What this? A rational article?

Sorry rational debate is not allowed on this highly emotive topic. Afterall once there is rational debate, it looses much of the emotional heat, that some try to inflame.

It was somewhere around 1890 that the age of consent for girls was raised from 11 to 16. This was mainly bought about because young girls at the time were being sold into prostitution.

If I recall correctly a salvation army office bought a girl and there was a big public and political outcry.

So the sexualisation of teenagers has always been with us. It is not a new problem, but the methods that are now used are new.

IT will be the same drift as all other threads dealing with the Children a lot of talk no action
Tomorrow I lose my Son forever
All have a good life
From Dave

'Second, attacks against a “sexualisation of youth” assume that young people are asexual, and should be shielded against all sexual references'

Bingo. That's always been my main argument against this theory. I quite often hear about a supposed sexualisation of women too!

'There should be a greater media focus on what young people themselves think about sex.'

Oh that would be good. But put it through the lens of a sensationalist media and all you'll have is titillation and distortion. Closely followed by outrage and barrow pushing from religious types and feminists lining up to judge 'attitudes' of young people and blame 'society' 'the patriarchy', 'secularism' for anything they see through this lens, then wilfully further distorting for their own pet cause.

No, I'm afraid teen sexuality must be kept in the closet. They are asexual, and we must protect them from our 'dirty' sexual world, and exclude them from any talk of sexuality. In respect to sex, young people are to be seen and not heard.

Well I am going to be a fly in the ointment.

This entire article is mocking concerns about sexualisation of young children, and then you write:

"I agree with calls for companies to exercise “corporate responsibility” when addressing children and teenagers. There are many reasons why it is unacceptable to market (say) T-shirts with sexually suggestive messages towards girls as young as five. Parents and guardians should also think twice before purchasing such items for their children. Supply and demand are closely related."

This is exactly what those with concerns are worried about. You don't have to tell a parent about sexual marketing directed even at very young girls, not just clothing but in the music industry. Britney Spears was directely aimed at the tweenies.

To suggest that those with concerns about sexualisation of children are seeking in some way to hide sex or make sex shameful just means you have not understood the issue at all. Discussion about sex between parents and children can take place at the appropriate age or when questions are asked. This 'age' may be different for different children.

It doesn't matter what you call it - sexualisation of children - or another name, ultimately it is the essentials behind the concerns that count. Sexualisation of children is actually a pretty good phrase, I can't think of a better one.

Parents have to take responsibility but it is much easier if the whole community gets behind and supports parents rather than make it a commercial battleground for the biggest profit no matter what the costs.

Blame capitalism.
Blame McDonalds.
They showed the way in focused marketing to children with the premise of "capture them as customers early and you have them for life".

The advertising industry works on desire and feelings and nowhere is this more applicable than sex. Sex sells and always has. Combine that with greedy corporations desire to influence young children, regardless of any harm they may cause,and you have a recipe for todays 6 year old girls wanting bras and makeup and acting like whores.

Capitalists care for nothing but how much money they make and any opportunity for more will be gladly taken up and to hell with any consequences as long as they dont reduce profits. When will people realise almost all of our problems can be streeted back to this greedy, bigoted, immoral, unfair, flawed and worshiped ideology of capitalism.

Oooh go pelican I knew you'd get fired up. Where's Bronwyn?

'Discussion about sex between parents and children can take place at the appropriate age or when questions are asked. This 'age' may be different for different children.'

What a lot of these parents want, really, is no sexual material to be seen by their children to avoid this ever coming to pass, until they (the parent) can cope with it. It has little to do with the actual child, who is asking questions in what they see in the world around them. I've known a few women who admit to humping pillows as young as 6, and I remember having erections that early as well. Children ARE sexual, it's just adults cant handle the fact.

Children are more exposed to the world as the world is getting smaller and smaller. It's a good thing. They are learning in the culture they will be living in, and there is more to learn in these times. Parents are there to explain to them what they see around them, not pretend it doesn't exist and legislate others to their personal world view.

'Parents have to take responsibility but it is much easier if the whole community gets behind and supports parents rather than make it a commercial battleground for the biggest profit no matter what the costs.'

Supports which parents? What about the parents happy to let their 6 year olds imitate them, or imitate rock stars, and see it as valid play and natural involvement in the culture that they see around them. What are the costs? Why does nobody get up in arms about selling hot rod matchbox cars to little boys? About boys being marketed WWF wrestling stuff, being strong and muscle-bound?

mikk,

'and acting like whores. '
Really?! I don't think I've seen any 6 year olds acting in such a way. Perhaps you are projecting your adult notions onto the young things just like you accuse the advertisers of doing.

I think young kids have always wanted to act like their parents.

When we talk about the "sexualisation of youth" there needs to be a distinction made between teenagers and children.
Teenagers as a group are sexually mature, if not emotionally mature, and trying to prevent sexualisation of this group would be akin to holding back the dikes with your little finger. The strategy of discussing perceptions towards sex and attempting to promote healthy attitude and behaviour is entirely appropriate. Teenage is a time when experimentation and exploration are default settings, and the influence of media, whilst undeniable, is not the driving force here.
Children or pre-teens, on the other hand, will be confused with notions of sexual behaviour. There should not be pressure placed upon 10 years old girls, or boys to look or behave in ways that are not commensurate to their maturity. Take the example of Britney Spears - marketed towards preteens with a pretty blunt sexual message that promotes a style of dress and behaviour in young girls that they are not ready understand. We should let kids be kids, and teenagers can be teenagers, and neither of them should be expected to be like adults.

Sexualisation of youth appears to be a misnomer when all of the concern appears to be about young girls.

Many people want to promote a very appealing view of sexuality to older girls and then wonder why younger girls want to be a part of it. We need to have the courage to tell these women that being flirty might get attention but little real respect. It might not boost these women's precious self esteem, but then neither does being labelled a tart. It might also mean that younger girls are in no rush to grow up too quickly.

I am pleased to see my article has generated some discussion. I am particularly interested in 'Pelican's' response, and wonder how thoroughly he/she has read the piece:

"This entire article is mocking concerns about sexualisation of young children ..."

No, I'm not "mocking" these concerns at all. I concede they have a strong basis in fact. My issue is with the misguided use of the terms 'sexualisation' and 'sexualised'. Such usage implies that sex is automatically degrading and oppressive.

This is quite different from supporting (say) child pornography or advertising depicting tween girls in provocative, skimpy attire. Indeed, I distance myself from such imagery in my article.

"To suggest that those with concerns about sexualisation of children are seeking in some way to hide sex or make sex shameful just means you have not understood the issue at all."

I agree - but that's not what I'm suggesting! I'm not suggesting that all people who hold these "concerns" want to "hide sex" or "make sex shameful". (Though, to be sure, some do hold these aims; I find it unimaginable that religious conservatives would support sex education in schools or the use of contraception).

" Parents have to take responsibility but it is much easier if the whole community gets behind and supports parents rather than make it a commercial battleground for the biggest profit no matter what the costs."

I totally agree, and indeed I concede as much in the article. Sigh ...

Hi Jay,

I have read the article.

"First, this use of the term “sexualisation” seems to assume that all sex is inherently harmful. Young people are corrupted and misogyny is perpetuated every time sex appears on a billboard or in a music video. Second, attacks against a “sexualisation of youth” assume that young people are asexual, and should be shielded against all sexual references - unless, of course, you are promoting abstinence."

I am certainly not a raving conservative and I don't assume that sex is inherently harmful. I support Clive Hamilton's (ex) Australia Institute's (TAI) research on this and the papers addressing this issue resonate strongly as a parent.

'Sexualisation' is possibly a misnomer - all living organisms are sexual including plants. Without sex we do not perpetuate the species. Children are born sexual but they are not born having sex. You would no more show a porn movie to a young child just because they are sexual beings. This is not an argument in itself.

Sexual participation comes hopefully with maturity, with some guidance and education. As a parent you hope you have done all you can in these endeavours. But teenagers will be teenagers and they will experiment.

The issue of sexualisation in regards to teenagers is a very different issue than that of young children.

I speak mainly in reference to girls, I don't have boys and cannot speak from experience how the effects of media and peer pressure affect boys.

It is a real battle for parents to convince teens that they don't have to participate in risky sexual behaviours due to peer and media pressure. There have been a number of cases in the US where girls have performed degrading sexual acts to be popular. Constant sexualised images in the media and from teen magazines does not assist in any meaningful way to the sexual development of children. The only benefit from teen mags is advice about contraception and sexual diseases.

What is wrong with letting kids be kids without burdening them with the complexities of adolescence before their time?

I think that lilsam gets to the crux of the issue by linking sexual behaviour with sexual feelings. Children for the most part do not have sexual feelings. They are not sexually aroused by provocative images of the opposite sex. They do not feel any desire to accentuate their gender characteristics in order to attract the opposite sex. To dress them or portray them in ways that suggest they have sexual feelings like post pubescent people is absurd. They may want to look like Britney Spears but not for purpose of sexual attraction. More than likely it is about wanting to be popular or even a celebrity. Children have those feelings.

Teenagers are entirely different and behave in ways that are pretty much natural throughout all societies. There are hazards and pitfalls but no more so than in any other area of human behaviour.

Sex sells. This seems to be an incontestable dictum over which we have no control. Why does it have to be so? If we as adults and teenagers refused to be swayed by such advertising it would soon disappear. Why does a product with a scantily clad female advertising it sell better than one that presents its claims in a reasoned way? This points to a deeper insecurity in many people who define themselves (including their virility) by the products they own or buy. This insecurity is what advertising agencies seize upon. The real need may be to educate young people about the insidious nature of a lot of advertising. It is also vital to affirm their real worth as human beings so that they are not easily duped in to ‘dumbing’ themselves down to the level where advertising would have them.

There is a difference between youth being more sexually active and promiscuous and youth wearing clothes and acting in a way that adults PERCEIVE as sexual.

Do you really think that an 8yo girl who doesn't wear a bra or listen to Britney Spears will be asexual. But put a bra and a CD in her hand and viola, she's a whore.

There's a very easy way to beat the "evil corporations". Ignore their marketing and if you don't agree with their methods, don't buy their products. Decreased sales will speak louder than whinging and government intervention ever will.

Children don't have money of their own, they don't have access to shops, transport, credit cards etc. They are totally reliant on their parents. The parents out there need to grow a pair and say NO to their children. How parents manage to justify to themselves that governments and corporations are responsible for the parenting of their children I will never understand.

The traditional Aborigines, the Old Anglo-Saxons, the New Guinea Highlanders, and the Nuba of Sudan all married pubescent girls. I suppose that was all the fault of that dreadful capitalism too?

Peter Hume you make an interesting point. Was it wrong for ancient peoples to marry young? Nothing to do with capitalism and your comment is another complete straw man of which your type are so fond.

The crux of this argument is....

Is it wrong for companies to use sexualised images/concepts to sell products to young children?

And the answer is bloody oath it is and no amount of squirming, weasel words and apologists for capitalism will change that.

Ah mikk give the people what they want. Where there's demand, supply should follow.

burbs,

'There is a difference between youth being more sexually active and promiscuous and youth wearing clothes and acting in a way that adults PERCEIVE as sexual.'

Exactly. I'm still getting over the '6 year olds acting like whores' quote.

In fact, I think I should repeat your whole post. It neads to be printed again...

'There's a very easy way to beat the "evil corporations". Ignore their marketing and if you don't agree with their methods, don't buy their products. Decreased sales will speak louder than whinging and government intervention ever will.

Children don't have money of their own, they don't have access to shops, transport, credit cards etc. They are totally reliant on their parents. The parents out there need to grow a pair and say NO to their children. How parents manage to justify to themselves that governments and corporations are responsible for the parenting of their children I will never understand.'

Peter Hume < "The traditional Aborigines, the Old Anglo-Saxons, the New Guinea Highlanders, and the Nuba of Sudan all married pubescent girls. I suppose that was all the fault of that dreadful capitalism too?"

No Peter, not capitalism. It was merely stoneage paedophile men acting for their own sick gratification before society as a whole banned the practice.
Unfortunately, some men today never evolved from those stoneage practices.

Get off it suze if a 14 year old marries a 12 year old it's hardly paedo. When there's grass on the wicket, it's time to play cricket!

Humans can reproduce and are ready for sex physically much younger than 16. It's just that in our society people under 18 don't have the resources for self determination and such, and have been molly coddled in comparison to the times when people got jobs at 14 digging coal.

'acting for their own sick gratification'
You really have issues with sex. Oh yes, men who want sex in times when the consent age are lower due to a different society with different life expectancies are acting for their own sick gratification!

Houellebecq:"You really have issues with sex"

Isn't that the single most glaringly common denominator that unites the Old Grrrls Network? Where are all the old dears, anyway - this topic is tailor-made for lip-pursing and head-shaking, not to mention tut-tutting. I'd have thought the Dreary Dowagers would be all over it like an outbreak of herpes.

Houellebecq:"times when the consent age are lower due to a different society with different life expectancies"

And that's the crux of it, isn't it? Let's not kid ourselves that those times are in the past, either. Antibiotic resistance, along with crap lifestyle and what are going to become very crowded conditions are all going to conspire to produce greatly reduced life expectancies in our descendants compared to ourselves. Epidemic disease will become a serious threat again in the crowded cities, while the value our society places on individual life is likely to become reducsed, simply because there are more of us.

The most significant factor in changing the role of women in our society has been the improvement in health care, including contraception and in obstetrics, meaning that they are able to delay having children until almost menopausal and that their menfolk will accept that as reasonable, given that they are both likely to live well into their 80s.

In other words, it is an artefact of a time of abundance that is rapidly approaching its end. contraception will still be with us, but the drive to use it is likely to wane when people have good reason to fear dying young.

Likewise, the sense that childhood should be extended to young adulthood is likely to be abandoned, for the same reasons.

Our country's population is predicted to reach close to 100,000,000 people before it starts to fall...

Houellebecq <"Get off it suze if a 14 year old marries a 12 year old it's hardly paedo. When there's grass on the wicket, it's time to play cricket!"

Just the sort of disgusting comment I would expect you to say.
And you know that, in ancient Aboriginal society at least, it was older men taking young girls as wives.

Sounds like you think that is all good fun?
We all know this practice continues today as well, and it is called pedophilia, and yes it is undeniably mainly men as perpetrators.

That fact is hard for you to deal with isn't it?
Once you enter the conversation anticeptic, I am out of it!

suzeonline:"Once you enter the conversation anticeptic, I am out of it!"

"and another one gone
another one gone
another one bites the dust"

Probably not altogether appropriate - Freddie Mercury liked sex quite a lot, apparently...

'septic, as one of the dreadful 'grrrls' you and your anti-maternity mates speak of, you will understand that I have changed my mind and decided to answer you.

I believe the topic is the sexualisation of youth?
Why then are you focused on what you think you know about my sex life?
Whatever rocks your boat I suppose.

The use of the words from a great Freddie Mercury song, and comments about his sex life, is in very poor taste indeed, given that his demise was caused by a sexually transmitted disease.

A new low, even for you 'septic.

Suzeonline:"as one of the dreadful 'grrrls'"

Oh suzie, you're not dreadful, dear, just dreary. Your obvious dislike of anything to do with sex is just one of the manifestations of that dull wowserism you embrace.

Some of the other grrrls really are dreadful, as well as dreary, dull and dim-witted. Wowserism is a natural for you and them - it is a response to the sense that one is missing out on all the fun that everyone else is having and naturally the Old Grrls Network is full of women who have spent their entire lives resenting others' enjoyment.

suzeonline:"I believe the topic is the sexualisation of youth?"

Yes, indeed it is, well spotted. As I said earlier, the current Wowserism inspired by Feminism has a pretty short life expectancy. It's only the fact that we have had a massively subsidised economy based on cheap fossil-fuel energy that allows it to exist. Once that energy is no longer available then pragmatism will return. That means that both young people and women are going to find themselves far less cossetted by a society that can't afford the time or money to do so. Moreover, as antibiotics continue to lose effectiveness childhood mortality is going to increase dramatically, leading to a drive for women to have more children at an earlier age.

As life expectancy declines, the age at which people start having children also gets lower. The reason that young girls got married in the Middle Ages was simply because there was a fair chance that they'd have enough children before dying that at least one would make it to adulthood.

No amount of entitlement-based ideology is going to change all of that, so you and the rest of the Dreary Dowagers had best enjoy your time in the sun while it lasts...

Here's a bit more Freddie for you, since you seem to be a fan:

"Drop of a hat she's as willing
As playful as a pussycat"

What s shame no one's ever likely to say that about one of the twisted Sisterhood.

Go Antiseptic. Suzie, paedophilia refers to a psychiatric condition in which a guy cannot get off unless with a sexually immature child. It does not refer to ordinary human behaviour in virtually all cultures and all times of consensual sexual activity at the onset of physical sexual maturity. Yes you think sex is disgusting and hateful, so much is obvious. But that doesn't mean ordinary human sexual behaviour is sick - it means you are.

'septic<"...it is a response to the sense that one is missing out on all the fun that everyone else is having and naturally the Old Grrls Network is full of women who have spent their entire lives resenting others' enjoyment."

Gee, you and Peter Hume must feel very humble in your own presence?
How on earth do you feel you know me at all? Is it that you want to hear about my wonderful sex life- past and present? Is that the only way you poor guys can have any fun- living life vicariously? How sad.

Peter I don't believe I ever said anywhere that pedophilia was in any way a normal human behaviour! Of course it is a sickness, but not one that can be cured except by surgical castration.

As it happens, I am neither an 'old girl' or a feminist as such.
I actually often prefer the company of men to women.
I just happen to dislike men who hate all women just because they are female. Do you blame me?

Another iconic Freddie Mercury composition-:

"Stop it stop all the fighting
We want to live in a better place (live in a better place)
We want to make a better human race
We want to live in a better place (stop all the fighting)
We want to make a better human race
Stop all the fighting stop all the fighting".

Suzeonline:"Is it that you want to hear about my wonderful sex life- past and present?"

Whatever floats your boat, Suzie. At least it won't take long...

It'd be nice to get back on topic. Your bickering is boring at best.

I don't think you can apply current standards to historic actions. It was common for men and women to marry much younger in the past. They acted in accordance with the standards at the time.

Let's fast forward 200 years, and make similar changes. The age considered appropriate for sex has risen from puberty (around 13-14) to 16-18. So let's project that in 200 years that age of consent is say 20. By the logic used in this forum, that would make anyone who had sex with a 16-20 year old in 2000 a paedophile by future standards.

Sound reasonable?

burbs,

Sounds very logical. Let's face it men are all really paedos in Suze's world.

Suze,

'Just the sort of disgusting comment I would expect you to say.'

Which part was disgusting? Do you find pubic hair disgusting? Or is it disgusting to talk about sex with a cricket metaphor? I'll try to work candlelight dinners in sometime, but I find cricket the most romantic of sports. Women play cricket too.

'And you know that, in ancient Aboriginal society at least, it was older men taking young girls as wives.

Sounds like you think that is all good fun?'

Depends on the age of the 'girl'. I'm a moral relativist. Who's to say our culture is better.

Incidentally I love the way people love to preserve a culture, but only cherry-pick the bits that are acceptable (or seem quaint) with respect to their own culture.

Oooh we must preserve this culture, except the bits about genital mutilation and sending 8 year olds to fight with lions because that's taboo in our culture!

It's all so inconsistent.

Burbs defined it well: <"There is a difference between youth being more sexually active and promiscuous and youth wearing clothes and acting in a way that adults PERCEIVE as sexual.

Do you really think that an 8yo girl who doesn't wear a bra or listen to Britney Spears will be asexual. But put a bra and a CD in her hand and viola, she's a whore.">

So Antiseptic, Hume and Houellebecq are arguing in favour of the sexualization of youth.

Why?

Whose wants and purposes are being served in a society where youngsters are defined/perceived as sexual beings - regardless of whether their emotional and mental maturity is congruent with their physical appearance and the way adults perceive them ?

- - - -

Btw Houellebecq, the youngest female to have "grass on the wicket" was a tot who ended up pregnant at about 6 yrs of age. The kind of cultural belief that underlies that sort of saying is also the source of cases of girls of, say, 11 - who have been subject to honour killings.

However, I suppose that in your world, anyone who feels gut sick at the plight of those youngsters has a problem with sex or summin. How about men who object to the misuse of young people - do they have a problem with sex and/or (other) men too ?

Pynchme:"Antiseptic, Hume and Houellebecq are arguing in favour of the sexualization of youth."

You really do have difficulty reading for comprehemsion, don't you dear? "Youth" is and always has been sexual - the moral panic being promoted by you Dreary Dowagers is only possible because you are being massively subsidised, as are we all, by cheap fossil fuels. That allows all the things that let women put off children until they should be past it. Snce they are likely to have only one, and since it is likely to survive to adulthood thanks to good antibiotics (which soon won't be much good at all), it is valued much more highly that children have been valued historially, when many of them were likely to die. Once most antibiotics become ineffective, which is likely to be within the next few decades, chldhood mortality will increase and the human race will go back to historical norms of behaviour. The current period is an anomaly, not a norm.

Instead of revealing the empty Wowserism you espouse, how about condemning the "commodification" of children that is part and parcel of the Family Law? Just like a share portfolio or an investment property or a string of racehorses they're a useful money-maker - for the one who "owns" them.

The Natonal Council for Sngle Mothers and "THEIR" Children has no doubts about who that should be...

pynchme,

'So Antiseptic, Hume and Houellebecq are arguing in favour of the sexualization of youth.'

I must have missed that. Nope, sorry cant see that argument anywhere here.

I never knew the cultural belief of cricket players included honour killings.

BTW: Men get grass on the wicket as well you know. Growing pubic hair is a perfectly natural part of puberty for both sexes. Looks like pynchme never played catch and kiss.

PS: I do get it pynchme. You take a comment about pubic hair meaning physical sexual maturity (talking about a 14 and 12 year old pair), that was making a point about society's artificial overriding of natures signs of sexual readiness, then you equate to 6 year olds (a rare case indeed), then you mix in honour killings, and much older men misusing 6 year olds.

Nice work. Some of your best stuff.

Antiseptic: The point you choose to miss is that *sexualization* ( a transitive VERB) of youth (or people of any age) doesn't have much if anything to do with that person's inclination towards or readiness for sex. Sexualizing someone is something done TO them.

The American Psychological Society:

There are several components to sexualization, and these set it apart from healthy sexuality. Sexualization occurs when

* a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics;

* a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy;

* a person is sexually objectified—that is, made into a thing for others’ sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision making; and/or

* sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person.

All four conditions need not be present; any one is an indication of sexualization. The fourth condition (the inappropriate imposition of sexuality) is especially relevant to children. Anyone (girls, boys, men, women) can be sexualized. But when children are imbued with adult sexuality, it is often imposed upon them rather than chosen by them. Self-motivated sexual exploration, on the other hand, is not sexualization by our definition, nor is age-appropriate exposure to information about sexuality.

http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/sexualizationsum.html

Houellebecq: Girls menstruating from age 10 is far from unusual and public hair appears up to two years before menstruation begins. I don't think you mean to encourage child abuse; but thoughtless comments ignore the way in which people who are child sex abusers rationalize their behaviour so that they can disregard the harm it causes to the individuals they misuse.

Pynchme:"Sexualizing someone is something done TO them."

And hence is meaningless, since people are inherently judgemental about the "attractiveness" of others, even children.

Exploiting that sexuality for commercial purposes may be undesirable, for all sorts of reasons, but it's not "sexualising" anybody.

As for "age-appropriate", who decides? Historcally, people lived in close quarters and children were exposed to sexual behaviour among adults from the word go. As I've said repeatedly, the current situation i the west is a temporary anomaly subsidised by cheap energy in a relatively unpopulated world. Those conditions are both soon to end.

pelican: "It is a real battle for parents to convince teens that they don't have to participate in risky sexual behaviours due to peer and media pressure."

Yet as a father watching his daughter progresses through life, I don't see "risky sexual behaviours" as a major threat. Being an analytical sort of guy, I break the problem down into concrete causes and outcomes. With sex, the outcome I want to see is my daughter have kids and raise them in a stable relationship. Looking at what could go wrong - teenage pregnancy, relationship breakdown, not finding the time for a family, or a complete disaster like drugs come to mind.

Teenage pregnancy isn't a concern. Despite the fact that she and her girlfriends became sexually active long, long before their grandmothers and many sampled more than a few boys, teenage pregnancy is at all time low. Unlike Clive Hamilton I don't attribute this change in behaviour to the media, or advertising, or their parents attitudes, or the internet. The cause, as we all know, is the pill.

Marriage breakups are a concern, but the primary driver for that seems to be the financial independence women have today. In countries where that independence is strongest - such as Cuba, divorce rate is at an all time high - 75%.

The biggest problem my daughter probably faces is forming a long term, stable relationship now rather than later. Doing it later risks all the good guys being taken by her more "sexually orientated" girlfriends. She doesn't see this of course, but daddy has watched bright, career orientated, tertiary educated girls of his own generation get married only after the biological clock got too loud to ignore - and then ended up raising the kids on their own.

After seeing a phallic wind chime from 100 AD in the British museum a couple of days ago, methinks you girls are well equiped to handle premature sexualisation. Financial independence, high career expectations, education - these are new. Balancing them against raising a family is proving much a trickier problem for you to handle.

rstuart - can you please explain the phallic windchime and what that has to do with the sexualization of youth.

Quote from suzeonline thursday 15/10/09 :- No peter,not capitalism, it was merely stone age paedophile men acting for their own sick gratification before society as a whole banned the practice. Unfortunately, some men today never evolved from these stone age practices.
Here we go again, in other threads much has been said about men GENDERCISING these issues, yet once again we have some one like suzeonline [presumably a female] being the FIRST to put all the blame on men and spew out her usual man hating rhetoric. I hope this has been noted by all posters on here, and that all can see who is REALLY starting most of the antagonism on these threads.

eyeinthesky <- Oh CALM down. Please stop trying to portray All men as victims and Suzie as an aggressor. She said:

<"No peter,not capitalism, it was merely stone age paedophile men acting for their own sick gratification before SOCIETY AS A WHOLE banned the practice. Unfortunately, SOME MEN today never evolved from these stone age practices.">

(capitals added for emphasis)

"society as a whole" <- that includes men doesn't it; otherwise she'd have said "women" or "half of society".

"some men today" <- she says SOME.

If you aren't a leering old geezer then you aren't being blamed for anything are you.

Pynchme
On other threads i have stated quite clearly that i have brought up my lovely daughter [ now a young WOMAN] myself, that i have just become engaged to a beautiful WOMAN, and the help and support i got from many WOMEN including some single mothers during my custody battle. Yet when i have put forward my opinion that SOME women/mothers are abusing and neglecting their children i have immediately been howled down and called a mysogynist or women hater by people including suzeonline. WHY arn't you telling THEM to calm down. I will answer you in kind. If suzeonline and her sistas arn't child neglecters or abusers, then THEY arn't being blamed for anything either, yet it seems according to you, that it is ok for them to say what they wish about SOME men/fathers, but men arn't allowed the same right to say what they wish about SOME women/mothers. As clear a case of hypocrisy and double standards as i have seen and exactly what is wrong with these debates and in fact the entire family law and child protection system in this country.
[ Capitals added for emphasis].

Bravo, eyeonthesky! That's precisely the prevailing hypocrisy in a nutshell.

eyeinthesky: I've never seen a post where women approved of or presented apologetics for female abusers of any kind, but of course I haven't seen every post. If there is one that you'd like to show me I'd be interested to see it. At the same time if your interpretation of those posts is anything like the interpretation of the post you just singled out then I would doubt the accuracy of your interpretation.

I have no compunction whatsoever in expressing disapproval of any abuser - whether their victims are male, female or any youth or child.

However, as you see, you have Antiseptic's full approval. If I were you I'd reflect on that. It's like someone who says they aren't racist getting a cheer of approval from the grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

PYNCHME.[SIGH]. You completely miss the point. I have never seen a post where a woman has APPROVED of the abuse and neglect of a child, and that includes suzeonline. But then neither have i seen a post where a man/father APPROVES of the neglect and abuse of a child either, and that includes anti. The message in the post in question is very clear, that it is MEN who are to blame. Yet as usual if a man disagrees and points out statistics which show the extent of abuse and neglect of children by mothers and their new BF's, he is immediately howled down and called a woman hater or mysogynist. I fail to see how any rational person could draw the inference, from what i wrote, that i said that suzeonline APPROVED of child neglect and abuse. All i did was point out what she said in her post which was that MEN were responsible. And its plainly there for all to see. I would point out that it was only AFTER suzeonlines post that anti made a reply, and as usual he is the one copping the flack.
Antiseptic is a good name as our whole family law system needs a darn good clean up to rid it of all its attendant parasites and to start doing what is truly in the best interests of the child. Whether the child is in danger of abuse or neglect from either the mother or the father, that child should be placed with the best parent, gender should not even enter into it unless the child is only a tiny infant, and that is not being done in our courts today. Suppose i wrote an article or post on here that on the strength of 92% of child neglect being carried out by mothers that SOME women/mothers were to blame and that all children should reside with the father. What sort of reply would i get to that, yet when a man replies to a post like the one mentioned he is just told to calm down.

eyeinthesky: The comment wasn't that anyone approved of abuse - but that they express approval of or apologetics for abusers.

The only time I have seen any reference to (often distorted) stats on child neglect, it's raised as a diversion from the overwhelming statistics of male agression. That is - as an apologetic for male aggression or abuse.

Btw - while women may be counted more often for child neglect - a couple of thoughts:

1. Since women provide the vast majority of child care; it's not surprising that they also tally up a greater proportion of occasions of child neglect.
2. Where are the fathers ?
3. Women raising children alone are often in dire financial straits; maybe poverty is a contributing factor to existing stats.
4. In one of my work roles (over many years) most of my clients are men and at least 50% (conservatively - I would say the percentage is closer to 75) have experienced childhood sexual abuse. Of all of those, I have only had one whose sexual abuse was perpetrated by a female. I have NEVER counselled any one, male or female, who stated that the presenting problems stemmed from neglect.
5. You refer to women and their Bfs - very true. Noting, of course, that Bfs are blokes.
6. I am an advocate of the idea that fathers, given the chance, are capable nurturers. Most feminists are as well; being opposed to enforced stereotypes and the roles that are dictated by them.

If you choose to hop on Antiseptic's bandwagon (where, for example, opposition to child sexual abuse is referred to as "tut tutting" and people who oppose it are accused of having a problem with sex) - don't be surprised to be categorized with him.

Pynchme.
1. Since you are keen on analogies eg :- the ku klux klan reference. I suggest what you say is that its not surprising that hitler killed more people than pol pot because he had a larger population to work on. True perhaps but that doesn't make it right and it doesn't help the people who were killed.
2.Although there are undoubtably some men who are fathers who have walked away from their responsibilities, there are also many others who have been cruelly torn from their childrens lives for no other reason than vindictiveness from their former partner.No wonder that men are suiciding at the rate of 5-1 compared to women perhaps for the same reason that you state as regards child neglect.In 85% of cases the father doesn't get custody [ do the maths].Why isn't the government pouring millions of dollars to address this problem.
3.Yes sometimes they are and often it is the father who is left in poverty. When i got custody all i had was a broken child a pension and a mountain of debt as a result of my court battle while the ex [the abuser]got all the free legal aid. I often didn't have 2 bobs to rub together for years but my child was never neglected or left alone because of it, in fact she thrived.
4.I dont know your job but from what you say, it seems the type of job you work at would naturally bring you into contact with people with problems, 50-75% of your clients being sexually abused does not mean that 50-75% of PEOPLE are being abused, the vast majority of people would not be coming to you because they have no problems or been the subject of abuse. I have seen plenty of stories recently in the press of children DYING because of neglect, usually by the mother or BF how serious does it have to be.
5.No arguments there. I am more interested in the rights and well being of FATHERS and their children not so much the specific interests of men or otherwise.

Talk about "approval and apologetics for abusers"...

Pynchme:"1. Since women provide the vast majority of child care; it's not surprising that they also tally up a greater proportion of occasions of child neglect."

No, it's not, but what IS surprising is that all of the focus is on male perpetrators of sexual abuse, while the far greater amount of harm is being done by female so-called "carers".

Pynchme:"2. Where are the fathers ?"

Good point. The data all show unequivocally that the presence of the biological father is protective. If abuse occurs in an intact family, the father is just as culpable as the mother, although there is a disturbing trend for Courts to allow mothers of children who have been abused by the father to claim ignorance or fear of retaliation as excuses for permitting it. A father of a child who is neglected or abused by the mother or an asociate will be far more likely to be held accountable, even though he is not the perpetrator.

Pynchme: “3. Women raising children alone are often in dire financial straits; “
Families are often in dire financial straits, especially ones that don't qualify for all the handouts that single mothers get, like public housing. A few years ago my ex had a taxable income of $14,000, while her gross income was over $32,000, not including the cheap Housing Commission house which cost her less than a commercial flat would have. That meant her net was a tad over $29,000, which at the time was equivalent to a $40,000+ salary.

At the time, I was earning about $40,000 and so my net was about the same as hers, but I had to give her $8000 of that for "child-support" and then try to pay my rent ($9,000 at the time), my other bills and feed and clothe myself, as well as buy things the kids needed when they were with me on weekends. I went broke trying.

Don't talk to me about single mothers living in poverty, I'll spit in your face every time. Let 'em get a job if they want more money - I have to and my taxes are subsidising childcare for them.
Pynchme: “4.”
I've no idea what your role is - every time you bring it up it seems to be more grandiosely self-important and ever-more strongly demonstrative of the dysfunctionality of men...

If you wish to "speak from authority", then please enlighten us as to what that authority derives from. if you can't, you're merely windbagging.

Pynchme: ”5. You refer to women and their Bfs - very true. Noting, of course, that Bfs are blokes."

And, of course, that women are chicks... Gee I'm glad we cleared that up

Talk about "approval and apologetics for abusers"...

Yes and it is as it will always be.

The likes of pynchme sobbing over the poor women, always the victim, the men, well, it's their nature to be abusive misogynists.

And the likes of antiseptic, always a victim of the system, feminists, women etc.

A woman is single with a child;

pynchme is guaranteed to see a courageous survivor of an abusive male, struggling to make ends meet and always putting the children first

antiseptic is guaranteed to see a manipulative bitch who used the CSA to screw her ex and is using the kids to do so while neglecting them, with a poor father that has been shut out of his beloved kids lives

The thing that I don't 'get' is that while 'septic is always jumped on as being some woman hater when he sees things from the woe is me men angle, anyone who ever calls a woman on her similar bias is considered just a woman hating troll. How is it the women posters always have this god given and granted moral high ground?

Anyone with half a brain can spot you're as bad as each other.

eyeinthesky; Well spotted.

'The only time I have seen any reference to (often distorted) stats on child neglect, it's raised as a diversion from the overwhelming statistics of male agression[sic]. That is - as an apologetic for male aggression or abuse.'

That right there just proves pynchme sees all these threads as an us and them, male vs female war. That the quoting of any statistics that shows men aren't the sole purveyors of abuse (or in women terms; unfortunate neglect as a result of absent fathers and poverty), is really just a 'diversion'.

Any discussion of female abuse (whoops! I mean unfortunate neglect as a result of absent fathers and poverty) is a diversion from what we should be talking about, and what pynchme really wants to talk about, and what should stay being the only thing that's ever talked about, and that's men abusing women and children.

In fact the only reason anyone would ever bring it up is 'as an apologetic for male aggression or abuse.'

Oh the irony!

Antiseptic: 1. <"... while the far greater amount of harm is being done by female so-called "carers".>

Oh? Then how is it, as I pointed out, that one never comes across male or female clients who are traumatized by 'neglect'; but there is an endless stream of people (in one of my roles - mostly males) who recount the lifelong burden of coming to terms with being sexually abused as children or as teens.

2. As you point out, many families are in dire straits too - therefore why is neglect always laid at the door of the single female household as a form of abuse? Where did you say the men are again?

3. <"Don't talk to me about single mothers living in poverty, I'll spit in your face every time">.

I'm sure you'd love to spit in my face, just the way you think it's normal behaviour to close doors in a woman's face as she approaches.

4. I raise the issue of male clientele to point out their plight as well. Why are you never concerned about male victims of male abuse?

Nevermind: I have a little something for you - maybe give you a laugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i6ilCbQgLE

and Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctY76p3anC4&feature=related

Houellebecq: If a thread or article comes up that's about neglect I'll be glad to dive in and condemn anyone who causes children pain and suffering. Since I haven't seen such a thread (why don't you start one?) tell me why it's brought up?

Abuse of children continues because people (about 90% of whom are male) perpetrate and too many others refuse to recognize it or condemn that exploitative behaviour - therefore it continues because some men do it and too many other men and women allow it.

Btw: I think I agree with Antiseptic about women who are aware and allow such abuse to continue - I believe there must be more enquiry into that and that many should probably be charged for failure to protect.

Houellebecq: <"In fact the only reason anyone would ever bring it up is 'as an apologetic for male aggression or abuse.'

Oh the irony!">

Irony?

I think you'd better explain what's ironic about it.

Pynchme continued:-
6.yes most fathers given the chance ARE good nurturers and i guess iv'e proved that. The important thing in that sentence you wrote is IF GIVEN THE CHANCE. Many fathers arn't given the chance, and even then have to fight for the privelige of bringing up their children just as i did, while the mother almost always gets custody and gets all the free legal aid even if she is a proven abuser. As regards single mothers living in poverty why is it that the ex could afford to go out to the pubs and parties and get drunk 6-7 nights a week [ often leaving our 5/6/7 yo daughter alone at home ] while i could barely afford to go out 1 night a fortnight,and even then only for a couple of drinks, even though i was working. I live in a small city/town and you can go into most of the pubs and see many of these single mothers doing their money on the pokies or booze then the next day these same mothers are down at uniting care begging for a handout because they are broke and their child is hungry. If you don't believe it i challenge you to come to my town and i'll give you a guided tour. For many, their poverty is self inflicted, most of the child support i payed just ended up keeping the local publican rich, not on my daughter. IMO your assertion that 90% of child abusers are male is an out and out lie, in the area of sexual abuse it may be true but in all other categories of abuse including neglect and child murder female perpetrators outnumber male perpetrators by a considerable margin. Once again you bring up that one never comes across people traumatised by NEGLECT and once again i say to you "what about the children who have DIED from neglect" most of which are in the care of their mothers. Isn't that trauma enough?

Houellebecq:"antiseptic, always a victim of the system, feminists, women etc."

Not me, I only post about my own case because I am very familiar with it and I believe it is pretty typical, if the men I have spoken to are any guide. I'm actually very fortunate, because I am able to create work for myself and thus remain free to live my life without interference from the grossly corrupted "system". Most men cannot, so suffer the abuses with varying degrees of resentment or despair.

I do believe that Feminism is a decadent ideology that can only exist because we live in a world in which there is a massive subsidisation of productivity by fossil fuels, which allows a larger class of non-productive people to exist than has historically been the case. It leads nowhere and promises nothing useful or worthwhile to the vast majority of people and it will wither with time. Already I suspect that the current generation has little time for the Dreary Dowagers' laments.

Pynchme:"one never comes across male or female clients who are traumatized by 'neglect' "

Real professionals in the field don't agree with you:

http://tinyurl.com/yg8zmlu
http://tinyurl.com/yl59asa
http://tinyurl.com/ygdfp59
http://tinyurl.com/ykn96wp

Pynchme:"buse of children continues because people (about 90% of whom are male) perpetrate"

Actually, dear, the data that has emerged as a result of FOI requests is that neglect, psychological and physical abuse of children is about 90% committed by either mothers or people associated with mothers in families where the father is not present.

Overwhelmingly, abuse and neglect of children is perptrated by females.

ANTISEPTIC.
Had a look at those links you posted, very interesting. My own daughter was subjected to ALL the categories of neglect mentioned, by her mother. Physical, educational, emotional/psychological and medical. I found the story of the 2 brothers very interesting, especially as regards the younger one who it was mentioned took his anger and frustration out on young children and animals. The sad case of baby p springs to mind, where the mothers new BF had a history of abusing and mutilating animals and who eventually was complicit along with the mother in beating the child to death, i wonder if he was a neglected child.[and no this is not meant as an apology statement for him]. As usual despite over 60 visits from the social workers, nothing was done and a child died an awful death as a result. I would venture to suggest that the reason pynchme might not see too many people whose problems stem from neglect is that a not inconsiderable number of them are either in jail, in a special care facility or dead.
Getting back on topic, most fathers tend to be quite strict and protective of their daughters especially as regards sexualisation, dress and boyfriends etc. While many mothers just don't care and indeed even encourage such. Only recently there was a case of a 12 yo girl whose mother allowed her much older BF to sleep over with her. The fathers protests of course as usual fell on deaf ears. Eventually he was given custody but of course it was too late then as she was pregnant. I know of quite a few single mothers even in my own town who allow this to happen, and even more who dress their daughters in revealing and sexually explicit clothes and who allow them to put on make up which makes them look much older than they really are. I have seen girls even in the pubs who you know are only about 13/14/15 yo but who because of the way they are dressed and made up look 18/19/20.

eyeinthesky: I don't have any problem with fathers being more involved with the birthing and raising of their children. In fact I find it a bit sad that so much fuss is made over the pregnant and birthing woman (sok - the fuss is ok) but that so many fathers are left sort of in an outer circle. I think the involvement should start as soon as the pregnancy is known and that he should get a bit of fussing too. How do you think most men would feel about that?

As for women "getting all the legal aid"; I always thought that Legal Aid was available to the first applicant. The second one applying is refused because Legal Aid say they would have a conflict of interest in providing services to both partners. I know MANY women who are endlessly harrassed through the courts; who don't have the money to fight it.

A few posts back you mentioned suicide - although there have been substantial fluctuations; the suicide rate has been going down for nearly a century. Present levels are comparable to rates in the 1920s or 30s. That more men suicide has always been the case; but it's attributed primarily to using more decisive means. Women make more attempts. Personally I think that childhood sexual abuse accounts for a lot of male, especially young male, suicide - as well as alcohol abuse; chronic drug use and other problems. It certainly underlies many of the suicides and attempts made by women. Btw - in a survey of adult men, 4 % claimed to have been sexually abused as children.
That's 4 in a 100 - 4 times the number of people diagnosed with schizophrenia.

That said, people who are sexually abused as children don't all go suicidal or develop major mental health problems; but even for those people who soldier on, the burden of the memory and the betrayal of trust inherent in it, is something they have to manage forever.

Sorry it's taken a while to get back - had other things to do.

Antiseptic: One of the fallacies that we're falling into here, as did the commentators in your link about the two boys, is that each abuse type happens separately. I think that if you look at the stats you'll find that the figures for types of abuse are higher than the number of children, and families, involved. That is, one child often suffers multiple types of abuse.

I would also say that neglected children are more vulnerable than most to sexual abuse because many of them will be seeking affection and some selfish adults will take advantage of that neediness; compounding the effects of any other type of suffering the child is experiencing.

I think we've all to a greater or lesser extent agreed that men can be nurturing. So then, in your two bro case study - why is there no expectation that the father give his favourite son emotional nourishment; kind touches and the like ? Research shows that if a child has even one reliable caregiver the impact of abuse or neglect by another is lessened.

It might be that the most troublesome son identified very closely with his father - his father was abusive and cruel. If the child is told from when he's a tot that he's just like his father and he is the one the father favours; and observation of his brother being beaten by his father demonstrates to him that one can be a victim, or one can be more powerful... then it's not very surprising if he also turns out to be abusive, cruel and emotionally unavailable.

Attachment issues and family dynamics are very complex matters - I don't think any one case study can be extrapolated to whole populations, nor do I think that's their purpose.

Here's just a little outline on attachment:

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/915447-overview

PYNCHME.
There is nothing wrong with women fussing at birthing time, women have been doing that since time immemorial.Its just part of good human nature. For us blokes its a few drinks to "wet the baby's head", or slap on the back and congratulations from your mates, with the odd ribald comment thrown in, again just well intentioned human nature. Both males and females have their own ways of congratulating and celebrating the birth of a child and there's nothing wrong with either.
As regards legal aid, over 70% of separation and divorce actions are started by the woman[ there have been solid statistics done on this, and yes SOMETIMES the woman and child are better off out of it]Therefore they are in most cases at an advantage in getting legal aid first. I could pretty much guarantee that if some statistics were taken of the number of mothers getting legal aid compared to fathers, that mothers would be recieving it in the vast majority of cases. Many a man has come home from work to find the house cleaned out and/or his children gone often only because his wife/partner has found some one else. If a man did this he would be hunted down and charged with kidnapping.
As regards suicide, women have pretty much the same methods of ending it all available to them as men do. Should tell you something. I wonder if you would be so dismissive of suicide statistics if 5 women to every 1 man was dying.
Yes, neglected children certainly are more vulnerable to sexual abuse for the reasons you stated. When i was bringing up my daughter she would often have friends for sleepovers and the FATHER HUNGER of these children was often pitiful to see. It would certainly be very easy for a pedophile to take advantage of the situation which accounts for the fact that it is often mums new BF that is the culprit. The fact is that while most sexual abuse is perpetrated by men, in only a small percentage of cases is the perpetrator the biological father.