my child that there are predators AND loving humans out there in the world. I would do all I can to prepare my child for a world, and a country, that really does not care very much for its children. A country that merely gives lip service to what is supposed to be good for the children of this nation. A country that shows so little regard for its littlest citizens.
I would not want my child, if I had one, to start early on sex.
Play with the toy trains (and yes, girls can have toy trains instead of dolls. We need more female locomotive engineers, anyway), do girl gossip with your friends, go to chaparoned parties (yes, I am that archaic), and by all means, READ LOTS OF BOOKS.
This country has turned sex and intimacy into acts of perversion with its hypocrisy concerning sex:
-movies sometimes so explicit in the showing of sexual intimacy, that the movie borders on an NC-17 rating
-pornography
-near-pornography ads for products
-the perversion of interracial sex during slavery/segregation
-the mindless using of women/girls’s bodies to sell products (as if the damn product cannot sell itself on its own merit)
This country that shrieks so much against sex, but is the first to sneakaway and indulge itself in the most basest and hideous forms of mockery against one of the most beuatiful acts of human behaviour that God sought to give humankind—the act of intimacy.
“Sex is the same as a crime?”
Yes, ma’am.
It certainly can be.
Men (and women) who greedily use the body of another human being to satisfy their sexual lust, HAVE committed a crime.
A crime of the mind, a crime of the heart.
There are enough walking wounded among us, Mandolin, because some selfish sex-pig thought of no one but him/her-self. The damage that is done to people because of the callous disregard done in the name of sexual gluttony is appalling. You can tear a person apart (via this assault upon their mind) by having sex with them by thinking of yourself and your own pleasure, only, then casually disregarding that person the next day as if they are less than an animal.
Happens more than it should.
There are crimes committed against the statutes on the law books.
But, there also crimes committed against the souls and psyches of human beings; crimes that you cannot see nor put your finger on. They may not be man’s laws, but, they are God’s laws. Not ALL crime is what you see or read about in the papers.
Using sex for selfish pleasure and considering nothing for the feelings of another human being is a monstrous crime in and of itself.
Not all crimes involve just wrongs committed upon someone’s body. Not all crimes make the nightly news or the newspapers.
There are crimes committed against a person’s psyche.
Not all crimes are tangible.
Many crimes, Mandolin, are intangible.
Selfish, sex-gluttons who use young girls for sex have committed the worst crime (next to pregnancy or rape) that can be committed against a 12-year-old minor.
You ( in the plural sense) do not only harm a person’s body when you lay down with them. You can also harm their mind.
Just because the minor did not get pregnant, or does not catch an STD does not mean that a crime has not been committed.
Sex is when people just do it because they want to get it over with; because everyone else is doing it; because, “if it feels good, do it”.
Intimacy is caring enough for that other person and how they may react to this new experience.
And sometimes, NOT having sex with a person can be the ultimate act of love towards that person.
And no 12-year-old is that experienced to know what they are doing no matter how much America just luvs to treat her children as if they are pint-sized adults.
They are not.
They are children.
They deserve to remain children as long as they can, with the help of responsible, loving adults.
Let them stay children as long as they can.
Life, and the real world, will intrude soon enough upon them.
But, by all means, do prepare them for the real world and all of its pitfalls, snares and traps, as well as the love that can await them when they ARE ready for sexual intimacy.
I know your post is about 12-year-olds having sex with each other, and you did mention older males corecing girls. And yes, I know that there are some 12-year-olds having sex before they should. But, I would rather help any child I had to be forearmed by being forewarned. I would not shy away from telling my child about the birds and the bees, as well as about the wolves and the liars out there in the world. But, on the other hand, I would not give up on them and just let them be at the mercy of the world and all of its hells.
On the issue of a child if I had one.
Well, the following would be my child’s daily routine:
-get up go to school
-come home from school, do your homework
-wash the dishes
-read
-sweep the kitchen floor
-watch ONE HOUR OF TV, preferably the discovery channel, or PBS, etc.
On weekends:
-help with the gardening, cut the grass
-rake the yard, help plant/prune the citrus trees (depending on the season)
-go to the library
-go to a movie (with me OR a TRUSTED ADULT/RELATIVE)
-do volunteer work (definately mandatory in my house)
And those are just a few things I would do with my child if I had one.
Guess that would make me a very draconian parent. Well, so be it. Having children comes with tremendous responsibilities, and those responsibilities should not be taken lightly.
Giving children knowledge of BC is not forcing nor making them have sex. Giving children ammunition to go out prepared into the world, is not harming them. Talking to children about sex DOES NOT MAKE them rush out and jump on the nearest child. Didn’t do it with me. if anything, NOT TALKING to your chidren about sex, and hoping that sex will just go away is not only foolish, but, deadly wrong for your child. Hiding the knowledge of sex from your child will not make them think less of exploring sex; if anything, it will make them want to explore it more, and often with the wrong person.
The surest way to get someone to do something is to tell them NOT to do it. The surest way to make a person want something is to ban it, taboo it, wrap it up and hide it away, hoping that the child will just forget all about it.
Won’t happen.
Better to sit down and do all you can to explain sex and intimacy to your child before someone else with none of your child’s best interests in mind gets to them first before you do.
And believe me, the consequences will often be less deadly if you (in the plural sense) do your job first and foremost as a parent.
Preparing children for every aspect of life—marriage, love, work ethic, civility, critical thinking—are just some of the things a parent does to the best of their ability to prepare their child to be a responsible, capable adult.
Truth be told, no parent wants their child to begin sex until that child is at least 35 YEARS OLD.
But, in the real world, many parents will just settle for their child experiencing as little hurt, harm and hell as much as possible.
Sorry for the long-winded comment.
But, it breaks my heart the way people in this country treat sex as some diseased hot-potato that should be shunted behind a veil of secrecy and shame.
Sheesh.
You would think someone like me would have the stuck-up prudish attitude towards sex.
But, for some weird, whacko reason, the sexually active people seem to have the most messed up mentality concerning sex/intimacy.
At least from what I’ve seen out ther in the world.
Thanks for allowing me to speak my peace.
This comment was written by Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
October 21st, 2007 at 12:23 am
The post specifically specifies two enthusiastic twelve year olds. Your bile against predators is understandable, but misdirected.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
October 21st, 2007 at 12:09 pm
The post specifically specifies two enthusiastic twelve year olds
Right. So both partners having sex are children without the sufficient maturity to appreciate the potential risks and necessary precautions.
Obviously that doesn’t mean “well they shouldn’t be allowed to have contraceptives then”–for one thing, seeing a health professional in a confidential setting means they might get some sound education about sex. But I can’t think of any reason for the laissez-faire approach other than contrarianism.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
October 21st, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Robert:
The person who makes the decisions is the doctor. That goes for adults as well as children. This is not about who makes the decisions, it’s about access. Contraception does tend to be one of few areas where the patient often picks out their preferred treatment, but especially for someone so young, they are going to be getting a lot of information and advice before making that decision. Even when I was 19, I got a lot of pressure from a gyno because the contraception I’d picked wasn’t, in her eyes, ideal for my profile, and if I hadn’t been absolutely sure of myself I would’ve gone with her suggestion instead.
So this is about access. I can think of a lot of reasons a child might want medical access without parental knowledge; abuse and/or a requirement for privacy being involved in all. Suppose a child was being harmed by someone outside the home, and couldn’t face telling their family, but could approach a doctor? (And of course, suppose they were being abused within the family? Can you really say ‘hey, this is great for most of the kids with nice families, so we may as well tell the abuse victims to stuff it’?)
I’ll ask you again; should a parent be allowed to stop a child from having an abortion? I really would like a direct answer to that question. I know it’s an extreme case, but the extreme cases that are the only ones that matter. No one’s going to want to get past their parent to pick up flu medicine, are they?
(My problem was simply that I had only one parent, who was a paranoid right-wing fantasist who wanted to deny me access to necessary mental health care and to social workers because it didn’t fit with his politics. I eventually got help from one of the other health care providers you mentioned - I was referred for counselling by my GP seven years later, because I had severe insomnia; until then, my problems had been ignored by the teachers, and there were no other family members or clergy to intervene. I might add that asking me to rely on clergy is abominably shortsighted and ethnocentric, and makes it sound like you’re not that good at imagining how other people’s situations might look from the inside.)
This comment was written by Thene.Report this comment to the moderators
October 21st, 2007 at 2:21 pm
“But I can’t think of any reason for the laissez-faire approach other than contrarianism.”
I agree that sex is potentially dangerous in terms of disease and pregnancy. These things can be addressed.
I disagree that sex is inherently dangerous because of emotional entanglement … blah blah. There’s just nothing that special about sex.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
October 21st, 2007 at 3:01 pm
There’s just nothing that special about sex
Is this the NYT Journalism Approach? I don’t feel that way, therefore nobody does and they’re just silly if they claim they do, even if they’re children and therefore emotionally immature on top of everything else?
Saying that problems with sex “can be addressed” (clever use of the passive, btw) is another way you keep skating by the issue. Still not seeing much to your argument other than Look At Me! I’m Shockingly Contrary!
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
October 21st, 2007 at 11:55 pm
12 year olds should not be having sex. Period.
My take on it is this: your old enough to fuck when your old enough to pay your own bills ( which includes rent/morgage for the home your fucking in., ), afford to pay for your own abortion ( if that is what you would want to do in case of an unplanned pregnancy), or pay to raise your own kid ( if you would not be comfortable with an abortion).
And lets not even get into the emotional damage that can come from forming an emotional attachment to the other person during sex.
Basically, you need to be an adult mentally, physically, and emotionally. 12 year olds fulfill none of the requirements for adulthood.
Now, when I meet a full-time working, bill paying, emotionally mature 12 year old, he/she will get the green light from me to fuck all he/she wants.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
October 21st, 2007 at 11:59 pm
I would also like to say that schools like this are a large part of the reason that I will be homeschooling my kid. I don’t want teachers or counselors passing out contraception to her without my knowledge and I definitely don’t want her learning sex-ed from someone who would imply that there is no serious danger of emotional entanglement from fucking.
I hope the parents take a long hard look at their school and either accept the fact that their kids are getting contraception or take steps to bring the actions of the school back in line with their preferences.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
October 22nd, 2007 at 12:02 am
Jamila, you’re on really thin ice with me, just so you know. I’m not thrilled with what you do to threads, here or elsewhere. If I feel you bring more heat than light, I am going to ask you to stop commenting on my posts. For the record, implying I, or anyone who disagrees with you, is therefore unfit to be around children = heat.
Anyway, go ahead and explain why emotional entanglement is a serious danger. Not in serious danger of occuring — explain why emotional entanglement itself is a serious danger to children. And, while doing so, explain why emotional entanglement is a more serious danger when it comes to sex than it is a danger when it comes to allowing children to love family members, or trust clergymen or teachers, or make friends — or any of the other numerous activities we allow children, in which they grow emotionally involved — all of which are fully capable of betraying trust and injuring children.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
October 22nd, 2007 at 12:25 am
Mandolin,
1) I never said or implied that you are unfit to be around children, so don’t even mangle my words by insuating that I did.
2) I said that I don’t want someone with your view of sex teaching my kid about sexuality or giving her contraception. That is my right as a parent. I am in no way obligated to approve/disapprove of your view of sexuality and I am also not obligated to allow you, or someone else with your views, to teach my kid.
3) What you teach your own kids ( if you have any, I don’t know) or what other folks allow you to teach their kids is none of my business, has nothing to do with me, and is a subject that I probably couldn’t care less about.
4) The parents who are living in this school district should have the final say on what is appropriate for the school to do, since it is their children, not mine and not yours, that are being given contraception without parental ok.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
October 22nd, 2007 at 1:05 am
First, let me start by saying that children should be shielded from as much emotional upheaval as possible. If parents are divorcing and there are young children involved, the transition should be made as painless as possible. If there is a death of a close loved one in a family, everything that is possible should be done to ease the emotional trauma that a child might feel. I think we can agree that children are all better off when they are in an emotionally stable environment.
Sex is the same as the other emotional involvements but at the same time it is different. In all emotional attachments there is the chance for deep hurt, but when you have sex with someone that you also have feelings for, there is an added dimension to your attachment for that person. Not only does the emotional attachment have to be broken but so does the physical one; and, this is part of the reason that people have sex in the first place–because it deepens and strengthens our attachment to the person we are having sex with by adding a physical connection to the already present emotional connection.
Once you break up with someone you loved and were physically intimate with, you not only have to get over the feelings that you have for them but you also have to get over the way that they made your body feel–their kisses, their caresses, the particular way in which that person touched you.
It’s like the withdrawal that drug addicts go through. Many people start using drugs to blot out the pain that they feel in another area of their lives ( the emotional part) and after a while they find that they are addicted ( the physical part). In order for a drug addict to get off drugs they not only have to deal with the emotional issues that led them to use drugs in the first place but they also have the added problem of ridding themselves of the physical addiction.
Sex can sometimes make you believe that there is an emotional connection when all you really have is a physical connection. You think that because you just had a mind-blowing orgasm the other person sees you as more than a means to their physical pleasure when they really don’t. Just like the drug addict thinks that his problem is solved because he is too high to care about what is really bothering him.
The emotional attachments that we form in our youth to loved ones like family members, clergyment, teachers, friends etc., is the training that we need for the more mature attachments that we are to form as we grow older; we need this training in our youth of exclusively handling emotional attachments before we accept the added stress and responsibility of adding emotional/physical attachments to our repertoir.
For anyone, 12 year old or 40 year old, to take on more stress and responsibility than they have been prepared for is just a disaster waiting to happen.
The kids that don’t learn how to effectively navigate and deal with emotional attachments sans sex in their youth are just going to grow up and have all sorts of problems navigating emotional relationships that involve sex when they get older.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
October 22nd, 2007 at 1:55 am
I think mythago had a good point up thread. We don’t expect a 12 year old to be an adult. They break the law, maybe hurt people and we (generally) cut them some slack because they’re children.
A sexual relationship is complicated. It takes maturity and consideration for the feelings of your partner. I don’t think 12 year olds can be expected to have that maturity. We don’t allow 12 year olds to drive, or hunt with guns in many states, because the harm from a bad decision can be severe. Same thing here. I know your post stipulates two enthusiastic participants, but I don’t think that’s what you’d always get.
Also, i have to agree with Jamila, if you’re COMPLETELY unable to deal with the consequences you shouldn’t be having sex.
2nd best solution would be BC. So I’m happy that’s available. But in general I’d rather 12 year olds not have sex.
Also, i didn’t read her as saying you were unfit to be around children.
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:35 am
I apologize for misreading you, Jamila.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:43 am
Mandolin,
up in your original post you said, right at the end:
I’d like to dig into the “making the wrong decision” part.
Do you think that the consequences of a bad decision are tha same, whether the person has sex (when they shouldn’t have done so) or remains a virgin (when the needn’t have done so?)
I’m exposing a bit of my own bias by using “shouldn’t” as opposed to “needn’t.” this is deliberate: I can see situations where a 12 year old COULD have sex, but i can’t think of any realistic situations where a 12 year old NEEDS to have sex. And of course, i can think of all sorts of situations where a 12 year old *shouldn’t* have sex.
But my bias aside, can you elaborate on how you’re analysing this?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:51 am
Sailor, will email.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:47 am
With regards to sex (and a whole lot of other things, for that matter) people shouldn’t have the freedom to commit an act unless they can take responsibility for at least the first-order/immediate consequences of that act.
Twelve-year-olds can’t do that. There’s the emotional attachments that can be formed that no twelve-year-old can deal with adequately. There’s the possibility of pregnancy - neither one of them can deal with that, there’s a rather good possibility that carrying a child to term can harm the girl’s body, and having her get an abortion (a 12-year-old is not mature enough to make her own decision on that) carries emotional baggage as well.
Maybe because this has nothing to do with politics. Why should liberals and conservatives see this differently? Summarizing this issue as being one of prudery or hypocrisy or religious belief appears to me to be trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. You want to talk about whether or not one opposes a couple of unmarried 21-year-olds from having sex, fine. All those may or may not apply. But thinking that the responsible way to deal with 12-year olds having sex is to provide them with birth control seems highly inappropriate to me and borders on child neglect.
To involve politics in this so as to favor facilitating 12-year olds having sex approaches using or even abusing children in the name of promoting a political agenda.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:25 am
I have to agree with some of the other dissenters here - I think the problem that people have with underage kids having sex with each other is the same as we’d have if they were driving, or handling guns. Let’s be blunt: sex is DANGEROUS. You can get a terminal disease, or a pregnancy, if you’re not careful. And you can also be severely emotionally screwed-up by it. Adolescents are not careful, either with their bodies or with the emotions of themselves or others.
It’s not out of some sense of prudery that I want to keep 12-year-olds from having sex, but simply out of genuine concern for their safety (since I’m well-aware that they have none of their own).
Then again, who knows? Maybe getting it on at a young age would get them to stop simultaneously worshiping and fearing sex like we adults do. But it’s pretty bizarre uncharted territory that I’d rather not have my own kids wander into.
This comment was written by Silenced is foo..Report this comment to the moderators
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:44 am
Maybe I’m unnecessarily prudish, but I absolutely do not think 12 year olds have any business whatsoever having sex. Period. And I don’t know the details of this particular story (I’ve largely been ignoring them), but if Robert is right and the school is handing out hormonal BCPs to 12 year olds without consulting their physicians and without parents there to provide a complete and total medical history, well, that’s just plain dangerous.
I don’t think providing birth control will make 12 year olds have sex. I don’t especially have a problem with early sex ed, the importance of proper condom use, etc being provided by schools. BUT, I do not think 12 year olds should be having sex. There’s absolutely no question in my mind that the relative harm of early sex for children is outstanding and not something I’m going to condone.
12 year olds have a lot of other things going on without adding the incredibly complex world of sexual relationships. It is not an objective truth, but then, there are really very few objective truths in this world. In this society, at this particular point in time there are an awful lot of arguments that support the notion that it’s BAD for 12 year olds to have sex. Just like I care about the fact that I think it’s BAD for 12 year olds to be smoking pot, or smoking cigarrettes or drinking alcohol to excess. Forget about legal implications for a moment, there are a lot harms that come from 12 year olds being involved in that stuff. There is a significant qualitative difference between a 12 year old and an 18 year old. It’s not “just 8 years” it’s a meaningful 8 years and the 8 years of waiting to engage in a lot of the above can mean the difference between healthy and happy outcomes for people and bad outcomes for people.
I care a GREAT DEAL about whether or not my 12 year old has sex. But, I also care a great deal if other 12 year olds are having sex, just like I would care if 12 year olds are not getting a good education, experimenting with controlled substances, etc. I kind of think it’s irresponsible NOT to care.
This comment was written by Kate L..Report this comment to the moderators
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:32 am
No problem. Apology accepted.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:05 am
Sidestepping the “should 12 year olds have sex” debate, I think a bigger concern is the Pill, actually. Unless there is some kind of preexisting condition, wouldn’t any kind of hormonal BC screw up your kid’s hormones? Maybe other children aren’t as sensitive to the effects of messing with their endocrine systems because we already poison them with who-knows-what.
This comment was written by Meep.Report this comment to the moderators
October 22nd, 2007 at 5:50 pm
But thinking that the responsible way to deal with 12-year olds having sex is to provide them with birth control
Nobody (I hope) is saying that the only thing we should do if a 12-year-old has sex is to give them prescription contraceptives. The debate about the ethics of a clinic providing medical care, including prescriptions, without a parent’s permission is really different from Mandolin’s glib assertion that it’s no big deal if 12-year-olds fuck.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
October 22nd, 2007 at 5:58 pm
“Mandolin’s glib assertion that it’s no big deal if 12-year-olds fuck.”
Which, ftr, is what I’m asserting, not that 12-yr-olds should have sex. I just think it’s a moral neutral, or a moral “would you please close the door to your room?”
Much like my friend’s 5-yr-old son who is quite fond of groping his penis. “Honey, it is okay if you touch yourself in private, but right now your door is open. And you’re supposed to be doing your homework.” “I needed to write my name!” “With your penis?” *small child giggling*
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Mythago said:
Nobody (I hope) is saying that the only thing we should do if a 12-year-old has sex is to give them prescription contraceptives.
What Mandolin proposed was to help them have sex safely and happily and then go read a book while they’re having at it. So perhaps I summarized a bit, but I think the spirit is the same.
I was sitting in a hotel bar in Japan talking to a couple of Scouters from other countries about our mutual issues in dealing with Venturing Crews. A Venture Crew is a Scouting unit formed up of young men and women ages 14 - 21. Take a group like that out into the woods, get them running around in all that fresh air and certain complications can ensue. The rules say “no sex” in all our countries (unless the couple involved in married, at least in the U.S.). My question was, how do you guys handle this. I was told that “the official word is ‘no sex, no drugs’, but if it appears that a particular couple’s getting together is inevitable, we give them condoms.” It’s definitely not official policy, though, even overseas; that was more ‘here’s how I would handle it’, not ‘here’s policy’ or ‘here’s what everyone else does’. And that’s for older kids. God knows if I got caught doing that and word got back to the Council office, I’d be out of Scouting. If I got caught doing that for 12-year-olds I’d probably get arrested, and deservedly so.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:30 am
I just think it’s a moral neutral, or a moral “would you please close the door to your room?”
And, again, why? Because people who think otherwise are big old prunes?
No, it is not like your friend’s five-year-old masturbating. Do you also think it’s no big deal if five-year-olds fuck? All sex play is one, right?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
October 23rd, 2007 at 11:23 am
Jamila, some of the bloggers here can’t entirely afford to pay their own bills. They’re not ready to have sex? Many people have some parental support all the way through their PhD. Celibate to graduation, you say? There are people on public assistance or reliant on charitable contributions the world over; some people will be their entire lives. Do you think they need to do without? Should homeless people be fitted with chastity devices? Were you engaged in hyperbole, or were you actually making the argument that readiness for sex is dependent on financial means?
This comment was written by Thomas, TSID.Report this comment to the moderators
October 23rd, 2007 at 11:29 am
(FWIW, I don’t think 12 year olds are ready for intercourse either; and I’m generally in favor of a longer developmental timeline of partnered play before PIV or PIA intercourse, the latter two being freighted with more physical consequences, and for some people more emotional ones. However, the idea that we should be using ability to pay the bills as a proxy for maturity strikes me as the most … ill considered idea I’ve seen floated here.)
This comment was written by Thomas, TSID.Report this comment to the moderators
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:12 pm
I had sex with a very young teenager when I was myself a very young teenager. It was probably the least fraught or scaring sexual relationship I’ve ever had. But it was also kind of an ideal universe in which i had access to condoms and birth control and a lot of sex ed; so much that when I realized that PIV sex didnt really do much for me the first time I put a six month moratorium on it until my partner and I figured out how to work all the parts better.
I agree with Mandolin, in part, because I think that the ways sex hurts young teens has less to do with sex per se thank with the damage caused by having experiences that are out of your control, and result in consequences you couldn’t anticipate due to lack of knowledge and/or psychological development. There are ways to limit these harms and we should.
When I say I agree with Mandolin, I mean that I agree that I’m not promoting 12 year olds fucking, but I’m unwilling to say its alway harmful and never ok or positive.
This comment was written by curiousgyrl.Report this comment to the moderators
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:23 pm
I’ve spent some time trying to write a really good, all-around response to this post and thread, and you know, I’m just giving up and posting as stream of consciousness. There are so many interlocking pieces here that I think it would take a far better writer than I to express my thoughts. But I’ll try to be coherent!
1. This school has a city clinic in it. This says to me that the vast majority of the students do not have easy access to good medical care. Therefore I suspect, even if the article doesn’t say so explicitly, that the doctor(s) at the clinic are the primary care providers for most of the students who use the clinic. Also, if this clinic runs the way many clinics I know of do, the primary care providers are notified of medications and so on by the clinic, if the parents have provided that authorization. So even if the parents don’t know about the BC, the health care providers do, most of the time.
2. The only problem I have with the parents not knowing about their children using hormonal BC is that, in an emergency situation where the child may not be capable of communicating, the parents would not be able to give the health care professionals a complete list of medications. (This might also be a problem if the parent is big into over-the-counter remedies or natural medicine.)
3. I grew up in a small, rural/suburban community. My class size was about 200. In 5th grade, I knew of 3 couples who were having sex on a regular basis, at 10 years old. Also, in 6th grade, there were 2 girls who began having sex with older boys. So I was not shocked to hear that this school was providing condoms and hormonal BC. Due to the high rates of child abuse in this country, I believe there are preteens and young teens from all different backgrounds who are having sex, even if it’s not good for them, and my first thought when I heard this story on the radio was that the school authorities must be aware of a staggering amount of child abuse in their community to take this step. It might not be an optimal solution, but at least these girls won’t be getting pregnant at 12 years old.
4. Parents ought to be the people who know what’s best for their children. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Just as there are curious kids who explore sex, there are adults who are too messed up (pick your definition of messed up) to do right by their kids. There are parents who don’t tell their girls about menstruation, so the girls think they are dying. There are parents who tell boys their penis will fall off if they masturbate. There are parents who have sex with their kids, or sell sexual access to their kids, or use their kids as bait to gain sexual access to other people’s kids. Letting a kid go to a clinic and get BC without notifying the parents could be the difference between a runaway or beaten child and a student who stays in school. Just because you (believe you) are a good parent doesn’t automatically mean that bad parents are the rare exception - to me that attitude stinks of privilege, and it smells a lot like white middle-class male privilege.
5. 12-year-olds having sex happens, just like 12-year-olds getting drunk happens. In a good and perfect world, it wouldn’t happen very often. I would prefer that adults do their best to make sure said 12-year-olds understand about sex and alcohol to the extent that they choose to wait until they’re older and better able to handle it, but I think we also have to be aware that said 12-year-olds may not be making the decisions on their own and need to be cushioned from the consequences of adults or older kids doing stuff to them.
‘Nuff said for now. I’m still wrapping my mind around the angles.
This comment was written by Original Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:24 pm
But it was also kind of an ideal universe in which i had access to condoms and birth control and a lot of sex ed; so much that when I realized that PIV sex didnt really do much for me the first time I put a six month moratorium on it until my partner and I figured out how to work all the parts better.
I’d love to know what your parents did so I can replicate it. I hope my kids are that mature about sex in their teens.
This comment was written by Thomas, TSID.Report this comment to the moderators
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:34 pm
The only problem I have with the parents not knowing about their children using hormonal BC is that, in an emergency situation where the child may not be capable of communicating, the parents would not be able to give the health care professionals a complete list of medications.
Parents ought to be the people who know what’s best for their children. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Just as there are curious kids who explore sex, there are adults who are too messed up (pick your definition of messed up) to do right by their kids.
The only way I could approve of the first scenario is if there is proof of the second scenario.
Just because you (believe you) are a good parent doesn’t automatically mean that bad parents are the rare exception - to me that attitude stinks of privilege, and it smells a lot like white middle-class male privilege.
Are you saying that you believe that only white middle-class males make the presumption that they are good parents? Do you believe that non-white middle-class males don’t presume they are good parents? Do you believe that non-white middle-class males cannot be presumed to be good parents? What are you saying here?
12-year-olds having sex happens, just like 12-year-olds getting drunk happens. In a good and perfect world, it wouldn’t happen very often.
In a good and perfect world, it wouldn’t happen at all.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:42 pm
“I needed to write my name!” “With your penis?” *small child giggling*
O.K. Political joke, feel free to substitute your own favorite politicians in it:
President Clinton look out a window of the Oval Office one fine January day and sees “Clinton sucks!” written in the snow in a yellow script. He calls the Secret Service and asks them to investigate who did it. He figures he could get them on vandalism, trespassing, etc., etc.
The Secret Service comes back and says, “Mr. President, we have some bad news.” “What?” “Well, we did a DNA analysis of the urine, and we found it it was Al Gore.” “Oh!” But he thinks to himself, well, that’s not so bad, he’s just jerking my chain. Then the Secret Service man says, “Mr. President, we have some other bad news.” “What’s that?” “Well, it’s Hillary’s handwriting.”
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:24 pm
I hate to raise the most common complaint here on Alas, but isn’t that a bit of a straw 12 year old?
I and others who are not in favor of 12 year old sex do not (generally) think that it’s NEVER ok, or that it’s ALWAYS a bad idea, or ALWAYS harmful. Always and never are pretty limiting terms and there are very few human interactions–if any–that are so polarized as that.
I don’t need to think “all” 12yosex is bad to be against it in general. i simply need to think (as I do) that some of it is fine and some of it is bad–and that the harm is worse than the good, generally speaking. As I do. Are there exceptions? Sure! But exceptions don’t drive the rule.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:37 pm
There’s a difference between being in a position to easily do something and being able to do it at all. A grad student can drop out of school and find a job to support their family. It might not be what they want to do, but it’s an option. 12 year old doesn’t have that option.
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Joe, are you really arguing for a financial means test? Because there are elderly people, disabled people, and just plain poor people who are not self-supporting at all. Should they be celibate?
Further, you say no 12 year old can self-support. False. Scottish parliamentarian Kier Hardy helped support his whole family at age 7, and don’t think there are no kids today who make their way with hard work and their wits by themselves now.Beg, steal, scam, turn trick