HelenM

Before even considering such a thing I think it would be appropriate to show strong evidence that people who were sexually active that early have no hang-ups about sex and that everyone who waited, does have continuing hang-ups.

Personally I would doubt this is the case although I haven't done any research.

Since I don't think that sexual hang-ups are created by waiting to have sex or solved by trying it out as a pre-teen or young teen, I wouldn't be in favor of your idea (even if I didn't have other objections)

Helen

Daleth

Good points from Helen, and brushes up against what I was going to add. Telling your daughter that society has certain rules and that you might disagree with them but there they are, so she might have to keep things more private for a few more years is not the same thing as telling her the thoughts she's having are bad and dirty and she should be ashamed of them. It's sort of sad, but less so than what you grew up with and less so than losing her to children's services. At least she'll still know she can talk to her family about whatever's on her mind, and in a couple years she can talk up a storm like any teen.

Sorry about your situation, Amen-Moses. We're making some headway at breaking down the double-standards, but you as a lone crusader deciding to act like it doesn't exist could just end up losing your daughter. And yes, girls are painfully aware of the double-standard and it stinks on a daily basis. I remember feeling as though I absolutely had to lie about things that boys could talk about lightly and jokingly. I remember the exact moments, the precise lies. I hate hiding myself.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): I suspect that if your son were discussing his sexual interest in a male, he'd be getting a ration of grief as well.
And if your daughter were talking about her attraction to the boy down the street, no one would bat an eye.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): For the record, Fr Andrew's favorite subject is the harm that religion has done mankind.

echidna

I think it’s fair enough to try to be as honest as possible with a child when it comes to all matters, not just sexuality. But absolute honesty ? Emotional & intellectual intelligence only develop gradually in all of us, and only as part of a much larger puzzle.

To teach a four year old all the details of death, without any of the context of life, love, longevity, family, chance, happiness, risk, would generally result in quite unnecessary trauma for that child. Honest yes, but not constructive.

Sex too, with all its immediate positives, needs to be placed in the context of risk of disease, the dangers from predatory paedophiles, the risks of rape, the choice as to whether one wishes to associate an emotional relationship, how one might want to handle that emotional relationship & prepare for it, the various social mores of sex and the fact than one’s own attitudes often change over time, amongst many other considerations.

In all it’s a complex package & one which I doubt an 11 year old has a complete grasp of. Of course none of us ever get this complete grasp, but childhood is obviously the time we are least likely to understand the complex interactions involved.

I mean, say she came home one day saying that she had met an old man who she had enjoyed sexual relations with, would you be at all troubled ? Or if she mentioned that she had been playing sex games with a female teacher, would you worry ? Or if she started clubbing & not coming home ? Despite her apparent maturity, how confident are you that she fully understands the consequences of her actions ?

From what you have described of her there seems little to be overly worried about & at face value her teacher appears prudish, however somewhere there is a line (albeit a fuzzy one) at which an 11 year old’s sexual behaviour needs to be distinctly different from an adult’s.

echidna

... especially with respect to your "progressive ideas" about children and sex. Nice try Fr Andrew. Fully 40 out of 40 of your last posts have been about sex and children. And I can't even be bothered checking further. How many threads have you started on the topic ? Compared with how many on other topics ?

For someone who readily accuses others of being disingenuous, you are a master yourself.

Ronin

This issue has been honestly addressed and I have apologized to you, Fr.Andrew.

It appears that you are very willing to potentially derail this thread and violate the OP in order to consider such innocuous comments and, yet, claim some higher standard for my more topical comments.

It doesn't seem too rational an anomaly, however, I will be more considerate of your linguistic sensibilities in the future.

You were the one that seemed willing to approach the tangent here ~

(Fr Andrew): When there's no intent on the part of the adult to abuse or molest the child and the child doesn't experience abuse or molestation.

This implies that there are adults that are not pedophiles in your view.

I merely continued to address that position and, in the pursuit of generating honest discussion, should not be held to a different standard.

(BTW ~ "Stop fooling around" seems rather 'snide and cute' to me, Fr.Andrew, however, I can perceive that it may not have been your intent and would only request that you give me equal consideration).

Then I will continue to engage in the discussion so that we can achieve clarity.

I am willing to continue to pursue the assertion that conventional wisdom may have holes in it and await further insight from anyone who can articulate a reasonable defense of that position as it applies to this topic.

No problem...let me try this angle:

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?

Yes, there are reasons beyond pregnancy and disease and opportunistic pedophiles why children should not experiment with sex at whatever age they become interested...and in whatever direction their curiosity takes them.

Answer: When they are too young to provide an informed consent (infancy to 13 years of age, by legal statute, in my jurisdiction).

Extremely. Given our mutual idiosyncrasies regarding this issue, it has been a wonder to behold that we have gotten this far.

Surely, you must agree.

Well, unfortunately, coming to some common understanding in a debate requires a crucial step-by-step process that...usually only in hindsight...eventually seems so clear.

I am glad that we have finally reached this point.

When, as you put it, they may be taking their curiousity in whatever direction it takes them.

This would seem to provide another answer to your OP...aside from pregnancy and disease and the opportunistic pedophile...physical harm may be done to the child by the child.

No mystery, Fr.Andrew, and no strain involved.

I didn't say that I don't already understand the self-destruction in shoving sharp objects into bodily orificies...I was just unsure if you did, given your OP.

Thank you for clarifying your view, I feel that it has helped bring some important understanding to the topic.

Very good, then.

You are willing to establish a qualified value for a monitor of the act to perceive an intent of the offending child to be 'cruel'.

That is exactly what society does by establishing itself as the 'monitor' in such cases via legal statute, which otherwise may also be perceived as 'taboos'.

So, it is perfectly acceptable to review social taboos regarding the topic as long as we understand that a safe standard is necessary to ensure that the benefit of the doubt is heavy on protecting children, the elderly (65 or older in my jurisdiction) and otherwise mentally incapacitated or physically helpless.

This seems reasonable.

Very good, that is exactly what I was asking and I do appreciate your direct answer.

I'd like to ask you another question along those lines:

Do you think that a person must meet some standard of mental development in order to be considered (by a monitor) to give qualified consent to engage in sex?

Ronin

We may have more in common than anyone may think.

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, I was going to join in, but Ronin's excellent post has asked all of the pertinent questions I would have wanted clarified by Fr. Andrew, so I'll wait until Fr. Andrew has addressed Ronin's points in kind.

Ronin

Daleth, I only can recall a kindergarten boy being suspended from school for kissing a girl...it was an Alabama case.

I am not aware of any state that would bring criminal charges against a child so young.

Mississippi would consider that a child in need of supervision (CHINS) case and assign a counselor to assess the situation.