America is especially bad about it, but I find that it’s everywhere more or less. It’s tough- complex. The world is full of things that if we examine them- they get uncomfortable. Many of our views and morals can’t stand logical scrutiny. Often times we ultimately resort to something being “wrong” because that’s how we were taught or because we just have some feeling which we cannot logically explain or make an argument for that doesn’t rely on such intangible appeals.
This starts to become important when we examine certain aspects of this.
Who is sexualizing the child?
Pre pubescent children often do things adults see as inappropriate. They may run around naked or lift up your shirt. My friends daughter liked to play with zippers- she’d zip and unzip peoples coats and anything else- she’d often try to unzip peoples pants.
Children often initiate contact that would be seen as inappropriate or even suggestive between adults, but it purely innocent- well.. more on that later.
So who is sexualizing the child? If a child is naked, does the child intend that sexually? Almost certainly not. If a child rests their head in your lap or such they almost certainly do not see it as sexual. So most all children of a certain age have essentially no concept of sexuality and such in theory.
So then- isn’t it the adult who is seeing it in a sexual context? That’s a loaded question. Of course it is. Clothing and expression through movement and such are interpreted as sexual or not. Historically and culturally what is seen as sexual in one place or time may not be in another as is true for what is innocent. The child generally lacks context to determine that and drive to be acting under such motivations. It is adults who project concepts of sexuality and sexualization onto kids….
But there is the problem. There ARE adults who are sick enough to actually sexualize kids. So of course some percentage of projection onto kids is people who are wanting to teach their kids socially appropriate behaviors and boundaries or protect them from people who might be offended by or take advantage of their childish lack of boundaries and their overall inability to understand predation. This is where gender identity enters the mix. Not “woke” speak about it- historical binary gender identity. Simply put- most people aren’t attracted to men or women. We are attracted to a totem of gender. The “uniform” is what we want. Heterosexual men and women can be attracted to “cross dressers” or those who present as other than biological sex. We can find drawings and computer animations, statues and toys attractive. Why? Because we project sexuality onto them.
To arouse the average “straight man,” a person or object simply must present itself as or in some major aspect to, a woman.
We all generally have a type of types. We are consciously and subconsciously looking at shapes and colors and proportions and such. We look for features that are linked to a social idea of gender identity and signs of other traits like wealth or status, conformity or non conformity, activity levels, socioeconomic status, etc etc. some is “instinctual” and some is cultural and based on experience- but the fact is that we are in essence forming concepts of physical attraction based upon in large part the context clues on how closely this object or person adheres to our concept of gender. We identify a “man” or “woman” and then their suitability to what we believe the “standards” are.
This is important when we consider the sexualization of children. It is important because we have to understand what we see as sexual and why. Most often- we see children as sexualized when children are in some attribute placed in a situation we identify with sex, or styled in some manner to meet our ideas of those things we see as sexual. In other words- a drawing is just a drawing. It’s paper and pencil let’s say. Most of us would agree that a drawing can be sexual or erotic without nudity or explicit sexual acts etc. so if one wanted to draw a picture that was sexy, what features or aspects might one give the character? Of simply adding some makeup or a style of clothing or a pose can turn a piece of paper into a sexual object to an adult- obviously doing so to a human being is likely to be perceived the same.
That’s one place where sexualization is often cited- in the use of make up. Child pageants and the like. Of course, modern feminism would say that a woman doesn’t wear makeup to attract others or for others but for herself. This gets more problematic believe me. A common an old turd nugget that comes up concerning unwanted sexual advances and assaults is that someone was “asking for it.” Their manner of dress or styling, their genera appearance or how they were conducting themselves. Obviously this is bullshit and unless someone literacy consents as an informed adult they are not “asking for” whatever some pervert had in mind. But then… if an adult chooses to wear a certain outfit because they like it or the weather is hot- are they sexualizing themselves?
The contemporary argument is that one may dress as they see fit and any sexualization is in the eyes of the beholder. Contemporary values in the progressive world do not support sentiments that a person should need to alter their choices in appearance if they do not intend to be a sexual object. So when a woman wears a revealing outfit, wether that is sexualization exists in two places- her intent and the perceptions of those seeing her. It is the contemporary belief that regardless of your perceptions of what a persons style implies that their intent be respected. Thusly, when a child wears makeup or a certain outfit etc- their intent is likely not sexual, it is the perception of the observer that they are triggering a sexual stimulus based upon their experiences and cognition.
So let us use the example of a heterosexual who sees a “passing” trans person and becomes aroused. It is quite common that upon discovery this person is not biologically of the presenting sex, that many heterosexuals will have some sort of negative reaction or aversion even if they don’t outwardly display such. One second ago they were attracted, specializing this person, the next second they are not attracted, or confused, or attracted but no longer sexualizing them. There was nothing sexual in the presentation of the trans person necessarily, and knowing they are trans often or generally removes that sexualization in self described “heterosexuals” who may fetishize trans people or not, but will not sexualize them in the same context upon discovery.
In short- often times the subconscious determination of sexualization comes down to wether or not an object or person makes us feel a sexual attraction to it.
That isn’t to say that anyone who sees sexualization in children has attraction to children- as stated previously- a hunk of plastic or a pillow or a piece of paper or a gender or person we wouldn’t feel attraction to can be made to be attractive because simply put- most of the time we aren’t basing physical attraction to a person on a person so much as cues. If you transplant these cues people can find a landscape painting erotic- like the old meme of sand dunes that look like a naked woman lying on her front in some vague way.
Intent is a hard thing to prove- but we can say that in unfortunate cases such as often child pageants and such, parents or adults are in fact using imagery and such to utilize sexual response in judges or the public to enforce a concept of beauty or such in their contestant. When this occurs it is obviously sexualization- but it can be hard to say if sexualization is the intent because again- when we consider children in a non sexual way, we don’t tend to ascribe sexuality to their actions and appearance. You’d have to be pretty sick to find something sexual about having a child sit on your lap, but obviously as an adult to another adult there certainly can be a component of sexuality or pair bonding behavior in two adults doing such things. To bathe one’s partner might be intimate or erotic but to bathe one’s child sure as fuck better not be erotic. It might be intimate in a plutonic way between a parent and child in the way breast feeding or such can be.
But we do have many examples where there is behavior between an adult and child which in context is innocent and perhaps beautiful but might not be seen as so innocent between adults. Hardly any sane persons spouse will get jealous if they are seen holding hands with their friends child or if a child were to kiss them or fall asleep in their arms; but those things between adults need more nuance to separate and aren’t so universally innocent.
Going back to the trans example- that aversion or even disgust many feel when they discover attraction or sexual contact with a person of the “wrong biological sex”- what is behind that? If you found someone attractive before you knew their biological sex- how has that changed? One can bring chromosomes and genitals into the mix but… many pictures or drawings or items that we see as sexual- perhaps even pleasure ourselves to- do not have these things at all or we don’t know them.
Simply put when it comes to images we find sexually arousing, it doesn’t matter if the image is of a man or a woman or even a human as long as it achieves an aesthetic which one finds arousing right? So if one can masturbate without reservation to a picture of a person whom they must assume their chromosomes and such- why would it be some sort of taboo or somehow different to masturbate to a person of the same gender providing they possessed the attributes one found arousing? That lies purely in the mind and how it chooses to label things does it not? That being the case- where is that disgust coming from? It is some internal concept of wrong. The rage that so many feel, the resistance to those who would present in such ways- is largely coming from a self hatred or confusion. When one self identifies as heterosexual strongly- to be attracted to a person who appears a certain way but is biologically not can invalidate that self identify.
Now, where this example doesn’t hold up as an analogy is that it is perfectly alright and normal to be trans or “cross dress” or have a certain gender identity and it is acceptable for informed and consenting adults to find each other attractive- so that is clearly a difference comparing the two- but the point is that underlying concept.
The reasoning and cognition behind things.
So I said we’d get to it later and we are here- the concept that children have no concept of sexuality. This is debatable. Humans are born with certain differences. Those differences become pronounced in puberty but exist from an early age. Certain behaviors and such exist or the frameworks for them exist. This is one of those uncomfortable things when we look too hard. So Freud is pretty full of shit- but there are some things that get a bit fruedian. We have a decent idea on biological and psychological mechanisms in humans. While we are too complex to fully understand or predict at this point, the…
.. jury is out wether we are simply biological machines that are operating on a somewhat set course based on our “wiring” or if we are more dynamic. We know that many things about how we think and feel and behave are influences or even controlled by biological feedback loops. Reward mechanisms and survival instincts and such. We know that certain hormones have certain physiological and psychological effects- and we know that often times these mechanisms and hormones are the same across interactions. There is great mystery in the body and mind concerning this. You feel many of the same hormones and mechanisms with your beloved dog as your best friend or your spouse- but we don’t really know what differentiates those completely. Why can’t we predict which two humans might be attracted to each other or make a good pairing? Why do people who seem Ike they’d be a perfect fit as life partners not work while two people who would seem like a terrible match can stay together for life through..
.. turmoil and conflict? We don’t know. We have some ideas and such- but we just don’t know. All we know is that you may love your brother but probably not the way you love your husband. Of course that’s an entire other subject of uncomfortable logic and ethics- let’s not get into that beyond to cite another example of where things can get really uncomfortable if we drill down far enough.
So we end up at this sort of odd place we often do- we see it with race and gender and other things too.
A place that’s almost paradoxical- where we have to ask if what we are observing in a given case is sexualization or if by asking that question if we are the ones sexualizing it?
Picture a close friend giving you a massage because you are sore. As they lean over rubbing your shoulders you feel a “moment” and go for a kiss. They pull back in shock and perhaps outrage. A massage could be read multiple ways. A general “mood” can be read multiple ways. We’d likely say the friend who went for the kiss turned an innocent thing into a sexual one no?
But… we look back to totems and identify. A “Hooters girl” a “hooters shirt,” what do those things mean? I spoke earlier of the uniform of gender- a hooters shirt is a literal uniform.
What does that uniform represent? To you- specifically? Now, women wear more revealing clothing than that to go to the mall or get groceries where I am from, so I can’t say the hooters uniform is particularly sexual in my view. That said- it is unarguable that the concept of the hooters girl and the brand are tied to at least a mild sexuality- “pretty girls in sorts revealing clothes serving you while you drink” it is a primarily male fantasy of a certain sort. Of course I have known several people who were Hooters waitresses and managers personally and would not instantly sexualized them or see their positions or motivations as sexual or demeaning- but it is.unarguable that there is a component of fantasy to the entire premise and part of that fantasy, like many adult fantasies, has components that are at least partially sex adjacent.
But if we say that wearing a hooters uniform is specializing ones self- doesn’t that imply that all hooters girls are sexualizing themselves? Are they? My friends who worked there were aware of the fact that sexuality played a role in their jobs but they did not approach the job that way or consider themselves as sexualizing themselves so much as they were wearing a uniform. Compared to their average attire, they might choose to sometimes dress more conservatively but would often dress more revealingly than their uniforms- so that aspect for them was just there. One girl in particular that I knew did feel the uniform was demeaning and acknowledged that to her the job was like a PG strip club, but several of the others enjoyed it a lot and didn’t see it in that light.
But that is a big part of it- what do we consider sexual as a society and what are our biases? We might speak on certain issues and echo a popular progressive sentiment that we are inclusive or accepting or empowering- but when the subject broaches on our own sons or daughters or more sensitive matters- does our logic remain consistent or do we suddenly show the signs of how we really feel about people who make certain choices or live certain lives? That is where it starts to get very sticky when we discuss sexualization because we must define what about something makes it sexual, which often is based on an implication that certain things are inherently sexual as opposed to contextual.
Compounding the issue is a general social concept that “beauty” be tied to sex. This is especially true of people- and I think is even more true in America and part of why you observe this as such an American problem. In America we tend to equate a persons beauty with their sexual attractiveness. We are less likely to see a person as artistically beautiful or unable to separate an aesthetic appreciation from a sexual desire. This can be seen in certain attitudes towards things like nudity. We all know that America is known as seeing nudity as very sexual whereas traditionally many other parts of the world including Europe often have an appreciation for nudity as a form of vulnerability or closeness or just for aesthetic spore action. The nude beach is an example of this and the sheer flocks of perverted tourists who anticipate a pornographic scene as opposed to people simply enjoying the Sun and open air nude.
A UK paper was well known for posting local nudes as just a regular article- a bit of fun and aesthetics which of course I’m sure some people found sexual- I mean, it isn’t like every European etc. is some art snob that is above such things,” but in general I believe that at least in recent history, Europe and even many parts of Asia and other countries have had a more wholesome attitude towards such things. In many places it is normal for family- especially where young children are concerned, to be nude in front of each other. On the whole average, in America this would be quite uncommon or out of the ordinary. Weird.
So I mean- as an American I find the sexualization of children that I often see at very normalized levels to be disturbing. It becomes a bit harder to put into words what that looks like or why one thing is “wrong” and another is “ok,” but at the least when children are placed in clearly adult situations and styled in adult ways that can be an example.
It is very common to hear people comment “wow- your son is going to be a heartbreaker” or “look at his eyes, he’s so handsome” and such and it’s like- this is a baby. He is not handsome and he hasn’t even learned to use a toilet yet let alone decided if he will date girls or boys or both or neither- so that is a little gross to me. But… that’s what I’m talking about. We imprint on children. We take what we know and apply it to them and they in turn tend to lead it.
They learn concepts of gender identity and social status and morality and such based on what we learn and thusly expose them to or force on them. Our values and such. While they can choose or learn to think differently as they age and as they make friends and such they will pick up other perspectives- those early and fundamental things tend to stick with us in various ways. We don’t even notice it most of the time when these biases are presenting themselves- and arguably there is benefit or intended benefit to the child in that often what we know and our bias was imparted by the world and their peers will likely have similar imprinting and as such to not teach them such things puts them at a disadvantage in ability to relate with peers and such. Socially right and wrong are often less important than status quo.
It’s a sticky wicket- but as individuals and a society I think we need to think on it and have ongoing discussion. Children do not have much autonomy in general and it is extremely questionable that they posses in general the ability or should have the responsibility of consequences they might not be able to even understand. It is critically important that we protect children. The world is full of sick people and while the deeper truth behind things can be uncomfortable- we need to be able to provide a standard which we can protect children from both themselves and the misjudgments of any singular adult who is granted guardianship.
Simply put no child belongs to anyone- they are human beings who have their own lives. The adults who speak for them shape the life they will have before they are able to speak for themselves. It is societies job to protect children.
This starts to become important when we examine certain aspects of this.
Who is sexualizing the child?
Pre pubescent children often do things adults see as inappropriate. They may run around naked or lift up your shirt. My friends daughter liked to play with zippers- she’d zip and unzip peoples coats and anything else- she’d often try to unzip peoples pants.
Children often initiate contact that would be seen as inappropriate or even suggestive between adults, but it purely innocent- well.. more on that later.
So then- isn’t it the adult who is seeing it in a sexual context? That’s a loaded question. Of course it is. Clothing and expression through movement and such are interpreted as sexual or not. Historically and culturally what is seen as sexual in one place or time may not be in another as is true for what is innocent. The child generally lacks context to determine that and drive to be acting under such motivations. It is adults who project concepts of sexuality and sexualization onto kids….
We all generally have a type of types. We are consciously and subconsciously looking at shapes and colors and proportions and such. We look for features that are linked to a social idea of gender identity and signs of other traits like wealth or status, conformity or non conformity, activity levels, socioeconomic status, etc etc. some is “instinctual” and some is cultural and based on experience- but the fact is that we are in essence forming concepts of physical attraction based upon in large part the context clues on how closely this object or person adheres to our concept of gender. We identify a “man” or “woman” and then their suitability to what we believe the “standards” are.
That isn’t to say that anyone who sees sexualization in children has attraction to children- as stated previously- a hunk of plastic or a pillow or a piece of paper or a gender or person we wouldn’t feel attraction to can be made to be attractive because simply put- most of the time we aren’t basing physical attraction to a person on a person so much as cues. If you transplant these cues people can find a landscape painting erotic- like the old meme of sand dunes that look like a naked woman lying on her front in some vague way.
Going back to the trans example- that aversion or even disgust many feel when they discover attraction or sexual contact with a person of the “wrong biological sex”- what is behind that? If you found someone attractive before you knew their biological sex- how has that changed? One can bring chromosomes and genitals into the mix but… many pictures or drawings or items that we see as sexual- perhaps even pleasure ourselves to- do not have these things at all or we don’t know them.
The reasoning and cognition behind things.
So I said we’d get to it later and we are here- the concept that children have no concept of sexuality. This is debatable. Humans are born with certain differences. Those differences become pronounced in puberty but exist from an early age. Certain behaviors and such exist or the frameworks for them exist. This is one of those uncomfortable things when we look too hard. So Freud is pretty full of shit- but there are some things that get a bit fruedian. We have a decent idea on biological and psychological mechanisms in humans. While we are too complex to fully understand or predict at this point, the…
A place that’s almost paradoxical- where we have to ask if what we are observing in a given case is sexualization or if by asking that question if we are the ones sexualizing it?
Picture a close friend giving you a massage because you are sore. As they lean over rubbing your shoulders you feel a “moment” and go for a kiss. They pull back in shock and perhaps outrage. A massage could be read multiple ways. A general “mood” can be read multiple ways. We’d likely say the friend who went for the kiss turned an innocent thing into a sexual one no?
But… we look back to totems and identify. A “Hooters girl” a “hooters shirt,” what do those things mean? I spoke earlier of the uniform of gender- a hooters shirt is a literal uniform.
It is very common to hear people comment “wow- your son is going to be a heartbreaker” or “look at his eyes, he’s so handsome” and such and it’s like- this is a baby. He is not handsome and he hasn’t even learned to use a toilet yet let alone decided if he will date girls or boys or both or neither- so that is a little gross to me. But… that’s what I’m talking about. We imprint on children. We take what we know and apply it to them and they in turn tend to lead it.
Simply put no child belongs to anyone- they are human beings who have their own lives. The adults who speak for them shape the life they will have before they are able to speak for themselves. It is societies job to protect children.