(1) 1 - Introduction

Over allerlei paradoxen op het vlak van seksualiteit. Seks is overal, maar er kan nog steeds nauwelijks op een constructieve manier over gepraat worden. Dat is met name het geval als het gaat over seksualiteit en kinderen.

"Agendas for equality, recognition and diversity, both partial and unfulfilled, have emerged in different forms and in different parts of the world, challenging conservative cultures of repression and constraint on sexual relations and pleasures.
The exception to these general contours of change comes when the words child and childhood are juxtaposed with sex and sexuality. Then conservative voices are reinforced, amplified and embraced. The dominant discourses are those of danger, risk and the need for repression, and these discourses are not just articulated by conservative voices, but are dominant in the voices for children’s protection and safeguarding. An interest in childhood and sexuality is viewed with suspicion, and the dominant and prevailing public discourses of disgust, shame and vilification are amplified. Common representations of childhood paint the child as innocent and sex as a prime form of adult corruption. Even within the field of childhood studies, the idea of children as sexually agentic subjects is rarely considered and when sexuality is addressed it is usually within a protectionist framework that positions sexuality as something that is dangerous to children and something they should be protected from. As Edward Ritvo observes, ‘childhood sexuality is like playing with a loaded gun’ (cited in Grunbaum 1984: 256)
These various sensitivities come from the fear of the child as not conforming to the sexless, innocent, pure and unsullied representations that hold such appeal, the notion that children might wish to incorporate sexual pleasures into their interpersonal relationships with other children, and the abhorrence of the idea of children being used and abused by adults for sexual purposes. These three interlocking, yet distinct, areas of concern feed into a protectionist agenda that regards the intersection of childhood and sexuality as intrinsically dangerous and so necessarily repressed in children and constrained in law. When children and sex meet, the possibilities are potentially so catastrophic that there is no room or need for debate." [mijn nadruk] (2-3)

Maar dat niet alleen. Ook wetenschappelijk onderzoek op dat terrein wordt gezien als onnodig en zelfs tegengewerkt. Er is dan ook weinig onderzoek: S. Jackson (1982) en Sandfort & Rademakers (1980) bijvoorbeeld.

"Sandfort and Rademakers (2000) provide a digest of largely psychological and empirical studies on childhood and sexuality, focused on children’s sexual behaviour in a way that does not simply reduce the child to an object of abuse." [mijn nadruk] (3)

[Dat zijn onderzoekers van het vroegere NISSO, het Nederlands Instituut voor Sociaal-Sexuologisch Onderzoek. Die laatste zin is erg raak. Ook mij is opgevallen dat er een hoop 'onderzoek' is / in ieder geval gepubliceerd is naar kinderen als het gaat om seksueel misbruik, maar nauwelijks naar hun normale seksuele ontwikkeling. Gevolg: de koppeling 'kinderen' en 'seksualiteit' roept alleen maar negatieve gevoelswaarden op.]

"The protectionist agenda should be balanced — not diminished but balanced — with an agenda that recognises the importance of children being able to explore their own feelings; an agenda that facilitates children’s knowledge and understanding of their sexual development which, in turn, enables them to feel confident as sexual agents and enabled to exercise sexual agency as they move towards maturity." [mijn nadruk] (5)

De benadering in dit boek is de volgende:

"Two of the overarching themes of this text are to provide a nuanced appraisal of both the strengths and weaknesses of the protectionist agenda, whilst exploring and assessing the less readily addressed position that children should be allowed to develop their sexual feelings in a more enabling and productive, but simultaneously and necessarily secure, context. Viewing children as sexually agentic is not necessarily synonymous with a libertarian position and that is not a perspective that this book subscribes to." [mijn nadruk] (6)

[Wonderlijk voorzichtig tegenover die protectionistische aanpak. Die is juist de oorzaak van dat het onderwerp niet onderzocht en besproken mag worden, zoals hierboven geconstateerd werd.]

"Given the recent proliferation of texts on childhood and sexuality, it might be wondered why we ... have sought to add another to this growing body of literature, and some context might be useful."(11)

Er wordt dus wel kritiek geleverd op de protectionistische houding.

"Yet we feel, the text still adds to that literature in three important ways.
First, perhaps more than comparable texts, our approach to the area seeks to explore and problematise the tension between the importance of protection, on the one hand, and the need for liberation on the other. It is a given that children should be protected from sexual use or abuse as a means for others pleasure rather than an end, as a human whose sexuality is respected. Yet there is a sense in which uncritically framing debate that begins and ends with protection is not constructive. Abuse itself is a problematic framing, as it is used in the context of childhood and sexuality as if all issues of sexuality are abusive to children. ‘Ab-use’ is rarely unpacked to consider what abnormal or inappropriate use might be, and by contrast what acceptable use might be. There is no acceptable ‘use’ where childhood and sexuality are concerned. A consequence of this — sometimes intended and sometimes not — is that the protectionist framework stifles an agenda that seeks to explore the sexual needs, wants and desires of children and to question the boundaries of what is culturally, politically, legally and morally permissible or prohibitive. The idea of promoting the liberty of children to have some say in their sexual development or activities, or to better prepare children for sexual adulthood prior to their achieving an age of maturity, is considered dangerous rather than enabling." [mijn nadruk] (12)

Ook de ontwikkelingsopvattingen zullen kritisch worden besproken.

"Second, we approach the developmental models of both childhood and sexuality with some scepticism. (...) Not only does developmentalism silence children’s voices with regards to their understanding of and perspectives on their own abilities and competencies, it effectively silences any discussion of childhood and sexuality outside the protectionist framework. By emphasising children’s transition through cumulative stages of maturation, developmental models position children as human ‘becomings’ in relation to the adult human being. Once children are characterised as less competent, less rational and more immature than adults, the adult preserve of sexuality comes to be seen as something that is ‘naturally’ and ‘inevitably’ harmful for children and that, therefore, they must be protected from." [mijn nadruk] (13)

"Finally, we approach sexuality as altogether too confined to heteronormative, and more recently, homonormative orthodoxies.(...) The central characteristics of what we regard as sexuality should not be regarded as simply natural, biologically determined or psychologically produced (which is where Chap. 2 begins)." [mijn nadruk] (13)

[Dit ligt allemaal dicht bij mijn eigen opvattingen.]

Volgt een overzicht van wat er in dit boek aan de orde zal komen.

"Much of the expository material in this book is drawn from the example of the United Kingdom, with additional examples drawn from North America, Europe and Australasia. There are clear limitations with this in respect of what is absent, particularly in respect of the Global South (Latin and South America, Africa, the Middle East, Asia and the Far East). We do not claim a global reach. The level of diversity within European, North American and Australasian societies is itself a challenge to represent in one text — though there are some similarities. Therefore, we have often used UK examples to illustrate our analysis and then brought in wider supporting examples."(19)

(23) 2 - Theoretical Approaches to the Study of Childhood and Sexuality

Introduction

Hier wordt gekeken naar sociale en culturele theorieën die meespelen in het kijken naar kinderen en seksualiteit.

"The purpose of this theoretical chapter is to map both the conceptual underpinnings of their current orthodoxies as a prelude to the critical case studies in subsequent chapters, and articulate the different critical arguments that identify causes, consequences and impacts of attendant ideologies and policies on children, parents, families, those who work with children and how childhood and sexuality is represented in society."(23)

Bio-medical and Developmental Perspectives

"As with all aspects of human development, both childhood and sexuality were historically regarded as fixed properties of the body and of nature (Heywood 2001; Porter 1999, 2003). Childhood describes the initial phases of human development – birth, infancy and the process of maturation to adulthood. This conception of child development was later reinforced by biological, medical and psychological studies describing the maturation process and attributing normal stages for mental, physical, emotional, cognitive social and language development (indicatively, Doherty and Hughes 2013; Smith et al. 2015). The body and sex were similarly understood as governed by natural processes of development. The body developed to fulfil ‘natural’ functions at puberty, and the primary functional determinant of sex was reproduction. Hence sex and sexuality were explored for functionality, and the normality of function, behaviours and desires. The centrality of reproduction focused research on sexuality upon the genitals – the ‘sex organs’ (Mort 2000)." [mijn nadruk] (24-25)

[Zo gauw wetenschappers de nadruk gaan leggen op de normale ontwikkeling van mensen ontstaan er normatieve invullingen van wat 'normaal' is vanuit eigen waarden en normen. Als je seks invult als puur biologisch en gericht op de voortplanting maak je een keuze waardoor je allerlei zaken zelfs niet wilt onderzoeken. Als daar ook nog gedrag aan gekoppeld wordt - dit is gedrag dat er bijhoort en dit is gedrag dat er niet bijhoort - dan is bijvoorbeeld masturberen slecht gedrag want niet gericht op de voortplanting.]

"What is assumed to be ‘normal’ child development is not simply informed by bio-medical and psychological criteria of functionality, but children’s functional capacity to enter into social relationships and grow and mature to be able to enter adult society. Hence what is ‘normal’ extends from the physical and mental attributes of the child to normal expectations of conduct and inter-relationships. This natural/normal order governs what is appropriate for children to be responsible for and to be asked to do during their development, and what adults should ask, compel or prohibit them to do. This naturalised and developmental approach to both childhood and sexuality established a natural and normal order and pattern of growth, development and behaviour that was considered healthy, morally correct and socially functional." [mijn nadruk] (25-26)

"Likewise, traditionally, a normal, developmental conception of sexuality was age appropriate, heterosexual, monogamous, private, gendered and bound at least rhetorically to reproduction, and therefore conceived in monogamous family relationships (Weeks 2010)."(26)

Sexology

De klassieke sexuologie is anders dan de moderne sexuologie. Eerst die eerste.

"Until relatively recently, and certainly during Krafft-Ebing’s time, writing about sex and sexuality was limited to “authorized voices [which] have been religious, medical, medico-moral, legal, psychological, pedagogical, and certainly ‘official’” (Weeks 2000: 125) (...) Further, sexual knowledge was considered to be potentially dangerous (Bland and Doan 1998)." [mijn nadruk] (27)

[Dat alleen al zegt hoe negatief er gedacht en gevoeld werd over seks.]

"Krafft-Ebing defined sex as a “natural instinct [which] with all conquering force and might demands fulfilment” (1931, 1st English trans 1892, cited in Weeks 1991: 23). He saw sexual desire as an innate, biological process, which is potentially explosive and therefore in need of regulation. He asserts that such regulation only emerged with the development of moral codes of conduct to govern sexual behaviour, particularly the teaching and practice of Christianity, which fused together medical and scientific discourse with commonly held beliefs about morality. He considered monogamy to have a particularly important role in controlling sexuality (Bristow 1997).
The anti-psychiatry proponent Thomas Szasz, reflecting on this fusion of pseudo-scientific discourse with discourses of morality observed “Krafft-Ebing was not interested in liberating men and women from the shackles of sexual prejudice or the constraints of anti-sexual legislation. On the contrary, he was interested in supplanting the waning power of the church with the waxing power of medicine” (Szasz 1980: 19–20 cited in Oosterhuis 2002: 273). This concurs with Mort’s (2000) later articulation of medico-moral discourses as constituting sexual knowledge as dangerous and risky." [mijn nadruk] (28)

[Mooi, die uitspraak van Szasz. Zo iemand als Kraft-Ebing is dus bezig met het propageren van bepaalde waarden en normen en suggereert dat dat wetenschappelijk noodzakelijk is. Het is zo gemakkelijk om hier lastige vragen bij te stellen: Waarom moeten verlangens naar seks gereguleerd worden? Waarom is het Christendom juist de ideologie van waaruit dat reguleren moet plaatsvinden en niet bijvoorbeeld het Taoïsme? Waarom is monogamie daarin belangrijker dan polyamorie?]

"Krafft-Ebing saw sexual desire as an innate, biological process that manifested itself differently in men and women. He likened male sexuality to a volcano, powerful and uncontrollable, whereas female sexuality, whilst biologically determined, only developed when she was introduced into the company of men."(28)

"[Havelock] Ellis defined courtship as the pursuit and conquest of the submissive female by the dominant male. Essential to successful courtship was female modesty,"(29)

[Dat zijn dus normatieve opvattingen, het zijn geen biologische gegevenheden. Ze worden wel zo gepresenteerd. En de invloed ervan is immens geweest: nog vandaag de dag denkt het merendeel van de bevolking in die termen. ]

De moderne sexuologie komt op na WO II.

"Sexological works from Masters and Johnson (1966, 1970) through to, in the UK, the NATSAL surveys (NATSAL 1990–2012 and ongoing, indicatively, Wellings et al. 1994) have developed using more social scientific techniques to provide powerful bases for evidence about people’s sexual behaviour, relationships, identities and orientations."(30)

Psychoanalytical Theory

[Bekend verhaal.]

"Whilst a number of approaches have made insightful inroads to this critique of naturalism and developmentalism, the dominant approach to the study of both childhood and sexuality has been social constructionism."(33)

Social Constructionism

"We will use Foucault, primarily, to explain a constructionist approach.(...) Foucault’s influence came from his challenges to authority and orthodoxy in condemning the ‘mad’ ‘bad’ and ‘sad’ in society, particularly in his unfinished three-volume study of the history of sexuality (1978, 1984a, b). Foucault’s approach was to critically deconstruct the dominant norms and values that underpinned social and historical discourses, and their institutional and professional manifestations in policing and prisons, medicine, hospitals and asylums (Foucault 1991, 2001, 2003) These discourses had the effect of establishing the ‘normal’ and ‘natural’ as self-evident truths rather than contingent, historically and cultural specific reflections of dominant values (Foucault 2002a, b). These discourses pathologised and marginalised mentally and physically disabled people and underpinned prejudice against non-conformity. Orthodoxy often favoured incarceration, segregation, punishment, pathology and prejudice against those who were different or did not fit. Foucault exposed these discourses not as addressing, as they claimed, the particular needs or challenges of difference, whether mental illness, crime or sexual diversity, but as exercising power in the defence of dominant elites and their interests and understandings of the order of things in society." [mijn nadruk] (34)

"Whilst people might expect, and perhaps reject, government edict, they might not detect the subtle reinforcement of orthodox norms and values in soap operas or films or documentaries, where morality plays and human interest stories normalise orthodoxy and prescribe difference." [mijn nadruk] (35-36)

[Wonderlijk hoe dicht dat zit bij mijn eigen overtuigingen.]

"Foucault’s analysis rejected theories like Marxism and feminism, which sought to give overarching class or gender determined causes to questions of oppression or regulation. On the contrary, for Foucault, ‘grand narra- tives’ such as Marxism and feminism only offered alternative orthodoxies and discourses that establish different forms of conformity, discipline and order. This is the basis of understanding social constructionism as theoretically underdetermined." [mijn nadruk] (38)

[En dat is waarom ik toch niet van Foucault houdt.]

Childhood and Sexuality Constructed

Kritiek op het ontwikkelingsmodel.

Contrasting Theories

Over sociologische theorieën, met name vanuit het symbolisch interactionisme en de benadering van Goffman.

"This set of emphasises the heterogeneity of children and their experience, against the generalisations of law, policy and developmental conceptions. It emphasises the need to appreciate the voices and actions of the child and their differences in perceiving what is sexual, and the exercise of their desires and pleasures. Finally, it focuses on the terrain of experience, and so reaches out to everyday life and its rich variations. Whilst it is important to understanding the dominant discourses that shape sexual life for adults and children, this does not preclude significant variation in how they are lived, spatial, temporally and in different material conditions of social life." [mijn nadruk] (45)

Ook feminisme en marxisme spelen een belangrijke rol:

"Both childhood and sexuality are bisected by gendered critique. Both children and sexuality are the subjects of gendered oppressive discourses – girls groomed to be mere adjuncts to men or to be regarded by their appearance and femininity, and sex as a practice suffused with male power (indicatively see Jones 2009; Jackson and Scott 1996).
Equally, and often less a focus, boys are subject to the vagaries of the imposition of forms of ‘hegemonic masculinity’ (Connell 1987). Masculinities, from the archetypical ‘male’ to more plastic and fluid versions, advances concerns about the traditional shapes of masculinity and femininity and the way they constrain, impact upon and shape children and their sexualities (indicatively, Buchbuinder 2012; Connell 2005; Cornwall et al. 2016; Gardiner 2002; Reeser 2010)." [mijn nadruk] (46-47)

"Ideological constructions of morality and ‘normal’ social functioning and order reinforce the power of the capitalist class to maintain their position of dominance, which Marxists seek to challenge through consciousness raising and class struggle. Marxists have only recently turned their attentions to issues of childhood and sexuality, though as early as Engels (1972) childhood and gender were regarded as means by which class power ensured the reproduction of the labour force through gendered roles and the socialisation of children (for summarises of Marxist engagements with childhood [in the context of family] and sexuality respectively see Brown 2012; Drucker 2015; Lewis 2016; Reynolds 2004). Three main themes are evident. Children are subjects of social reproduction, to prepare them for their place as part of the labour force. Children are alienated (see Meszaros 1974) from themselves by processes of schooling, discipline and regulation, confronted by measurements and tests for achievement, regulating their time and bodies. Children are exploited as consumers whose appetites can be manufactured for parental consumption, or as consumables themselves, whether in child labour or has commodities to be bought and sold in representation or body."(48)

(59) 3 - Law, Policy and Practice: National and International Dimensions

Introduction

"As we identified in Chap. 2, within contemporary Western discourses, the categories of childhood and youth are positioned as vulnerable, at risk and in need of protection. The legacy of eighteenth- and nineteenth-­century constructions of childhood and sexuality continues to characterise children and young people as asexual or pre-sexual and “untroubled and untouched by the cares of the (adult) sexual world to come” (Renold 2005: 17). Young children are conceptualised as sexually unaware, separated from and unencumbered by the corrupting influences of adulthood, whilst older children and young people are seen as embarking on a stressful and turbulent transition to adult sexuality; a transition that must be carefully managed by adults if it is to be successful. Not surprisingly, these dominant constructions of childhood and sexuality become institutionalised in a range of discourses and, especially, in the area of law and policy concerning children and young people where sexuality can be seen as simultaneously absent and present (Moore and Prescott 2013). When law and policy does make explicit references to sexuality, it is couched within a protectionist, heteronormative and welfare discourse which ­portrays sexuality as something that adults inappropriately impose on ­children and from which they must be protected. Alternatively, sexuality is positioned within a context of risk and so-called ‘risk-taking’ behaviours whereby children and young people engage in sexual risk taking alongside other risk-taking activities, such as drug and alcohol consumption. Here, it is the very act of engaging in sexual activity that is deemed to be risky “because of the (non)status afforded to them as children and young people. Such ‘risks’ have to be managed, limited and contained by adults” (Moore and Prescott 2013: 198). What is absent in contemporary law and policy is any meaningful sense of children and young people as sexual beings who are able to exercise choice and agency in the creation and expression of their gender and sexual identities." [mijn nadruk] (59-60)

"We will argue that law and policy concerning childhood and sexuality is underpinned by developmental assumptions about who/what children are and who they should become, with sexuality seen as “something done to children and not as something that can take place within a larger con- stellation of a child’s sexuality ...[and] ... once sexuality is realized in the body of a child it becomes cause for concern and adult intervention” (Egan and Hawkes 2009: 391). Although our main focus is on the legal framework and policy context of the United Kingdom, there will be a critical consideration of the efficacy of international treaties and conventions in the recognition of children as sexual beings and the realisation of their sexual rights." [mijn nadruk] (60-61)

"We will argue that the failure to recognise the sexually agentic child within law and policy makes them more vulnerable to abuse and exploitation."(61)

[Dit is een kernachtige samenvatting van waar het in dit hoofdstuk om gaat. ]

The Child Subject in Law and Policy

"According to Hendrick (1994), it is possible to identify a recurrent dualism of victim/threat in law and policy concerning children. Most commonly children are positioned as victims or potential victims and much of the child welfare legislation since the nineteenth century has been focussed on preventing children from becoming victims, protecting them from cruelty and abuse and punishing those (usually adults) who have victimised them. However, at the same time as being ascribed a victim status, children are also characterised as potential threats to themselves, others and the very fabric of society. Even a child victim is seen as a potential threat and a considerable amount of intervention from experts, charitable organisations and the State is required to prevent that potential threat from being realised. Hendrick (1994: 7, emphasis in original) goes as far as to suggest that “much of so-called protective legislation has been concerned with their presence as threats rather than their suffering as victims”." [mijn nadruk] (63)

Using Law and Policy to Protect Children and Young People from Sexuality

"One facet of the ‘right’ kind of childhood (Burman 2003) that is evoked in discussions of child sexual abuse is childhood innocence, which Kitzinger (1997) claims can be deeply problematic for a number of reasons. First, she argues that the very notion of innocence is fetishised and sexualised by abusers. Second, when innocence is utilised as one of, if not the, markers of childhood, it serves to stigmatise the ‘knowing’ child which not only further victimises children who have been sexually exploited but also positions children who have acquired sexual knowledge beyond what is expected of them for their age outside the category of childhood and, therefore, in less need of protection. This is a dangerous and pernicious use of the term ‘innocence’. As Kitzinger (1997: 168) asks “if the violation of innocence is the criterion against which the act of sexual abuse is judged then violating a ‘knowing’ child becomes a lesser offence that violating an ‘innocent’ child”. Finally, the use and maintenance of childhood innocence acts as a powerful justification in denying children access to sexual knowledge, which ultimately makes them more vulnerable to abuse and exploitation (Robinson 2012). Evocation of childhood innocence can be counterproductive as it “creates unnecessary dependencies and prevents the child from developing competencies” (Roose and Bouverne de-Bie 2007: 433)" [mijn nadruk] (66)

Youth Policy and the Absence of the Sexuality

"This duty to consult with children and young people and take their views into consideration is enshrined in national law and policy and international treaties and conventions."(68)

The Legislative and Policy Context: Rhetoric of Participation?

"However, despite this strong legislative framework, participation rights with regards to sexual decision making remains elusive, which is somewhat surprising given the impact of the 1985 Gillick Judgment on contemporary law and policy concerning children’s rights." [mijn nadruk] (68)

"In other words, the Fraser guidelines still rely on adult judgments about levels of maturity and understanding and it is still adults who, ultimately, determine what is in children’s best interests."(70)

The Scope and Limitations of the UNCRC

"Despite concerted efforts at both national and international levels to extend children’s protection from harm, exploitation and discrimination and to further the provision of basic goods and services, including the right to food, shelter, healthcare and education, the realisation of children’s participation rights remains elusive (Roose and Bouverne-De Bie 2007). (...) Another barrier to the actualisation of children’s participation rights emanates from the multiplicity of meaning attached to the term ‘participation’. (...) Participation as an expression of choice, as the individual decisions that children make about their everyday lives has received less attention." [mijn nadruk] (72)

"The right to participate is couched within a framework of Western discourses of developmentalism predicated on age assumptions which necessitate that children are capable of forming their own views and that those views should be “given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child”(UNCRC 1989). As has already been argued, these developmental discourses assume childhood innocence, immaturity and asexuality and, therefore, children and young people’s rights to participate in sexual decision making are unlikely to be realised under the participation articles of the UNCRC." [mijn nadruk] (73)

Bovendien worden die rechten niet vertaald naar landelijke / lokale wetgeving.

Conclusion

"This chapter has argued that with regards to sexuality, decision making processes and policy formation routinely excludes children and young people due, largely, to the assumptions about their sexual immaturity and lack of competence. In other words, “despite the rhetoric of participation, engagement and inclusion in current youth policy it continues to perpetuate and naturalise the symbolic order between ‘adults’ and young people and continues to position youth sexuality as potentially ‘dangerous’” (Moore and Prescott 2013: 191). If children are to participate meaningfully in society they must be recognised as participants in society. Similarly, their participation in matters concerning sex and sexuality requires children and young people to be recognised as actual or potential sexual beings." [mijn nadruk] (74)

"This would require a “paradigmatic shift” (Egan and Hawkes 2009: 395) in conceptualising childhood and its relationship to the category of adulthood. In particular, it is necessary to recognise children’s sexual identities from their perspectives rather than from the adult centred, protectionist perspective that currently frames dominant discourses of childhood and sexuality (Egan and Hawkes 2009; Taylor 2010)."(75)

(79) 4 - The Age of Consent

Introduction

"What is deemed the appropriate age for sexual consent is symbolically representative of the struggles to provide a demarcation between childhood and sexuality, where sexuality is a preserve of adulthood. As such is it always controversial, disputed and never satisfactorily resolved." [mijn nadruk] (79)

"The choice of 16 and 14 as boundaries reflects current parameters and contemporary debate. Few people in the West argue for lowering the age of consent below 14 or raising it above 16, though some countries do transgress those thresholds. It is between the ages of 14 and 16 that most debate occurs, and within the ages of 14–18 where transgressions of the age of consent are subject to claims for public responses that do not criminalise. Below the age of 14, and where people above 18 are engaged with those below the age of consent, criminalisation is the normal response." [mijn nadruk] (80)

[Maar ook dat laatste is behoorlijk problematisch gebleken.]

Making Sense of Consent

"Consent is understood to be conceptualised through three common criteria: that the person is adequately informed to make a considered judgement; that they are free from coercion in making a decision; and that they are competent and capable of making a decision (Reynolds 2010). The law on the age of consent assumes all three are present when the threshold of maturity is reached, and seeks to both protect the vulnerable and prescribe the criminal. To a greater or lesser degree in different legal systems, those who exert force, misinform or deny choice are deemed, in judicial processes, to invalidate any claims that the subject of their sexual desires has consented." [mijn nadruk] (81)

"Any understanding of consent has to take into account the pervasiveness of unequal constructions of masculinity and femininity and cultural inequalities (cultures with very closed attitudes to sex might leave their youth more uncertain and anxious), so that dealing with consent as a transaction between individuals is an oversimplification."(82)

"Consent, because it rarely reflects one moment of rational discourse but more a set of inferences, hints and permissions (as with body language rather than direct discussion), is best represented as a process and not a singular act. Often the moment itself is only easily defined in retrospect, and it can be mediated by alcohol or drugs that make it more difficult to identify. It occurs within a cultural milieu that has an impact on key variables in the decision to consent; the limited and often pressured time and space available to explore and communicate; the perception of safety and privacy or its limits for intimate conduct to take place; perceptions about the nature of the relationship within which it is taking place; and self-consciousness about sexual experience, knowledge and understandings." [mijn nadruk] (83)

"Children are deemed to have vulnerability, through their immaturity and lack of experience, to respond to this complexity in a way that is safe. This encourages professionals whose expertise and jurisdiction corresponds to the developmental model–doctors, nurses, psychologists, teachers, lawyers — the pedagogues of children’s’ sexuality according to Foucault (1978) — to provide the ‘expert’ assessment as to the safe age of consent."(84)

"This is reflected by Finkelhor (1984: 53–62), who identifies four criteria that reflect the immaturity of children for sexual conduct: unfamiliarity or failure to understand sexual rules; failure to be able to judge the acceptability of sexual partners; the failure to understand sexual relationships as social phenomena; and the failure to be able to understand the reactions of others to sexual contacts."(84)

[Er wordt hier terecht kritiek geleverd. Maar je kunt gemakkelijk nog verder gaan: gelden die vier criteria bijvoorbeeld niet heel vaak ook voor seksuele contacten tussen volwassenen?]

What Is the Age of Consent and What Is It For?

"There is some recognition that children and young people below the age of consent can express preferences or desires. They might give assent or signify agreement or preference, but it is not recognised as a determining decision until the age of maturation is achieved. Hence youthful desires for sex, or any pleasure derived from the experience by those under the age of consent have no legal status in the defence of those who engage sexually with young people (although they may be seen as contributory to mitigation and sentencing), nor for youth themselves in justifying their sexual conduct." [mijn nadruk] (86)

Leeftijd als de kwantificatie van 'rijpheid' is vanwege alle mogelijk sociale en culturele verschillen een heel slechte maatstaf voor het vermogen tot toestemming.

"Taken more broadly, the quantification of maturity is itself questionable. It might be argued that the physical and mental maturity and life experience of some 14 year olds is sufficient for them to be deemed to be able to consent to sex, whether or not it is regarded as socially desirable; whilst some 40 year olds might demonstrate such mental and emotional immaturity as to be at the least an emotional hazard to those they have relationships with. If, for example, as is currently the case, there are demonstrable cases of children taking on care responsibilities for their parents and running households, and this is not seen as so socially undesirable that support should be instantly extended, why object if such children seek other adult forms of relationship? The problem with the age of consent as an age of maturation is that the threshold varies according to both particular decisions and across cultures and nations. It is therefore difficult to come to common agreement over what the age of consent should be, or indeed why different ages might be utilised to determine when young people can have sex, drink, vote and join the military. To take the UK example, there are different thresholds of maturity for different activities: marriage age 18 (although 16 with parental consent, and in Scotland 16); school leaving age 16; drinking (alcohol) and buying smoking tobacco age 18; driving age 17; joining the armed forces age 16 (with parental consent until 18); voting age 18; recognition of criminal responsibility age 10. Formally, the age of majority — full recognition of adulthood and relinquishing of the legal authority of parents — is recognised as 18 (16 in Scotland)." [mijn nadruk] (86-87)

"The idea of an age of consent, then, is itself problematic. Whilst ostensibly it aims to protect young people against sexual exploitation, the evidence of under-age pregnancy and under-age sexual activity suggest it is not altogether effective." [mijn nadruk] (87)

"An age of consent is always set with the recognition that it will restrict the liberty of some who are mature, and still leave some who are immature to sexual hazard. As a population measure, it works on a broad assessment of protection of the majority over the minority."(90)

What Determines the Age of Consent?

"This discussion has emphasised that the legal recognition of an age of consent is invariably bounded in cultural and historical understandings of what a child is and when children are sufficiently adult to engage in sexual activities. In looking at the determinants that lead to the composing of an age of consent, the UK example provides an illustration." [mijn nadruk] (90)

"The power of family, cultural decency and decorum and the ‘normal’ development of the child all contributed to the policing of the age of consent. The power of those propagating medico-moral discourses has been particularly prevalent in this history."(93)

"Children are subject to a ‘double bind’: they are too vulnerable to be allowed to experience, know or understand, and because they have no experience knowledge and understanding they are vulnerable. This is manifest in the suspicion or vilification of children who are precocious in their sexual experience, as being either corrupted or corrupt. It also feeds the obverse stereotype, which is that what is being preserved by the double-blind of protection is “innocence”." [mijn nadruk] (93)

"Innocence renders ignorance a virtue. The romanticisation of not knowing or having experience leads to the preservation of innocence being a preservation of childhood. This, despite the obvious problem that children will not know what innocence is when they are exhibiting it, is simply a balance of presence or absence of knowing and experiencing, and strategies that tie it to a developmental model and seek to preserve it inevitably produce ignorance that is prescribed as a reason why they are vulnerable to the complexities of consent. Hence moral discourse overlays the developmental logics of bio-medicine first, and social and cultural contexts thereafter, creating the terms of absence or deficit." [mijn nadruk] (94)

Conclusion: Debating the Age of Consent

Er zijn auteurs die goede argumenten geven voor een 'age of consent' van 14.

(99) 5 - Constructing and Managing Risk: The Example of Teenage Pregnancy

Introduction

"In this chapter, we focus on teenage pregnancy and, specifically, the construction of teenage pregnancy as a social problem in order to explore how young people, especially young women, understand and negotiate risk within the confines of their social circumstances. In so doing, it becomes evident that the social structures of age, class and gender are central to the construction of risk in relation to teenage pregnancy. This chapter will critically consider the construction of risk in terms of sexuality and argue that because of the antithetical constructions of childhood and sexuality, all sexual behaviour that children and young people engage in are, by definition, considered risky."(100)

[Nogal vaag geformuleerd, vind ik. Maar we zullen zien.]

Understanding Risk in Late Modernity

"Whereas previously, social structures like class and gender produced a ‘standard biography’ because they shaped, if not determined, one’s life trajectory, the uncertainties of the risk society produce greater flexibility for individuals to engage in ‘choice biographies’ in which they write their own life narratives; “On the level of the self, a fundamental component of day-to-day life activity is simply that of choice” (Giddens 1991: 80, italics in original)."(101)

[Ik vrees dat we hier weer te maken krijgen met de bekende neoliberale en postmoderne dogma's van individuele 'vrijheid' en keuzes. Genoemde auteurs: U. Beck, A. Giddens, S. Lash. Alsof mensen tegenwoordig niet meer beïnvloed worden door sociale structuren. Natuurlijk wel. Die vrijheid is in veel gevallen een schijnvrijheid, vervangen door de meer indirecte druk van ideologieën, instituten, sociale trends, etc. Denk aan de invloed van de sociale media op wat mensen allemaal roepen en doen. Denk aan de nog steeds dominante rollenpatronen voor mannen en vrouwen, ook op het vlak van seks.]

"The relaxation of previously rigidly prescribed gender roles is central to the process of individualisation. Beck (1992: 105) states that “people are being removed from the constraints of gender”, particularly in areas like education and employment where women have greater access and experience greater equality than ever before. However, he does acknowledge that gender inequality may persist in the confines of the private sphere (Thomson 2011); “Although women may take up individualised work biographies, they have the ‘double-burden’ of continued responsibility for childcare and the home” (Beck 1992: 112). This places women in a contradictory and ambivalent position in relation to individualisation. On the one hand, there is an expectation that women engage in and write their own biography, although interestingly rather than being freed from structural determinants, the expected narrative of young women in the Global North looks increasingly like a middle-class trajectory of complet- ing Higher Education, entering the labour market, getting married or at least partnered, and becoming financially secure before having children. On the other hand, women, by and large, have not been freed from the shackles of gender that determine care work and housework as women’s work." [mijn nadruk] (102)

[Hetzelfde geldt voor mannen, maar op een andere manier. En niet alleen in de privésfeer. Ik vind dat soort auteurs wel erg optimistisch over de veranderingen in de samenleving. Ja, natuurlijk, we leven niet meer zo erg in een verzuilde samenleving, hoewel dat bij een goede analyse waarschijnlijk nog meer bestaat dan we denken. En ja, mannen en vrouwen zijn wat vrijer geworden in hoe ze zich wel en niet kunnen gedragen, maar is dat ook zo in religieuze milieus waar vrouwen nog steeds onderdrukt worden en mannen aan verwachtingen moeten voldoen die evenmin deugen? En waarom willen die rollenpatronen dan almaar niet veranderen? Het is helemaal niet zo simpel. En mensen - vooral jongeren - hebben helemaal niet zo veel te kiezen als de hele tijd gesuggereerd wordt. Alsof zwanger raken een vrije keuze is in een sociale context waarin over seks niet eens gepraat mag worden, waarin voorbehoedmiddelen nauwelijks verkrijgbaar zijn, waarin abortus een enorme negatieve lading krijgt, waarin mannen en vrouwen niet leren open te praten met elkaar over hun seksuele relatie en aloude domme rollenpatronen volgen, waarin drank en drugs al die beperkingen moeten toedekken. Hoe kun je iemand dan verantwoordelijk stellen voor zwanger raken? Gelukkig vinden de schrijvers van dit boek dat ook.]

Contextualising Teenage Pregnancy: What Is the Scale of the ‘Problem’

"Teenage pregnancy is constructed as a risk to mother, to baby and to the wider society because of assumptions that it perpetuates cycles of poverty and deprivation."(103)

De statistieken deugen vaak niet, omdat ze de sociale context verwaarlozen.

"So, research that suggests teenage parenthood produces poor outcomes for mother and baby which does not take account of the socioeconomic position of young women before pregnancy may be conflating correlation with cause and effect."(104)

[Goed gezien. Zeggen dat tienerzwangerschappen tot armoede leiden en dan even vergeten te vermelden dat degenen die zwanger werden al lang in armoede leefden.]

"Of course, what is notably absent in most statistical studies on teenage pregnancy is the voice of young parents."(105)

"So, official statistics on teenage pregnancy, and their use to justify policy interventions aimed at reducing the number of pregnancies to girls under the age of 18, play an important role in the construction of teenage pregnancy as a significant ‘social problem’. "(105)

From Unmarried Mothers to Teenage Mothers: The Construction of a ‘Social Problem’

"Motherhood was, and to a lesser extent is still, considered central to the construction of women’s sexuality."(106)

"Not only did the ‘natural’ and instinctual mothering instinct need careful control, the naturalness of reproduction and mothering was brought into question by women who chose not to have children or had children outside the ‘respectability’ of the marriage."(107)

"The construction of normal/pathological and legitimate/illegitimate with regards to reproduction was not just gendered. Ideologies of sexuality, reproduction and mothering intersect with social categories such as class, race and ethnicity to produce discursive constructs of legitimate/illegitimate pregnancy."(107)

"The notion of illegitimacy has played a defining role in the pathologisation of some types of pregnancy ever since. Pietsch (2002) states that ‘illegitimacy’ carries two different, but inextricably linked, definitions. First, the term illegitimate is used to describe someone born to parents who are not married to each other. Although anachronistic and somewhat incongruous with the social organisation of sexuality in the twenty-­first century, this definition appears in most dictionaries. The second meaning attached to the word illegitimate is that it refers to something that is unlawful, illicit or contrary to established standards of acceptable behaviour. When illegitimacy is applied to pregnancy, the “illegitimately pregnant woman is a law-breaker, a recreant, one who actively undermines and topples ‘the rules’. Ideologically, she is a non-conformist and lawless: functionally, she is morally, socially and sexually aberrant” (Pietsch 2002: 89)
If it is the case that a pregnancy is classified as illegitimate because it undermines and topples “the rules”, the question that begs to be asked is what “rules” are being undermined by teenage pregnancy? This question is made all the more pertinent against a backdrop of declining pregnancy rates to girls under 18 in many countries across the Global North. The answer to the question lies in dominant constructions of childhood as asexual and in normative expectations of young women in the twenty-­first century.." [mijn nadruk] (108)

[Het zijn de waarden en normen uit de witte middenklasse uit de Victoriaanse tijd 'all over again'. ]

"Once again, middle-class values about femininity and motherhood become normalised and working-class practices are marginalised. Research indicates that becoming a teen parent, usually a teen mother, acts as an incentive rather than a disincentive to complete education and secure employment in order to provide for her children (Duncan 2007) but the fact that teenage pregnancy deviates from the normative model where children are born after rather than before achieving financial security and employment labels the pregnant teenager as deviant." [mijn nadruk] (108)

En het beeld van een zwangere tiener is natuurlijk ook in strijd met het beeld van 'onschuldige kinderen' dat de meerderheid er op na houdt.

"So, arguments suggesting that teenage pregnancy represents a risk to society are, to some extent, accurate, but what is left unsaid is that it represents a risk to adult centric and adult-dominated society."(111)

[Precies.]

Framing and (Re)Presenting Teenage Pregnancy

De media volgen de typische klassegebonden en rasgebonden waardeoordelen die er in de samenleving bestaan en versterken die nog.

Conclusion

(121) 6 - The Sexualisation of Childhood

Introduction

"Since the turn of the twenty-first century, concerns over the ‘premature sexualisation of childhood’ have been widely articulated by politicians, child ‘experts’, children’s charities and members of the public in a number of countries across, what Hawkes and Egan (2008a) call, the Anglophone West. Rooted in, and an extension of, claims that Western childhoods are under threat or in crisis — see, for example, Neil Postman’s (1983) The Disappearance of Childhood, Sue Palmer’s (2007) Toxic Childhood and Frank Furedi’s (2001) Paranoid Parenting — debates over the sexualisation of childhood focus on, amongst other things, ‘age inappropriate’ clothing, explicit sexual imagery in music videos, television programmes and films, and easy, frequently unfettered, access to sexual content on the internet. The public consensus and common sense assumptions about the impact of the sexualisation of culture on constructions of childhood in the abstract and the lived experiences of children in reality, are that it is inherently negative and damaging; that girls, in particular, come to see themselves and their worth only in terms of their adherence to narrowly defined normative standards of physical attractiveness." [mijn nadruk] (121)

"In this chapter, we begin by identifying some of the recurrent themes in the literature on the sexualisation of childhood and critically consider the assumptions underpinning them. We will highlight the definitional complexity of the concept of sexualisation; something that there is considerable disagreement over with little consensus over its causes or consequences. However, this definitional complexity is rarely evidenced in the debates over the sexualisation of childhood. Often an agreed upon definition of sexualisation is assumed or an overly narrow and largely negative definition is employed. This issue is further compounded by the conflation of separate but related terms. So, sexualisation, sexual, sexual expression and sexism are frequently used interchangeably as though there were no discernible differences between them.(...) We then move on to examine the gendered nature of the debates over sexualisation. Although the term ‘sexualisation of childhood’ implies gender neutrality, with both girls and boys being equally at ‘risk’ from a sexualisation of culture, this is in fact a highly gendered discourse in which young girls are portrayed as innocent victims in need of protection and young boys are largely absent.(...) Finally, in the concerns expressed over sexualisation and its impact on childhood we see the legacy of Foucault’s pedagogisation of children’s sex; the process that emerged in the eighteenth century whereby parents and child experts exercised control over children’s sexuality with regards to the information they were provided with and the ‘acceptable’ expression of their sexual desires. With the pedagogisation of children’s sex, it is adults who determine how children’s sexuality is understood and it is adults who decide what sexual knowledge children should have access to, in what form and at what time. The sexualisation of culture and the proliferation of sexual imagery in everyday life undermine adults’ authority and children’s easy access to the internet means they do not have to wait for adults’ transmission of sexual knowledge. It is what Hawkes and Egan (2008a: 193) refer to as ‘proper’ and ‘improper’ sexualisation, “where the former involves the staged transmission of approved knowledge from adult to child; while the latter is the consequence of a ‘free market’ in exploitative imagery and inappropriate expectations of the unprotected child in the adult world”. We argue that both positions reflect normative assumptions with regards to childhood and sexuality in which children’s agency is absent and their abilities as meaning-makers, active in the construction of their lives, are denied." [mijn nadruk] (122-123)

Letting Children Be Children

"the message is clear; children are being exposed to adult content and ideas and are being forced to grow up too quickly. With regards to the sexualisation of childhood these concerns about children experiencing too much too soon have been expressed in a number of reports written by child ‘experts’ that have been published in the Global North."

[In plaats van dat er dan een aanpak komt om die opvattingen van volwassenen de wereld uit te helpen ... Maar nee.]

Die rapporten worden genoemd: The Bailey Review (2011) in de UK (is helemaal niet onafhankelijk en komt voort uit christelijke waarden en normen); het APA-report in de USA; het rapport van Rush en La Nauze in Australië (2003).

"Although written by authors from diverse disciplinary backgrounds and focusing on the experiences of children in different cultural contexts, the reports are all remarkably similar in their findings and recommendations. Sexualisation is presented as a homogenous, identifiable phenomenon, pernicious in its scale and consequences and impacting on all children in a uniformly negative way. However, not all commentators agree with this interpretation of sexualisation as inherently harmful and there is considerable slippage in how the word can be used which begs the question, ‘Do we know what we talking about when we speak of sexualisation?’"(125)

The Sexualisation of Childhood: Do We Know What We Are Talking About?

"Undoubtedly, representations of sex and sexuality have undergone considerable change since the late twentieth and early twenty-first centu- ries. What once could only be seen in R-rated ‘adult movies’ can now be seen in mainstream media, leading some to suggest that there has been a ‘pornification’ (Paasonenet al. 2007) of culture. Clothing and sexual practices once considered taboo, edgy or ‘kinky’ have become normalised. Leather catsuits and corsets make regular appearances in the wardrobes of female characters in science fiction and fantasy and the commercial success of E L James’ Fifty Shades of Grey points to a greater toleration, if not acceptance, of BDSM practices. Sex and sexuality are moving from the private to the public sphere and frequently form the mainstay of popular entertainment programmes from reality TV formats, such as Love Island and Ex on the Beach to contemporary dating shows like First Dates, Take me Out and The Undateables. Indeed, if the latest crop of TV dating shows is anything to go by, it seems there are very few aspects of sex and sexuality that remain hidden from public view. Undressed and Naked Attraction follow the general conventions of the dating show genre with the added dimension that the contestants are in various stages of undress. In Undressed the contestants start off fully clothed and then gradually remove items of clothing until both are naked, whilst Naked Attraction, promoted as a “daring new dating series that starts where some good dates might end – naked”, involves one fully clothed contestant choosing a partner from six naked contestants on the basis of how attractive they find their bottoms, breasts and genitals. This cultural shift may amount to little more than voyeurism, titillation and sexploitation rather than a move to a healthy and meaningful dialogue about sex but it is hard to deny that many societies in the Global North have undergone a process of sexualisation. What is less clear cut is what this shift means and what its consequences are." [mijn nadruk] (126)

[Het motief van die media is: hogere kijkcijfers / meer geld en niet seksuele bevrijding, het bestrijden van taboes, etc. Sterker nog: ze bevestigen alle mogelijke vormen van seksisme, rollenpatronen, het alleen afgaan op speicifieke vormen van uuiterlijk, en zo meer.. En dat allemaal onder het mom van vrije meningsuiuting en zo. Maar het gekke is dus: niemand die rapporten schrijft om die uitzendingen uit de wereld te helpen omdat ze normatief niet door de beugel kunnen. Nee, we doen heldhaftig pogingen om kinderen te beschermen tegen al die onzin van volwassenen.]

"The tensions and ambiguities of the terms that frame discussions about the sexualisation of childhood have been extensively discussed elsewhere. However, this brief examination of the complexity of the concepts has illustrated that these debates are underpinned by moral judgments about what is ‘right’, ‘proper’ and ‘appropriate’ with regards to childhood and sexuality. Not only does this reinforce and perpetuate dominant Western constructions of the sexually innocent child, it also serves to obfuscate the scale of everyday sexism and the extent to which that has been normalised." [mijn nadruk] (129)

It’s Different for Girls

"Despite the fact that sexualisation is portrayed as a pervasive process whose harmful effects are inescapable, boys are not subjected to the same level of scrutiny as girls who are positioned as especially vulnerable and in need of protection in debates over sexualisation. With the exception of the Family Lives (2012) report which considers the impact of representations of hypermasculinity on the way boys develop their gender and sexual identities, boys are largely absent in the literature on sexualisation." [mijn nadruk] (129)

"The focus on girls in contemporary debates over sexualisation illustrates the intersection of constructions of the sexually innocent child and constructions of female sexuality as both corruptible and corrupting."(131)

"Gill (2011: 65) has argued that sexualisation debates are “profoundly classed, racialized and heteronormative ... [where the] ... privileged object of “concern” has been the white Western middle-class girl child”. So, although the focus is on girls, it is not all girls who are considered at risk and/or in need of protection. It is white, middle-class girls who need to be protected from the corrupting influence of their working-class counterparts; the “picture [is one] of overly sexual displays of ‘low culture’ rupturing the innocence of middle and upper middle class girls” (Egan and Hawkes 2008b: 306). Boys may be absent from the discussions on sexualisation but so too are a significant proportion of girls."(131)

"Whilst boys certainly see representations of the type of hypermasculinity identified in the Family Lives report, hegemonic masculinity is much more pervasive in their everyday lives."(133)

"The absence of boys in much of the debates reflects an underpinning assumption that their (hetero)sexuality and hegemonic masculinity is so natural, so taken for granted that it does not need to be discussed. This leads Clarke (2013) to suggest that “the reports themselves form part of dominant discourses of masculinity”."(133)

Girls Just Want to Have Fun!

"Few of the aforementioned reports include children’s views, choosing instead to represent them through the voices of parents and other ‘authoritative’ adults. Even in the reports that do include the concerns raised by children and young people about the impact of sexualised imagery and products, what is absent from the discussions is the notion of the sexually agentic child; the idea of children as both sexual beings and sexual becomings. Instead, they are characterised by passivity; helpless and hapless sponges who inevitably and indiscriminately internalise the sexual content they are exposed to and then unquestioningly repeat, copy or act out what they have observed without self-censure. Not only does this belie the considerable research evidence that indicates that children are active, meaning-making subjects, it contradicts the views of the children that some of the reports do give voice to." [mijn nadruk] (134)

"In the context of debates over sexualisation, Corsaro’s concept of interpretive reproduction warns us against assuming that when children act in ways that adults determine to be sexual, that children see their behaviour in the same way as adults. At the same time, we should not assume that they have no understanding of the adult context of that behaviour. This means recognising children as both sexual beings and sexual becomings, not imposing adult defined notions of sexuality on children and, crucially, asking children about their meaning making processes." [mijn nadruk] (136)

Conclusion

"The late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries have witnessed significant changes in how sexuality is represented in the public domain. We do now live in a world where sexual imagery is commonplace in many forms of entertainment and advertising and, what some have called ‘hypersexualisation’ or ‘pornification’ has undoubtedly impacted on the way everyone exposed to these images makes sense of sexuality. This includes children and adults but the concerns over children’s exposure to sexual imagery reflect adult constructions of sexuality and adult constructions of childhood with children’s voices largely absent."(137)

"To assume that children are unaware of sex and sexuality is an imposition of adult fantasises of childhood innocence. It is impractical, impossible, and we would argue undesirable, to attempt to shield children from all the changes in the social organisation of sexuality in the twenty-first century; to wrap them in a hermetically sealed bubble until they reach the arbitrary age of adulthood. Instead, children need to develop skills to be able to navigate their way through the sexualised cultures in which they live and to learn how to read texts selectively and critically. However, unlike the pedagogisation of children’s sex, which is driven by adults and involves a didactic passing on of knowledge, equipping children and young people with these skills requires listening to them and understanding the meanings they attach to what they see and hear and how they dress and behave. Whilst a pernicious consumerist sexualisation should be held with some disregard, that does not mean that a more open sexual culture would not be more beneficial for children and adults."(138)

[Fantastisch. Maar liever nog spreken van 'media' dan alleen van teksten.]

(143) 7 - Diversity and Difference

Introduction

"Since the mid-twentieth century, the organisation and expression of sexuality has been undergoing significant change."(143)

Voorbeelden: meer tolerantie tegenover homoseksualiteit, meer seksuele autonomie voor vrouwen, meer vrouwen die werken / studeren, andere opvattingen over het huwelijk.

"Notwithstanding this caveat, it is probably fair to say that there has been a transformation of intimacy (Giddens 1992) over the past 50 years or so. However, this profound change has not been experienced by all. Sexuality continues to be seen as the preserve of adults and something that children must be protected from. Discourses of childhood sexuality are frequently couched within a protectionist framework underpinned by fears of children’s vul- nerability and risk of corruption from early sexualisation." [mijn nadruk] (145)

En dat geldt zeker voor de HLBT-jongeren (hier LGBT).

What’s in a Name? A Note on Terminology

"Whilst all the people represented by the letters of the acronym experience discrimination within the heterosexual order, there is considerable heterogeneity between them; something that the inclusive and all-­ embracing acronym is unable to convey."(146)

"Amber Ault (1996) sees bipho- bia as a specific form of heterosexism, which requires individuals to make a singular sexual object choice. This is referred to as monosexism or compulsory monosexuality, and acts as a tool to reinforce the false dichotomy of hetero/homo and male/female."(147)

Regulating Sexual Diversity: Historical Antecedents

"Sexuality as an object and body of knowledge emerged in the nineteenth century with the development of sexology and psychoanalytical theory and from its inception ‘normal’ sexuality has been assumed to be heterosexual penile-vaginal penetration, an act in which men and women are supposed to perform opposite but complementary roles i.e. men as active and women as passive. Richard von Krafft-Ebing, generally considered the first sexologist, took heterosexual reproduction to be the benchmark against which all other sexualities were judged."(150)

We’re Here, We’re Queer, Why Can’t You Get Used to It?

"Although the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries witnessed significant advances with regards to the social, civil and legal rights of lesbian, gay and, to a lesser extent, bisexual, adults LGB youth continue to experience discrimination on the grounds of their sexuality in many areas of their life."(154)

"The question that begs to be asked is why LGB youth continue to experience such high levels of homophobic bullying and abuse despite greater tolerance of sexual diversity as evidenced in legislative reform and changing social attitudes. The answer to this question is complex but, undoubtedly, one of the factors that contributes to the persistence of homophobic abuse of young LGBs is the legacy of historical constructions of homosexuality as pathological, perverse and deviant."(155)

[Ja, de wereld zit er vol mee. Wat maakt dat mensen hun - uiteraard - 'normale' kinderen willen beschermen tegen al die 'perversies'.]

Pedagogisation of Children’s Sex: Protecting Children from (Homo)Sexuality

"The common understanding of childhood and sexuality is implicitly heteronormative. It is underpinned by naturalised assumptions of both childhood and sexuality where children are expected to progress in a linear and developmentally incremental way from childhood asexuality or pre-sexuality to adult (hetero)sexuality. Therefore, children are socialised into heterosexuality and heteronormative gender roles from infancy. This socialisation is the embodiment of Foucault’s pedagogisation of children’s sex where sex and sexuality are seen as inherently harmful to children and adults, responsible for protecting children’s sexuality from being corrupted by early sexualisation, determine the timing, nature and content of their sexual socialisation. However, adults’ concerns over the ‘proper’ sexualisation of children is exacerbated when either children express non-­heterosexual desires or they are provided with information about sexualities other than heterosexuality." [mijn nadruk] (155)

Coming Out in a Hostile World

"The continued construction of sexuality as something that children must be protected from, with homosexuality seen as especially dangerous for the ‘normal’ trajectory of the development of their sexuality, leaves LGB children in a particularly vulnerable position. Socialised into heteronormativity, having very limited public spaces to discuss non-heterosexuality safely and still relatively few visible LGB adults to act as role-models, children and young people are forced to make difficult and potentially dangerous decisions about making disclosures regarding their sexuality."(156)

"Whilst coming out is seen as an important aspect of accepting and asserting one’s sexuality, against a backdrop of widespread homophobia and heterosexism in schools, LGB children and young people may make strategic decisions not to come out in order to avoid negative and potentially harmful ramifications which, in turn, makes them invisible and puts them a greater risk of abuse and exploitation because their specific needs and issues as lesbian, gay or bisexual children are not recognised."(161)

It Gets Better

Veel kritiek op die beweging, omdat daar het leed wordt geïndividualiseerd op de bekende neoliberale manier.

Conclusion

(171) 8 - Sex and Sexuality Education

Introduction

"This chapter explores sexuality education (noting our use of sexuality for sex in the introduction), principally through the UK example."(171)

Sexuality Education: Whose Responsibility Is It?

De institutionele verantwoordelijkheid van het onderwijs is er omdat de seksuele opvoeding van ouders vaak te kort schiet.

"Medora and Wilson (1992), focusing on early childhood sex education, identify an important variable in parents being comfortable with their own sexuality and sexual knowledge as a precondition to discussing sexuality with children."(173)

"The nature of parental engagement is also open to question. For example, Martino et al. (2008) found it was the repetition of parental messages about sexuality, rather than the content and breadth of ‘sex talk’, that was more effective in sexual communication with children, suggesting a continuous engagement was important. This sits against the stereotypical ‘birds and bees’ talk (singular) that appears so often in representations of parent-child sexuality discussions."(173)

"Similarly, peers might seem an appropriate group to share sexual stories, experiences and concerns with, but again the extent to which peers will have reliable and accurate knowledge and clear understandings and experience to base their advice on varies widely. The prohibitions and silences that accompany childhood sexuality would suggest peer advice should be considered very limited."(174)

"As such, the danger of a private and family based sexuality education is the reinforcement of prejudices, the uncritical transmission of dogma and the use of beliefs handed down by generations (such as masturbation damages eyesight). Equally, other cultural factors such as ethnicity and religious belief might be in direct conflict with best advice from sexuality educators."(175)

Formal Sex Education and Its Challenges

"As such, education is invariably political in its defence and maintenance of dominant positions. The particular pedagogic mission of educators is understood in an orthodox sense as a process of dispensing knowledge for social purposes."(178)

"The underlying focus of much of sex education can be characterised as biomedical with risk management. It is primarily concerned to explicate biological and psychological sexual development in what is regarded as a risk-appropriate fashion."(179)

The UK Case

De Victoriaanse tijd ligt aan de basis van seksuele voorlichting in de UK.

"This confluence of factors associated education for civility with health and policing, tying ideas of sex education into the dominant discourses of risk and disease control. Mort (2000) described this convergence of influences as the subject of medico-moral discourses, in which state policy reflected an amalgam of moral discourses that limited legitimate sexuality to marriage and procreation, sanctified by the Church, and medical discourses that focus on functionality and risk of disease."(184)

Conclusion

"Whilst there has been an impetus towards educating children about sexuality, it has been an impetus about teaching them danger and risk first, and conduct and consent, second. Pleasure, for example, is still considered something that has to be given lip service in order to show relevance, particularly to older children, but nevertheless a dangerous subject to dwell on. (...) The underlying values of sexuality education remain within the boundaries of orthodoxy." [mijn nadruk] (190)

(197) 9 - Sexual Literacy

Introduction

"Children invariably pick up sexual knowledge and understanding, markedly different from formal sex education, via the media, from the internet, from their own nascent experience and its articulation within peer groups and through parental interventions. [mijn nadruk] "(197)

[Het is een van de redenen waarom dat idee dat kinderen onschuldige wezens zijn en helemaal niets met seks hebben zo onwaar is.]

"A relatively new concept has emerged to explore these broader questions: sexual literacy. Sexual literacy immediately poses some questions in looking at sex, sexuality, childhood and youth. The use of literacy is partly metaphor for knowledge and understanding that can be applied to real life situations, and partly quite specific, in that knowing and having aptitude in the language by which knowledge and understanding can be accessed is a key element of sexual maturity. Yet the metaphor might be regarded as suggesting a degree of symmetry between learning language skills and conventions whilst also learning the same for sex (and this is explored later in the chapter). Equally, sexual literacy is not restricted to children, but has a lifelong impetus and an agenda that challenges traditional pathologies, prejudices and conventions, which is often seen as more problematic in considering childhood and sexuality than adults. Such an impetus, that both children and adults can benefit from, could go some way to challenging the adult/child binary and deconstructing ideas of children and adults as ontologically separate categories. It would also speak to the importance of sexual knowledge for parents as well as children and for adults for themselves." [mijn nadruk] (198)

Sexual Literacy in Contemporary Parlance and Its Limits

Over Herdt en zijn NSRC (National Sexuality Resource Center) in de USA, gesticht in 2003.

"The characterisation of sexual literacy as ‘positive, integrated, and holistic’ and committed to social justice is a political and ethical approach to sexuality that acknowledges both the broad prejudice and pathology of dominant sexual discourses — and so champions sexual freedom and diversity — but also their intersections with other oppressive discourses such as race and ethnicity, gender, disability and class. Herdt’s reflections suggest a deep commitment to ethical sex — speaking of respect, dignity, openness and meaningfulness. This is set against a commodified, commercialised and consumption oriented sex that Herdt sees as eroding such values. Sexual literacy is a radical approach that seeks to transform the social and cultural relations under which sexuality is understood.
Whilst this should be read as outlining general principles, it also has to be seen in the context of a vociferous political battle around sex education in the U.S.A. (Irvine 2002; Luker 2006). Here, sexual literacy is part of an attempt to contest the minimisation of sex education in schools and the promotion of abstinence as the dominant paradigm. Herdt’s NSRC is now absorbed within the Centre for Research and Education on Gender and Sexuality (CREGS). " [mijn nadruk] (200)

Die laatste stap heeft de visie veranderd:

"This is a very different type of vision. It privileges health, and explicitly health in respect of ‘risk factors’ notably HIV and STIs, unintended pregnancies and sexual violence. This vision is directly related to Federal Government policy agendas in the US. Whilst these issues are in themselves important, they have a far narrower — biomedical and conventional — approach to sexuality. The uniqueness of sexual literacy has been subordinated or lost; its agenda for change reduced to ‘disseminating information about sex’. This reinforces the observations in previous chapters about the power of dominant, mainly medico-moral discourses and their legal-political and institutional framings."(201)

[Het doel is weer negatief: problemen voorkomen, over seks wordt weer gepraat in termen van risico's. En niet positief: het genieten van seks, de vrijheid daartoe, propageren, maatschappelijke verhoudingen op dat vlak veranderen. Hierna worden anderen besproken die het over dit onderwerp hebben. Maar ik vind wat die auteurs zeggen allemaal nogal abstract: in lijn met het Franse poststructuralistische denken gaat over over 'discourse' en de reconstructie van taal etc. Wat mij betreft zijn de praktische consequenties daarvan heel onhelder.]

"However much discourse is central to understanding sexuality, the cultural and linguistic spheres are certainly not the only, nor are they the most pervasive means by which the sexual subject is constrained and limited."(209)

[Precies.]

"Evaluations of how far sexuality in society has changed in the last century — whether positive or more cautious about that change — generally agree that there is more sexual information and materials available to people and that they are able to access and benefit from it. Yet the availability, accessibility, volume and diversity of sexual information available does not have a necessary relationship to greater knowledge and understanding." [mijn nadruk] (209)

[Nee, want veel van die informatie zit vol met de verkeerde waarden en normen. Het is zoiets als met tv-kanalen: wat maakt het uit of je er 20 of 500 hebt als de inhoud van al die kanalen niet deugt? Zo is het hier ook. Allerlei media laten naakt en seks zien, meer dan ooit, maar wat zijn de achterliggende bedoelingen ervan, van welke waarden en normen wordt uitgegaan? Kijk naar hoe mannen over vrouwen praten en het is duidelijk dat méér informatie niets te maken heeft met fundamentele veranderingen in kennis, houding, oordelen, gedrag.]

Conceiving Sexual Literacy

"Sexual literacy is part of a broader literacy that enables sexual agency against the constraints of dominant orthodoxies, institutions and cultures."(211)

"Whilst more information might be present from more sources, that does not mean that wider positions or perspectives are being shared — it can also mean pathologies and prejudices can be communicated in more diverse ways. It also misconceives the relationship between power and information, whether in the way a search engine can be paid, or manipulated, to bring to bear its first 20 sites for perusal, or the way a proliferation of voices can be orchestrated from one position, such as that of Christian teachings on sex.
Further, it says nothing about the literacy of the subject confronted with this information. Information simply being present does not in itself engender understanding by the reader, nor subsequent acquisition of a working body of knowledge. The reader has to do something more than view information for it to become knowledge and understanding. This is particularly the case where children are learning to process information and construct their knowledge and understandings." [mijn nadruk] (212)

[Precies.]

"Sexual literacy is not simply about individual liberation, but also about collective emancipation, so sexual lives can be enjoyed within the community. This inevitably involves an understanding of power and politics in interpersonal relations and community relations. This touches on the necessity of an ethical and political approach to understanding the development of capacities of sexual literacy in the sexual agent. The sexual agent is also a social agent, and sexual literacy without a political; ethical and social literacy is not progressive. Sexual literacy is therefore of limited value without the development of other ‘literacies’ in the agent."(215)

"The logical conclusion to draw from this question is that children require spaces to explore and experience practice. These spaces might have different degrees of adult guidance and regulation, but these spaces need to allow children to feel they can tentative experience and then reflect and discuss with other children and with adults. It implies that children’s touching, seeing and feeling should be given space, and is controversial in respect of protection from sexual harm and exploitation."(216)

Conclusion: Concerns About Sexual Literacy

Vier punten van kritiek op het hier gestelde.

"The first objection might be to question why sexual literacy has anything to offer as a concept. Why not sexual numeracy? Why not simply sexual knowledge and understanding?" [mijn nadruk] (220)

[Dat bezwaar voel ik ook en het antwoord vind ik niet bevredigend.]

"The second objection would be to claim that it is little more than a more theoretically elaborate sketch of what Herdt and Alexander have substantively developed, and that this is an example of over-­intellectualising the problem and proposed solution." [mijn nadruk] (220)

[Ook dat bezwaar voel ik. Ook hier geen bevredigend antwoord.]

"Thirdly, it might be argued that this effectively simply mirrors the concern of the sexual citizenship, rights and justice discourses and critical theories such as queer theory but from the view of the sexual agent, and that literacy and pedagogic strategies might potentially underplay the structural and cultural disempowerment of the sexual agent in contemporary societies." [mijn nadruk] (220)

[Ook dit. Let op het abstracte taalgebruik. En precies dat is het probleem aan dit hoofdstuk en de standpunten die er ingenomen worden. Geen bevredigend antwoord.]

"Finally, there is also the question of child development and the claims that the agenda for sexual literacy is simply too much of a burden to young developing children."(221)

[Dat bezwaar begrijp ik niet. Die ontwikkelingsbenaderingen zitten vol vooroordelen en dogma's zoals al eerder aangegeven.]

(225) 10 - Sex, Sexuality and Social Media: A New and Pressing Danger?

Introduction

Digitale vaardigheden ('digital literfacy') bij kinderen worden gestimuleerd.

"However, despite the centrality of digital literacy for future employment and active citizenship in the twenty-first century, children’s unsupervised use of information technology has become a cause of concern for a number of ‘interested’ parties, including politicians, ‘child experts’, charity organisations and parents. These concerns have resulted in a number of moral panics (Pascoe 2011) which centre around, amongst other things, stranger danger, children’s vulnerability to sexual predators through online grooming, children’s engagement in sexually risky behaviour and the impact of consuming pornography, especially on the development of ‘normal’ sexuality in young boys." [mijn nadruk] (225-226)

"We will argue that, throughout history, technological advances have often generated fierce debates over their impact and this is particularly the case when those advances pertain to sexuality."(226)

"In debates over children’s use of ICT the cultural borders that are being protected are the those of the stereotypical innocent child who acquires sexual knowledge at a time and in a form deemed appropriate by adults." [mijn nadruk] (226)

"Focusing on two specific areas that have generated much controversy (‘sexting’ and online pornography) we will suggest that the risks posed to children are exacerbated by adults’ desires to protect and maintain their innocence."(227)

[Precies: de volwassenen zijn meestal het probleem, niet de kinderen.]

What Is ICT and Why Is It a ‘Problem’ for Children?

‘Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose’: (The More It Changes, the More It Stays the Same)

"Whilst twenty-first-century technological developments do present uniquely twenty-first-century challenges, the cultural anxieties surrounding them have a much longer trajectory. A look back through history illustrates that with each introduction of a new form of medium there have been concomitant fears about the impact on particular categories of people, usually those who been assigned a ‘special’ status requiring greater protection and/or surveillance."(229)

Ooit waren het romans, later strips, later films, tv. games. Morele paniek was er al eerder dus.

"In the context of the moral panics over children and young people’s use of new digital technologies, the claims-makers are many and varied but are frequently ‘child experts’, such as psychologists, physicians, social workers and therapists who have the authority to attest to the risks that children are being exposed to. These claims-makers identify what is at risk if nothing is done about the ‘problem’ and here dominant constructions of childhood as a period of innocence, immaturity and vulnerability are emphasised. The recommendations put forward by the claims-makers to respond to the perceived risk to both individual children and childhood as an institution is to educate children about the dangers of and restrict their access to ICT devices. In so doing, the pedagogisation of children’s sex is invoked and children’s ‘proper’ sexualisation is restored." [mijn nadruk] (231)

Sexting and Female Sexuality in a Digital World

"To address some of these [methodologische / statistische - GdG] limitations, Ringrose et al. (ibid) undertook a small scale qualitative study with 32 12–15 year olds. They found that not only was sexting far more prevalent than previous studies had indicated but that it also included a much broader range of activities than simply creating and sharing sexual images, including “the negotiation of sexual propositions on digital devices [and] the accessing and recirculation of pornography on phones” (ibid: 25). Taken together, the findings from both qualitative and quantitative research suggest that sexting is “becoming the norm for teens” (National Crime Agency 2015)8 and that it has become so endemic that it represents “a global crisis with devastat- ing consequences for young people” (SelfieCop)." [mijn nadruk] (232)

"The blanket criminalisation of children who create and share sexual images of themselves and the failure to distinguish between an individual who engages in consensual sexting and an individual who coerces someone into producing explicit images of themselves, or sends an unsolicited sexual image to another person or circulates an image shared privately and in confidence, illustrates the ambiguities and contradictions of the law in the regulation of youth sexuality." [mijn nadruk] (232)

"The common-sense assumption is that it is girls who are at the greatest risk of becoming victims of online (male) predators and unscrupulous boyfriends and ex-boyfriends who will recirculate their images without their knowledge which, in turn, leaves them vulnerable to cyberbullying. As with the debates around sexualisation, boys would appear to be impervious to the dangers of sexting. At the same time as being constructed as victims, girls are also positioned as potential threats, both to themselves and other girls."(233)

"Research indicates that girls are more likely to be coerced into making explicit images of themselves and that the consequences of sexting are more detrimental for girls than they are for boys, reflecting “an age-old double standard by which sexually active boys are to be admired and ‘rated’, while sexually active girls are denigrated and despised as ‘sluts’” (Ringrose et al. 2012: 7). However, interpreting sexting as inherently more dangerous for girls risks reproducing normative constructions of female sexuality as passive, vulnerable and in need of protection and yet, at the same time, as corruptible and corrupting (Ringrose et al. 2013)."

"To reiterate, we do acknowledge that new media, online spaces and sexting do present risks that young people have to negotiate but these risks are frequently misrepresented or exaggerated. With regards to misrepresentation the emphasis on stranger danger and the predatory adult male lying in wait on discussion boards belies the fact that children and young people are much more at risk of victimisation from people they know." [mijn nadruk] (234)

"Hasinoff (2012) also proposes an alternative model for thinking about young people’s sexting practices, which involves seeing them as a form of media production. Understood as productive moves sexting away from passive to active and from a negative to a positive conceptualisation of youth sexuality. It acknowledges young people as active meaning makers and emphasises the importance of consent and privacy in the creation, sharing and distribution of sexual images. When consent and privacy are central to the way that sexting is understood, young people, and girls in particular, are recognised as sexually agentic subjects for whom sexting can be pleasurable and who might see it as a medium of sexual self-expression. It can become a means of communicating their sexual desires confidently, more assertively and with a relative spatial distance from the person they are sexting. In fact, rather than a risk-taking activity, for some young people, sexting might be considered as “a safer alternative to real life sexual activity” (Lenhart 2009: 8). For Hasinoff (2012) understanding sexting as media production shifts the burden of responsibility for malicious distribution of sexual images to the individual distributing rather than creating the image and, in so doing, ceases to position girls as being responsible for their own gender victimisation." [mijn nadruk] (235)

Online Pornography and Young Men

"Young people’s exposure to pornography has been positively associated with sexual risking taking behaviour (Haggstrom-­Nordin et al. 2005; Braun-Courville and Rojas 2009), the sexual objectification of women (Peter and Valkenburg 2009a), sexual preoccupation (Peter and Valkenburg 2008), boredom and/or dissatisfaction with offline sexual activity and difficulty in expressing intimacy in sexual relations (Peter and Valkenburg 2009b; Štulhofer et al. 2010). However, the research findings on the impact of online pornography on young people’s sexual attitudes and behaviours are far from conclusive."(236)

Maar er zijn net zo veel definities van pornografie als mensen die er mee bezig zijn.

"Here, we are reminded of Laura Kipnis’ assertion that debates over pornography are usually underpinned by protectionist assumptions about who is most likely to be harmed by it. The construction of childhood as a period of sexual immaturity which requires constant surveillance to protect it from being corrupted by adult sexuality means that any sexually explicit material a young person consumes, regardless of whether it is consumed online or offline, is likely to be seen as obscene, depraved and corrupting."(237)

"Underpinning contemporary anxieties over ‘extreme’ pornography and young people’s exposure to online pornography, extreme or not, is an uncritical acceptance of the media effect thesis; that exposure to violent and/or sexually violent material causes the viewer to develop violent and/or sexually violent thoughts and behaviours. Whilst the media effects model has been subject to considerable criticism, it represents a powerful and highly emotive vehicle to justify greater regulation of access to and consumption of pornographic material, especially by those groups who are deemed to be most susceptible to its effects, which, of course, includes young people." [mijn nadruk] (238)

Conclusion

(247) 11 - Conclusion: Reconciling Childhood and Sexuality

"This concluding chapter deliberately avoids providing a conclusion that advocates for one persuasive theoretical framework or particular policy development ..."(247)

"Insofar as there is a thematic position running through the text, there are two threads. First, whilst the protectionist and ­developmental agendas are not without value, their dominance has also produced problems and contradictions that have impeded children’s development of their sexual selves. Second, the children centred position has value, both as a critique of the dominant developmental paradigm and in encouraging change in law, policy and practice."(247-248)

[Jammer. Weer eens te voorzichtig. Er is te veel fout aan die protectionistische en ontwikkelingsbenadering om die er zo gemakkelijk van af te laten komen. In het vervolg wordt er nog eens gekeken naar de hoofdpunten zoals die in de eerdere hoofdstukken naar voren werden gebracht. Weinig nieuws dus.]

"This brings us to a position that runs throughout the book, that the best way of ensuring that children’s sexual knowledge, understanding and experience is ethical, appropriate and respecting human dignity is to seek to change the adult sexual world. It is only with this change that a real interest in children as people, not simply reduced to a subject of adult power, might be achieved."(254)

"The popular language employed by the mainstream media on issues of children’s safeguarding and protection is a language of continual risks, dangers and potential exploitations. These moralising discourses, reinforced by the scientific structures of the developmental model, invariably encourage adults to place strict constraints to children having sexual knowledge and understanding. In the deployment of these discourses, we can see similarities with Cohen’s (2002) notion of moral panics, with media ascribing pathology and producing deviancy amplification, where difference and non-conformity is interpreted as deviance and corruption. Child sexuality is often accompanied by characterisations of scandal, whether it is perceptions of precocious sexual knowledge, reasoned arguments for a reduced age of consent or reports of the incidence of teenage pregnancy. Sexual expressions by or about children are too often morally condemned and described as degenerate, the subject of evil or illness. The language of stereotypes of degen- eracy or immorality reflect the persistence of those deep-seated medico-moral discourses outlined in Chap. 2 and throughout the others chapters in the book. It is these discourses that permeate into legal, political, cultural and public discourses." [mijn nadruk] (254-255)

"If children are conceived as agents, it requires that they are listened to and they are permitted space to formulate, test and explore the narratives and experiences they wish to, without it being structured to confirm with adult ideas. If children are conceived as agents, not only do their stories need to be respected, and their thinking listened to, but their wants and pleasures need to be accommodated."(260)

Het hoofdstuk eindigt met een soort van politieke agenda.

"It is difficult not to conclude that any text on childhood and sexuality should begin with a thorough and critical deconstruction of adults and their sexual cultures. Sexual cultures are permeated by pernicious capitalism and conspicuous consumption, patriarchal inequalities and prejudices and heteronormative pathologies and discriminations (and this could be extended to imperialist/racist and disablist prejudice, amongst other oppressions and discriminations in a more comprehensive analysis)." [mijn nadruk] (264)