https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/30333717251375994
A new peer-reviewed paper in the American Sociological Association's official journal Sex & Sexualities calls for the elimination of the idea of childhood sexual innocence and the social/ethical taboos against children engaging in sex acts.
The authors lament that most scholarship "marginalizes childhood sexual pleasure" and views children as “vulnerable subjects." They argue that we must "interrogate dominant narratives of sexual innocence that suppress young people's desires" and instead recognize how children "negotiate pleasure and meaning amid intersecting hierarchies of age, race, gender, and class." They reject what they call "adult-centric/adultist approaches to sexualities" and insist that "childhood pleasure is indispensable for an inclusive sociology and just sexual futures."
It is hard to read this as anything other than laying the intellectual groundwork for dismantling age-of-consent protections.
The central theme of the paper is "pleasure." This aligns with trends in international sex education policy, particularly the International Planned Parenthood Federation's Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) program, which explicitly shifted away from sex education centered around reproduction and toward what it calls "sexual expression, sexual fulfillment, and pleasure." Pleasure is one of seven core elements of CSE. Its Youth Policy, applying to "all young people irrespective of their age," declares a "right to pleasure" and "the right of all young people to enjoy sex and express their sexuality in the way that they choose."
It is therefore no surprise that the paper's authors frame the very notion of childhood sexual innocence as a barrier to progress.
They are saddened that "preadolescent children's erotic capacities are routinely pathologized." They argue that the "notion of childhood sexual innocence" is a harmful social construct that wrongly portrays children as "vulnerable to and in need of protection from sexuality." In their telling, "operating from the presumption of innate (sexual) innocence" leads scholars and the public to "overlook children's everyday pleasures" and attempt to "banish childhood sexuality altogether." They even go so far as to describe childhood sexual innocence as a "colonial fiction."
The fact that such arguments now appear in a flagship journal of the American Sociological Association should alarm everyone. As we repeatedly see, what begins as abstract theorizing in niche corners of academia rarely stays there. It trickles down into education, policy, and culture.
Read my full, in-depth write up of this paper below.
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/sociology-journals-are-normalizing
The authors lament that most scholarship "marginalizes childhood sexual pleasure" and views children as “vulnerable subjects." They argue that we must "interrogate dominant narratives of sexual innocence that suppress young people's desires" and instead recognize how children "negotiate pleasure and meaning amid intersecting hierarchies of age, race, gender, and class." They reject what they call "adult-centric/adultist approaches to sexualities" and insist that "childhood pleasure is indispensable for an inclusive sociology and just sexual futures."
It is hard to read this as anything other than laying the intellectual groundwork for dismantling age-of-consent protections.
The central theme of the paper is "pleasure." This aligns with trends in international sex education policy, particularly the International Planned Parenthood Federation's Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) program, which explicitly shifted away from sex education centered around reproduction and toward what it calls "sexual expression, sexual fulfillment, and pleasure." Pleasure is one of seven core elements of CSE. Its Youth Policy, applying to "all young people irrespective of their age," declares a "right to pleasure" and "the right of all young people to enjoy sex and express their sexuality in the way that they choose."
It is therefore no surprise that the paper's authors frame the very notion of childhood sexual innocence as a barrier to progress.
They are saddened that "preadolescent children's erotic capacities are routinely pathologized." They argue that the "notion of childhood sexual innocence" is a harmful social construct that wrongly portrays children as "vulnerable to and in need of protection from sexuality." In their telling, "operating from the presumption of innate (sexual) innocence" leads scholars and the public to "overlook children's everyday pleasures" and attempt to "banish childhood sexuality altogether." They even go so far as to describe childhood sexual innocence as a "colonial fiction."
The fact that such arguments now appear in a flagship journal of the American Sociological Association should alarm everyone. As we repeatedly see, what begins as abstract theorizing in niche corners of academia rarely stays there. It trickles down into education, policy, and culture.
Read my full, in-depth write up of this paper below.
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/sociology-journals-are-normalizing Absolutely nothing to see here, at all. Why would anyone be concerned to hear that normalizing childhood sexual pleasure is a thing?
6 comments:
Wow. I was hoping to find that this is an old paper, as this crap is not new. Sadly, it's from this month and that means the notion is spreading like a cockroach infestation.
Ironically, this mitigates the immorality of sex with teenage girls, wouldn't you think? What does that mean for Trump haters, who so desperately need for him to be a predator?
I hope we'll see cooler heads coming out to properly rip this crap to shreds. The left's feigning concern for the children leaves them at great risk.
Yeah, it's new. It's the kind of thing Dan denies exists, yet here we are.
1. Excellent point that this sort of thing takes away the stigma of men being attracted to women who are not age appropriate. If sexualizing children is a good thing, then it's a good thing.
2. The left can embrace this crap, or condemn it. I think they need a new victim class and this is it.
3. How do they make the "We have to do what the experts say." argument when the experts are telling them to have sex with children?
Dan is not exactly a "cool head", but I can't imagine that he'll say a negative word about this. He'll likely hide behind the "expert" excuse.
No, Dan will likely say he knows nothing about it and leave it at that until pushed to take a stand. I'm more interested in how he resolves the conundrum it creates for his denigration of Trump, Roy Moore or even Epstein if this sort of thing comes from his side of the ideological divide...which it does.
If this paper, written by Experts and published in a peer reviewed journal (both things that Dan reveres), is correct than Dan has no basis for his criticism of everyone you listed on the issue of "underage".
Not that Dan's criticism of things like this didn't already have problems, but this is just one more, from experts.
It's similar to the time when I provided Dan with evidence from some of the foremost experts on Evolution, I'm talking the Experts who literally wrote the literal book on Evolution, in which they made the case that rape is an evolutionary necessity. It was hilarious to watch how quickly Dan dismissed The Experts (one literally wrote the most commonly used textbook on Evolution) and clung to his subjective moral hunches about rape.
The notion that Dan will take, and stick to, a principled stand is one that has not been proven True up to this point.
Sodom had nothing on our current culture.
What do they say, "There's nothing new under the sun"?
Post a Comment