I find this preoccupation with the age of a sexual being to be bizarre and scary. As far as I'm concerned, as long as the activity is voluntary, what does it matter the age of the participants? And if it is not voluntary, how does the age of the participants factor in at all?

- NonE

I know all of those arguments, and I don't dispute that there is some validity to them. But I still think that my rule applies if respect and not emotional coercion is in play. I don't think a child will want to engage in sex with an adult willingly out of a desire to buy favor. Such engagement would not be voluntary, it would be coerced. On the other hand, I know a woman who told me she had her first orgasm at some ridiculous age, like three or younger. I'm sure it was self induced, but nonetheless, there it is. I remember masturbating at a very young age, so the argument that sex is inappropriate below a certain age is simply religiously induced fear and hate. I had VERY strong sexual urges at the age of 11 or so that I remember quite clearly. I didn't really know what to do with those urges, but they were surely there and they were all mine, they were not induced by any outside entity. It led to some very powerful fantasizing that was all my own. I cannot see how consentual sex at that time would have hurt me at all. I didn't have the opportunity for a long time, but I most certainly had the desire.

Quote:

The fact that a young child has no natural desire for sex is evidence that any sexual activity partaken in by the child is based upon a desire to please the other person - a person who has great power over that child, even if only due to larger size and greater physical power.

- this is simply false and dishonest. I'm not saying you are intentionally being dishonest, but those who spread this crap are in many instances. It's about control. People are afraid of sex and they take it out on others. Same thing with nudity.

- NonE

I agree with NonEntity about the absurdity of thinking that children "under age" are completely non-sexual. It's just not true. I was thinking about this recently, because my niece just had her twelfth birthday. And I realized -- somewhat to my own horror -- that when I was a twelve-year-old boy, I was constantly thinking about sex. And my niece is surely surrounded by that at school.

On the other hand, it's very much a different story for men and women, at young ages. While I think most young guys are thinking "sex, sex, sex", most young girls are clearly not. And when they are, I think it's generally true that there's something else going on there. But anecdotal evidence is not worth much, so I won't pursue that line any further.

In this sort of situation, I'm less interested in whether something is strictly voluntary (and NonE, I think your definition gets stretched a bit when you start talking about pressure and coercion of non-violent types). What concerns me the most is whether something hurts someone else, causes them pain, causes them future suffering, etc. If someone voluntarily asks me to do something which I feel will hurt them, I will not likely do it, even if it's something I would otherwise be interested in (e.g. sex). And I think there's no question that having sex with someone who is very young can have profoundly adverse effects in their future.

It's not enough to simply address the issue of consent, and it's also not enough (insofar as it's not true) to say that young people don't have any kind of personal sexuality. I guess what I'm saying is that it's not a simple question. But I think if someone has another person's actual interests in mind, then there's rarely any danger. Of course, that's often plainly not the case, but there you have it. People hurt other people all the time, young and old. Nothing new to see here, I suppose.

There is a new book out called A Nation of Wimps, and the website has this information posted, which I do believe points to a very serious problem we have created when we disallow children people their own choices.

Quote:

The Value of Play Posted by: Hara Estroff Marano Children's play has an image problem. People think it's...kid's play. But the importance of play is entirely counterintuitive. Play LOOKS LIKE a waste of time, because it is not goal-directed. And we adults are goal- directed. So we trivialize kids' play. It gets in the way of other things on the way to achievement, a goal we very much want for our kids and are very worried about these days--counterproductively, I believe. But play turns out to be critical neurologically. And that is the great hidden secret of play. Play stimulates neurogenesis, hastening the development of the executive functions of the brain. It fosters maturation of the very centers of the brain that allow kids to exert control over attention, to regulate emotions, and to control behavior. This is a very subtle trick that nature plays--it uses something that's NOT goal-directed to create the very mental machinery for BEING goal-directed. Thanks to achievement pressures, kids' free play is going the way of the hula-hoop. Contrary to the widely held belief that only intellectual activities build a sharp brain, it's in play that the cognitive skills are most acutely developed. Much of the mental sharpening that occurs with play has to do with the fact that play embodies ambiguity: Is the running in tag real or is it antic? Play both demands and inspires mental dexterity. Play makes us nimble, capable of adapting to a rapidly evolving world. In making our brain circuits more flexible, play prompts us to see the world in new ways. None of us knows what the world is going to look like 10 years from now. How do you prepare kids for an unknown future? Many think that taking play out of childhood and substituting work is the best way--and that earlier is better. The best way to prepare kids for the future is to let them play on their own--unmonitored, unsupervised, unstructured. Because when adults enter the situation, it changes the way kids play--what they do, what they talk about and how. Play is the future with sneakers on.

- NonE

You have bolded certain items. This obviously means something to you. It would be nice if you would explain what it is that you find meaningful here. (I'm making the assumption that you are relating this quoted material to the prior conversation regarding sex, but I can't read your mind.)

- NonE

I'm surprised so many are willing to entertain a debate on the subject. It's kinda similar to questioning the holocaust where if you don't say the right thing, you're liable to get lynched. But I suppose it's in our nature to question everything and that's a good thing in my opinion.

Anyway, regarding children and sex, I'm a fence sitter on this issue but I think my opinion would be closer to blackacidlizard. I don't think a child can give consent in the same way an adult can. That isn't to say that age ought to be the only determining factor because as I'm sure you all know, there are kids out there with the minds of adults and vice versa. A bigger concern for an anarchist, however, is what should the response be for a stateless community in situations when it's known that children are having sex with adults. Do you bring out your torches and pitchforks or do you accept it?

btw, to BAL, here's some info on kibbutz if you're interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz#Child_rearing

What if a child seeks to explore their sexuality with an adult? (I put it this way specifically for I can see this as a possibility, indeed, a likelihood in some cases, and it avoids the problematical issues of an adult manipulating a child for his or her own gratification at the expense of the child.) I see nothing wrong with this, although, if I were the adult, I'd feel a huge responsibility towards the sensitivity of the endeavor. But I don't see any reason at all to make a blanket statement that any such activity is automatically wrong or evil or contraindicated.

It can be, and I think perhaps has been, considered in the nature of mentoring. I think an adult who knows the complexity of sexual stuff would be much more able to lead a first time sexual encounter to a pleasing and thoughtful result than a horny teenager with little to no experience who has his or her own urges primarily in mind.

- NonE

NonE, I'm unclear what age group you're actually referring to.

I don't know that a child fully understands the ramifications of a sexually active life. They may understand pleasure, or that it feels good. They may understand they are wanted or desired but I don't believe they can fully comprehend what it is, the risks or the outcome. In particular females whose sexual urges are somewhat more biologically suppressed until later in life, for good reason. Consider this, a 10 year or 12 year old girl can conceive and carry a fetus to term. The likely hood of delivering that child naturally, or surviving is a rare and not normal occurrence. In a natural setting, labor would be hours long until the infant died and became small enough to pass through the birth canal. In the meantime the pressure and pushing can create a hole in the bladder called a fistula, which results in the continual leaking of urine. The fistula does not heal on its own and would surgery to repair.
It is all fine and dandy to say sex is ok, Natural or not evil. However it is not with out risks. I don't imagine a horny adult laying it out for the child prior to their encounter. Even if they did I really don't believe the child would fully comprehend what is involved.
In some ways when we talk about sex as a freedom even with children..... I wonder when we are going to say anyone can drive – give a 7 year old a license(even if he can't hit the brakes or see the road) …after all if he is old enough to blow uncle Tom he is old enough to drive…. I just can’t find the logic in that.