Fr.Andrew

In my opinion we do great damage to children and saddle many of them with a lifetime of sexual dysfunction by filling their heads with mostly unexamined, certainly religiously-inspired, sexual taboos. I believe that we owe it to our kids and ourselves to give these taboos a critical look and work toward discarding those with no rational basis.
We need to separate sex and religious morality, I think, in order to treat it realistically.
With that in mind, and hopefully to generate discussion on the issue, I ask this question:

Are there reasons beyond pregnancy and disease (and, to stave off irrelevancies, I'll add danger from opportunistic pedophiles) why children should not experiment with sex at whatever age they become interested...and in whatever direction their curiosity takes them?

HelenM

Perhaps there is no such thing as a 'child' - perhaps that is a simply a myth created by repressive "full-height" theists who are prejudiced against "adults who have yet to attain their final height".

Helen

dangin

Why do you care so much?

tudal

Well, in most cases there are some emotions involved. However that comes no where near the severity of pregnancy, where a youngster would have to care for a child while (possibly) be unable to care for herself.

dangin

If you've ever read those trashy old novels in the Clan of the Cave Bear series, there is a portion of one that discusses the sexuality of the children among the "neanderthal" clan. Everyone lives in a big cave together, and the women have to give it up to any man that asks for it at any time. This can be in the middle of the day, in the middle of everyone else's activities. Sex is just accepted by them. It goes on the talk about how the children mimic the adults and even girls younger than 5 have their hymens broken because they have engaged in sex with boys their own age as a game.

Other anthropologists have posited that our preliterate ancestors would have had sex among the mature with whatever or whoever was present (male, female, who cares) until they learned that it led to pregnancy and then the system changed.

Our own closest primate relatives also have sex freely within their society, including homosexuality, and the children are fully exposed to the act of coitus. It's natural, no one cares.

All of these examples, fictional and real, are lacking in one thing. intergenerational sex.

So, if the OP is about kids examining their own genitalia, mastubating, being curious about sex, and even playing sex games with others of their own age, it is hard to say that it is not natural.

Also 2-year-old children, playing with their privates during bathtime or diaper changes is also normal. But if they have an hysterical, or repressed parent who makes them feel shame, or tells them they should not touch themselves there, then that is clearly a problem with the parent.

So, back to the original post. If you are talking about allowing children to engage in their own journey of exploration about themselves and their sexuality, then this is a nonstarter that is so banal as to only be of interest to the repressed.

If you are seeking approval of intergenerational sex, you need to seek out a therapist to help you overcome your peter pan syndrome and learn to stop being afraid of sexual partners your own age.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): Because I'm concerned about the harm we do kids (and, by extension, the adults they become) when we foist on them an unrealistic attitude toward sex. I think we need to break the cycle.
I hope that meets with your approval.

Now it's your turn to answer my question.
Can you think of any reasons beyond pregnancy and disease (and opportunistic pedophiles) to discourage children from experimenting with sex at whatever age they become interested and in whatever direction it takes them?
I get the idea that your answer is "no"--and I thank you in advance for your input.

(dangin): If you are seeking approval of intergenerational sex, you need to seek out a therapist to help you overcome your peter pan syndrome and learn to stop being afraid of sexual partners your own age.
(Fr Andrew): It's this sort of uncalled-for, belligerent cowflop that got you on my "ignore" list the last time we tried to communicate. I have never, ever, indicated that I was looking for approval of intergenerational sex...and I have never, ever, indicated a fear of sexual partners my own age.
For you to imply either of those is a low-rent character attack...and again brings into question the wisdom of the Internet Infidels using you for a moderator.

Loren Pechtel

The risks are real. At too young an age there's also a greater problem of manipulation by someone older.

What I would like to see: *ALL* age-based laws have a judicial bypass system.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): That's why I added the caveat about opportunistic pedophiles. What other risks do you see?

(Fr Andrew): What's that?

vixstile

Oh God, I've read those.

dangin

Which is why it has an "if" at the beginning of the statement. You have never indicated anything about your own sexuality, this is true. But your consistent interest in childhood sexuality raises flags. Particularly when we have had those with an interest in children as sexual partners here. I did not imply anything, I out and out asked you. Do you want to have sex with children?

Otherwise, as I explained quite clearly in my post. Your ideas are uninteresting. If you want to help kids experience their own sexuality at their own pace, without baggage, you need to focus on the adults who raise the children.

Your OP is all about childhood sexuality. Anybody who has half a brain knows that kids are interested in their own bodies. As I said, it is a nonstarter and this thread is foolish.

If you want to do something, you need to educate the adults who are fucking up children, not ask people if they think kids are sexual. Phrasing your questions like that, is what throws up red flags.

And I am not a moderator in this forum (the title follows each of us around) but if one more poster complains about me I win a free OS upgrade so please feel free.