Growing Up Sexually

USA, NORTH-AMERICA NON-NATIVES

Index → Americas → North-America Non-Natives

Also featured: Mormons, African Americans, Cuban Americans, North American Hasidic Jews, Arab Americans, Italian Americans, North American Armenians, North American Hmong, Serbian Americans, Chinese Americans, Mexican Americans

Author’s Note: Non-hyperlinking note indications are retained from a previous (0.1) edition.

Introduction: In the Land of Child Sexology. 2

Sexual Behaviour Socialisation: Historical Notes (particularly 1930s-1980s) and the “Masturbation” Discourse. 3

Consent Issues: Historical Notes. 7

Gender Bias. 8

Childhood Sexual Behaviour and Socialisation: Quantitative Studies. 9

Sexual Behaviour9

1. American "Normative" Sample Studies: Implications for Curricularisation. 9

1.1 YRBS: “Preteen” Coitarche. 10

2. American Reactive Sexualities. 10

3. American Sexual Behaviour Problem Categorisation. 11

‘Avoidancies’12

1. Kinship Avoidancy in Childhood. 12

2. “Age Avoidancy” and Preference in Childhood. 13

3. “Sexual Avoidance” and Preference in Childhood. 13

Childhood Sexual Behaviour and Socialisation: Qualitative Studies. 13

0. Kinsey. 14

1. 1960s: Broderick. 14

2. 1970s: Martinson. 14

3. 1980s: Thorne and Luria. 15

America Compared. 15

1. Sexual Behaviour Socialisation Compared. 15

2. Childhood Sexual Behaviour Compared. 17

Sexual Curriculum Rigidity. 18

Immigrant Patterns of Adolescent Courtship: Americanisation of Sexual Curricula. 18

Some Cross-Cultural Studies: A Clue to American Childhood Sexualities. 19

Side-Stream and Counter-Hegemonic Sexual Experiences

1. The “Commune” Experience. 19

2. The “Abuse” Experience. 20

3. The “Gang” Experience. 21

The Sexual Life of the American Child: A Minor Impression. 22

General Additional Refs.: Nonnative North America. 23

Introduction: In the Land of Child Sexology

The sex life of the American child may be regarded as the most researched and discussed of all communities. On a parallel level, there is a growing body of cinematographic representation of American sexual liminality and transitionality (consider The Wonder Year’ pilot episode for a start; first broadcasted  Jan. 31, 1988). “Child sexology” is sporadically recognised as a specific, yet neglected, discipline (John Money), with experts, monographs, and even a number of apparent subdisciplines. Childhood sexual behaviour is nowhere more researched numerically, statistically, and phenomenologically in whatever period of time. This, however, could well be true for most if not all aspects of (human) sexual life, at least in the latter half of the 20th century. Americans are sexologists, and they are not too embarrassed to discuss “developmental” matters as well. Most research is motivated by clear secondary agenda. The successful Child Sexual Behavior Inventory (Friedrich et al.) was obviously designed to measure behaviours “symptomatic” of “abuse”. This is illustrated by the frequency of its use in clinical research, as opposed to its application in apparent pursuits of the American “normative”^[1][1]. Today, its diagnostic value may be uncontested, and its application in the US probably next to universal. One recalls that the “Rosenfeld studies” in the 1980s, examining a range of sexual socialisation related items, including primal scene exposure (1980)^[2][2], cross-generational co-sleeping (1982)^[3][3], modesty (1984)^[4][4], touching parents’ (M/P) genitals, breasts (1986)^[5][5] and cross-generational co-bathing (1987)^[6][6], were related to the tentative categorisation of “abuse”, Rosenfeld’s original agenda (e.g., 1977)^[7][7] (cf. Lewis and Janda, 1988)^[8][8]. Apart from a range of abuse issues (e.g., virtual child pornography), the American record accommodates a large number of other typifying issues, including early gender disturbance, the origin of homosexuality, the hardship of gay adolescence, gay teachers, routine neonatal circumcision, the social implications of "precocious" puberties (particularly following a 1997 Pediatrics article), organised (as well as what is identified as "academic") advocacy for the paedophilic cause, Freud's "seduction" curriculum, parental access control to digitally available erotic representations, teenage "abstinence", what the Media are doing, and so on. This adds up to a rather extensive and in fact unparalleled sexologising of childhood trajectories.

A lot more references could have been made below. Please also consider Volume 2 of this work, in which references are characterised by an (inevitable) American bias.

Additional refs.:

§   Bailey, B. (2004) From Front Porch to Back Seat: A History of the Date, OAH Magazine of History 18,4:23 et seq.

§   Cotton S, Mills L, Succop P. A., et al. (2004) Adolescent girls' perceptions of the timing of their sexual initiation: "Too young" or "just right"? Journal of Adolescent Health 34,5:453-8

§   Frayser, S. G. (2003) Cultural Dimensions of Childhood Sexuality in the United States, in Bancroft, J. (Eds.) Sexual Development in Childhood. Bloomington: Indiana University Press

§   Mason, M. A. & Fass, P. (Eds., 1999) Childhood in America. New York: New York University Press. See a collection of 12 articles under the heading “sexuality” (p497-534)

Sexual Behaviour Socialisation: Historical Notes(particularly 1930s-1980s) and the “Masturbation” Discourse^[9][9]

Among 17th-century Maryland immigrants, some girls may have married at age twelve and averages were found of 16.5 (Carr and Walsh, 1977:p564)^[10][10]. Demographics of the 18th century Quakers show a minimum age of fifteen, and averages over twenty (Wells and Zuckerman, 1972:p416-8)^[11][11]. There is little record of sexual mores regarding the young of this period. “A young person growing up in colonial America learned about sexuality from two primary sources: observation within the family anf moral instruction from parent and church. […] Childhood observation of sexual activity is common in agricultural societies, and all regions remained agricultural throughout the colonial period. […] Children also learned sex in the home. The small size of colonial dwellings allowed children quite early in their lives to hear or see sexual activity among adults. […] Whatever they observed, children learned early on that sexual behavior ought to be limited to marriage” (D’Emilio and Freedman, 1988 [1989:p16-20]^[12][12]). Adolescents seemed to have ample opportunity for congress, whether it be by means of “bunding” (spending the night fully clothed) or not.

By the late 1890s, a coalition of moral and sanitary reformers stressed that “innocence is not ignorance”, and a number of works on sex education appeared in that decade (Burnham, 1973^[13][13]:p898; see also Cable, 1972 [1975:p113-23]^[14][14]). In 19th century America, the task of sexual instruction to the children, both male and female, was given to the mother. Aside from this traditional role as the transmitter of morality, the nature of instruction could be viewed as “maternal seduction” (Strong, 1973:p460-5)^[15][15]. In the 1920s, Freudian dogma on infantile sexuality was taken its place only slowly (Steere, 1986:p762-3)^[16][16].

Isaac Baker Brown, a gynaecologist elected president of the Medical Society in 1865, believed that hysteria and nervous complaints in women was due to masturbation and that clitoridectomy was the key to their restoration. He was eventually expelled from the society, not because of cruelty or coercion of his patients, but because he offended the society’s professional norms by publishing papers in a popular journal (Scull and Favreau, 1986)^[17][17].

Huschka (1938)^[18][18] studied parental masturbation threats in 320 New York children referred to a general paediatrics clinic for psychiatric consultation. Of the 142 (44.4%) of the children aged 1-14 years known to have “masturbated”, 73.3% of the cases were dealt with “destructively”: actually punishment or severe threat. There were no exact ages at with the children were threatened. Especially illustrative are the verbatim statements (p347-52). Three contemporary studies by Hattwick et al.^[19][19] demonstrated an interest in the handling of sex organs, and sex curiosity, in nursery school children. Macfarlane (1939)^[20][20] also studied masturbation, stating it had “no trends with age for the preschool period”, and a surplus in the first five years of “only” children versus those with siblings (p16, 20). According to a comparison by MacClenathan (1934)^[21][21], “masturbation” ranked third most undesirable among Brooklin elementary school teachers’ “undesirable modes of behaviour” (after stealing and temper outbursts)^[22][22], seventh among mothers attending a “child-study” class, and 21st among a sample of seven unselected parents (p331-2). Yourman (1932)^[23][23] found that New York City elementary school teachers ranked “heterosexual activity” as the foremost Grave Problem; “masturbation” ranked fifth, “obscene” notes and talk ninth, and “profanity” as nineteenth (p335). It must be reckoned that at least some adolescent boys still struggled with the “truth” of masturbation in the late 1930s (e.g., Crampton and Partridge, 1938:p70-1)^[24][24]. A Freudian approach could even sketch a situation in which “many white Americans live[d] in the shadow of unconcious fear, anxiety, and insecurity originating from the threats and punishments of early sex training”, given that “[i]nterference with the pleasurable gratification of early sex desire is the supreme trauma of childhood” (Golightly, 1947:p130)^[25][25]. It should also be argued that for parents, not unlike their European counterparts, sex “education” was recommended only in the context of curricularisation. Thom (1927, as quoted by Hardyment, 1983:p203)^[26][26] stated that “[s]exual instruction should be given before unnatural gratifications of this instinct have led to the formation of habits that undermine the moral stamina of the child by developing a degrading sense of inferiority”. Thom would have been disappointed to take note of the Kronhausens reporting in 1960 that “[a]mong over two hundred, there were scarcely one or two students who indicated in their histories that they had received anything even faintly resembling adequate sex education in the home- or, for that matter, anywhere else […]” (p29). One way or the other, “[s]tudent after student reported that adults interfered with their early sexual explorations and that this interference was, more often than not, interpreted by the children as an emotional threat […]” (p63). The sex education given to 69 college girls was perceived less than rather adequate in some 50 girls (Ellis)^[27][27]. Stendler (1950:p125)^[28][28] found that “sex education” was a low priority for women’s mags during 1890-1948. Renaud and Floyd (1961:p790)^[29][29] found that “[n]o subject reported receiving what he considered an adequate orientation to sexuality, communicated  in a tension-free atmosphere, from a member of his family. Most reported occasions on which the topic was broached embarrassedly, often by the mother. Ordinarily, the information was deemed inadequate, or poorly timed”. The writes felt “impressed with the amount of repression or suppression concerning childhood sexual memories. Involuntary contradictions, confusion of ages, or implausible replies (“Well, I just never thought about anything like that until I was thirteen”- on a question concerning masturbation) characterized roughly one third of the interviews”.

In a report by Davis and Havighurst (1946)^[30][30], “[t]hree times as many white middle-class as compared to lower-class children are reported as masturbating. Twice as many Negro middle-class children as compared with Negro lower-class children are reported as masturbating” (p707-8). The data on both Boston and Eugene indicated that lower-class parents are significantly less permissive than middle-class contemporaries. In addition, both lower- and middle-class fathers differed significantly from their wives, “the only comparison in which there are differences both on sex of parents and social status” (Littman et al., 1957:p701)^[31][31]. Leslie and Johnsen (1963:p924-5)^[32][32] found that middle- and upper-class mothers could in 1949 be rated as more permissive in their concept of sex and modesty “training” than, in their eyes, their mothers in the 1930s, but the generational gain was rather small for their factual toleration of masturbation and sex play. It was less vigorously punished, though. In 1957, low rates (9%) of masturbation among children aged 5-15 were found in intact homes, versus 12% in broken homes (Russell, 1957:p126)^[33][33].

Major studies were conducted by Sears, Maccoby and Levin (1954/1964:p274-6^[34][34]; 1957:p176-217)^[35][35], and Sears et al. (1965:esp. p60-1, 64-7, 74, 160-1, 189-92, 194-7, 237-8)^[36][36]. According to the former study,

“[a] fairly large number of incidents of sex play among neighborhood children were reported and described by the mothers; among the upper-lower [class] mothers, the reaction was generally one of shock and shame, and the children were punished. Upper-middle mothers discouraged the more active forms of sex behavior, but more often by separating the children or admonishing them than by punishment, and they seemed to react with less emotional intensity” (1964:p275).

As reviewed by Bronfenbrenner (1958:p413)^[37][37] four studies covering the period 1932-1952 found class differences in “permissiveness toward sex impulse expression”, with “no suggestion of a shift over the somewhat truncated time span”.

In Orchard Town, parents are careful not to allow their young children to see them having intercourse (Fisher and Fisher, 1963:p949-50)^[38][38]. One might get the impression that preadolescent sexuality is predominantly occupied with joking and sexual discussions (p1006-8). By 1968 Spock argued: “We were all brought up to be disturbed by it [masturbation], and we can never unlearn that. We can’t be comfortable with our children if they are doing things we dislike” (Hardyment, p271).

In the 1960s, mothers were embarrassed to discuss genital play of infants, denied its existence and smacked the baby for it, with very obvious class distinction (Newson and Newson, 1963 [1965:p127-32, 200-3])^[39][39]. Punishment among the “admitters” varies from 93% in the lowest to 25% in the highest class. According to the authors’ extensive discussion of sex matters (Newson and Newson, 1968:p346-86)^[40][40], the upper class “wife of” tended to feel that guilt was unhealthy, whereas the lower class operated according to the aim to instil a sense of guilt into the child. Parents would tell boys that their sexual part would “drop off” or smack him. Overall, 48% of class V mothers would use punishments or threats to genital play, opposing a low 5% in (upper) classes I and II. An essential distinction was noted between seeing and looking of four-year-olds, this being an interesting fact considering the finding that 13% slept in the parents’ room. The previous “seems to be based on the principle that it is all right for children to know about sex differences provided they are not actively aware that they know” (p375). 

Westbrook (1970:p393)[41] found that 1966-7 New York teachers rated "masturbation" and "sexual behavior with other children" (classified as "aggressive items") as 3.059 and 3.227 (resp.) on a 1 to 4 seriousness scale (ranking 4th and 8th on a list of 43 items). A 1974 study^[42][41] of foster mothers showed “a somewhat Victorian attitude in which the child's individuality of behavior and sexual curiosity were repressed”.

In recent decades a number of studies have emerged providing an insight to American parental attitudes and practices in sexual socialisation and curricularisation.

The Project of Human Sexual Development’s in-depth study^[43][42] of 1,461 parents of preadolescent children demonstrated that most sexual learning at home is informal and indirect. Although parents would like their children to be better educated about sexuality than they themselves were, the great majority are ambiguous about their own sexual values and reluctant to discuss most aspects of the subject with their children. Analysis of ten years’ research revealed that another prominent influence on the young child’s sexual learning, television programming, was “saturated with messages about many dimensions of sexual life”. [Janus and Janus (1985)^[44][43] found that peripubescents and teens (8-17) were increasingly exposed to explicit songs via their music culture. They found a “crucial age” of 14, with a precipitous drop in parental concern for sexual control^[45][44].] Reporting on the 1978 study by Roberts, Kline and Gagnon, including interviews with a stratified random sample of 1,482 parents of three to eleven-year-olds, Gagnon (1985)^[46][45] found that less than 5% of parents actually “approved” of the practice when confronted with it. A large majority “accepted” it, a smaller majority found it “all right”, but less than half wanted children as adolescents to have a positive attitude toward the practice.

The above sketch of American studies can be augmented by many more formal studies^[47][46]. Recently, Halstead and Waite (2001)^[48][47] found that the family was the main source of sexual information for the girls, but friends and the media for the boys.

Selected additional refs.:

§  Sewell, W. H., Mussen, P. H. & Harris, Ch. W. (1955) Relationships Among Child Training Practices, Am Sociol Rev 20,2:137-48

§  Wormser, R. (1996) American Childhoods: Three Centuries of Youth at Risk. New York: Walker & Company. Chapter 4, “Sex and Romance”

§  Beisel, N. (1998) Imperiled Innocents: Anthony Comstock and Family Reproduction in Victorian America. Princeton: Princeton University Press

§  West, M. I. (1983) Defenders of Childhood Innocence: Reformer Responses to Children’s Culture in America, 1878-1954. PhD Dissertation, Bowling Green State University [DAI-A 45/05, p1503, Nov 1984]

§  Carter, J. (2005) Making Whiteness Normal: Racial Ideals and Indirect Expression in American Sex Education in the 1920s and 1930s. Paper to be delivered to International Conference "Sex Education of the Young in the Twentieth Century: A Cultural History", 16th to 17th April, 2005 at Collingwood College, University of Durham, UK

Swan (1980)[49][48] provides a short history of American sexual education practices, using DeMause’s Psychogenic Modes of childhood in the West. A further brief impression was offered by Martinson (1973:p17-8)]

Consent Issues: Historical Notes

The records of the Ingham County, Michigan, courts during 1850-1950 show that the county was more concerned than most with upholding the state’s underage statute in cases when there was evidence of consent (Parker, 1994)^[50][49]. Punishment of males involved in consensual sex with underage females varied greatly depending on how well acquainted the man was with the girl and on the age of the female. Also, when girls filed complaints against multiple defendants, the men usually received lighter sentences. Ingham County’s prosecution of statutory rape cases reflected the fear that young women and girls, who were viewed as less sensual than men, might become prostitutes because of early sexual experiences.

Statutory rape laws became part of the American legal system through English common law. As in England, early law-makers adopted 10 as the age of consent. During the 19th century, states gradually raised the age of consent, in some cases to 21. However, in Delaware the age of consent was seven until it was raised to 16 in 1973^[51][50]. In 1893, the age of consent in Massachusetts was advanced by statute from ten to sixteen^[52][51]. Seventeenth century New Haven’s sodomy law, as opposed to that of New England, specifically condemned anal intercourse with a child, and vaginal penetration of a prepubertal girl, that is, “carnal knowledge of […] [the] unripe vessel of a girl” (Godbeer, 1995:p267-8)^[53][52]. In 18th century Maryland, at common law, having sex with a girl under ten years old was considered statutory rape. It was a capital crime in Maryland until the Act Concerning Crimes and Punishments was passed in 1809. It gave judges discretion to sentence statutory rapists to either death or incarceration. The law remained unchanged until the late 1800s, when the state legislature passed laws raising the age of consent to 14, declaring the insane incapable of consent and stating that having sex with a girl under 16 was a misdemeanour. In 1899 Congress passed laws criminalising sex with chaste women between 16 and 21 in the District of Columbia and the territory of Alaska. These acts defined sex with a girl under 16 as rape, and imposed a punishment of life imprisonment if the victim was under 12, or 3-20 years in prison if she was 12-16.

As late as 1934, eleven states still upheld medieval laws of marriageability age with parental consent of 14 for boys and 12 for girls^[54][53]. Contemporary data (Graupner, p448-50)^[55][54] address typical ages of 14 and 16. As reported by an earlier study in on 1996 legislation, the age of consent in 28 states currently is 16 years, in most of the remaining states it was 17 or 18, although in one state it was 15 years, and in another, 14 years^[56][55].

It is not clear how much consent laws are informed by the need for curricularisation. In a 1997 study by Miller et al. (1998)^[57][56] among Kansas district attorneys, it appeared that fifty-three percent thought the law should not specify age differences between the partners.

Selected Additional refs.:

§  Cocca, Carolyn E. (2000) The politics of adolescent sexuality: Adoption and reinvention of statutory rape laws in the fifty states, 1969—1999. Ph.D. Dissertation, New York University

§  Lindenmeyer, K. (2000) Adolescence, Marriage, and Parenthood in the Twentieth Century U.S. Paper Presented at History of Childhood in America Conference, Washington, D.C., August 5-6

§  O’Neil, M. L. (2000) 'Act your Age!': Law, Culture and the Boundary between Child and Adult. PhD Dissertation, University of Kansas [DAI-A 61/07, p2775, Jan 2001], chapter 4: Statutory Rape: The Protection of Young, White Womanhood, p112-37

§  Odem, M. (1995) Delinquent Daughters: Protecting and Policing Adolescent Female Sexuality in the United States, 1885-1920. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press

§  Schaffner, Laurie (2005) Capacity, Consent, and the Construction of Adulthood. In Bernstein, E. & Schaffner, L. (Eds.) Regulating Sex, The Politics of Intimacy and Identity. Routledge, p189-208

Further documents and bibliography via http://womhist.binghamton.edu/aoc/doclist.htm.

Gender Bias

As a good indication of the American academic approach to socialisation, Spanier (1976:p42)^[58][57] includes five elements in what he names the “sexualisation” process: gender identity development; gender role development; sex object preference development; acquisition of sexual skills, knowledge, and values; and development of “sexual attitudes” or “disposition to behave”. Apart from the at least partial confusion of the last two, it appears that the concept of “sex” is engulfed and presented by the concept of “gender”; “sex” is a relation between genders. This is very apparent in the medical and psychiatric history of homosexuality, and the intense academic interest in atypical gender development, especially in boys. To some authors, this has suggested what has been called a “latent homophobia”, perhaps one of the major hidden agendas in the issue of sexual “abuse” of boys.

Childhood Sexual Behaviour and Socialisation: Quantitative Studies

A major symbolic disjuncture is bound up in the transition from the sexually innocent child to the publicly sexual teen, authors^[59][58] argue. In any case, no obvious ritualism enters the stage of American sexual coming-of-age, and no legal transitions coincide with pubescence. If anything, transitional ‘rites’ in American society are currently informed by commercial interpretations of the medical-hygienic approach^[60][59], an approach that tends to inform the negative sides of an ambivalent^[61][60] sexology culture. This renders the chronological localisation of the “child” problematic. To limit discussions to childhood sexuality, as in the following section, then, invites a concentration on arbitrary numerics uninformed by gender (which further illustrates the concept of American puberty).

Additional refs.:

• Politicizing Puberty. Discussion launched from http://www.nerve.com/dispatches/voicebox/puberty/

Sexual Behaviour

Qualitative studies include the following subcategories: (1) so-called “normative” category, usually defined as occurring in a presumably non-sexually abused sample; (2) so-called “reactive” category; that is, sexual phenomena in relation to alleged or proven history of age disparate sexual contacts (diagnostic and prognostic behaviour inventories, doll studies, drawing studies, etc.); (3) so-called “problematic” category; that is, sexual behaviour phenomena in relation to “sexual behaviour problem” categories. At least on the second and third category, very large bibliographies can be compiled.

1. American "Normative" Sample Studies: Implications for Curricularisation

A considerable number of studies include data on childhood phase or age brackets, data to be sought in the left extreme of visual presentations and the upper extreme of tables. There appears to be a wide variation in both the investigation and presentation of age-plotted sexual behaviour.

Preliminary CSBI data were published in 1986, but the first publication recognised as such was delayed until 1991^[62][61]. Selected data before this time include communications by Friedrich et al. (1989), and Friedrich’s 1991 monograph (p78-82).

The initial CBSI results (Friedrich et al., 1991) were specific for 2-6 and 7-12 age groups. “Because of the developmental transition that occurs as a child enters school, age ranges 2 through 6 and 7 through 12 years were considered separately […]” (p459). The grand-scale updates (Friedrich et al., 1998; also Schoentjes et al., 1999) make a distinction in 3 groups: 2-5, 6-9, and 10-12. This was decided on the basis of an age-plot for all 38 items showing some increase until age 5, and, and, less obvious, drops at 5 and again at 9 (although increases exist for boys of 11, and for girls of 12). They neglect their former observation that “[d]evelopmental transitions in sexual behavior will reflect the parent’s ability to observe the child”, and also that “observation” may be more complex a concept that to be measured on the basis of “ability” (active, passive opportunity) solely. The school argument is likewise dropped^[63][62].

Another illustrative case is provided by Kilpatrick (1992)^[64][63] who used a questionnaire per primum specified for age groups 0-6, 7-10, 11-14, 15, 16, and 17 (printed in full, p148-84). It seems that age specificity becomes parabolically significant, trustworthy, memorable or interesting, yet legitimisation was not offered (p52).

Two recent studies are interesting, at least in their way of covering “childhood” matters (raw data and codebooks can be had from the linked pages): National Health and Social Life Survey (survey date 1992) and the Chicago Health and Social Life Survey (1995, 1997). The pivotal “child” connection seems to be “being touched sexually”.

1.1 YRBS: “Preteen” Coitarche

The YRBS, Youth Risk Behavior Survey, includes a question on the coitarchal age. The figures for “less than 13 years old” are 8.7 in 1990 (Q64), 11.7 in 1991(6.6% less than 12 years old; Q49), 12.1 in 1993 (6.5% less than 12 years old; Q58), 12.4% in 1995 (6.9% less than 12 years old; Q57)^[65][64], 10.0% in 1997 (5.3% less than 12 years old; Q57), 22.1% in 1998 (ASYRBS, weighted percentages, Q57; 11.2 less than 12 years old), 8.3 in 1999 (4.4, weighted percentage, less than 12 years old; Q58).

In a state plot of 1997 figures, figures were as high as 12.5 (Baltimore females) and 39.7 (Baltimore males), which produces the highest state percentage of 24.0. Other areas with male percentages above 30 include Mississippi (34.7), Virgin Islands (41.7)^[66][65], Detroit (36.2), and New Orleans (35.2).

In an ethnical plot of 1997 figures, 33.3% of male and 11.0% of female non-Hispanic blacks had their coitarche before age 13, as opposed to 4.6% in male and 3.2% in female non-Hispanic whites. Hispanics followed an intermediate track (11.4 for males, and 3.4 for females). The same plot for 1998 figures shows roughly the same configuration, but in considerably higher absolutes^[67][66]. In 1999, figures are again considerably lower^[68][67].

2. American Reactive Sexualities

Tobin (2001)^[69][68] discussed three interrelated phenomena that in the past decade or so have swept through American early childhood education: (1) a “moral panic” about sexual abuse in preschools; (2) the prohibition of physical contact, both among children, and between children and their adult caretakers; and (3) the disappearance of psychoanalysis as a source of knowledge and a guide to good practice. Evidence is presented from the author’s review of 72 years of early childhood education textbooks, showing a decline in the influence of Freud and a shift in the presentation of sexual curiosity from a normal feature of childhood to a symptom of abuse. Another source of evidence is from a study using 20 focus groups of American early childhood educators’ panicky responses to scenarios depicting sexuality in preschool settings. Many use the term hysteria^[70][69], apparently legitimate narrative from 1990 to the present. 

Authors suggest the American early touch curriculum is changing its face^[71][70], with potential pleasures of both parties “erased”. This may not prove a very specific culture trait. In England (Skelton, 1991)[72] and Australia (Sumsion, 1999)[73], too, male teachers have come to represent a problematic factor in educational settings.

As indicated in 3 tables,numeric studies that intend to investigate the change of sexual behaviour after a socially stigmatised index experience in children number, according to a personal counting in 2001, at 91 (presenting original data). Numeric studies that intend to investigate (the change of) sexual behaviour as measured after, or in relation to, index stigmatised experiences in children by the means of dolls number, according to a collateral counting, at 32. A further 22 numeric studies investigated sexual phenomena in drawing assignments, of which at least ten are situated in the context of abuse allegations. Almost all of these studies are American, the genre originates in North America, and it can be hypothesised that the few “foreign” studies are “reactive” to this genre themselves.

“Traumatic” sexual behaviour reactivity has probably been a worry for a long time, though the systematic sexological literature is still quite new, some twenty years. Before this period, there have been incidental remarks on this topic, and virtually no therapeutic suggestions, diagnostic expansion or attempts at medicalisation.

3. American Sexual Behaviour Problem Categorisation

This genre seemed to have started of with two articles published in 1988^[74][71], and set out a sizeable number of articles, manuals and monographs on the question of categorisation of “sexually problematic behaviour”. Problematic sexual behaviour in childhood has a diverse history, but “professionalised” and clinically oriented categorisation did not start without a solid motivation by “abuse experts” perhaps widening their territory. Observations by first- and second-grade teachers towards the “sexual behaviors” of their 29 kindergarten students over a 6-month period suggest that more behaviours were problematic than “normal”^[75][72]. Of the 378 sexual behaviours that were observed, 162 were determined to be “within the normative range of children’s sexual behavior”; whereas a total of 184 behaviours were identified as “problematic or potentially problematic, requiring varying levels of adult intervention, including therapeutic follow-up”.

The format appears to be followed in a recent Swedish study (Långströmet al., 2002)^[76][73], while clinical interpretations also appear in (peripheral) Dutch articles^[77][74]. These papers illustrate the dissemination of an American ethos, as judged by their historical timing and format.

‘Avoidancies’

1. Kinship Avoidancy in Childhood

The legal or clinical norms in onset age of perpetration covered by the term sibling incest are variable. The classification of prepubertal (sibling) incest perpetrators did not gain ground until well into the 1990s. A review of some studies on sibling incest reveals the norms in onset age of perpetration covered by the term: 13-18 (Becker et al., 1986)^[78][75], 9-20 (Smith and Israel, 1987)^[79][76], 12-19 (O’Brien, 1991)^[80][77], 12-19 (“adolescence”; Worling, 1995) ^[81][78], 11-15 (Laviola, 1989)^[82][79], 8-21 (Laviola, 1992)^[83][80], 11-14 (Adler and Schultz, 1995)^[84][81], and 9-15 (Carter and Van Dalen, 1998)^[85][82]. There are few if any studies that prove a parental differential on socialiation of sibling and nonsibling sexual contacts in childhood.

In a pioneering survey^[86][83] of 796 undergraduates at six New England colleges and universities, 15% of the females and 10% of the males reported some type of sexual experience involving a sibling. One-fourth of the experiences could be described as exploitative either because force was used or because there was a large age disparity between the partners. Reactions to the experiences were equally divided among those who considered them positive and those who considered them negative. Females were more likely than males to have been exploited and feel badly about it. Few participants of either sex ever told anyone.

Further questionnaire data were collected from 526 undergraduate college students by Greenwald (1987)^[87][84]. Of this sample 5% reported having had only a sibling sexual encounter, 12% reported having had both a sibling and a nonsibling childhood sexual experience, 45% reported having had only a nonsibling sexual experience, and 39% reported no sexual experience with another child prior to age 13. Thirty one percent of the sibling sexual experiences involved physical contact with genitalia, however the modal experience involved showing or observing genitalia. Forty-one percent of the nonsibling childhood sexual experiences also involved genital contact. Individuals felt more negative and guilty about sibling sexual experiences, and believed them to be more immoral, uncommon, abnormal, socially unacceptable, and harmful to their partners, than did subjects with nonsibling sexual experiences, and especially so if genital contact were involved. However, negative reactions to sibling sexual experiences were moderated when subjects also had a preadolescent nonsibling sexual experience in addition to their sibling encounter. No differences were found between the sibling, nonsibling, and no experience groups on a variety of adult sexual adjustment and sexual behaviour measures.

2. “Age Avoidancy” and Preference in Childhood

Freund and Kuban (1993; Freund, 1994)^[88][85] investigated age and gender orientation in childhood curiosity for visual nudity as an “indicator of developing erotic interest”. Apart from this study, hardly anything is known about erotic age orientation development. Preadolescent age / phase patterning (i.e., in the hypothetical period of “lovemap” formation) thus remains unclear. This is a rather remarkable fact, given the enormous pile of (though mostly hypothetical) literature on erotic gender preference development^[89][86]. The fact is even more significant in the light of the recent explosion of professionalism on the subject of sexual behaviour problem categorisation. This generally reflects the non-recognition of erotic orientations in children, although studies on erotic gender orientation development suggest a significant role for the period before pubescence.

An “evolutionary” developmental (apparently, adolescent) age preference pathway has been demonstrated for age difference tolerance (attractiveness, maximum/ minimum age differential) for dating (Kenrick et al., 1996)^[90][87], while many studies have focussed on partner age in first intercourse. Results showed an optimum attraction of twelve-year-old males to female dating partner age of 4 to 5 years above their own (which is similar to optimum difference tolerance), with mean tolerance ranges between –1.57 to 6.0 years for ages 12 to 18, and increasing ranges with age.

3. “Sexual Avoidance” and Preference in Childhood

Data on the socialisation of same-sex sexual behaviours are rare. Berges et al. (1983:p97-8)^[91][88] stated that “fewer parents reported setting specific limits on physical contact between same sex children than had done so for children of their opposite sex friends”.

Childhood Sexual Behaviour and Socialisation: Qualitative Studies

A number of papers and monographs include the sexual histories of Americans at a descriptive level^[92][89]. Apart from numerous dissertations^[93][90], a descriptive study of sexual socialisation is offered in the book Children and Sex (1983)^[94][91], based on interviews with 225 primarily middle class parents of children aged 3-11, a sample selected to include parents “of diverse philosophical positions who could grapple with our questions and articulate their responses in a coherent and thoughtful way” (xvi). The predominantly positive attitudes, for instance on “masturbation” (p116, 119, 121), may or may not be indicative of this bias.

In retrospective surveys, sexual lexicon development in children has been demonstrated to be gender biased (Gartrell and Mosbacher, 1984)^[95][92]. Names were found to be derivative, euphemistic and pejorative. American parents have occasionally been uncovered to practice this form of curricularisation^[96][93], but the allegation that this is a American curiosum remains to be disproved.

The sociology of childhood sexuality lists a number of classics, which demonstrate the evolution of perspectives.

0. Kinsey

The Kinsey studies (1948, 1953) were not the first American to argue on such cultural problems, as their literature study points out. It was, however, a very definite anti-American voice at the address of educators. Kinsey’s grasp of childhood, however, was as hollow as his entire idea on sexuality, as demonstrated by his debatable search for childhood orgasm.

1. 1960s: Broderick

The Broderick studies^[97][94] offered interesting material on pre- and peripubescent sociosexual patterning. Broderick set out to issue “a pyramidally structured set of stages which most preadolescent boys and girls undergo in pursuit of social heterosexual maturation” (B&R, 1968:p100). His studies were legitimised by the observation that “new patterns are emerging which promise to revolutionize boy-girl relationships at these ages” in America of the late 1950s: “We set ourselves the task of documenting the mergence of new norms in the relationships between the sexes among youth 10-13 years of age [...]. While old patterns of hostility and withdrawal are not dead, new behaviors and relationships are developing, based on a greater understanding and sharing of value orientations” (B&F, 1961:p27, 30). Broderick also ventured into America’s “subcultures” demonstrating that “the pattern of socio-sexual development in the Negro subculture may differ markedly from that of the dominant culture” (B., 1965:p203).

2. 1970s: Martinson

Invaluable work has been done by Martinson (1973, 1974)^[98][95]. Remarkably, Martinson did not initially find a publisher for his work^[99][96], and had it printed privately. A later (1994)^[100][97] monograph, basically a remake of the 1973 original, further included the data of a second smaller inquiry^[101][98], while a number of articles dealt with Martinson’s impressions^[102][99].

The new data which the 1973 study offers comes from several sources: from over one thousand sex histories that Martinson collected from college students while teaching courses in human sexuality and marriage and the family, from interviews with two hundred unwed mothers receiving case work services through a large private child-care agency in the Upper Midwest, and from case material obtained in six communities. Four of the communities were in the Upper Midwest- two rural, one inner city, and one suburban. The other two communities were in the urban industrial Northeast- one an urban residential area and the other an outlying community. Allegedly, Martinson also incorporated previously unpublished data from Kinsey’s interview notes on a sample of children two to five years of age.

3. 1980s: Thorne and Luria

In a many-times reprinted paper, Thorne and Luria set out to detail the schoolyard experience of sexuality and gender^[103][100]. Selected papers before its appearance, and many after, add to this school “ethnographic” approach (see Vol. II, Appendix III for a full review). The paper is considered a pioneering classic in this genre of study.

America Compared

Schalet (1994, 1999, 2000, 2006)[104] found that US parents describe this issue as a biologically driven, individually based activity that causes disruption to the teenager and the family. Dutch parents, by contrast, emphasize love relationships and social responsibility of teenagers, making their sexuality a “normal” phenomenon. US parents would exclude “sexuality of teenagers” from conversation and the family, while Dutch parents accommodate culturally prescribed forms of “teenage sexuality” in the home. Schalet demonstrates how two constructions of adolescent sexuality, and the conceptions of personhood and social life that engender them, constitute “fundamentally different cultural logics”.

1. Sexual Behaviour Socialisation Compared

Ford and Beach (1951:p185-7)^[105][101] rates “American society”, probably arguing for the White middle-class population, as “clearly restrictive”. Whiting and Child rated American middle class society as just below the least indulgent of the primitive societies, “but still not extremely low on the basis of the absolute estimate of the judges” (p79). The American group was judged to be rather extreme in the severity with which children were punished for masturbation, and was given the same ratings as the most extreme of the primitive sample. However, in over-all severity of sexual socialisation, it fell halfway between the median and the upper extreme of the primitive sample. A comparison of “primitive societies” with the American middle-class (p114) produced a difference in initial sexual indulgence (9.7 vs 12, resp.) but not in socialisation severity (9.1 vs 9, resp.). Frayser (1994:p209-10)^[106][102] reviewed that American authors rate US attitudes “restrictive, particularly in regard to children’s sexual behavior”. So much so, parental repression would endanger the child (Finkelhor, 1980)^[107][103] by making them “more vulnerable”. However, Frayser (1985:p361-422)^[108][104] had earlier argued that repression is an obsolete designation better suited for 19th-century attitudes.

Three pre-1970 studies that compare sexual socialisation “severity” with Asian (Chinese), European (Switserland) and Latin American (Puerto Rican) samples suggest that U.S. attitudes have been more liberal.

Scofield and Chin-Wan (1960)^[109][105] found that oral, sex, dependence and aggression training are all more severe for Chinese generally than for Americans, the exception being toilet training. Compared to immigrant Chinese, Euro-Americans are more accepting of nudity^[110][106]. Jarecki (1961a;b)^[111][107] asked 2 groups of 40 mothers in the United States and in Switzerland about stuttering, weaning, masturbation (p348, 350-1), lying, and bed wetting. There were significant differences in attitudes. Swiss mothers placed more stress on heredity and poor upbringing, and were more strict in demanding mature behaviour. Swiss mothers seem to view their children quite early as “little adults”, while American mothers see them as “kids” and allow them to behave like children much longer. The difference on masturbation attitudes, however, is much smaller than the other themes, in fact smallest and nonsignificant. 60.0% of Swiss and 57.1% of American parents described psychic^[112][108] and some 20% in both samples described physical damage as a result of the practice. Some 15% in both samples referred to moral and social laws, and only 5% in both samples did not see any danger. In a comparison of data on the US^[113][109] with Puerto Rico, pressure for modesty rules, restrictiveness against masturbation and against mutual sex play were significantly higher for the Puerto Rico sample (Landy, 1959 [1965:p201-2])^[114][110].

Qualitative accounts seem to confirm these findings.

In contrast to in America, the masturbation of a small boy makes French mothers, “[…] and sometimes fathers, uneasy; it is actively combated” (Dolto)^[115][111].

Later qualitative accounts, however, offer a mixed, predominantly contrasting view.

Ribal (1973)^[116][112] studied 36 case studies written by American, Swedish and Danish college students about sexual learning and development during childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood, with comments by a student from the other culture. Using this material, Straver (1986:esp. p28-70)^[117][113] compares the North American and Scandinavian case from an interactionist perspective (Vol.II, §1.1.3.3). Martinson (1994)^[118][114], having published his original material at the time of Ribal’s work, cites Hagerfors [?], who

“[…] speaking about sex activity in a Swedish nursery, complained that the children sometimes closed themselves in the private area, an area provided for children in Swedish nurseries, engaged in sex play, and talked only about sex. The staff told the parents what was going on but otherwise played no part in it except to say something like, “Stop harping on that, now we are going to do something else; we don’t want to hear any more about penises”. Scandinavian children generally are more sexually knowledgeable than American children; they are not necessarily more or less likely to engage in sex play, but the type of play reflects their greater knowledge. That young children are sexual and can be expected to engage in some sexual activity is more accepted in Scandinavia than in the United States. […] Behavior that I found was still treated as child sex play in Scandinavia, at least up until 1984 (Aigner and Centerwall 1984)[^[119][115]], was treated as perpetrator-victim behavior in the United States”.

Brougere and Tobin (2000)^[120][116] claim that “there is a radically different conception between the American and French interpretation of sexual behavior patterns expressed in games between children in nursery schools. In the US, statistics principally focus on medical interpretations and sexual abuse, and engender panic-stricken moral questions on that score. French nursery school teachers are much more willing to use hard-won teaching methods and avoid mentioning the theme of sexuality with children under their responsibility”. The authors attempt to understand the cultural ideology and reasoning for each nursery school system from his analysis of interviews of groups of children who had to perform playlets.

Further comparative-historical material specifically comparing (America with Holland) is found in several contributions for Rossen, B. & Schuijer, J. (Eds.) Het seksuele gevaar voor kinderen Mythen en feiten. Amsterdam: Zwets & Zeitlinger.

2. Childhood Sexual Behaviour Compared

Schematic comparisons of pre-Kinsey data are offered by Harvey (1932, 1935)^[121][117]. As a first specific and mature attempt to delineate boy's normative sexual development, Ramsey (1943a,b; 1950)^[122][118] collected 291 complete sex histories, as obtained by the author in personal interview. Ages included 10 to 20 years, 85% 12 to 16. He presents figures of preadolescent sex play, preadolescent intercourse, etc. Finger (1947) questioned 111 male college students aged 17 to 23 about their “firsts” of masturbation, and hetero- and homosexual experiences. “Kinsey” data are compared for subgroups (Van Wyk and Geist, 1984)^[123][119] and trends (Reiss, 1961)^[124][120], with 1943 data by Ramsey (Broderick, 1966)^[125][121], with Japanese data by Asayama (Asayama, 1957a,b)^[126][122], with data by Klausner (1961)^[127][123], with data by Rennert (1966, 1967)^[128][124], with data by Reng and Schoof (Reng, 1968)^[129][125], with data from a number of studies (Fröhlich and Szewcyk, 1970)^[130][126], with 1978 data by Bell and Weinberg (Weinberg & Williams, 1980)^[131][127], with 1985 data by Wyatt (Wyatt, Peters and Guthrie, 1988a,b)^[132][128].

Goldman and Goldman’s landmark cross-national study compared data on sexual sophistication (1981)^[133][129] in Australian, English, North-American and Swedish 5-15-year olds, but neglected sexual behaviour categories. American data are compared with non-American data statistically on only two occasions (Friedrich, Sandfort, Oostveen and Cohen-Kettenis, 2000; Larsson, Svedin and Friedrich, 2000)^[134][130]. CSBI scores on non-American children are available only on Dutch^[135][131], Belgian^[136][132] and Swedish^[137][133] children. American children are found to be observed less frequently to behave sexually. This appears to be a pancurricular theme. Luckey and Nass (1969)^[138][134], for instance, found that rates of reported sexual behaviour are lowest among North American subjects, coupled with the fact that North American subjects more strongly believed a satisfying life included marriage and prefer coital partners to be marital partners.

Whitam and Mathy (1986:p44-52)^[139][135] provide some indication of sexual development (attraction in childhood sex play, gender of first sexual contact, age of first sexual contact, age of first sexual attraction, age of realisation of sexual orientation) among Brazilian, as compared to Guatemalan, Philippino and North American, hetero- and homosexuals.

Sexual Curriculum Rigidity

Child-rearing books and manuals from the early twentieth century indicate that pediatricians and developmental psychologists were prone to divide the life course of children into increasingly precise chronometrical stages (LaRossa and Reitzes, 2001)[140]. Gesell and Ilg’s[141][136] classic work on child development indeed addressed the sex topic with considerable confidence. They presented developmental behavioural pathways relative to sexual compartments precise on 4 weeks (1943:p324-6), and 1 year (1946:p322-5;1956:p287-9), respectively. With the arrival of CSBI, this rigid scheduling attitude seems rather invariable over the decades. Americans apparently are used to “experts” telling them what will happen in their “normal” child, preferably to the precise minute. A late survey by Michael et al. (1994)^[142][137] almost entirely neglects childhood in discussing “sex in America” (first ranking index entries are abuse, AIDS, and drugs), diagrams being cut off at age 12.

Immigrant Patterns of Adolescent Courtship: Americanisation of Sexual Curricula

America may be hypothesized as a “melting pot” of sexual socialisation cultures. This is well documented for the adolescent case, and with a “coitocentric” perspective. Less well known are subcultural differences in approaches of the “childhood” case. The erosion and conservatism in initiatory courtship patterns among first, second and third degree immigrant families has been the matter of some study, revealing a culturally diversion in acculturation difficulties between parental and adolescent.

Featured: Mormons, African Americans, Cuban Americans, North American Hasidic Jews, Arab Americans, Italian Americans, North American Armenians, North American Hmong, Serbian Americans, Chinese Americans, Mexican Americans

Some Cross-Cultural Studies: A Clue to American Childhood Sexualities

In a study by Abramson and Imai-Marquez (1982)^[143][138], sex play was a part of a multi-item Inventory of “sex guilt” studied among Japanese-Americans (p231), but no statements are made regarding this specific measure. Abramson et al. (1983)^[144][139] compared Mexican-American, Black American, Cacasian American and Japanese-American attitudes and experiences on childhood (age 1-10) sexual education. Although a few cross-cultural effects remained significant despite the influence of a covariate, most of the findings were biased by a concomitant (i.e., demographic).

Harman and Johnson (1995)^[145][140] questioned 17 Asian, 85 African American, 301 Caucasian, and 71 Hispanic undergraduates regarding the age at which they understood what sexual intercourse was and who told them. Caucasians became aware of sex at the earliest age (mean age 11.16 yrs), followed by African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians, respectively. All groups indicated that (1) friends were the most frequent source of information regarding sex; (2) they wanted themselves, as parents, to be the primary sex educators for their children; (3) they would begin their children's sex education earlier; and (4) they would give their sons and daughters differing information regarding sex.

Side-Stream and Counter-Hegemonic Sexual Experiences: Closing in on the Mainstream Cultural Compartment

1. The “Commune” Experience

Johnston and Deisher (1973:p324-5)^[146][197] found that children in a permissive American commune related to sex as something interesting and enjoyable but not as of central importance to their play activity. Berger (1977, 1984; Berger and Hackett, 1974:p168-9, 172)^[147][198], Martinson (1973:p18-9) and Yates (1978:p14, 40-2) comment on the nonorthodox erotic boundaries between generation in communes.

2. The “Abuse” Experience

It is observed that, legally, the child’s sexual purity is valued more than its very life (Krivacska, 2001)^[148][199], an absurdity that at times indeed defies the proverbial “grano salo”. This purity very much depends on the definition of “abuse” which has become institutionalised only in the 1980s.

In a 1992 study^[149][200], girls who had their first sexual experience before age 11 years or with a male 2 or more years older were considered to be abused. De Jong (1989)^[150][201] used an age difference of greater than or equal to 5 years as indicative of abusive behaviour for a “perpetrator” mean age of 16.2 years for cousins and 15.5 years for siblings. One study^[151][202] defined “sexual abuse” as “any unwanted sexual contact with a person at least five years older than the respondent, or with any family relative, regardless of age difference”.

Tobin (1997)^[152][203] argues that Americans are projecting moral panic into the preschool setting. A study is presented in which focus groups of preschool teachers from the US and Ireland were assembled to discuss a series of stories, each dealing with a problematic issue involving young children, their teachers, and sex. Discussions revealed that teachers have become increasingly governed by their awareness of how their actions will be second-guessed by the most cynical of possible audiences, they have reduced the freedom they give young children to explore their sexuality, and they have denied themselves and the children the pleasures of each other’s touch.

Largely an American party, authors have argued that “child” sexual “abuse” prevention agendas illustrate sex-opposing principles^[153][204], or at least run the risk of transgressing to curricular “sexuality prevention” agendas^[154][205]. These allegations are hard to substantiate, impossible to verify and are not impressive cross-culturally. The (alleged idiosyncratic) “antisexualist” orientation is always categorical, always curricular, and always integrated within larger oppositional frameworks, which are always positively legitimised.

Americans seem apt to accuse every single researcher of childhood sexuality as promoting illegal practices. Even Marie Calderone was accused of promoting intergenerational sex, as discussed in an informal colloquium of Borneman with Calderone^[155][206]. Age patterning has become an increasingly important clinical issue in American mental health curriculum, even within classically recognised age domains. Age configuration has become one of the most determining factors in sexological justice and medicine, where formally it was gender configuration. Research by Rind et al. (1998)^[156][207] suggesting caution on the use of terms and interpretations associated with age disparate sexual contacts raised a series of ferocious attacks on the authors^[157][208]. In August of 1999, the US Congress issued a joint resolution censuring the APA, “perhaps the first occasion in our country’s history that our nation’s highest legislative body actually censured a professional organization for the publication of scientific findings” (Krivacska, 2001)^[158][209].

Futher reading:

§   Satter, Beryl (July 2003) The Sexual Abuse Paradigm in Historical Perspective: Passivity and Emotion in Mid-Twentieth-Century America, Journal of the History of Sexuality 12, 3:424-64

3. The “Gang” Experience

Schneider (2000)^[159][210] draws a parallel between post-war New York male gang life and ritualised transitions. As excerpted:

“Gang members’ attitudes about sexuality were part of a widespread working class sex code [ref omitted]. Gang members frequently viewed girls in a purely instrumental fashion, and intimacy--with its demand for openness and vulnerability--seemed difficult or even beyond their reach. Relationships with girls simply provided another realm of competition among males, in which gang members established precedence over one another, or they provided an opportunity for gang members to reaffirm their bonds. Gang boys earned respect by getting girls, either for themselves or for fellow gang members for ritualized rape. […] Gang members also reinforced their masculinity through assaults on gay men. Some subset of gang members engaged in same-sex relations with older males usually for cash or drugs. Poor and usually in need of some material goods, gang boys approached same-sex relations with the same utilitarian attitude they regarded heterosexual relations. Some specialized as “fag rollers” and would pick up men and then rob and beat them, justifying their brutality as punishment of “fairies”. As long as they did not play the “female” role and be penetrated, or limited themselves to being fellated, same-sex relations did not threaten their masculinity. Older working class cultural norms that did not identify a male as gay as long as he was dominant continued to be prevalent among these youths, much to the bewilderment and consternation of middle class observers [ref omitted]. Violence against gay men may have been a way of resolving homoerotic tensions within the gang. Boys found the gang as their major source of comfort and friendship, and feelings of intimacy that arose could only have been confronted indirectly. Gang rape, with its elaborate ritual and sexual display, undoubtedly aroused homoerotic feelings among the participants. Feelings of desire, when projected on to others who were then punished, could be safely purged from the group”.

The sex life of youth gang members appears to be “early” even in American terms. Of 1,801 juvenile detainees (219 girls and 1,374 boys), of whom nearly 47% belonged to a gang, 62% reported onset of sexual intercourse by age 12 and by age 14 89% were sexually active^[160][211]. Not confined to American gang life^[161][212], in-group sexual negotiations have been identified as problematic, particularly as sexist, exploitative and health-endangering.

The Sexual Life of the American Child: A Minor Impression

Many authors have given compact chronological overviews of American sexual development (e.g., Haroian, 1986:p332-43)^[162][213]. An obvious (but infrequently applied) distinction can be made between the semi-public and the private sphere.

As reviewed in full elsewhere^[163][214], school environments provide the primary erotic and sexual playground for children in industrialised societies^[164][215]. At least in 1998, nursery school teachers feel that sexual development “constitutes an important aspect of children’s personality” (Kakavoulis)^[165][216]. Wallis and Van Every (2000)^[166][217] typified primary schools as “institutions structured by gender and (hetero)sexuality […] which, in their practices, construct heterosexualized masculinities and femininities”^[167][218]. Renold (2000)^[168][219] portrays primary school as “a key cultural arena for the production and reproduction of sexuality and sexual identities”.

Using something of a participant method, Best (1983)^[169][220] regards the sexual curriculum (p109-25) as the third of three, the former two being designed for academic and gender development. This curriculum is primarily “self-devised”. The author found House playing primarily occupied with kissing (p110), and “fucking” by genitogenital rubbing (p121-3). Children’s public life contains a variety of “heterosexually charged rituals” (Thorne and Luria, 1986)^[170][221], such as bra-snapping (cf. Best, p112-3). On the playground, the threat of kissing is a “ritualised form of provocation” (Th&L; cf. Best, p113-5), and some kinds of playground chasing were forbidden because of their “inappropriate” touch. From elementary school on, children’s alleged romantic inclinations are the focus of gossip and teasing, marking social hierarchies. The loading is heterosexual, and predominantly male homophobic.In one study^[171][222], 377 14 and 15 year olds listed the pejoratives they heard at school and identified the ones they considered most taboo. As some of the most vitriolic items reported, homophobic pejoratives accounted for 10 per cent of the 6000 items generated. Homophobic terms have a rich developmental history and play a central role in U.S. adolescent male peer-group dynamics. Starting from the fourth grade, a very powerful use of homophobic terms occurs prior to puberty, which would, Plummer argues, rarely carry “sexual connotations” [sic]^[172][223]. Sexism, homophobia, and harassment were said to make American schools “a highly sexualised site” (Epstein, 1997)^[173][224]. Epstein (1996)^[174][225] suggested that “heterosexuality is a part of the stuff of every day life on playgrounds and in classrooms” and is represented in: (1) imagined futures; (2) traditional games and rhymes; (3) versions of games involving running and catching; (4) sexist/sexual harassment; (5) assays into the world of “going out”; and (6) gossip networks. The “homosexual tease” is noted in American third graders (e.g., Voss, 1997:p245)^[175][226].

The closest assessment of contemporary children’s “private” sexual life is provided by instances where such privacy apparently failed or was betrayed: parental observation. The few collections of anecdotal accounts include some instances of “getting caught”, but this generally seems a peripheral experience in the whole of the curriculum. The traumatology of unpremeditated parental discovery, even if formally non-consequential, is rarely elaborated upon (all op.cit.):

Martinson (1973) records a few cases, as did Morrison et al. (1980:p22-4) and Ribal (1973). Yates (1978:p53, 170, 196, 198, 201) seems to assume that avoidance of “getting caught” is a major “principle” in childhood sexuality. By 1994, Hite ([1994:p109]), however, states it is a “ surprisingly rare” occurrence.

Law Reviews:

THE ALAN GUTTMACHER INSTITUTE Sex and STD/HIV Education STATE POLICIES IN BRIEF. As of MAY 1, 2004

http://www.siecus.org/policy/states/AGI_Chart.pdf

From National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) site, US 2003-4 state-specific law overviews:

Child Abuse Crimes: Sexual Offenses (Current through June, 2003)

http://www.ndaa-apri.org/pdf/child_abuse_crimes_sexual_offenses_state_statutes.pdf

Crimes Involving the Prostitution of Children (Current through January 14, 2004)

http://www.ndaa-apri.org/pdf/statutes_child_prostitution_2004.pdf

State Child Pornography Statutes (Current as of April, 2004)

http://www.ndaa-apri.org/pdf/statute_child_pornography_2004.pdf

On-Line Child Sexual Exploitation [2004]

http://www.ndaa-apri.org/pdf/statute_online_child_sexual_exploitation_2004.pdf

Legislation Permitting the Use of Anatomical Dolls in Criminal Child Abuse Cases (Current through May 28, 2002)

http://www.ndaa-apri.org/pdf/statues_anatomical.pdf

Incest Laws [Nov 18 2003]

http://www.ndaa-apri.org/pdf/vaw_incest_laws_nov_18_03.pdf

state-specific overview of Sex offender

registration and public notification laws as pertaining to “juvenile”

Sex offenders over at the National Center on Sexual Behavior of Youth

(University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center) site:

http://www.ncsby.org/pages/registry.htm (outlinks from the menu box)

“[...] Currently, at least 32 states have registration laws for

juveniles under age 18, however, only 6 states have legislated separate

registration laws for juveniles and adults. The 6 states that have a

separate registration law for juveniles are: Arkansas, Missouri,

Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin.

The websites for the laws from each state are listed in the menu box [as

linked]. Those marked with an asterisk (*) have separate laws for

juveniles.”

Janssen, D. F., Growing Up Sexually. Volume I. World Reference Atlas. 0.2 ed. 2004. Berlin: Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology

Last revised: Feb 2006