Posted on 04/25/2002 10:15:12 AM PDT by Starmaker
A recent article in the USA TODAY, written by Karen S. Peterson, discusses the book, Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex. I must admit that I have not read the book, as it is scheduled for release on May 1. However, the article in the USA TODAY highlighted some of the ideas in the controversial book. The ideas expressed in the book are greatly alarming, and should be of paramount concern for all parents.
Judith Levine, the author of the book, states that she is not completely opposed to sex between adults and children. Although she opposes all non-consensual sex, she believes that "non-consensual" is an unfair label of sex between adults and children. According to the article, she applauds a Dutch age-of-consent law that permits adult sex with a child ages 12-16 if the young person consents. Either the child or the child's parents can file charges if the sex is coerced. She and other 'experts' in the field of child-sexual abuse appear to be trying to tear down the walls of law that have been enacted in this country, which forbid sex between adults and children.
The idea that a child can even engage in consensual sex with an adult is preposterous. A twelve-year old child knows little about sex, outside of images he has seen on television or discussions he has had with his friends. This is certainly not quality information. Even if this child has received some type of sex education, whether in school or by his parents, he still has little perception of the non-physical relationship sex causes between two people. A child is hardly capable of understanding how having sex with an adult will impact her life. This is especially true if she is being 'talked into' having sex by an adult who is seemingly wiser and more knowledgeable than her.
The children of America are already being bombarded with sexual images on television shows and in magazines which are targeted to the teen audience. Watch an episode of "Dawson's Creek", preferably without your child, and judge for yourself. The program depicts young people as having the sexual maturity of a 30-year old, with the body of a teenager. Of course, this program is hardly the exception.
Spend some time watching professional wrestling. When I was a child, I loved to watch wrestling. However, the sexual innuendoes and graphic attire worn by the women was non-existent then. In fact, very few women were ever seen during a professional wrestling program. Flippant references to sex and horribly mistreating women are commonplace on such programs today.
One can pick up any number of today's teen magazines and see references to sexual activities, where not many years ago the same article space might be used to discuss kissing. Explicit pictures of a virtually naked Brittney Spears, and a host of other teen stars, also cover the magazines, further creating a culture of sex among our young people.
With the incredible amounts of sexually-explicit material making its way to the eyes of our young girls and boys, is it a good idea to let adults have sex with these young people without the fear of persecution? Certainly not. Furthermore, allowing sex between adults and children remains improper even if the child consents, which would be far more difficult to prove or disprove if children and adults were given the right to engage in consensual sexual activity.
Ms. Levine and other numerous experts have reasoned that adult/child sex does not have any harmful effects upon children later in life. Though that reasoning hardly stands up to even the slightest amount of common sense, an even broader question should be asked, "What benefits does the child receive from sex with an adult?" The answer is there are no benefits, but, contrary to Ms. Levine's thoughts, there are some monumental consequences of adult/child sex.
Imagine if adult/child sex were allowed in this country and that adults were free to have sex with children as young as twelve years old. Does anyone honestly believe this would better our society? If this were allowed, there is no doubt that HIV and other sexually-transmitted diseases would grow exponentially among teenagers, as most of the adults engaging in sex with the young people would likely have many sexual partners. Furthermore, teenagers are the least likely demographic group to engage in "safe sex", which would result in an even faster spread of the diseases among teens versus any other group.
In addition, allowing sex between children and adults would cause a further erosion of negativity associated with sex among the nation's young people. Children having children remains a significant problem in our country and would only grow if these types of activities were allowed.
Finally, adult/child sex would also greatly increase the number of out-of-wedlock births in this country. Numerous studies have shown that children born out-of-wedlock have a far more behavioral problems; are more likely to live in poverty and will probably have their own out-of-wedlock children. Without question, creating more out-of-wedlock births would cause serious long-lasting damage upon our society.
For those parents, and future-parents, who are still on the bubble regarding this issue, ask yourself one question. How would you like your child to lose his/her virginity to an adult? I know my answer, and I pray it is no different than yours.
Would you mind pointing me in the direction of those facts you're talking about? I could really use some now as I've got a little fire storm brewing with my daughter's school and the fact that the Madam (school principal) seems more intent on running a whore house than an insitution of learning.
i n s t i t u t i o n
it's getting to late
I predict a shortened lifespan for you.
It used to be that a child's parents would be the 'gatekeepers' of that person's marriage prospects and therefore sexual prospects. While it would not have been terribly uncommon for children of 14 to be having sex within a marriage, children that age were not considered to be of sound judgement in such matters. Rather, it would be the parent's judgement that was responsible for protecting the child.
There is, perhaps, an interesting irony in the fact that it is generally liberals rather than conservatives who want to 'child-proof the world' rather than 'world-proofing the child', but on sexual matters it would seem the reverse is true. The irony, though, is lessened when one considers: (1) conservatives seek to 'world proof' children by teaching them to say 'no'; liberals, though avoiding child-proofing the world, are doing nothing to world-proof the children; (2) most items which could be dangerous to children (sharp objects, power tools, matches, firearms, etc.) do not have any evil volition of their own. A child who is taught to avoid such things will not be harmed by them. By contrast, those who would molest children deliberately seek them out; a child's attempts to avoid them may not be sufficient.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.