The blanket expression “having sex” is often used to lend a negative connotation to any kind of sexual activity, especially outside marriage. It implies genital intercourse, and is sometimes used in clearly misleading ways, as when a man is accused of “having sex” with a little girl, which in reality is physically impossible. Sexual contact between different age groups, in particular, is never described in neutral terms, let alone with the positive phrase “making love.” But there are actually many different kinds of sexual contact or sexual activity, with very different characteristics. Honesty requires more specific terminology.

Sex acts are familiar: genital intercourse is the classic sex act, and some say the only legitimate one, but there are others, whether we label them illegitimate, immoral, unhealthy, or whatever: masturbation, fellatio, cunnilingus, anal intercourse, etc. Sex acts may be defined as stimulation of the sexual organs with the goal of genital pleasure and/or orgasm, as well as possibly other secondary goals (social intimacy, emotional communication, etc.). When sex acts are insensitive, coercive or exploitative, or otherwise likely to harm someone, we may rightly call them abusive. In contrast, when two people engage in playful peeking, tickling or teasing without the goal of genital arousal or orgasm, we may reasonably call that sex play, rather than a sex act. Playing horsy and slapstick horseplay are not sex acts. When there is no intention or probability to harm or exploit, then sex play is not abusive.

I’ve already criticized the concept of “premature sexualization” in a previous post, but there I focused on the distorted idea of “sexualization.” Here I intend to attack the other half of that absurd phrase, the misapplication of the term “premature” in the context of sex play. When a baby is born before 37 weeks of gestation, the birth is called premature, meaning that the baby’s vital organs are not well-developed (compared to a full-term newborn) and may require medical care. For example, assisted respiration, drugs to strengthen heart function, an incubator to compensate for the premature’s fragile skin, etc. until the baby’s organs have reached the same level of development as in a full-term birth. At that point the baby isn’t considered “mature,” but rather a normal and healthy (and very long) period of immaturity follows, in which the baby continues to grow before full maturity. However, when it comes to sex, there is no recognition of a normal, healthy and long (though immature) stage of sexuality before maturity.

We are supposed to believe that on midnight of a certain birthday a human being suddenly jumps from premature to mature sexuality. There is no similar attempt to apply the word “premature” to other forms of behavior. There is no premature speech, premature walking, premature reading and writing, etc. Quite the contrary, in most other forms of behavior we usually applaud its early appearance (statistically) rather than consider it pathological. This isn’t merely an academic question. When young people are encouraged to hide their natural desire for immature sex play, then it will likely occur in secret, without the benefit of parental or medical monitoring. Other tragic effects were discussed in the post previously cited, and still more negative effects will be discussed below. It would be more reasonable and constructive to provide kids with accurate, balanced and comprehensive sexuality education from the earliest years, so that in routine medical exams a pediatrician might smile and ask: “So how’s your sex life?” That would encourage parents and children to acknowledge that sex play is normal, that appropriate hygiene is important, as is respecting anatomical and physiological limits (no penetration), etc., rather than force children to experiment and learn the hard way – through unassisted trial and error.

Another oddity in common attitudes toward sex play is that some other kinds of play are naturally considered too dangerous for children, especially young children. So kids should not be allowed to engage in such forms of play without close adult supervision. And yet adult supervision of child sex play is considered far more improper or dangerous than unsupervised sex play.

Normal, healthy children can be observed engaging in playful looking, exhibiting, touching, as well as pretend-intercourse or other forms of role-playing. A child will play alone if there are no playmates available, but through mutual play children learn improvisation, cooperation and negotiation. A child may even lie to parents or sneak away from adult surveillance (and risk a whipping) for the opportunity to enjoy sex play. There is much consensus that play in general, and fantasy play in particular, are educational (intellectually and/or emotionally). There is a scene in Lucile Hadzihalilovic’s beautiful film “Innocence,” in which a young girl finds a man’s glove in a theater and takes it home. Alone in her room at night, she puts the glove on her own hand and caresses her legs and thighs under her skirt, apparently pretending it’s a man’s hand. Pleasurable, certainly. Even “sexual” or “erotic” pleasure in some sense; but completely innocent. From the child’s point of view, she may be learning a very important lesson: not to be afraid of physical affection.

When the children are the same age many people assume that sex play may be sensitive, mutually desirable and not exploitative. But when there is a significant difference in the age or level of maturity between the children is there an assumption or fear that the “power difference” makes insensitivity or exploitation likely. Some critics of sex play argue that when the “power difference” is great, as between a child and an adult, then insensitivity, coercion or exploitation are inevitable. Some early studies of selected population samples suggested that even an age difference of two years is likely to be harmful. But such studies have been criticized as suffering from selection bias. In some places abuse is defined strictly in terms of age difference, e.g. >5 years, so that even 14-year-olds who indulged in sex play with 9-year-olds are now on “sex offender” registries and will be for the rest of their lives. What is odd about the assumption of exploitation or harm is that the assumption isn’t made with non-sexual forms of play between different age groups.

As far as I know the mysterious idea of “power difference” is unsupported by any valid empirical data. It’s quite possible that careful research on unbiased population samples would find the contrary to be true: the greater the difference in age between playmates the less likely insensitivity, coercion or exploitation occurs. For example, a retired grandparent whose sex drive is reduced and who has a lifetime of sexual experience behind her, may be a safer playmate than a young person’s same-age peers.

Although a much older child or adult may always be in actual control of the play, what is probably more important – in terms of the younger child’s experience – is that the latter feels in control, i.e. able to choose or direct the play. A sensitive playmate, regardless of the age difference, may actively foster the younger child’s feeling of control, e.g. by repeatedly asking the child if the direction of the play is desirable or if another alternative or stopping would be preferable to the younger one.

It’s widely recognized that children learn empathy through play, as can be seen when children of superior abilities self-handicap to compensate for the weaker child to make play possible and enjoyable for both. Such self-handicapping is commonly seen when adults play with children as well, and when older animals play with younger ones, or even when a stronger animal  plays with a member of a weaker species (e.g. a dog playing with a kitten, or a cat playing with a small parrot). Since a mature adult can be an excellent model of empathy, it seems plausible that prohibiting play between younger children and much more mature children or adults might interfere with children learning empathy. Although destructive behavior may also occur, such as bullying, that is possible in any kind of play – not just sex play. Why not prohibit all play between different age groups?

When a foreign-speaking child is immersed in an English school he typically goes through a silent period, in which he is isolated from the group he can’t communicate with. He stays in the background, listening to the others and watching for contextual clues to guess the meaning of what they are saying and doing. During this period some other children, especially the older ones, will occasionally approach the foreigner, touch him, kiss him, and speak to him in simple baby-talk, to help him understand and feel loved as a part of the group. We may reasonably ask: what is there about sex play that makes insensitivity, coercion or exploitation inevitable?

Some might argue that the prospect of sexual pleasure or orgasm is so great that an older child or adult can’t control himself. Surveys of some populations (patients in psychotherapy) who experienced adult-child sexual activity indicate this. But a meta-analysis of 59 studies that avoided selection bias by using samples of normal college students found that most people didn’t feel they were seriously harmed by the experience. Some people even considered their early sexual experience to be neutral or positive, despite the strong cultural condemnation of such experiences (2).

It seems clear that the sexual nature of the contact in itself is not the deciding factor. What matters is the individual involved, the form of contact (e.g. insensitive), and whether or not it is coercive. This should not be surprising, since many things may be abused (sweets, video games, bicycles, motorcycles, firearms, etc.) but aren’t always and necessarily abusive. Some individuals are more vulnerable than others to negative outcomes, such as a child whose parents are in conflict, or a child who has been previously terrorized about sex, or has been taught excessive body shame. Some children are prepped by their parents to interpret any kind of sex contact negatively, and there is some evidence those children suffer the most (3).

What follows a sexual experience may also influence the long-term consequences of it, as when parents react hysterically. One woman reported that when she was a little girl her mother caught her masturbating to orgasm and beat her with an electrical cord while calling the child a “whore;” she has never had another orgasm since. Parents sometimes force the child to participate in a criminal investigation and prosecution to satisfy the parent’s desire for vengeance, rather than respecting the child’s privacy, or reassuring the child that the long-term outcome of minor sex play may be neutral or positive. One of the most famous cases of parental insensitivity was a little boy in California who came home from daycare with redness on his anus, and instead of taking the child to a doctor the mother brought him straight to the police station.

When children report having a sexual experience they are sometimes merely looking for more information or reassurance rather than crying for help. One valid argument against adult-child sex play is that some parents with limited self-control may not be able to inhibit their own fear or anger, with negative consequences for the child. In such cases, children need to be protected from their parents rather than from sex play. Ironically, statistics clearly show that the vast majority of physical, sexual and emotional abuse is committed by parents rather than strangers, and aside from a few relatively rare (but highly publicized) cases, almost all child homicides and serious injuries are committed by parents.

Parents sometimes claim they must “inhibit” children’s sexuality to protect kids. Parents in some Third World countries also claim they are protecting their children by physically castrating them. Fortunately, there are now some international organizations that are trying to raise money to pay for reconstructive surgery for the millions of children who were “protected” by their parents (4). Parents typically employ facial expressions of disgust and contempt to instill shame in children, as well as disparaging comments, insults, threats of violence, and in some cases physical beating. If a rare adult behaves that way to force a child to engage in sex play he is considered a monster. But if millions of adults behave that way every day to “inhibit” children, they are considered good parents? It seems clear that what matters to many people is not the morality of the means, but whether or not the result is politically correct (anti-sex) or politically incorrect (pro-sex).

A related confusion surrounds the phrase “sexual pleasure.” Freud claimed children experience “erotic” pleasure from contact with parents, using the term “erotic” interchangeably with “sensual.” But most pleasure is “sensual” (involving one or more of the five senses) except for some forms of mental pleasure that are difficult to define or even describe. We might define “erotic” pleasure as tending to result in genital erection, but genital erection may sometimes be spontaneous (e.g. while riding in a car), and at other times direct stimulation of the genitals may not result in erection. Neither case qualifies or disqualifies an experience as being sexual. Using the phrase “erotic pleasure” seems to be nothing more than a rhetorical attempt to express disapproval of exposure of the body or physical contact with the skin. Another rhetorical trick is to call the genital area “private parts,” which is not a descriptive label but a prescriptive one. A more neutral, and more descriptive, name would be “soft parts.” Using the expression “private parts” should be considered an indication that the speaker or writer is attempting to hide his true political motives and deceive the listener or reader.

Western culture is characterized by a remarkable tolerance for images of bloody violence and even sadistic murder, but there is little or no tolerance of images of sex acts, sex play or even nudity in the bath. It’s difficult to explain this state of affairs. The classic psychological theory is that people must “sublimate” their sexual energy for more productive work. However, there are many examples of great art, music and literature produced by uninhibited individuals. Another possible argument for inhibiting sexuality is that many people believe it’s useful to cultivate a killer instinct; according to that view, a lack of sexual inhibition would make citizens too vulnerable to aggression. However, as opponents of sex play are quick to point out themselves, there is ample evidence that some individuals who are sexually uninhibited are nonetheless capable of gruesome violence. So a lack of sexual inhibition in itself does not necessarily make people “soft.”

The label “sexual love” is sometimes applied to condemn relationships between adults and children, but that expression is never clearly defined. Is “sexual love” always accompanied by sexual arousal or sexual fantasies? Is hugging or kissing an expression of sexual love? If parents and children hug or kiss each other, that isn’t necessarily considered an expression of sexual love. But if teachers and students hug or kiss each other (in Anglo-American countries), especially a male teacher and a male or female student, it is considered an expression of “sexual” love. Teachers and students often love each other, in some sense, but in the current atmosphere of sex hysteria here they are not likely to admit it out of fear of being accused of “sexual love.” Some teachers certainly don’t love their students; the job is only a way to get income. Are they the best teachers? Children tend to be very perceptive. You can’t hide your positive feelings from a child, just as a child knows very well if you dislike her. We should choose specific labels that serve some descriptive purpose rather than trying to create vague excuses to condemn what we disapprove of, but may actually be harmless or even constructive feelings.

Some people believe that a normal, healthy adult only loves his own children, not anybody else’s children. In other words, there is nothing loveable about children in themselves, only the fact that they are your property. I suspect that point of view reveals a much worse problem: Some people don’t really love their own child, they merely love what they consider an extension of themselves. Somebody else’s child is not an extension of yourself, so what’s to love about him??? Pedophiles are relatively rare by most estimates- half of sex offenders against children are believed to actually be psychopaths, not pedophiles (5) – so popular concern about pedophilia seems grossly out of proportion. What is really epidemic in the modern West is pedophobia: lack of interest or dislike of children.

Another misleading expression is “sexual maturity,” which implies that it is unnatural to engage in any kind of sexual contact before complete physical and mental maturity. But among our closest relatives, the chimpanzees, adolescent females have been observed enjoying an average of 3,000 copulations before they are mature enough to become pregnant. Hence, it would be more accurate to use the expression “reproductive maturity,” since you are never too young for play. Note that chimps don’t rape; the female presents herself to the male in the mating position. A male chimp prefers mature (fertile) females, but if none are available at the moment he will copulate with a reproductively immature (infertile) adolescent. Humans are not chimps, of course. We civilized apes mentally castrate young girls to discourage them from presenting themselves in the mating position.

Administrative convenience has led to official declarations that everyone suddenly reaches full maturity at midnight of a certain birthday. But it’s clear that maturity is actually a matter of degree, and may vary between individuals regardless of numerical age. Any serious assessment of a child’s ability requires performance or demonstration of that ability. We would have to teach children about appropriate hygiene and the anatomical and physiological limitations of the immature body, respect for the other person’s consent, etc., and then carefully observe the child in sex play to judge if he understood and is capable of applying what he learned. Even then, our judgment of the child’s level of competence may be inaccurate if we don’t take into account the possible inadequacy of instruction, the child’s mood or level of enthusiasm at the moment, etc. Such a complex assessment process is the only reasonable way to determine what a certain child’s specific capacities and limitations are at a particular point in time, not Biblical pronouncements like “No children below this age…” or “All children above this age…” The problem of accurately assessing maturity is, of course, moot, since the laws of most states don’t allow adults to provide children with accurate, balanced and comprehensive sex education. Some people don’t want convenient, arrogant and ancient beliefs disproved and exposed for what they really are.

Sensitive and non-exploitative sex play is an opportunity for social, emotional, motor, and cognitive learning. There is widespread agreement that children need to develop self-confidence by confronting increasingly difficult challenges. Otherwise, children grow up condemned to ineffective and destructive responses to stress: verbal assault leading to interpersonal conflict, or self-blame and consequent withdrawal and paralyzing depression. There are normal and inevitable stresses in life, but events that should only cause acute stress, such as serious disease or death in the family, become sources of chronic stress because the individual never developed sufficient self-confidence to handle stress effectively and constructively. Even normal and healthy body functions like breastfeeding cause some individuals unbearable stress, due to early neglect or the shame actively instilled during childhood.

I’m not saying that adults should initiate sex play with children. That’s against the law in most places, and if an adult initiates sex play with a child his motive may very well be to insensitively exploit and abuse the child. But honesty requires that we acknowledge there is no law of logic or valid empirical evidence for any “law of nature” that says sex play between different age groups is always and necessarily insensitive, exploitative or abusive. Only the most arrogant critic would assert (as many hundred-year-old state laws do) that being before or past midnight on a certain birthday always and necessarily disqualifies someone from sharing in sensitive, non-exploitive and non-abusive sex play. That may sound like a very radical statement to make in public, but I suspect many (perhaps most) people believe it even though they are afraid to admit it in the current climate of sex hysteria.

1. “Breasts: Women Speak About Their Breasts and Their Lives” Daphna Ayalah (Editor), Isaac J. Weinstock (Editor) (Hutchinson 1980). For more incredible stories see “Breasts: a Documentary” by Meema Spadola (First Run Features, 1996).

2. Rind et al. “A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples” (Psychological Bulletin 1998, Vol. 124, No. 1, 22-53); and Rind et al. “The Validity and Appropriateness of Methods, Analyses, and Conclusions in Rind et al. (1998): A Rebuttal of Victimological Critique From Ondersma et al. (2001) and Dallam et al. (2001)” (Psychological Bulletin 2001. Vol. 127. No. 6. 734-758).

3. “Complications, Consent, and Cognitions in Sex Between Children and Adults” Gene G. Abel et al., International Journal of Law and Psychiatry (vol. 7, pp.89-103, 1984).

4. e.g. www.clitoraid.org

5. “Pedophilia and Sexual Offending Against Children: Theory, Assessment, and Intervention” by Michael C. Seto (APA 2007).

 Traditions Old and New

 If little girls learn from their parents to be ashamed of breasts, when they become mothers they will probably teach their daughters to be ashamed too, either through active instruction or unwitting modeling. Is there ever any reflection or debate about what they are doing or why they are doing it, or merely: “That’s the way I was brought up, and that’s the way everybody else is around here!” A sheep would approve of that logic. If your parents indoctrinated you to disapprove of exposed breasts when you were too young to choose what to believe, should you then spend the rest of your life looking for excuses to justify the indoctrination you suffered?

In the prehistoric past social customs developed without any written record of why or how the customs came about or how long they were intended to continue. Some customs may have had good reasons to exist, while others may have been merely epiphenomena or side-effects of local circumstances at that time. In any case, there is no logical reason to worship traditions as an expression of infinite wisdom. Quite the contrary, every old custom should be subject to interpretation and re-evaluation according to relevant conditions in the here and now.

Although some ancient scriptures like the Bible and Koran condemn nudity, and some groups or sects attempt to impose their beliefs on everyone else, many other cultures have very different attitudes toward breasts. In Africa, Australia, Polynesia and Japan women never wore bras or covered their breasts. While exposing breasts in public is a very old tradition, breast shame is a relatively new tradition. It isn’t tradition in itself that is considered important, but “our” relatively recent Western tradition that supposedly reached moral perfection.

Some people assume that shame represents an advance over prehistoric and pre-industrial cultures, but there is ample evidence that along with the advance of civilization, in many respects people today are less ashamed of their bodies than in the distant past. See German anthropologist Hans Peter Duerr’s extensive documentation in the first volume of “Der Mythos von Zivilzation Prozess.”

The appeal to one tradition or another is similar to the mistaken worship of instincts, as if whatever is instinctive is probably healthy. Some people who criticize modern science nonetheless appeal to the theory of evolution when they think it will support their case. But in reality an instinct that developed as useful in one environment may be maladaptive or even fatal in a changed environment. Some of the most barbaric aspects of human behavior are instinctive. I think what should be most important is the consequence of behavior under current conditions, not some tradition or instinct.

The Art of Deception

 In addition to the weakness of defending breast shame in terms of “tradition” or instinct, breast shame is promoted in some clearly dishonest ways. How do we know when someone is telling the impartial truth or merely trying to sell us a product, service or idea? One trick is that an expert salesman will rely on a logical principle or form of evidence as long as it supports his sales pitch, and then deny the value of that same principle or form of evidence when it turns against him, as in the appeal to evolutionary theory.

Another common trick is to use inflammatory language rather than neutral terms to discuss what you don’t like or personally disapprove of. Body pride is called “indecency,” and fashion preferences are called “morality.”  To cite an extreme but humorous example, the 19^th century British crusader, Josephine Butler, referred to 12 to 15-year-old girls as “these infants.”

The most blatant form of deception is telling only one side of the story. You present only the evidence that supports what you are selling, and censor any contrary evidence. A sneaky variation of this trick is to select and discuss incompetent opponents as if that represents a balanced view of the subject. This trick is presented as an indication of the importance or urgency of the cause, when in reality such trickery should be an obvious sign that deception is the goal.

I searched and was unable to find any competent writer defending breast shame. I found only fanatics who claim images of any chest skin showing is “pornography.” In the most exhaustive treatment of the subject, “Shame: The Exposed Self” by Michael Lewis (1995), there is not a single line defending any kind of body shame. I would sincerely appreciate anybody referring me to a competent defender of breast shame for a thorough discussion in the comments following.

Another trick that has become accepted as “innocent,” is hiding behind the respectable and tax-exempt status of an organized religion in order to promote what is actually a personal political agenda. Instead of saying that someone finds breast pride distasteful, they claim that their political activism is religiously inspired. At the same time, they claim they are not violating the constitutional doctrine of separation of church and state. We should consider that radicals given attention by sensationalist journalists in the mass media might not be representative of most religionists. (If you are in the latter category, you might want to check out www.religiousinstitute.org and www.GoTopless.org )

My own experience is that articulate letters to the editor attempting to add balance to emotional stories go unpublished. We have no idea if what the mass media present is representative of popular opinion or merely highly selected voices to support an editor’s point of view. Some people have become so cynical that they know very well their promotion of “tradition” and “decency” are biased and illogical, but they only care about what they believe are their own personal financial or political interests. Their cynical response to reason is: “What is truth?”

Milking Consumers 

There is a lot of money being made on breast shame. The bra industry has $3 billion in annual sales in the U.S. alone. Bras are sold by promoting the idea that some breasts are more “perfect” than others, and having less than perfect breasts is equivalent to having less dignity or value as a human being. As with Forrest Gump’s leg braces, the response is to sell a lucrative prosthesis for an imaginary handicap. If you consider the sale of “training bras” for little girls today questionable, note that in the past full corsets were sold for girls as young as eight years old.

In addition to the expense and discomfort of wearing bras, there is some evidence that wearing a bra is a significant risk factor for breast cancer – the leading killer of women. A study of over 2,000 women found a clear correlation between wearing a bra and the rate of breast cancer. The correlation is much stronger than between smoking and lung cancer. See “Dressed to Kill: the Link between Bras and Breast Cancer,” by Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer (ISCD Press 2005).

Buying a bra is also an insult to both wearers and observers. Using a bra to make your breasts seem more “perfect” than they really are, assumes that observers are so stupid they don’t realize that under the colorful disguise they’re seeing the form of a propped-up facsimile of a “perfect” breast.

The naughty business of selling bras is nothing compared to the infant bottle formula industry. A few large multinational companies have over $30 billion in annual sales of breastmilk substitutes. The commercial interests of the industry have deceived parents, corrupted medical staff and made breastfeeding a dirty word in the mass media, thereby promoting breast shame, endangering the health and lives of countless babies, as well as provoking an epidemic of obesity, all in the name of cash profits.

In the Third World where mothers are undernourished they always have enough breast milk to feed their babies, but in the affluent West the bottle formula industry and its accomplices and dupes have the most well-fed women in the world believing they “might not have enough breast milk” to feed their babies and hence need to buy formula. It’s an ongoing international scandal that equals the tobacco industry’s disgrace. Hiding behind the claim of “free enterprise,” there is a long rap sheet on the criminal bottle formula industry:

- contributing a million dollars a year to the American Academy of Pediatrics to hush-up the benefits of breastfeeding and soft-pedal the dangers of toxic bottle formulas;

- bribing hospital staff to sabotage breastfeeding and encourage new mothers to bottle feed babies formula instead;

- circumventing laws that prohibit such sabotage: billing hospitals for formula that will actually be distributed as illegal free samples, then never collecting the bills;

- attempting to hide and censor the World Health Organization’s recommendation that all babies be exclusively breastfed for at least six months;

- making tax exempt “donations” of bottle formula to mothers in Third World countries, thereby risking the starvation of those babies when the samples run out and breastmilk has disappeared due to lack of stimulation.

See Gabrielle Palmer’s “The Politics of Breastfeeding: When Breasts are Bad for Business” for extensive documentation. Recently a company in Spain came out with a breastfeeding doll for little girls, and critics said that made some adults feel uncomfortable. Imagine, little girls learning that breastfeeding is a viable alternative to bottle formula! I think we should feel outraged that for many years toy companies have routinely sold dolls equipped with rubber pacifiers and plastic formula bottles.

What is Shame, and Why are You so Proud of it? 

What exactly is breast “shame,” and is there a more neutral word for it? Dictionaries typically report how people use words. A committee of experts may be selective or add what they believe is helpful, but there is no ultimate authority in language. Words themselves don’t “mean” anything, because “to mean” is a human action. Everyone doesn’t have to agree on how to use a word, as long as differences in usage are explicit. A serious writer defines the important words he is using and explains his choices among alternatives, rather than pretending that his definition is the only “correct” one, or changing definitions to suit his argument as he goes along.

The Oxford English Dictionary 2^nd ed. (OUP 2002) defines shame as: 1. “The painful emotion arising from the consciousness of something dishonouring, ridiculous, or indecorous in one’s own conduct or circumstances (or in those of others whose honour or disgrace one regards as one’s own), or of being in a situation which offends one’s sense of modesty or decency.” 2. “Fear of offence against propriety or decency, operating as a restraint on behaviour; modesty, shamefastness.” 3. “Disgrace, ignominy, loss of esteem or reputation.” 4. “What is morally disgraceful or dishonourable; baseness in conduct or behaviour.” 5. “A fact or circumstance which brings disgrace or discredit (to a person, etc.); matter for severe reproach or reprobation.” 6. “A person or thing that is a cause or source of disgrace.” In a sub-definition, the words “ugly” and “bad quality” also appear.

If we accept that what some people feel when seeing a flat chest or breast exposed is a “painful emotion,” then I would note that modern imaging technology reveals that shame originates in the same part of the brain as fear and anger, what Daniel Goleman calls the “negative emotions,” (Emotional Intelligence 2006). There are several books on helping people overcome the destructive effects of shame, typically referring to shame as a “toxic” emotion that is associated with a risk of leading to depression, substance abuse, self-harm or violence against others.

Among the many senses of the word “honor” (usually esteem, value or worth), the most interesting is: chastity (from the Latin for cleanliness) or purity. Should the appearance of an exposed breast mean the person exposed or the observer is worthless, dirty or impure? We must also assert that an awareness of what dishonors us is essential, and that comes from your teachers or models.

Offense against “decency” is a learned concept as well; babies have not yet learned about propriety or political correctness, and hence feel no shame or restraint on their behavior. Why do some people teach the labels of “disgrace” and “baseness” in reference to exposed breasts? Women have always exposed their breasts in public to breastfeed, including in church. Why should the exposure of a breast to breastfeed be completely innocent, while the exposure of a breast on the beach or in art and photography is a threat to civilization? Why do some women today feel too ashamed to breastfeed their children in public, preferring to let the child cry?

Although the OED lists the word “modesty” as a synonym for shame, the OED’s definitions of the former word are quite different: 1. “Moderation; freedom from excess or exaggeration; self-control;…” 2. “The quality of being modest, or having a moderate opinion of oneself; reserve springing from an unexaggerated estimate of one’s qualities; freedom from presumption, ostentation, arrogance, or impudence.” 3. “Womanly propriety of behaviour; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech, and conduct (in men or women); reserve or sense of shame proceeding from instinctive aversion to impure or coarse suggestions.” 4. “Unpretentious character (of things).”

In the 18^th century some entrepreneurs made money selling a “modesty-bit” or “modesty-piece” as “A kind of veil for the concealment of the bosom…” Self-control and “reserve” would seem to suggest there is a base temptation to show-off one’s breasts if you are well-endowed, but I don’t think that’s the case because my extensive personal experience in naturist (nudist) resorts is that most women who expose their breasts in public are quite average.

The OED gives the word “immodesty” as a synonym for indecency, so presumably immodesty may lead to shame, which in turn may inspire modesty. Shame may lead to modesty, but is hardly synonymous with it. I would add that modesty is more honorable if it is a free and rational choice, not a consequence of indoctrination or fear of punishment. A common definition of decency is: appropriateness to circumstances. Under many circumstances shame may be inappropriate and often is, as when a wife is ashamed to undress in front of her husband.

The word “humility” isn’t a reasonable way to describe people feeling mortified that someone inadvertently saw their exposed breasts. Although “pride” is commonly considered the opposite of both shame and humility (e.g. by the OED), humility is not really a good synonym for shame. Both modesty and humility can be positive qualities to be proud of, while shame (when justified) implies a destructive act, careless error, or evil intention. Although the word “prude” comes from the word prudence, the common meaning of “prude” is excessive modesty or propriety, often accompanied by the affectation of shame. No matter what you call it, when shame is justified (something you did) or the result of the early indoctrination you suffered as a child, breast shame is nothing to be proud of.

Breast Pride

Although there are negative uses of the word “pride,” usually in the sense of excessive self-esteem, by breast pride I mean taking pleasure or satisfaction in the appearance of one’s healthy breasts, as any other part of the body, as a form of self-respect. Hiding your imperfections to seem more perfect than you really are offers only false pride.

Why should a girl or woman feel shame in exposing her bare chest or breasts around the house in the presence of family or friends when the temperature is high? On the beach or at a pool, or whenever and wherever a child may benefit from breastfeeding, including at workplaces. But many girls and women do feel ashamed under such circumstances. If children are brought up to feel a painful emotion even in such innocent circumstances, then the charge of miseducation is in order.

Shame is also a destructive factor in deciding when to wean a child, usually much too early. Since our close relatives, the chimpanzees, breastfeed exclusively for 3-4 years and partially for another 1-2 years, but have a much shorter growth span than humans, an equivalent natural weaning time for children in our species would be eight years old. The fat-cats in the giant dairy industry might wring their hands, but not for children’s sake. Profiteering opportunists who exploit shame to make a buck should be ashamed of themselves.

As with other emotions, it’s useful to distinguish between genuinely feeling shame and merely acting or behaving as if you are ashamed. A person may feel ashamed and not show it, or conversely say or pretend you’re ashamed without actually feeling any such thing. Laws that threaten penalties for “indecent exposure” under any circumstances attempt to force everyone to act ashamed whether they actually feel ashamed or not, thereby dishonestly indoctrinating children into prescriptive norms rather than actual “community standards.” Outlawing images of exposed chests or breasts at home, on the beach or in similar contexts where there is no sexual message expressed, is an attempt to prescribe social norms, which is a polite way of saying: forcing your beliefs on other people.

In some respects there are more restrictions on breasts today than before the 1920s. In the past much religious art showed Jesus breastfeeding from an exposed breast. In many European countries there are statues of exposed breasts and nude children in public parks. As revealed by art and photography of the nineteenth century, children at the beach didn’t wear bathing suits at all before the fashion industry began selling them. Mainstream retailers in some countries sell top-free bathing suits for girls up to size (age) 10, which can be seen on 30% or more of girls before puberty on public beaches (my own informal survey) depending on the country.

There is evidence that young girls have lower self-esteem and a more negative body image than boys in grade six – age 11 – when breasts are usually developing. I recently edited a medical article describing breast cancer in girls aged 13 to 17, including seven fatalities. As often happens, diagnosis was delayed 2-10 months by initial shame in talking about a lump in the breast. In one case a girl didn’t mention a tumor in her vagina even after she was diagnosed with cancer. Body shame isn’t merely an inconvenient expense; it’s potentially deadly.

According to Ashley Montague (“Touching: the Human Significance of the Skin” 2010) many people avoid skin contact because they think it’s a prelude to, or excuse for, sexual pleasure, but the truth is often the contrary: people (especially young people) use sex as an excuse for skin contact. Ironically, if we want to discourage children from precocious sex, we should encourage more skin contact (e.g. massage) rather than prudishly discouraging children from any skin contact. There is some evidence that breast massage is a good way to improve the flow of lymph and thereby reduce the risk of breast cancer. But in some states any contact between a parent and a minor’s breast meets the definition of criminal sexual abuse.

Some superficial moralists claim that breasts should be considered sexual organs, even though they play no part in sexual reproduction. Although stimulation of the breasts may be sexually arousing, so is stimulation of the lips and ears, but they aren’t considered sexual organs. Is a little girl’s flat chest a sex organ too?

In 2007 the American Psychological Association created a “task force” to study the “sexualization” of girls. They made the classic error of equating exposed skin with sexual eroticism, and although I have discussed the study in detail in another post, suffice it to say here that the report itself is evidence that the envy of adult women and their own appearance anxiety and body discomfort explain why little girls wearing revealing clothing is called a “problem.”

Conclusion 

Have you been miseducated or duped into feeling ashamed of breasts and risking your health and the health of your child for someone else’s profit? One way to combat this truly “disgusting” problem is to bring it out of the closet and into public discussion. My personal experience seeing hundreds of nude girls and women is that breasts are never “perfect,” and they are a very small part of a human being. While I’m not suggesting that everyone should become a nudist like me, I do have every right and good reasons to reject breast shame and encourage my family and friends to consider doing so as well. Just as I have no right to make other people expose their children’s flat chests, other people have no right to prevent me from allowing mine to learn healthy breast pride by exposing their flat chests if they want to.

An important difference between Western democracy and fundamentalist dictatorships elsewhere is that our governments only limit people’s public behavior, while arrogant fundamentalists try to control people’s private behavior, speech and even thought as well.

In deciding how “decency” should be legally defined for everybody, there are many possible standards to choose from. When is it appropriate or “decent” to expose breasts? Always, never, or an infinite range in between? That should depend on where, how, why, and the choices of the individuals immediately involved. A guiding principle in constitutional democracy is that the majority rules, but minorities are respected. Instead, some individuals today are promoting a very perverted standard: whatever anybody claims makes them feel “uncomfortable” is indecent, – a standard that is impossible to apply fairly. Covering or uncovering your flat chest or breasts should be the individual’s choice, not an authoritarian Big Brother’s directive.

What is needed are comprehensive, research-based educational materials on breast development for parents and children, and teacher training to offer that material in primary and middle schools. The inadequacy of education about breast development isn’t unique. Studies of girls’ experience of menarche (first menstruation) reveal that most girls aren’t prepared for that event either, and suffer because of the lack of preparation. Children need to learn that breast development is normal and that breast pride is conducive to health. Parents who meet a child’s normal curiosity with cold silence or a slap across the face should be confronted with the possible consequences of such backwards behavior.

Sex and Education

When children experience most forms of arousal, parents and other teachers inform the child about the source and remedy of the condition. But when children are sexually aroused, parents do not inform the child or may even misinform the child. Many traditionalists claim that sexual arousal doesn’t exist in childhood, despite the obvious evidence that even infants experience penile and clitoral erections. In “The Talk: What Your Kids Need to Hear from You about Sex,” the author makes the unsubstantiated claim: “99% of 10-year-olds” have never experienced “an inkling of sexual arousal.” But in an early survey of over 1,000 women published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, 42% of the women said they began masturbating at age 5-11.

More recently in the Lamb & Coakley study (1993), 128 female college students (mean age 20.6) answered questionnaires about their memories of normal childhood sex play. Most reported kissing games, exposure, playing doctor, etc. (mean age 7.5 years), but 14.3% reported experiments in stimulation, of which 73% reported feeling “excited,” and 56% reported feeling “aroused.” 26% of all subjects reported they felt “aroused.” 42% of those who “experimented” reported some form of genital contact ranging from clothed contact (e.g. dry humping) to oral-genital contact.

Traditionalists rightly claim that most children have “no interest” in sex, but neglect to mention that the lack of interest is only after the children have been “inhibited.” Debates over sex education conveniently sidestep the fundamental question: Why do we inhibit children in the first place?

Effects of Experiential Deprivation on Brain Growth

Sexual arousal has been called a form of tension, because the most obvious sign of sexual arousal is genital erection. However, erection actually occurs when smooth (involuntary) muscles surrounding blood vessels in the penis or clitoris relax, allowing blood to accumulate inside it (vasocongestion).

Clitoral erections are visible externally in infancy and early childhood. Some researchers have reported observing the clitoris become erect during orgasm in adult women, and photographs of women with external clitoral erections are available on the web. Even the Encyclopedia Britannica acknowledges that the clitoris is an erectile organ.

But many women say they have no memory of ever experiencing an erection of the clitoris. We may reasonably assume that such women were mentally castrated in childhood. Some scientists say that anatomically the erectile part of the clitoris is only internal, and a researcher in Australia recently suggested that what anatomists call the erectile “vestibule bulbs” above the vagina, which extend around the vagina, are actually part of the clitoris. Studies using ultrasound have demonstrated a close relationship between the root of the clitoris and the anterior vaginal wall.

Sexual arousal is also characterized by increased production of dopamine, the hormone of motivation or “desire,” which increases heart rate and blood pressure temporarily, and enhances cognition. We don’t know what negative effects sexual inhibition may cause by interfering with the brain’s natural production of dopamine.

Although the source of sexual arousal may be fantasy, visual or other sensual stimuli, or may be spontaneous, the relative part of the brain signals the smooth muscles to relax. A sexually dysfunctional individual’s brain sends no such signal. Drugs like Viagra, which directly inhibit tension of the smooth muscles, bypass the need for natural brain signals. People in Mediterranean countries know that garlic has the same effect.

One consequence of misinformation and denial of children’s sexual feelings is that the sexual organs are not stimulated during development, the relative part of the brain atrophies, and the organs become dysfunctional – ranging from reduced sensitivity all the way to clitoral erectile dysfunction and vaginal anorgasmia. The majority of such women grow up unable to experience orgasm during normal intercourse and are dependent on vibrators.

One feminist author attempted to explain away female sexual dysfunction by claiming the clitoris is simply in the wrong place. In “The Technology of Orgasm: ‘Hysteria, the Vibrator, and Women’s Sexual Satisfaction,” Rachel P. Maines acknowledges the peculiarity of her conclusion (that the clitoris is in the wrong place) in evolutionary terms, but doesn’t consider the somewhat obvious alternative explanation: most women have trouble achieving orgasm during intercourse because they were mentally castrated when they were children.

Separation of Church and State

The tradition of misinforming children and denying their sexuality serves Judeo-Christian doctrine to reject sexual pleasure in favor of a life of spiritual contemplation to prepare our souls for the afterlife. Amen. The origin of circumcision is that God commanded Abraham and his heirs to show they would focus on His plan, through symbolic castration. Some early Christian sects advocated physical castration to foster spirituality, just as some mothers in Third World countries today still physically castrate their daughters without anesthesia “to improve fertility.” (See “Mutilée” by Khadi, Oh! Editions, Paris 2005.)

The Christian Church justified its anti-sex position with the confused idea that to be like God, people should have sex only for procreation. The church fathers were evidently unaware that the lowest mammals only have sex during the fertile period, while the higher mammals – apes and man – have sex even when not fertile. Are cats and dogs closer to God than we are? Many early Christians believed (and some modern Christians still believe) that Adam and Eve’s original sin described (and mistranslated) in the confused Book of Genesis was actually a sexual sin, so to be like God we must be castrated. (See Laura Englestein’s “Castration and the Heavenly Kingdom.”)

It is the mothers and other women who still physically castrate little girls in some Third World countries, and here in the modern West it is the mothers and other women as early childhood educators who mentally castrate children. Why do women keep looking for excuses to castrate little girls? Does some form of envy have something to do with it? The primitive ritual of male circumcision (at puberty in some pre-industrial cultures) includes some elements that hint at older males envying the young penis. There’s more to circumcision than God’s command to Abraham, and in any case it was never for the boy’s benefit.

Modern secular laws not only allow mental castration, they require it. If any parent tries to teach children how to masturbate themselves (e.g. by providing access to an instructional video), the parent will be arrested and the children kidnapped by some 9-to-5 bureaucrat to “protect” them. The narrow-minded, short-sighted law allows no exceptions. Even when children are severely handicapped or terminally ill – about to die – parents may not teach them how to masturbate.

The Castration Industry

Psychiatrists eventually seized on cocaine-addict Freud’s 1896 theory (based on observations of all of 18 patients) that “premature” sexual experience is traumatic for people, and hence justifies prolonged and lucrative therapy to heal the poor victims. Although Freud himself and his followers eventually abandoned that theory as overly simplistic, modern feminists revived it to gain sympathy (and funding) for their movement for gender equality. Gender equality notwithstanding, if you’re male you will have a hard time getting a job in Day Care nowadays.

Other profiteers in the modern rescue industry (social work, criminal justice) create employment for themselves by “protecting” children from the testosterone gender. To enlarge the market for their products and services, the rescue industry claims that any and all early sexual experience between different age groups is seriously harmful. They conveniently ignore the censored meta-analysis of 59 unbiased studies (Rind, et al. 1998) which concluded that the popular belief in “sexual trauma” is not supported by the empirical evidence.

If we recognize that children who have already been castrated (ABC) are likely to react negatively to any subsequent sexual experience (i.e. they have been indoctrinated to interpret sexual experience negatively), while children who were not yet castrated (NYC) will react to sexual experience according to the specific context (sensitivity vs. insensitivity, etc.), then the market for the rescue industry’s products and services would be in danger of collapse.

Maybe some enterprising psychotherapist will eventually realize there is a huge market for the treatment of children and adults who have been terrorized by the hysteria over sexual abuse (I would call it: Hysteria Induced Trauma syndrome – HITs) and help women become sexually functional.

Although the theory of neuropasticity suggests there is hope that mentally castrated individuals may overcome the damage (i.e. brain areas adjacent to undeveloped sexual areas may take over the function of signaling the smooth muscles in sexual organs to relax), the mass media and political candidates ignore the plight of NYC children who are in danger of becoming sexually dysfunctional, possibly for life.

Instead, our wise leaders contribute to the current hysteria, claiming that the “sexualization” of children must be prevented at all costs – even if that means unavoidable witch-hunting, lynch mobs, convictions of the falsely accused, abandonment of academic freedom, and the censorship of scientific research.

Researcher Elizabeth Loftus and others have described how the hysteria over child sexual abuse resembles the witch hysteria in the sixteenth century. The accusation itself is considered sufficient proof of guilt, and questioning the accusation renders you a likely perpetrator yourself. The widespread panic over “stranger danger” and “bad touch” continues even though various absurdities relating to child sexual abuse have already been discredited: ritual satanic abuse, recovered memories and multiple personality disorder. The witch hysteria of the past came to an end only when the core belief behind it – Satan’s army of witches – fell out of favor. Although it isn’t certain what the core belief is behind the hysteria over child sexual abuse, a plausible candidate is the very old and mystical belief in “premature sexualization.”

There is no doubt that child sexual abuse exists, may not be infrequent, and is sometimes seriously harmful to mental and/or physical health. But in describing the existence, frequency and effects of early sexual experience, scientific standards of evidence are swept aside in a rush to judgment that early sexual experience between different age groups is 1) always abusive, 2) widespread if not universal, and 3) seriously harmful if not worse than death. Despite the atmosphere of a Sexual Inquisition, some studies indicate that not all sexual experiences are abusive, are not usually seriously harmful (published in the Psychological Bulletin and subject of a Vote of Censure by the U.S. Congress), and even the most pessimistic guesstimates acknowledge that it’s impossible to confirm the frequency of occurrence.

Sex and Abuse

The  word “abuse” implies that there is legitimate use beyond which it is no longer use but “abuse.” But for 30 years inquisitors have been arguing that there is no such thing as legitimate sex before maturity. It’s all “abuse.” In an article for the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry “What’s Wrong with Sex Between Adults and Children?” David Finklehor claimed that children are never competent to consent to sexual experience with adults, and hence any sexual experience between different age groups is always morally wrong. He offered no experimental or other empirical data for that claim, as if it is true by definition. But in reality competence to consent is clearly an empirical question, not a matter of definition. Even if it isn’t permissible to experiment with children, e.g. instructing them about what informed consent means, the need to be aware of alternatives and consequences, etc., and then testing their understanding and comparing their scores to adult controls, we should at least be humble and reserve judgment. We simply don’t know how competent average children are to understand alternatives and consequences in general, or how competent an individual child is in a specific case.

Finklehor conceded that same-age peers are competent to consent to sex play with each other, but didn’t confront the difficulty of deciding how much older the playmate has to be before the child suddenly loses his or her competence to consent. According to some state laws, a young person is considered competent to understand the alternatives and consequences of undergoing an invasive surgical procedure (abortion), but incompetent to understand the alternatives and consequences of her breasts being massaged (now recognized as a way to improve lymph flow and prevent breast cancer). Competence to consent is traditionally decided by counting birthdays, but only for administrative convenience, not because counting birthdays is an expression of profound wisdom or an obvious moral precept. Some scholars recognize that competence to consent is a matter of degree, and varies depending on the individuals and circumstances, and some judges rule that a child is competent to make important legal or medical decisions in certain circumstances. Interestingly, Finklehor also warned the faithful not to rely on the claim that early sex is “always harmful,” because exceptions will be found.

The Rhetoric of Hysteria

A peculiar aspect of rants and ravings about “premature sexualization” is the lack of any definition of what it is exactly. Other than vague comments about “growing up too fast” and “excessive stimulation,” we are left to imagine how fast is too fast, and how much stimulation is too much. In a classic book on baby massage, Amelia Auckett suggested including the child’s genital area in the massage, neither emphasizing or ignoring it. A harmless and even reasonable suggestion, I think. But according to many state laws, any contact between any part of an adult’s body and a child’s “genitals” is considered a form of sexual assault if not sexual battery. Breast massage to improve the flow of lymph fluid also violates some laws if a parent massages a minor’s breasts. More enthusiastic crusaders against sexual abuse consider sexual talk in the presence of a minor a form of assault and battery.

The rhetoric of abuse hysteria relies on the misuse of simple language for dramatic effect. There is no distinction between violent coercion and slapstick play. Adolescents are called “children.” Inappropriate fondling is called “rape,” even though rape is usually defined as genital penetration, and it’s physically impossible for an adult male to penetrate a pre-pubescent girl. In popular culture the phrase “baby raper” is often heard, but isn’t that a contradiction of terms?

Another claim about the immorality of sexual experience in childhood is the ever-present reference to insensitivity and exploitation, as if they are inevitable aspects of sexual experience between different age groups. Discussions of sexual abuse typically begin with the claim that early sex is necessarily harmful, but then go on to describe the ill effects of insensitivity and exploitation, as if they haven’t changed the subject. There is no experimental or other empirical data to support the assumption that sex play between playmates of different ages is always and necessarily insensitive or exploitative, let alone injurious.

        Perhaps most non-sexual interactions between adults and children are so often insensitive or exploitative that some people have difficulty imagining sensitivity might be possible in the context of sex play. But if sex play between same-age peers can be free of insensitivity and exploitation, then how do we determine how much of an age difference between playmates renders insensitivity and exploitation inevitable? Ironically, insensitivity and exploitation are often hallmarks of religious training which indoctrinates children to accept the parent’s beliefs in rejecting “the pleasures of the flesh.”

Pesky Statistics

Despite Finklehor’s warning, the most persistent and appealing aspect of campaigns against premature sexualization is the idea that we are protecting children from serious injury, but here the label of hysteria is most clearly justified. According to government statistics: out of 1,760 child fatalities caused by abuse and/or neglect in 2007, only 0.2% or 4 fatalities were due to sexual abuse. While that’s four fatalities too many, they pale in comparison to the following numbers:

- Over nine million children a year are treated in hospital emergency rooms

- Motor vehicles are the leading cause of death in childhood. Nearly half of children under five who died or were injured in motor vehicle crashes (9,000 deaths and 160,000 non-fatal injuries) were riding unrestrained.

- Drowning is the second leading cause of unintentional injury-related death in children aged 1-14, e.g. by falling in backyard pools with no fence.

- Falls are the leading cause of unintentional non-fatal injury in children, and account for nearly three million emergency room visits every year.

- Other common injuries are caused by: fire and burns, suffocation, firearms, choking and poisoning.

Although covered up as “accidents,” many deaths and crippling injuries are attributable to parental neglect. Most car crashes are considered accidents, but allowing a child to ride unrestrained is no accident; it’s negligence. Nonetheless, the inquisitors complain that some adults love children too much and premature sexualization is widespread and causes suicide, eating disorders, substance abuse, severe emotional distress, failed marriages, etc., just about everything except the common cold. The lack of any reliable evidence for such beliefs doesn’t deter the hysterics, such as studies that fail to find any connection between childhood sexual experience and bulimia. The effects of premature sexualization can be worse than death, we are told in a dramatic tone, as if any responsible parent would rather her daughter’s skull be crushed in a car crash than her immature private parts massaged by the village idiot. The good news is that “survivors” of premature sexualization can get better by giving their money to a local therapist who is all too eager to sell you services.

When negative effects occur they are casually attributed to the sexual aspect of the experience, but a meta-analysis of many studies by doctors at Columbia University Children’s Hospital published in the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry found that the worst effects weren’t related to such factors as the extent or duration of the sexual experience itself. The worst outcomes were related to prior terrorization against sex by the parents (i.e. the child is prepped to interpret sexual experience negatively), and being interrogated or compelled to participate in a criminal prosecution afterwards. While claiming to protect children from injury, parents, social workers and law enforcement personnel themselves set the stage for long term damage. Other studies have confirmed that finding, and the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect acknowledges it: “There is often as much harm done to the child by the system’s handling of the case, as the trauma associated with the abuse.” In reality most known victims of sexual abuse aren’t children but adolescents and young adults, and the meta-analysis found that the older the victim when the abuse begins the worse the outcome. But the phrase “child sexual abuse” sounds more compelling for political purposes, so forget that children are neither the most frequent nor the most seriously injured victims.

A case can be made that the most common mental disorder is hypochondria. Many people would be surprised to learn that one of a pediatrician’s most important and most frequent tasks isn’t to cure any childhood disease, but rather to simply reassure parents that their child’s condition isn’t life-threatening and in most cases not even unusual. If pediatricians abandon that function and instead tell parents that a widespread phenomenon like sex play is potentially life-threatening, it is not only false – it creates a nation of hysterics.

Sexualization?

        So what is “premature sexualization” exactly, and when does it occur? In seeming support of the hysteria a 2007 report by an APA committee on the “Sexualization of Girls” complained that fashion designers, toy (doll) makers and advertising in the mass media promote the overvaluation of sexual attractiveness, which has negative effects on self-esteem, contributes to appearance anxiety and body discomfort, and may promote sexual violence and exploitation (“objectification”).  The report claims that children have difficulty understanding that advertising is intended to persuade people to buy things. But some adults have the same problem.

The report complains that “women and girls are portrayed in a sexualizing manner” and that media images “teach girls that women are sexual objects.”  The report cites several media studies, surveys and a few experiments, and concludes that children should be taught “media literacy,” to view media critically rather than be passive consumers of advertising. But the report also advocates comprehensive sex education,  and says we should promote competence in body function rather than consciousness of appearance. The report accepted the SIECUS.org position that “Healthy sexuality is an important component of both physical and mental health, fosters intimacy, bonding, and shared pleasure, and involves mutual respect between consenting partners.” The report cites evidence that comprehensive sex education is the best way to reduce risk behavior (early initiation of genital penetration). Evidence is cited that healthy sexuality is related to happiness, intimacy, less stress, higher self-esteem, etc. Undergraduates who are more media-obsessed have more negative attitudes toward breastfeeding and dissatisfaction with sexual experience. Body dissatisfaction is related to later onset of masturbation, and body discomfort is related to higher levels of risk-taking. Unfortunately, the hopeless complexity of intimate relationships necessitates vague phrases like “may be” and “can cause” and “potential connections” rather than clear expressions of statistical probability. Psychologists typically ignore such difficulties and instead go on to describe “mechanisms” of mental disorder and – fortunately for psychotherapists trying to make a living – even expensive “therapy” without the pesky clinical trials that limit claims for medical effectiveness.

The report acknowledges that the negative “effects” of sexual abuse are related to the severity (unspecified) of the abuse and if force was used, as well as the reactions of others and the girl’s own perceptions and attributions. The report also admits there are several indications that negative outcomes are neither inevitable nor universal. The report recommends positive depictions of sexuality, but avoids describing what that implies (buddy massage? self-masturbation? sex play between same-age peers without penetration?). By necessity, the report avoids defining where and when healthy sexuality ends and abuse begins, since the hysteria doesn’t allow funding more specific research or even open discussion of children’s sexual thoughts, feelings and experience.

Propaganda

Another study that addresses the topic of “premature sexualization” is cited enthusiastically by a web site promoting the Grace of God, even though the original study was merely a survey of 54 members of GirlGuiding UK, a kind of Girl Scouts, aged 10-14, and says little about what premature sexualization is supposed to be. The girls took part in “Focus Groups” which consisted in taking the participants through a series of “creative and projective exercises” to discuss what the girls felt were the questions that concerned them most. Visitors to the organization’s web site also had the opportunity to take an online survey of their attitudes toward emotional well-being.

Before the Focus Groups met the girls were asked to keep an emotions diary, in which they recorded the emotions they felt each day and the context. Then during the first session the participants were asked to distinguish which emotions were easy to manage, and they identified such things as love and friendship. In contrast, the girls said being unloved and excluded were among the difficult emotions to manage. The girls also complained about bullying and gratuitous aggression. During the second session the girls were asked about their understanding of mental health, and they identified ADD and autism as examples of inherited mental health problems. The group “facilitators” suggested environmentally caused behaviors that are considered mental health problems such as eating disorders, and the girls agreed that uncontrolled behavior is a mental health problem, but many girls said infrequent self-harm might be “normal” for their age group rather than a mental health problem.

The participants were then shown pictures and “story cards” to encourage the girls to think about what kind of situations could lead to mental health problems. Many girls (percentage not stated) said that feeling compelled to act older than their age can lead to unhappiness and “therefore” mental health problems. Many (percentage not stated) reported being under “sexual pressure” from boys at school, especially the girls who had reached sexual maturity before their peers. In contrast, some girls (percentage not stated) complained that lack of freedom left them feeling isolated, and boredom led to aggression and self-harm. Many also complained about family breakdown and competition between parents for the child’s loyalty. Scholastic worries were cited as among the greatest causes of anxiety and sleeplessness. In the online survey only little more than a third of the respondents said they liked spending some time without any boys around.

To what extent did the facilitators and their story cards suggest the idea that girls are “under pressure” to look and act older? The study was supported by the Mental Health Foundation, a charitable organization which nonetheless seems to be interested in publicizing the need for (and supposed value of) mental health services. Not surprisingly, the study concluded that girls should stay in GirlGuiding. Psychotherapist, heal thyself. So many people want to become psychologists but there isn’t enough work for all these people. Solution? Drum up more business by creating mass hysteria over the mysterious concept of premature sexualization.

The Conspiracy Theory

Feminist theory is that men sexually abuse little girls to “prepare” females for their future subordinate role. While that theory awaits empirical confirmation I think we may rightly condemn traditional male dominance and the primitive idea that females are “owned” by males, but we should distinguish most cases of sexual insensitivity from the probably rare cases of innocent massage and playful affection. Is it impossible to educate adults to respect a child’s choices and physical limits? Although most cases of insensitive or violent sex that come to public awareness are male-against-female, the proof that not all early sexual experience with adults is necessarily “political” is that women sometimes sexually abuse little boys or girls, and emotionally abuse their daughters in particular – which can be more destructive than sexual abuse, just as physical abuse and neglect is more often deadly. It is claimed that women who abuse were victims themselves and merely repeat the cycle, but how do we know that men aren’t in the same position? If early experience is so powerful as a model, then a sensitive adult who is tenderly affectionate and playfully sexual will create a future parent who is likewise sensitive, tender and playful.

So where is the evidence that premature sexualization exists, is frequent, and seriously harmful? As far as we know it’s merely a hypothetical danger awaiting confirmation from serious research that isn’t supported by special interests. Do hypothetical dangers justify anti-sex education, keeping children prisoners in their own homes, and reacting emotionally whenever a child reports any kind of sexual experience? Once we attempt to measure the slippery concept of “premature sexualization” with a yardstick or weigh it on a scale, we may be able to free ourselves from its power.

Mental Castration

Some people believe in the opposite hypothesis: sexual inhibition is a form of mental castration and a leading cause of sexual dysfunction. That sounds like heresy, but it should be no surprise. It’s known that in general brain synapses atrophy if the relative body organs aren’t stimulated during development. The paradigm case is vision: if an eye is covered during a crucial stage of brain development you become permanently blind in that eye; there is nothing wrong with the eye itself – but the relevant parts of the brain have atrophied due to lack of stimulation. Little girls experience clitoral erections while awake and while asleep, but most adult women only experience clitoral erections while they sleep. The analogous condition in men is called sexual dysfunction; why should it be called anything else in women? Self-harm is also a possible result of excessive inhibition. I certainly don’t know any uninhibited young people who would lacerate their own beautiful skin with a razor blade. Excessive inhibition may also be a cause of interpersonal aggression, as well as a possible factor in the current epidemic of relationship problems between men and women.

If I may permit myself the same liberty that psychological mystics do, maybe the outcry over “premature sexualization” is actually a cry for help from individuals who have been mentally castrated and are unable to enjoy thinking or talking about sex (let alone doing it) except in the context of outrage and demands for justice. There is definitely some confusion in the attitudes and behavior of inhibited people. A book by a victim of female genital mutilation revealed that despite the horror of the experience (someone cutting off her clitoris at age eight without anesthetics), the woman had most of her own daughters mutilated as well. How many women in the West who were mentally castrated when they were little are now mentally castrating their own daughters? I’ll bet the hysterics aren’t eager to study that question.