|
July 10, 2004
I think she
still holds it against me. As a teen today, it’s absolutely ludicrous
to think that my niece Katie needs to hold my hand while crossing the
street.
But way back
when, when Katie was just three, our battle of wills produced fierce
tears. On a shopping trip, I, her aunt, was entrusted with her
safety. All was going well…until the moment I grabbed Katie’s hand
before we crossed the busy parking lot in front of the store.
Katie, jerked
her hand away from me. Hearing a car’s motor on the left, I reached
out to catch her hand again. It took us a full minute to establish
that she was going to hold my hand as we crossed the street.
And, if today she still holds it against me, I must confess…I’m not
sorry for insisting on winning the battle.
Life is like
that. One minute we’re too young to be entrusted with a task. And
then we aren’t.
Life is like
that. One minute we’re held back. And then, crossing the line in the
sand, we are suddenly old enough to be trusted with new
responsibilities. It’s a simple principle. And yet, it’s a principle
some want us to ignore in the most significant area of life for
American teens today.
Today, we are
embroiled in a national debate about how to handle sexual behavior
related to teens and adolescents. In a surprising upheaval of logic,
there are “sexperts” who cannot find any line in the sand at all to
dictate a time when sex is absolutely, unequivocally and irrevocably
inappropriate for young people.
Instead, these
“sexperts” have declared this the “Age of Consent.” If you can get or
give consent, then you are old enough to have sex.
Ignoring the
health implications for teens who are sexually active, these
“sexperts” wag their fingers in the face of abstinence educators,
rejecting any attempt to set a line in the sand. Who is “ready” for
sex, you ask? Anyone who “consents” to have sex, they answer.
Embracing the
philosophy of Kinsey, all sex is good sex…if you can dream it up, if
you can manage to perform it, and if it is consensual…then it is good
sex.
Like all ideas,
pushing to the extreme, we eventually must come to terms with the
insanity of insane ideas. Consider
the
case of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).
According to Wikipedia, it is “a
New York City and
San Francisco-based
unincorporated organization that opposes the use of age as the sole
criterion for deciding whether minors can legally engage in sexual
relations.
“NAMBLA defends what it asserts to be the right of minors to explore
their sexuality on a much freer basis. It has resolved to ‘end the
oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting
relationships.’"
Checking out the NAMBLA website, disturbing evidence exists of adults
promoting sex between grown men and young boys. You can order a newly
revised copy of Boys Speak Out on Man/Boy Love, promoted with a
picture of a grown man dancing with a boy barely taller than his
elbows. Chapters include “It Shouldn’t Be a Crime to Make Love,”
written by Bryan, age twelve and a half. An interview with Thijs, age
eleven, declares “I'm
Not Going To Be Kept Away from Him.” How about it, “Sexperts?” Is
consent considered justification for this type of adult/child sex?
Or what about a
2002 book written by Judith Levine, Harmful to Minors: The Perils
of Protecting Children from Sex? Widely promoted as a book to
challenge “widespread anxieties” about pedophilia, Ms. Levine was
toasted by national media and given every opportunity to convince
Americans that science supports positive benefits for sex between
adults and children.
Publisher
University of Minnesota Press called Levine's book "a radical,
refreshing, and long overdue reassessment of how we think and act
about children's and teens' sexuality." James Kincaid, author of
"Erotic Innocence: The Culture of Child Molesting," called it "a
crusading book that is also kind, a very rare phenomenon, and it comes
down always on the side of trusting not only our kids and their
pleasures but our own."
Taking up the
banner of “consensual sex,” most recently the Journal of Adolescent
Health stated that “...there are no scientific data suggesting
that consensual sex between adolescents is harmful.” Seeking to
justify their assertion, they pointed to the “many positive mental
health consequences” of adolescent sex.
Finally, and
most sadly, the Centers of Disease Control has now joined in the
chorus of “sexperts” protecting sex for adolescents. At their 2006
National STD Prevention Conference in Jacksonville, Florida, the CDC
had a chance to draw a line in the sand. And they failed.
At the CDC
conference, standing before a crowd of national experts on STDs, Dr.
Patricia Sulak sought to find common ground between the “sexperts” and
abstinence educators. Surely, she challenged them, we can
agree on this one thing. Can’t we agree on an age too young for sex?
NO!
the room erupted in unison. After all, this is the age of consent.
If sex is consensual, that’s good enough for them. If you are
wondering what the CDC has to say about this…so am I.
How about it,
CDC? How young is too young when it comes to children and sex?
Copyright © 2006 Jane Jimenez
July 11, 2005
Medically Accurate Cowards
November 19, 2004 Kinsey: Brave New World?
See Archives
for past editorials.
_____________________ |
