10101001 10101001's Journal: Childhood innocence

To start off, I'd like you to know what I made this entry, so here's the story (rather old, which I heard some time ago anyways) which inspired me to finally write something about it: Thong-th-th-thong.

Now, go read the article. Back? Right, so this is just another one of those stupid "Abercrombie & Fitch" stories with this particular instance involving thongs aimed at 10-16 year olds.

It's clear from the Sophie Linnett's point of view, thongs and sex are equal. In fact, it seems that *any* underwear advertisement, short skirts, or nudity is seen as sex. That's partially to do with the hypersensitivity of the US as well as the fact that a lot of advertisers use sex to sell things.

But where does this lead me to issue? For starters, I don't seem to understand the basis for why that's exactly a bad thing (ignoring the larger ramification of all society that it dilutes sex's "power", though not necessarily its importance). For most of America, 10 years is about the age in which children are entering Junior High School. It's also the time that most children are going through puberty (the national average has shifted from 16 to 10 as nutrition has improved). So, if thongs are in fact a relation to sex, why shouldn't children of that age be able to wear such clothes?

The problem is, a lot of people get a queasy feeling about children and sex. I personally learned the basics of sex (man (with penis) + woman (with vagina) + intercourse => baby) before I was even in kindergarten. I also was taught at the same time that a man and woman should love each other and marry first. Regardless of the obvious religious basis of this learning, until I reached puberty and had hormones pumping heavily through my veins, I took such information the same way I took information about Santa Claus not being a real person: it's just another fact of life.

But, if I hadn't been told, would my naivity been innocence? I say, no. I was innocent because I was taught well in ways that kept me innocence. Naivity is another approach to that end, but it's raught with pedophiles and general society which leaves you not innocent but warped by society. So, every time a person comes forth screaming "such and such will warp our children", I realize it'll only warp the children who are never taught anything. Try to stop things like thongs for kids doesn't stop the core problem: parents unwilling to teach their children properly.

Now, this isn't to say that a totally warped society would be conducive to producing a non-warped child, but it can hardly be said to be the case that a specific cut of underwear is the culprit in the downfall of all children.

And I believe the author is probably well aware of this and is instead acting more on their queasy feeling of children and sex. It might be a case of conscious dissonance: ie, the author herself likely finds thongs sexy. Because of this, the author realizes she'll think girls in little thongs are sexy. Because thinking little girls are sexy makes you a pedophile*, she'd have to self-loathe herself because being a pedophile is such an egregious sin. So, I say get over it.

You're not really a pedophile to think that. More so, don't punish others on the assumption they're so naive that they'll do insane things. Instead, *teach them* so that it's unlikely to be a problem. If you believe something strongly enough to follow it, you should be teaching your child why you believe it. They may not follow your path, but you'll know you've taught them well enough that they can find a path they will be content with. That's more important than them being a carbon copy of you.

*A pedophile is the extreme fetish of being unable to have sex without a prepubescent child. Being attracted to the opposite sex when they are capable of producing offspring isn't truthfully unnatural, while it is likely unnatural to be involved with such a person if you're not in the same age group. People who exploit children or men or women do it because they want to be in power, especially in a sexual relationship. Any actual attraction to their prey is secondary.

More importantly, it would seem the case that girls (and some boys) use their cuteness in much the same way as women use their sexuality to "take advantage" of the opposite sex. While actual thoughts are not necessarily traced out as being clearly sexual (especially in the eyes of the junior participant), there is striking similarities to the behavior shown. Children are innocent because they do not possess the biological parts or experience to understand sexuality. Parents, relatives, and friends should not exploit that queasy/good feeling of the cuteness of children unless they're willing to admit that the majority of the harm from sexuality of children is not in the physical act (the except of course being when it is) but in the psychological damage substained from how people perceive sex and a child while discounting the psychological harm of exploiting the looks of a child.