Sex and "children"

Some of America is in a lather over a portrait by legendary photographer Annie Leibovitz of Miley Cyrus. There are a number of points about this incident that disgust me. They will have to be presented one at a time so only at the end will the full picture be visible with all of the pieces interlocking nicely.

People are screaming about this as "the sexualization of a child." She is fifteen and in most jurisdictions, this is egregious. The photo shoot was not just for this shot. She was not forced to do it and made the decision herself. She is conscious of her self and her image. She would expose more skin in a modest bathing suit that she revealed in the photo. One or more parents were present for the shoot. Recently, she has apologized - ostensibly to her fans but in reality it was for the parents of her fans and the Disney organization. Her media empire will be worth around one billion dollars in a few years, just to herself. Who knows what Disney's take of this is. She is part of a show business family. While the motives of her washed-up, one-hit-wonder of a father may be in question, it is unlikely that her career is exploitive as it has been for some other child stars. Those are the two flavors of child stars. She definitely is very aware of her career and the impact of her actions on her audience. I am certain that she has been making more intelligent and important decisions for herself than most people ever will.

The first point of contention is that she is a child. Legally, yes. In addition, she will always be a child to her parents. Is she a child, no. Why? We humans have a double standard on this topic. With regards to animals, humans consider them adults when the reach the age that they can reproduce. We even artificially adjust the ages of our pets to make them fit into our own mortality system. At fifteen, it would be a medical problem if she had not reached menarche. Even our closest - and in the case of some people, an equal or better - primate compatriots, chimps, recognize this and will drive away males because they now are sexual competitors. It also occurs for females but not to the same level of ostracizion. The same standard of adulthood can be applied to humans because they are base, stupid animals, too. Humans reach reproductive maturity several years before the legal age imposed by cultures and societies. That makes them adults.

So why are humans not considered adults when they reach this physiological milestone? Is there something wrong with it? I hope not because that would mean that Gawd made a mistake. Gawd made humans work this way for a reason. Humans certainly are not prepared for adulthood at such an age - nor at any time - but that is because society imposed an artificial governor to impede them. There are a number of ideas about why: a flooded labor force, strains on the welfare system, and others. It is also unfortunate that they are in America because America does not have an adulthood preparation system that is any good. School has a modicum of impact and in reality has more to do with job preparedness than adulthood preparedness. I see three metaphors of reaching adulthood in modern America. One) A parent walks with their child down to the freeway. They watch the traffic for a while and suddenly, the parent pushes the child into to traffic. If the child is lucky, the parent will offer the advice of not being struck by a car. Two) The parent walks with the child down to the freeway. They watch it together for a while, but in the end, the parent never lets go and the potential in the child dies. Three) The parent lets their child drive the car every now and then, shows them how to maintain it, what the parts of a car are and explains the concepts of driving and the freeway. At the end, the child already has a car and has been driving themselves for a while. Most fall into the first category. More are becoming the second category while few enjoy the third. It is all backward-thinking that is motivated by self-interest.

Finally, the photo itself. It is sexualized? Is it sexual? Not really. Again, some clothing and swimsuits show more skin than this. This question is more about an individual's values; and not meat in a religious way. It has nothing to do with ethics (or morals - ethics for people who have to have their hand held). The values in question is an individual's dislike of sex. A person either likes sex or does not. If a person is neither one way or the other about it then they do not like it. Why dislike it? Sex is physiologically pleasurable so that we will do it more. If our sense of smell was strong as it is in animals, that would work to impel us as well. What is sexual about a bare back with nary a hint of gluteal cleavage and a fully-obscured-by-opaque-material profile view of the front? Nothing. It is the human form. It is supposedly made in the image of the divine. It is not something bad to see. I believe that, like the high-profile figures who perpetuate racism buy screaming about it the loudest (and not surprisingly purport to be religious leaders), people who demonize the glimpse of skin of any human are themselves salacious, sex monsters who are a heartbeat away from succumbing to their animal lust. It probably makes them feel out of control. How? Faith and religion about yielding control. They command the super ego and most of the ego. All that is left is the id, that little voice that commands you to masticate, defecate, and fornicate. Lose control of that and what is left? If only the grandparents of these anti-humans had been just as anti sex as they themselves are. Even better: if only they had been Shakers. You know, the people that make simple-looking furniture. Their sect requires strict abstinence so new members have to be recruited. Not many Shakers left. Apparently people want sex.

For a more contemporary update to the time that this was finally published, there is now the same sort of scandal in New Zealand with a sixteen-year-old fashion model named Zippora Seven. Aside from the exact same points being applied - except for having a parent on the set - this one is different. Fashion is allowed more leeway. At least it is in more civilized parts of the world. Plus, models are recruited when they are this young and even younger. Some fashion is quite absurd but so what. Some people go apoplectic over what they see on the fashion runways. Perhaps they also close their eyes when bathing. For them , I suggest that it would be easier to go ahead and gouge out their eyes to avoid the temptation. Might as well make this a real physical condition since they seem content to approach life and the world in a state of blindness.

Technorati Tags:
religion, sex