Since I was able to find the brochure Kö rper, Liebe, Doktorspiele (Body, Love, Playing Doctor) (pdf, in German, free download), I wanted to revisit the topic and provide some more information. Some general observations:
This brochure is a forty page document with the goal of describing the psycho-sexual development of children and assisting the parent in taking an active role in the sexual development of their children. Much of it is simply a rather conversational handling of the normal stages children go through and is not much different from what you will find in most books about infant development. It offers some vague references to research which has nothing to do with sexual development but to the importance of touch to healthy development. The research is not cited, however. Nothing in it is particularly shocking. Or at least it shouldn’t be. (edited for clarity…I make this point further down, but it is not shocking because it has been going on for awhile and similar things are advocated here as well).
How troubling you will find the document as a whole depends on how you respond to the analogy presented in the introduction (my translation):
In areas dealing with sexuality, it is continually shown that parents are unsure and therefore react awkwardly. It may be observed, for example, that through routine care, arms, nose, toes, mouth, etc. are named and often playfully caressed but that this conspicuously does not occur with the genitals, especially not with those of daughters: these parts are left out of the naming and caressing. This unconscious act has consequences, however: The child not only notices that his arm is his arm, but also that he has a nameless area, at least one, that is not accepted and petted as intensively or as joyfully as other regions of the body. (page 6)
Just as you speak to your child, tickle his tummy and count his precious toes, you should attend regularly, physically and playfully with his genitalia so that he develops a healthy self-image and his sexuality is not repressed. In fact, there is an underlying current throughout the text that implies that the child will be harmed by setting boundaries on such normal activities as self-stimulation and “playing doctor.” Strictly raised children, it tells us, will become fixated on the forbidden. Not to mention the fact that they will not be able to satisfactorily enjoy this aspect of their bodies when they are older. No research is offered, and exactly what is determined as “strict” is vague. In fact, it even points out that there is very little research in this area. While it emphasizes that you should not touch your child or allow yourself to be touched in such a way that makes you uncomfortable, there is the constant suggestion that if you are uncomfortable with this form of touch, there is something wrong with you, ie., you were raised in an overly strict home or were molested yourself.
The goal of this text is decidedly different from most similar texts I have encountered in the United States, and this would lend to the shock many have upon reading about it. Here, when we talk about sexual education, most of us are talking about where babies come from and how to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. That alone raises enough controversy in American public life. As a preK teacher, I got to oversee a bit of sex ed with four year olds. It involved the counselor coming to my room, reading “Sammy the No-No Seal” to the kids and telling them that no one should touch the areas of their bodies normally covered by a swim suit. While I contend we have a pretty sad state of affairs when the state has to discuss such issues with children, there was nothing controversial about anything in the lesson.
It did not involve songs like that quoted in Lifesite’s article. The song actually gets more graphic after the part they cut off, but I cannot quite bring myself to post it here. Basically, it emphasizes how good it feels to be touched like that. Then there is the lovely play which goes along with it. As described on the BZgA website, it is about a fairy who could have helped a bear named Po (Bottom) but instead just watched him fall. Why? She was bewitched as a child and could neither touch nor be touched or “something” would happen. She finally does and something does happen. Something good.
It sounds quite similar to the way the subject is handled in this brochure. Setting boundaries is repressive and causes the children harm. Because sexual education is not about reproduction and “safe sex.” It is about accepting the child as a sexual being, and encouraging the child to take satisfaction in this aspect of his or her body, beginning at the age of one. This includes allowing those curious hands to touch their own genitalia, that of other children the same age and of the parents. It is about more than the “dry facts of life” but about lovingly escorting them to the discovery of their own sexuality as a source of physical pleasure. It is about the sexualization of children.
This philosophy is not unique to German kindergartens, however, and is why I say there is nothing particularly surprising in this booklet. Harmful to Minors, the Perils of Protecting Children from Sex by Judith Levine, for example, argues for the same approach to juvenile sexuality.
Sex is a wonderful, crucial part of growing up, and children and teens can enjoy the pleasures of the body and be safe, too. In this important and controversial book, Judith Levine makes this argument and goes further, asserting that America’s attempts to protect children from sex are worse than ineffectual. It is the assumption of danger and the exclusive focus on protection—what Levine terms “the sexual politics of fear”—that are themselves harmful to minors. University of Minnesota Press
In Human Sexuality, An Encyclopedia, edited by Robert Francoeur, we learn:
Children depend on adults, therefore how they are expected to behave sexually depends on the values and norms guiding the thoughts and actions of their parents and others. The sexual socialization of infants and young children in the United States has been largely the responsibility of their mothers throughout the 20th century. Generally, her task has been to discourage sexual self-stimulation, inhibit sexual impulses toward family members, supervise and thus frustrate attempts at sexual play with peers, and teach children to be wary of strangers. Her task, generally with the full support of her husband, includes information control. The family attempts to govern how, when, and how many of the “facts of life” the child learns. As part of the conspiracy of silence, parents maintain a secrecy and privacy concerning their own sexual activity. Sears indicates a number of methods used as aids to sexual control in the home (e.g., closed bedroom doors, separate sleeping arrangements for each child, separate bathing, and early modesty training). Such methods have an implicit goal of keeping dormant the young child’s pervasive curiosity and imitativeness, postponing the onset of sexual self-gratification, and limiting sexual activity.
This is why abstinence is viewed as child abuse and why sexual education is so important in the public school curriculum. It is a Brave New World.
For a very long period before the time of Our Ford, and even for some generations afterwards, erotic play between children had been regarded as abnormal (there was a roar of laughter); and not only abnormal, actually immoral (no!): and had therefore been rigorously suppressed.A look of astonished incredulity appeared on the faces of his listeners. Poor little kids not allowed to amuse themselves? They could not believe it.
–Aldous Huxley, Brave New World, p. 32
Poor little kids. Poor repressed kids. Poor kids raised in religious homes. After all, the outcry against this sexualization is merely a politicized attempt by religious fundamentalists to use this issue for their own gains, namely to prevent the efforts of organizations and engaged pedagogical experts to create a sexually friendly education of children which delights in the body and sensuality. How dare they not allow those children to amuse themselves?
Related: State sanctioned child molestation
Wow. I am stunned, but probably shouldn’t be.
And we wonder why kids today have no respect of people and their property. They are not even allowed to respect themselves.
Oooh, pedos are just thrilled to hear of this.
The problem with this notion that parents should be “caressing” their children’s “private parts” is that it is then hard to get the message across that no one should do that. Without that message, and with mommy and daddy touching them, how do they know when that touch is just as normal as a touch on the arm or whether it is sexual in nature? How do they know that it’s wrong for Neighbor Dad to do it?
As adults, we can pick apart subtle nuances of touch and context but children, for the most part, don’t. Especially not when they don’t even understand what sex is.
Whether or not kids are chastised for touching their own bodies is a different issue altogether that seems to be wrapped up into this just to befuddle simple people.
I am still in shock from your other post about this subject. It is so hard for me to believe that individuals are coming to these conclusions. Ideas definitely have consequences and it’s horrifying when the result is molesting children.
I was reminded of the verses in the romantic Song of Solomon,”Do not awaken love until it so desires.” God created sex for my children to enjoy but timing is everything. I am not abusing my children by “sheltering” them from understanding their sexuality while they are so young. They shouldn’t be concerned with such issues right now. Love in the sensual sense can rest until they are mature enough to be a parent.
It stuns me and sickens me
We are so far down a moral slide I don’t know that we can recover…well, I guess I should say that I don’t think we’re capable of recovering without a major shift in morality.
Rick, I agree. And I cannot comprehend how someone thinks that “intimacy” will be greater when someone has been sharing that aspect of their being for their entire lives. Of course, to them it is “just sex.”
PinkPowerSuit, I agree. I do think that parents can overdo it when they overreact to those curious touches and that can cause problems for a healthy self-image…but I don’t think most parents do. It is another area where I think you could be opening your child up for problems if you do not teach them where/when it is appropriate to touch themselves. If it is allowed freely at home, the child does not learn it is a private manner and such public exhibitions can lead to attracting pedophiles.
Renae, I agree. And I always point to Song of Solomon when people think Christianty is “repressive” in this area. It isn’t represive, it just places a much higher value on human sexuality than “amusement.”
Lindsey, there is always hope. : ) I have a difficult time imagining this here. We still have quite a bit of debate about whether contraceptives should be discussed in school. But I think we are heading that way.
This quote is especially disturbing and revealing: “It may be observed, for example, that through routine care, arms, nose, toes, mouth, etc. are named and often playfully caressed but that this conspicuously does not occur with the genitals, especially not with those of daughters: these parts are left out of the naming and caressing.”
As in so many other areas of life and culture, the trend is toward eliminating distinctions, making all things equal — nothing is holy, nothing is set apart. Private parts of the body are to be treated as “just another body part”.
Rebecca, you are very right. If you accept that, then the conclusion that the father should pay special attention to these parts during playful tickling is a natural “next step.”
People seem happy that the booklet was pulled for editing, but its foundation is wrong. There isn’t really any way to edit it, ie., simple rewording won’t help. It needs to be set on a different foundation.
Good point. Before you can reprogram the culture, you have to clear the old programming, set everything back to zero.
Someone in another discussion said it sounds more like this is about breaking down taboos than state sanctioned pedophilia. Which is true in a way. It certainly isn’t a three step guide to becoming a pedophile. But I would argue that touching your child in that way is still molestation, even if your goal is to stimulate the child rather than yourself.
And I cannot help but wonder, why on earth would anyone think it ok for the state to get in the business of breaking down “taboos?”
I have not clicked the links–non of them.
That being said, and only having read what was presented here, I understand some of the outcry. Only in America is sex a taboo subject and that has always offended me. No, I do not want my children sexually active as children, but I also do not want them thinking sex is “dirty” nor “naughty” nor “shameful”…especially our female children–that aweful double standard that is so prevalent in our society here.
I want them to know that sex is natural and normal and yes, better if saved for that someone special they would like to spend their lives with.
Did I only touch my sons’ arms and tummys and toes when they were young–no. When they got out of bathes I dried their entire bodies and rubbed them with lotion until they were old enough to want to do it themselves–anywhere from 6-9 years old…touching all the parts, making no issue of any of them. All parts were named when they wanted to know what they were, squirming and giggling when they realized they were “private” parts yet knowing that mom and dad were not hurting nor doing bad things to them–just tending their care and getting them ready for bed or school or what-have-you.
Did my young boys touch themselves–of course. They all do. All children. Did I make issue of it? No. Generally they only did it al home when not dressed or changing or lying about in jammies–they fondled, nothing grotesque. In public or with people around they were fully clothed, making the act difficult and not really on their minds. When the discovery process was over and maturiry took place, natural socialization occured–they learn that touching theirselves in public wasn’t going to win them favorable results/looks/views.
We do over react to our childrens’ developing sexual development in this country at times…or at least we do so publicly and at home behind closed doors we may allow other behaviors/thoughts to dominate?
Sexuality and developing bodies and sensations are a natural process, so why do we frown upon them…why do we act so shocked and horrified. Why does America have the highest teen pregnancy rated in the industrialized world?
Granted the 1st article left me speechless–fondling and caressing genitals was way out there for me, beyond my comprehension…but the mere naming and casual touching of these parts in the caring of our children does not bother me; allowing our children to touch themselves does not bother me as they explore their own bodies–granted I do not want to witness or know about teenage boys and girls exploring and touching themselves! And I do understand how a child’s pschye could be harmed when taught that these natural behaviors and curiosities and instincts are bad.
So I hope you all don’t think I am some pervert–I am not. Truly, honestly–I am not!!!! I just do not find sex to be a taboo subject.
I largely agree with you Shawna, but I think that the authors Dana is quoting have crossed a line which you have not and will not cross, and that you are making distinctions (normal care of the body vs. stimulation, between teaching that something is private and teaching that something is dirty or shameful) which they wish to obliterate.
Shawna, I don’t disagree with you on anything you have said. I think most of these issues are best handled in a matter-of-factual way, without shock or horror from the parents.
But that isn’t exactly what the pamphlet advocates. It advocates the specific caressing of these parts in a playful way, and not setting boundaries between peers who wish to examine each other. It, along with the general approach to sexual education in Germany, advocates that the child should have the right to enjoy his sexuality. Even as a toddler.
A child’s self-discovery and curiosity is normal and shouldn’t be treated as naughty or dirty. However, that does not mean that I am “repressing” my children because I redirect them when they attempt to touch each other.
But then, I believe that sex is about a lot more than just pleasant sensations. For the author of this pamphlet, that notion is repressive and I am denying my child something.
Rebecca, I didn’t see your comment until after I responded to Shawna. What you say is exactly the difference.
I didn’t requote the article…that bit about the fathers touching their daughters in that way is definitely there…on the top of page 27. It then goes on to tell us that their desire to explore others is natural (which is true). And that they will have a special interest in the genitals of adults which may lead to the sexual stimulation of the adult.
That also is true, but they then wade into something that crosses some definite lines.
“It may be that certain intimate touches may be uncomfortable despite your acceptance of their childish curiousity, because your private area was unknowingly injured as a child. A conflict may therefore develop between wanting to allow your child to explore and not wanting to set any unnecessary boundaries and your own refusal.”
It is nice that they say it is ok to say no, but please. My “discomfort” with such exploration of my body has nothing to do with hypothetical sexual abuse as a child that I may not even know about (according to this brochure), and everything to do with the fact that this area is private. There is nothing wrong with teaching a child that this area is private and not open to discovery.
Is the child “nasty” for that first curious touch? Of course not. But I am not denying my child anything by saying calmly, but firmly, “That is mommy’s.” Instead, I am teaching her boundaries that she will need to protect herself, as well.
Okay Your blog rocks! This post is completely excellent. I can’t believe that first quote… that sounds like molestation to me!! And brave new world is one of my favorites. That is why motherhood is not a cussword is the title of my blog… coming from the concept of how they viewed motherhood in the book. Most people have no clue what I am talking about though.
I’m definitely bookmarking you!
Thanks for linking to the PDF.
Interesting blog and interesting comment thread.
I have a young daughter and these are the sort of issues you have to wrestle with, even at age one… The most difficult thing of all, for me, is the constant doubt and fear that I am either a) passing on issues and repression I picked up from my parents when I was a toddler, or b) being reactive to those issues and thus creating new issues.
My honest opinion is that there are merits to BOTH the approach suggested in the brochure (i.e. including “fun” touching of the privates when “fun” touching of the rest of the body is taking place) AND ALSO the approach suggested by some in the comment thread of a slightly more “anglo” approach to the issue – namely, including the genitals in “ordinary care” – washing, drying etc, but excluding (only) those areas from “fun” touching.
Parents have to try to make the best choices for their kids in the context of an over-sexualised society, and a society with a (sometimes justified) terror of the paedophile stranger – there are no easy choices, and in this, as all other areas of parenting, I guess we should beware of trying to be too perfectionist.