The problem with protection: Or, why we need to move towards recognition and the sexual agency of children

Abstract

Drawing on historical and contemporary reform narratives, we highlight the implications of and problems with the discourse of protection and its conceptualization of childhood sexuality. Within the reform materials discussed, the child's sexuality is constructed as the result of a dangerous and socially unacceptable outside stimulus, and as a result, any realization of subjective sexual expression is rendered abhorrent and in need of adult intervention. It is our contention that sexual agency is unthinkable and ultimately unattainable within this model. Drawing on the recent work of Judith Butler we forward her theory of recognition as a framework for rethinking the sexuality of children. We argue that foregrounding recognition will help us create a cultural context that fosters sexual agency and in so doing promotes the sexual citizenship of children.

For Adults Only? Young People and (Non)Participation in Sexual Decision Making

“…This would require a 'paradigmatic shift' (Egan & Hawkes, 2009, p. 395) in conceptualising childhood and its relationship to the category of adulthood. In particular, it is necessary to recognise children's sexual identities from their perspectives rather than from the adult-centred, protectionist perspective that currently frames dominant discourses of childhood and sexuality (Egan & Hawkes, 2009;Taylor, 2010). While children's voices are absent from discussions about sexuality and as long as childhood and youth are constructed as asexual or pre-sexual categories and, by extension, as incapable and incompetent in sexual terms, the participation rights enshrined within the UNCRC will not be extended to them.…”

L’« agentivité sexuelle » des adolescentes et des jeunes femmes : une définition1

“…Ce discours a des implications sociales et politiques qui, selon des spécialistes, se révèlent néfastes : il procure le sentiment que les adultes doivent se mobiliser pour entreprendre des actions en vue de protéger les enfants des conséquences néfastes de la sexualité au nom de leurs enfants, et donc ce discours maintient la croyance que la sexualité des enfants et des jeunes à l'adolescence dépend et a besoin de l'intervention parentale (Egan et Hawkes 2009). On conçoit alors l'adolescent ou l'adolescente comme incapable de jugement et de discussion raisonnable et raisonnée, et, partant, on l'exclut des débats à son sujet (ibid.…”

Beyond a single story: The importance of separating ‘harm’ from ‘wrongfulness’ and ‘sexual innocence’ from ‘childhood’ in contemporary narratives of childhood sexual abuse

“…However, the focus of these debates was not so much on the psychological harm caused to victims but on issues of immorality, social purity and eugenic concerns around 'in-breeding' amongst overcrowded working class populations (Kitzinger 2004, Smart 1989, and it is notable that step-daughters were excluded from the 1908 act. Egan and Hawkes (2009) also identify concerns around social purity and dysgenics in relation to childhood sexuality in early twentieth century Australia. Whilst the sexual abuse of children did not disappear following the Punishment of Incest Act it did remain a 'well kept secret' throughout the first half of the twentieth century (Kitzinger 2004).…”

“…Fiona was able to interpret what she perceived to be problematic childhood behaviour within a CSA framework and overcome the shame she felt for her child self. However, it was the definition of childhood as a time of sexual innocence, together with the idea that a child's sexual activity or knowledge is the result of something done to the child (Egan andHawkes 2009, Lamb 1999), that defined Fiona's behaviour as problematic and shameful. An alternative construction of childhood, which accommodates children's sexuality and allows for the possibility of sexual activity, at least when viewed from an adult perspective (author 2008, Gagnon and Simon 1974, Jackson 1982, would not define such behaviour as problematic and in need of explanation.…”