GirlChat #505978
Re: The Sexual Revolution and Children - Der Spieg
Posted by qtns2di4 on 2010-July-04 02:41:37 EDT, Sunday
In reply to Re: The Sexual Revolution and Children - Der Spieg posted by Baldur on 2010-July-03 12:56:06 EDT, Saturday
For example, they start with the contemporary party line:[and examples]
It might look like inconsistency, and probably some of it is, but I am not inclined to discard it outright.
The adults involved were not "natives" into the sexual liberation culture that they wanted to create basically from scratch and innovative ideas. It sounds plausible that, no matter what they rationally thought about it, their own previous indoctrination into a unfriendly culture about child sexuality remained alive at the back of their minds. It wouldn't really surprise me that much if an adult native to a culture forbidding of child sexuality, despite having abandoned its tenets, still was internally confused at witnessing the exercise of the opposite.
And yet "children are not spontaneously inclined to become sexually active in front of adults" - well no, they aren't, unless that has happened since forever. If at the age range of roughly 18-48, the child is not spontaneously exposed to adults having sex and approved when they engage in self-stimulation, then it is not "culturally" ingrained (for about the first half of that period, it still follows simply a family convention, and by the second half it becomes learned as a rule and the child integrates it with any other rule they infer from their life into a more or less coherent system). In that case they will not spontaneously perceive as natural to witness adult sex or to expose themselves, much less engage themselves in sexual acts in front of adults. In other words, they are not native either. Unless they had been "cultured" as little exhibitionists since toddlers.
Of course, they can still learn such a lifestyle - but not just by "I say so", which goes to
Asking a girl to undress in front of company and then mocking her when she hesitates to comply is certainly abusive
a child that was raised that way since 18-48 would have no problem. A child that is taught so afterwards, does, because it is a rule change, a new game, a culture shock. They can still learn to be comfortable with public nudity - but they would need to be introduced to it not by asking them to just do it, but by putting them in a nudist setting and allowing them to grow comfortable at their own pace. Of course you can (and I think you should) explain the reasons for the "cultural" change, but you cannot just explain them and expect rationality to undo years of culture just like that. It doesn't happen with adults either, for that matter, does it?
it is notable that in both cases the parent is pushing their own agenda on their child,
Yes - because as much as an idea can be good, imposing it that way is the worst way to teach a child about it.
This post is archived, preventing any new replies.
Responses
0 Responses