Does progress have to mean the sexual liberation of children? Michel Foucault thought so, as did many of the now high-ranking Labour Party members who once supported the Paedophile Information Exchange. Sexual interest in children is hardly unique to the modern world, of course, or indeed the West. Child sex slaves were socially acceptable in ancient Rome, and the longstanding practice of bacha bazi in Afghanistan still sees young boys feminised and abused by adult men.
Nor is paedophilia unique to the progressive Left. Just this week, Tory MP Imran Ahmad Khan was convicted of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old boy, prompting fellow Tory MP and LGBTQ advocate Crispin Blunt to declare angrily that Khans conviction was a dreadful miscarriage of justice and nothing short of an international scandal.
But its also true that since the sexual revolution, there has been a knocking on the door of progressive respectability by individuals with an intense interest in assisting the sexual development of children, and sometimes as in the case of Foucault questionable motives for doing so. Such activists invariably come armed with the logic of liberalism: using phrases such as agency, consent and education. The resulting queasy blend of pleasure, freedom, education and adolescence burst into flames this week, with news of a theatre production, The Family Sex Show, coming to Bristol that offers relationships and sex education supposedly suitable for ages five and up.
Cue public outrage, Mumsnet up in arms, and a petition to scrap the show that at the time of writing has more than 30,000 signatures. Its a homegrown British version of an increasingly ferocious front in the American culture war in which both sides are entrenched, and convinced of their own righteousness. On one side stand those who argue for ever more extensive sex education in the name of LGBTQ youth and sexual emancipation in general. On the other stand those claiming to defend the authority of parents over their children, which they argue represents childrens best protection against inappropriate adult sexual attention.
So far, this war has raged with characteristically American vigour. Recent examples are legion: Texans in uproarabout pornographic books in schools; school masturbation lessons for six-year-olds; drag queens on Nickelodeon. American conservatives are now pushing back at this efflorescence of sex chat for children, calling the vanguards of kid-friendly sexual emancipation groomers. On a practical front, conservative states have seen a spate of legislation constraining (or seeking to constrain) the nature and extent of sexual content that may legally be delivered to children in schools.
Advocates, meanwhile, are outraged at the groomer epithet. They argue its fine to be gay or kinky or non-binary or whatever, and that all sexual expression is acceptable provided everyone consents. For them, content of this kind simply normalises these perfectly acceptable identities, and helps to spread tolerance while ensuring LGBTQ youth feel represented and supported.
This moral standoff is the logical end-point of a tug-of-war as old as liberalism: the question of who is responsible for shaping children and to what ends. In Roman times, parental well, patriarchal authority over children was absolute, to the point of granting fathers the right to kill their children. It was the Christian faith that first ascribed universal personhood and dignity even to children, limiting the scope of this authority.
Christian teaching, though, still held that children should submit to their parents. It was the liberalising thinkers at the wellspring of modernity who began winkling out people from under the authority of the church and children from under the authority of their parents.
John Locke, one of the original liberal thinkers, argued for the separation of church and state, and its no coincidence that he was also the first parenting pundit. His Some Thoughts Concerning Education was published in 1693, and heavily influenced the next smash-hit parenting guide: Jean-Jacques Rousseaus Emile, written in 1763.
For Locke, education was essential. In his view, of all the men we meet with, nine parts of ten are what they are, good or evil, useful or not, by their education. Rousseau, meanwhile, was so convinced of its importance that, after concluding the family of his mistress Thrse Levasseur wasnt up to the job of raising the kids he fathered with her, he persuaded her to give them all away to the foundling hospital. In Confessions (1782), Rousseau admitted that he trembled at the thought of entrusting them to a family ill brought up, to be still worse educated. Presumably Rousseau thought the extremely high risk of his children dying in an orphanage a less fearful prospect than seeing his educational ideas poorly executed by the woman he repeatedly impregnated but refused to marry.
In any case, this left both Locke who never fathered children and Rousseau equally free to theorise about education, freedom and human nature, innocent of any hands-on experience with actual children. And this blind spot has cast a long shadow since, for emancipating children is, to say the least, a paradoxical undertaking.
Locke and Rousseau envisaged humans as autonomous, rational and capable of making decisions. But anyone with practical experience of how helplessly dependent a baby is, or how magnificently unreasonable toddlers can be, knows theres considerable ground to cover before you can describe your child as in any way rational or capable of making sensible choices. And getting them to the point where they can do this takes decidedly non-liberal methods, including providing direct moral instruction with the aim of eventually producing an independent, self-governing adult. Liberal citizens capable of making the most of freedom dont just appear in a vacuum; you have to make them.
Emancipating children has another key corollary, too: a reduction in parental authority. This is obviously true at the scale of individual parent-child relations, and is usually a gradual and benign process. As my child grows older, part of my job as a parent is to help her develop independence, which means slowly stepping back from managing all aspects of her life.
Whats perhaps less obvious, though, is that a culture of individual freedom also means defanging parental authority in general. This was tacitly acknowledged by Locke, Rousseau and the innumerable parenting pundits who have emerged by dint of writing books on how to raise ideal citizens. Each parenting manual says, tacitly, that just being the childs parents doesnt make you right by definition. As a parent you have to be doing it right as well, where right is defined by the larger project of shaping ideal citizens to enjoy freedom.
Yet in the centuries since Locke and Rousseau, the scope of those freedoms we consider our birthright has expanded too. This is usually treated as moral progress, but has also happened in no small part thanks to technologies that extend our strength, buttress our weaknesses or give us control where none existed before. In particular, the contraceptive revolution has extended freedom into the terrain of sexual desire.
By severing sex from its material consequences, reproductive technologies took the danger out of desire, allowing us to reimagine sex as a kind of consequence-free leisure activity. After all, once procreation is an optional rather than near-inevitable side-effect of sex, then on the face of it there seems to be no firm argument for preventing freely consenting adults from pursuing sexual pleasure in whichever form they desire.
Leaving aside the merits of this change, making the best of an emancipated world requires us as Locke and Rousseau realised to equip citizens to navigate it. It therefore follows that sex education isnt just an option but a necessity: if you accept the premise that emancipation is good, then sexual emancipation and the free, consenting expression of desire is also good. And given that children need direct moral instruction prior to attaining full liberal citizenship, good liberal parents have an active duty to provide instruction to their children, from the earliest possible age, in the full range of acceptable modern sexual expression.
From this perspective, filling the heads of five-year-olds with information about polyamory, or masturbation, or non-binary identities, isnt a precursor to sexual abuse at all even if its done against the wishes of that five-year-olds parents. Rather, its a vital part of preventing such abuse.
This, then, is the objective The Family Sex Show claims for itself. A Q&A explains that the show was aimed at ages five up because sexual development and behaviour in children starts from birth, and its important that children are supported in their exploratory development, safely and comfortably. To this end, The Family Sex Show proposes an alternative to porn: that is, a show offering intersectional, feminist, non-binary, anti-racist and sex-positive [sic] take on Relationships and Sex Education. This material will, the show promises, use pleasure as a vehicle for consent.
I admit Im less than reassured by the prospect of anyone using pleasure as a vehicle for consent in material aimed at my five-year-old. For if predatory Tories and Romans tell us anything, its that dark desires are an unpleasant constant in (especially male) human nature that no amount of awareness can mitigate.
I have no doubt that The Family Sex Shows erotic evangelism is well-intentioned. But however sincere its objective of helping to educate young people to enjoy modern sexual liberation in a healthily autonomous way, it remains stubbornly true that there is more than one set of reasons why an adult might seek to educate pre-pubescent children about pleasure and consent. Even the best-intentioned educator may still be paving the way for someone more predatory.
So while the term groomer is unfair in the sense that the intent behind most of this infant erotic proselytising really isnt initiating sexual contact with those kids, its also entirely justified. For this is precisely what preschool porn evangelism enables in practice. By normalising the idea that pre-pubescent children should engage with sexual material, The Family Sex Show in practice carries water for genuine paedophiles.
If we want to push back against the liberal syllogism that got us to the point where educators determinedly ignore the obvious slipperiness of this slope, we need to look again at its premises.
Contraceptive technologies are here to stay. But we neednt accept as self-evident the argument that followed the contraceptive revolution that all desires are fine provided consent is given. This is simply not true. Not all desires, or expressions of sexual desire, are good. Some need to be repressed, and if necessary oppressed, in the interests of protecting the vulnerable.
We can argue about which desires should be repressed, and the nature of the oppression in extremis. But what we cant do is offer sex education to children on the premise that education and consent can replace this need for limits. For when it comes to children, there is such a thing as too much information. And when it comes to sex, there really is such a thing as too much freedom.
See the original post:
- Here is what the Liberal party could learn from the Conservatives under David Cameron - The Guardian - June 24th, 2022
- What liberal and woke Meghan Markle thinks of Supreme Courts ruling on abortion? - The News International - June 24th, 2022
- Ex-Liberal MP Raj Grewal invited lenders to private meet-and-greet with Trudeau - EverythingGP - June 24th, 2022
- The 6 weirdest Liberal Democrat election victory stunts - The Independent - June 24th, 2022
- Liberal Arts Professors Honored for Excellence in Teaching, Research - Ole Miss News - June 24th, 2022
- Can the Liberal Party really replace Justin Trudeau? - The Globe and Mail - June 24th, 2022
- How PM Modi riles liberal elites: The choice of Droupadi Murmu, the frustration of the cabal and the dangerous games they might play - OpIndia - June 24th, 2022
- Told to take a hike by UCP, former Alberta Liberal leader Raj Sherman says he'll run to lead Conservatives anyway - albertapolitics.ca - June 24th, 2022
- Liberal housing plan will not fix affordability crisis: CMHC - Conservative Party of Canada - June 24th, 2022
- The Liberal Party cant exist for itself: Constance on life after politics - Sydney Morning Herald - June 24th, 2022
- The Liberal party cannot rebuild until it rediscovers its reason to exist - The Guardian - June 5th, 2022
- Are the Movies Liberal? - The New York Times - June 5th, 2022
- Johnny Depp's Victory Is a Crack in the Moral Armor of Liberal Feminism | Opinion - Newsweek - June 5th, 2022
- Opinion | What America Needs Is a Liberalism That Builds - The New York Times - June 5th, 2022
- GOLDSTEIN: There's no Tory dynasty in Ontario and the Liberals aren't dead - Toronto Sun - June 5th, 2022
- Liberal-led Senate inquiry into ABC and SBS abandoned - The Guardian - June 5th, 2022
- Liberal government throws support behind bill aimed at tackling forced labour in supply chains - The Globe and Mail - June 5th, 2022
- The Liberal government continues to fail to act three years after the MMIWG Inquiry - New Democratic Party - June 5th, 2022
- NDP majority with Liberal opposition if students had their way - GuelphToday - June 5th, 2022
- Delaware shows the War on Drugs lives on in liberal enclaves - Brookings Institution - May 25th, 2022
- The Liberal Obsession With 'Disinformation' Is Not Helping - New York Magazine - May 25th, 2022
- It's not 'bias' liberal media are telling the truth, pointedly - The Boston Globe - May 25th, 2022
- Abandoning classical liberalism turns the heartland teal - The Australian Financial Review - May 25th, 2022
- Geoff Russ: The Liberal Canada loved by the boomers keeping Trudeau in power won't last - National Post - May 25th, 2022
- Labor says Peter Dutton taking reins of Liberal Party shows Coalition 'learned absolutely nothing' from federal election - ABC News - May 25th, 2022
- Liberals discussed dumping Morrison in Coalitions final months - Sydney Morning Herald - May 25th, 2022
- DAVID JOHNSON: Treason and the Liberal-NDP agreement - Saltwire - May 25th, 2022
- Regional Queensland voted for the Liberal National Party. What do they make of the Labor government and 'greenslide'? - ABC News - May 25th, 2022
- Conrad Black: Poilievre has a real chance to break the Liberal status quo and that has his enemies trembling - National Post - May 25th, 2022
- Angus Taylor says Liberal Party must focus on core values after federal election loss - ABC News - May 25th, 2022
- Liberals are too focused on themselves, says Constance, as Gilmore hangs in balance - Sydney Morning Herald - May 25th, 2022
- Where Have All the Liberals Gone? - The New York Times - May 15th, 2022
- Liberals Should Be Worried About the Conservative Comedy Scene - POLITICO - May 15th, 2022
- Bill Maher Laments About A Liberal World That Seems To Be Going Mad In Real Time Takes - Deadline - May 15th, 2022
- The Looming End to Abortion Rights Gives Liberal Democrats a Spark - The New York Times - May 15th, 2022
- Ontario Liberals accuse PCs of favouring own party in government appointments - Global News - May 15th, 2022
- GUNTER: Yet more Liberal falsehoods surrounding the convoy have been debunked - Toronto Sun - May 15th, 2022
- Danger for the Liberal Party coming from the right as well as the teals - Sydney Morning Herald - May 15th, 2022
- What Labor and Liberal Facebook ad spend tells us about where the election campaign is heading - ABC News - May 15th, 2022
- Lib Dems already campaigning for Tiverton and Honiton byelection - The Guardian - May 15th, 2022
- Is AARP too liberal? That's what its right-leaning rivals say - Newsday - May 15th, 2022
- Can Doug Fords nephew topple the NDP incumbent in a Liberal riding? - Toronto Star - May 15th, 2022
- Utting Research Perth seat polls and Liberal Party briefing wars The Poll Bludger - The Poll Bludger - May 15th, 2022
- Liberal Party unveils one weird political ad to rule them all - Mumbrella - May 15th, 2022
- Scottish Water condemned by Liberal Democrats for bonuses as sewage is released into rivers - STV News - May 15th, 2022
- Liberal Party 'warms up' with final countdown underway - The Transcontinental - May 15th, 2022
- Abortion leak: Is the Supreme Court conservative or liberal? | Opinion - Deseret News - May 15th, 2022
- Will Orban Be Remembered as a Liberal? - The American Conservative - May 11th, 2022
- Francis Fukuyama Predicted the End of History. Its Back (Again). - The New York Times - May 11th, 2022
- Better med care, more say over immigration among Liberal promises to northern Ontario - Sudbury.com - May 11th, 2022
- Abortion laws in Colombia are now among the most liberal in the Americas : Goats and Soda - NPR - May 11th, 2022
- Former Australian of the Year says Liberal MP Fiona Martin selectively quoted him in political endorsement without his knowledge - ABC News - May 11th, 2022
- College Students Shouldnt Have To Choose Between Career Skills And Liberal Arts - Chief Executive - May 11th, 2022
- Globe editorial: The Liberals are eager to talk about regulating speech online but wisely reluctant to actually do it - The Globe and Mail - May 11th, 2022
- GUNTER: The Liberals have sneakily brought back the gun registry - Toronto Sun - May 11th, 2022
- Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke Liberals announce Oliver Jacob as their 2022 provincial candidate - Pembroke Observer - May 11th, 2022
- Frydenberg: if he loses, the Liberal Party would be changed dramatically - Crikey - May 11th, 2022
- Jesse Watters: Liberal protests at homes of Supreme Court justices are just a warning shot - Fox News - May 11th, 2022
- Federal Labor and Liberal parties pledge additional funding for CIT accommodation, Canberra's Home of Football - ABC News - May 11th, 2022
- The White Card review the liberal art worlds blindness to privilege - The Guardian - May 11th, 2022
- Liberal MP doubles down on comments that raped women should be denied abortions - The Age - May 11th, 2022
- UPES School of Liberal Studies Wants Students To Be Critical Thinkers - The Quint - May 11th, 2022
- CU Denver - College of Liberal Arts and Sciences - May 3rd, 2022
- Roe v. Wade and an End to the Liberal Romance With Courts - New York Magazine - May 3rd, 2022
- Liberal dark money group with Biden admin ties capitalizes on SCOTUS leak to push court-packing agenda - Fox News - May 3rd, 2022
- I was deputy leader of the Liberals. The party I served has lost its way - Sydney Morning Herald - May 3rd, 2022
- Red stock, blue stock --- MAGA Republicans and liberal Democrats are taking their politics to Wall Street - MarketWatch - May 3rd, 2022
- There are pros and cons to the Liberal plan for $1 transit fares, experts say - CBC.ca - May 3rd, 2022
- Liberal and Elkhart Baseball Split on Wind Blown Day - KSCB News.net - May 3rd, 2022
- Why teal independents are seeking Liberal voters and spooking Liberal MPs - The Conversation - May 3rd, 2022
- N.S. Liberal Party recovered $195K related to internal theft - CBC.ca - May 3rd, 2022
- Kevin Falcon eyes Liberal party renewal with his seat in the house secured - Vancouver Sun - May 3rd, 2022
- Council elections in Scotland: What are the Liberal Democrats for? Alex Cole-Hamilton MSP - Edinburgh News - May 3rd, 2022
- FIRST READING: Liberal voices starting to warn Pierre Poilievre could be their undoing - National Post - May 3rd, 2022
- Will the standard Liberal tactics of accusing Conservatives of being pro-gun and anti-abortion work on Pierre Poilievre? - The Globe and Mail - May 3rd, 2022
- FIRST READING: Another Liberal gun policy that neatly ignores where the guns come from - National Post - May 3rd, 2022
- Liberal Protestants and the Polarization of the US - Religion & Politics - April 20th, 2022
- Preregistration is the Enemy of Liberal Education | Opinion - Harvard Crimson - April 20th, 2022
- Rachel Williams named dean of the Division of Liberal Arts at UNCSA - UNCSA - UNCSA - April 20th, 2022
- The Liberal Party wants us to 'look at the facts'. But just whose facts? - Crikey - April 20th, 2022