Adultification - The new buzzword?

[Artaxerxes II]

Adultification is commonly used to denote the imposition of "adult roles and responsibilities" into "children". while this term has more often been used to denote the way parents often rely on their children for physical and emotional needs that the children themselves turn into parents (i.e., parentfication) or in the context of American racial profiling where blacks minors are said to be "adultified" by law enforcement and thus get meted out with harsher punishments than what is commonly handed out to white criminal minors.

Lately I've seen antis use the same term but in the context of minor attraction and age-gap relationships, as if sex in itself is strictly confined to the adult world. Below is such a post:

I think it's dangerous to adultify children & critique them for their appearance & fashion choices. Not only does it shame children for adult sexualization, it invites men to claim they're normal, even victims, for preying on children.

People need to unpack their own perceptions & discomforts with seeing children & declaring them too "adult" looking. No child & no clothing/makeup/hairstyle choice can make someone sexualize her.

If someone sees height, curves, makeup & decides age, brain development, & life experience don't matter, that's on them. And if they're making a child feel ashamed for things they don't understand yet, that's vile.

I had friends developing large breasts as early as 5th grade. Their options were to hide in baggy clothing or be sexualized. I began regularly wearing makeup in 7th grade. I wore an off the shoulder dress to an 8th grade dance. I was thinking princess, not sex.

My niece loved makeup early & was already doing full face glamor makeup from youtube tutorials in middle school. I'm sure she would have loved an opportunity to wear it outside her room.

It's especially dangerous for Black girls as they are disproportionately assaulted & taken less seriously due to adultification & racist stereotyping. Children shouldn't be shamed for their curiosity about fashion & adulthood, adults sexualizing them should be.

If you don't think children should wear makeup or certain clothing, that's your prerogative, but it starts to get into justifying men's actions by blaming clothing or makeup for a culture that accepts men sexually abusing children.

It's also funny how we give girls whiplash telling them they have to perform femininity or they're ugly/masculine then slut shaming them when they adopt those gender prescriptions.

Source: https://unrollnow.com/status/1867318873562747312

While she does make some seemingly valid points like how underage women shouldn't be shamed for what they wear (like what these mothers did), I do have issues with her comment, particularly with how she used the term "adultification":

By using the term "sexualisation", she is ironically contributing to the stigma that she is seeking to fight by problematising the situation but under a different thought-terminating cliche: By going from the religious conservative purity culture, to a form of secular feminist purity culture that instead shames male sexuality rather than the "children" themselves. "Children" in double brackets as such people often use it as a synonym for legal minor (i.e., 18-25), despite the fact that there's little to no difference between 17 year old and 18 year olds apart from legal ones.

Another issue is how, by using the term "adultification" under this context, she is effectively making sexuality into two separate spheres based on age where the "child" one is comprised solely of ignorance and curiosity, in opposition to the "Adult" sphere. In this context, is it justified to keep said spheres separate by any means? To antis, yes. But to antis like her, not if it involves "shaming" underage women, as Jess here wants society to see the girls as "victims" of supposed male sexualisation rather than people with agency (which naturally involves shaming or acknowledgement of their behaviour as sexual).

Last but not least is the term sexualisation, which makes it seem that the sexual element in itself is "corrupting" to the girl's morals or something. It's quite fumbled a lot, but it's unsurprising given how not only is the term "sexualisation" more often than not used as a vague and highly charged pejorative by sex-negative feminists, but the term itself originated from philosopher Emmanuel Kant, who didn't hide his highly moralistic case against sexualisation, which he used to term any sexual activity outside of a monogamous marriage, and so thought that the only solution was marital heterosexual sex within the confines of a committed and monogamous marriage. Of course, one can point to other issues with the "sexualisation" talking point such as how it is used to automatically deny the agency of young people in sexual/romantic/intimate matters by presuming that the minor in question must be ignorant (as shown in Jess's post wherein at no point she considers the possibility that those minors may have their sexuality that goes beyond mere curiosity, and whether or not it's societal constraints that is the main reason behind said ignorance.

so it's interesting to see how people like Jess, despite being opposed to tradcons that may problematise 5th graders for wearing revealing clothes via the lens of purity culture, feminists like Jess do it under the guise of "sexualisation" which, while it may look "better" insofar that it's no centred around shaming of the underage woman, it still stigmatises and seeks to erase childhood sexuality by portraying it as a form of "moral corruption" caused by external forces such as male sexuality. An example can be:

"People need to unpack their own perceptions & discomforts with seeing children & declaring them too "adult" looking. No child & no clothing/makeup/hairstyle choice can make someone sexualize her."

But what constitutes "adult" looking given how fluid the definition of adulthood is as decided by laws is less contingent on biology and more on legalistic precedence and ever-shifting societal mores? What exactly constitutes "Sexualisation" and is it really appropriate given that it is proven that minors have an innate sexuality which is typically expressed by various means regardless of societal differences: https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Research:_Youth_sexuality

That is never answered, for those terms are supposed to be taken for granted. Indeed, regardless of whether it's "anti-sexualisation" efforts or purity culture, both paradigms try to erase and stigmatise youth sexuality as a form of oppressive/degrading externalisation imposed upon by some evil peso or something.

Anyway, that's it for this rant, all feedback is welcome.

[BLueRibbon]

Children should never be treated as adults.

So says society out loud.

The Indian case of the 12yo boy being accused of raping a 17yo, and the new law in Australia trying 12yo+ as minors, reveal the lie.

[Harlan]

Children should never be treated as adults.

So says society out loud.

The Indian case of the 12yo boy being accused of raping a 17yo, and the new law in Australia trying 12yo+ as minors, reveal the lie.

Modern "progressive" laws in Sweden have led to the emergence of underage killers. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ho ... 024-06-24/

...
While Swedish law allows criminal prosecution of people as young as 15, those under 18 are very rarely sent to prison even for serious crimes. Dos Santos said gangs are exploiting this, deliberately recruiting children to commit acts that would lead to a long jail sentence for an adult.
...
The killer was only 14 and had lived in youth homes as a ward of the authorities since he was eight.
A year ago, a gang helped the boy escape, put him up in a hotel and gave him cannabis, food and new clothes. Six days later, gang members told him it was time to repay them for their kindness. They had a job for him.
Together with another youth, the boy, who as a juvenile cannot be identified, shot dead a 33-year-old Hells Angels biker. He was convicted by a court which described the case as a gangland contract killing.
As he was too young to be sentenced, he was handed back to social services and sent to another youth home.

[anarchist of love]

Adultification is commonly used to denote the imposition of "adult roles and responsibilities" into "children".

And here i thought you were going to promote the Indianner Kommune's (of germany) version, of adult- or GROANup- CENTRICISM!

Wow, really "ramping up" the HYPE, eh? While their professional murdering programs proceed in the schools un-challenged, re: ROTC or whatever. Pushing people away from each other, steadily, is the old trick; via HYPE. And folks unprepared for such!

Seems to me to be a central tenant of necolonialism.

while this term has more often been used to denote the way parents often rely on their children for physical and emotional needs that the children themselves turn into parents (i.e., parentfication) or in the context of American racial profiling where blacks minors are said to be "adultified" by law enforcement and thus get meted out with harsher punishments than what is commonly handed out to white criminal minors.

Ah, i know what this is about; human parents are about to become obsolete. As robots get rolled out To Serve the Severely Alienated, so-called "Shared Interests". Making sure to MANUFACTURE THE CONSENT OF the Governed. Make sure they Know Their Place ahead of time, eh?

Something like:
"Sorry, Nuclearized Parents, "your" kids Can Be Taken From You To Carry Out The Vital "Interests"."

I suppose that's what ALL of [lower-case] 'society' gets for allowing the 'Politically Correct', hierarchic'ly-challenged crowd to gain such a threatening position....towards them, eh?

developing large breasts as early as 5th grade. Their options were to hide in baggy clothing or be sexualized. I began regularly wearing makeup in 7th grade. I wore an off the shoulder dress to an 8th grade dance. I was thinking princess, not sex.

Set up by the bored-out-of-their-minds combat veterans and their liberal lackeys? Playing you all, that way? (You all are viewed, like other non-White people --and ANY real difference, in the longterm reality-- as Acceptable Targets to "Practice" on, after all. Have you not read Harriet Washington's book MEDICAL APARTHEID??) That's what I'm figuring, the combat-insane messing with all kinds of people, seeking a meta-solution to their koyaanisqatsi. But NOT KNOWING HOW to go about it; so they keep pushing the buttons of the Targeted.

Unless it's the alleged faction of Space Aliens that might be aggressively impeding upon the Big Picture of humanity?? Since Pharoah times? (I do know that there's a momentum started to challenge the State's alleged preparation to deploy a FALSE FLAG OP by making it APPEAR that E.T. is Attacking ALL of humanity, and not just those who shot down their, possibly, scientific expeditions!)

You might assume i'm just OTT on all this. i wouldn't blame you.

My niece loved makeup early & was already doing full face glamor makeup from youtube tutorials in middle school. I'm sure she would have loved an opportunity to wear it outside her room.

It's especially dangerous for Black girls as they are disproportionately assaulted & taken less seriously due to adultification & racist stereotyping. Children shouldn't be shamed for their curiosity about fashion & adulthood, adults sexualizing them should be.

Oh, now i see why you have your gun out in your sig pic.

This is an interesting "trip"; i suspect you mean what MOST (?)[colonized/domesticated] GROANUPS think when they think of 'sex'? Or are you seeking to perpetuate only a different SORT of racism (what is racism if not JUDGING WHOLE GROUPS NEGATIVELY), by saying that ALL so-called "adults" are acting like assholes?? Am not sure, due to your structure, here. Am rolling with it for now, tho.

i can agree that DOMESTICATED GROANups do not deserve to assist the future champions of humanity (and the other shapes as well) in their current so-deadened state!. GROANups ought to be, first, informed of and opened up to other realities LONGING TO BE HEARD. But HAVE NOT BEEN due to adulto-centrick ideology prevailing.

Is this the distinction you seek to make?

If you don't think children should wear makeup or certain clothing, that's your prerogative, but it starts to get into justifying men's actions by blaming clothing or makeup for a culture that accepts men sexually abusing children.

Not sure i 'get' you here, but let me take a swing (swinging on a hypothetical swingset, heh). Yes, it starts to get into ONLY ONE WAY TO DO THINGS, that REDUCED imagination shit!! Yes!!

Tho i don't really understand the part after that....

The very idea of what kids SHOULD do (i.e. try on make-up and try on that kind of poetic; but watch out for the carcinogens in SO MUCH OF THEM!) is okay, AS LONG AS YOUNG PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE INFORMED CHOICE.

Are we on the same page? (You can put your gun away now, if you dare)

It's also funny how we give girls whiplash telling them they have to perform femininity or they're ugly/masculine then slut shaming them when they adopt those gender prescriptions.

Whom is "we", again? Maybe the question is WHOM TELLS THEM AND WHEN AND WHY?

Sounds like you're speaking of Neocolonialism. Pushing young people around with All The Alleged Authority, force Held In Reserve. Some get away with all kinds of alienation, others don't. The "upper classes" have up to Epstein, got away with all kinds of shittiness, tho i don't know whether this is ALWAYS true. Probably not, even when it partially is. There are good people everywhere, but what i'm driving at, is they don't think about some things, you know? Maybe they were traumatized at an early age to stay away "Put Your Head Down and Shut Up" kind of shit i've heard about. OR maybe they're so overwhelmed by heading up some transnational corporation that they Believe they don't have time for Anything Else, in their "Role" as "Breadwinner" and so on and so forth!?

But i think i see what you're getting at! Do you agree?

Source: https://unrollnow.com/status/1867318873562747312

While she does make some seemingly valid points like how underage women shouldn't be shamed for what they wear (like what these mothers did), I do have issues with her comment, particularly with how she used the term "adultification":

By using the term "sexualisation", she is ironically contributing to the stigma that she is seeking to fight by problematising the situation but under a different thought-terminating cliche: By going from the religious conservative purity culture, to a form of secular feminist purity culture that instead shames male sexuality rather than the "children" themselves. "Children" in double brackets as such people often use it as a synonym for legal minor (i.e., 18-25), despite the fact that there's little to no difference between 17 year old and 18 year olds apart from legal ones.

Generally speaking, of course. That last part, i mean.

Yes, i feel what you mean about feminist purity culture; but that i think is just one of a few more conceptions when it comes to feminism kinds of ideas. The one we hear about the most is the one that got the Big Government Funding, re: Such as via The Trilateralists headed up by Walter Mondale (who "ran" for president at the same time, or there-abouts.) . Get it?

There's also the liberation feminists who wanted to liberate EVERYONE, not in piecemeal like, possibly, some day, by the Well Funded feminists (once they Got their Patriarchs). Familiar with them?

Another issue is how, by using the term "adultification" under this context, she is effectively making sexuality into two separate spheres based on age where the "child" [--]one, is comprised solely of ignorance and curiosity, in opposition to the "Adult" sphere. In this context, is it justified to keep said spheres separate by any means? To antis, yes. But to antis like her, not if it involves "shaming" underage women, as Jess here wants society to see the girls as "victims" of supposed male sexualisation rather than people with agency (which naturally involves shaming or acknowledgement of their behaviour as sexual).

Hm, yes, i think i see what you are getting at.. The Well Funded feminist is inclined to Attack Patriarchs (which usually means men and other males), thus reduced the fellow champion (called 'child', a word i used to hate when i was 11 yrs old) to a strategic space, and only that space. A place that serves a purpose. Which may or may not be explained to the 'child'.

Perhaps upon the young person articulating their dissent from such, the Well Funded feminist won't be too threatened (to possibly lose their Big Funding for empathizing with anyone beyond The State) (?) and will allow that person to be HEARD how THEY WANT, and not just the GROANup's acquired ideology!?

Are we on the same page, now? Or am i at least getting "warmer"?

Last but not least is the term sexualisation, which makes it seem that the sexual element in itself is "corrupting" to the girl's morals or something.

Well, that may be true. On the other hand, i suspect it's more about Getting At The Patriarchy's Jugular. Or hoping to. Because much of what IS known as "sex" or "sexual" is the same old deadening Narrative most "First World" men have in their heads!! (i've had sex with lots of men, and i know!) Do i need to spell it out??

It's quite fumbled a lot, but it's unsurprising given how not only is the term "sexualisation" more often than not used as a vague and highly charged pejorative by sex-negative feminists, but the term itself originated from philosopher Emmanuel Kant, who didn't hide his highly moralistic case against sexualisation, which he used to term any sexual activity outside of a monogamous marriage, and so thought that the only solution was marital heterosexual sex within the confines of a committed and monogamous marriage. Of course, one can point to other issues with the "sexualisation" talking point such as how it is used to automatically deny the agency of young people in sexual/romantic/intimate matters by presuming that the minor in question must be ignorant (as shown in Jess's post wherein at no point she considers the possibility that those minors may have their sexuality that goes beyond mere curiosity, and whether or not it's societal constraints that is the main reason behind said ignorance.

Well, that comes as no surprise to me; tho if there was a MEGA SHIFT, such as girls standing up for their intuitive liberation, i'm sure such authors would have an ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT. Politically-steeped as they are, i would see that tendency. You "fight" for yourself, you can have some equality. And: "If you can navigate the minefield that I also have trouble with, I can respect your equality."

Something like that. Does that sound possible?

And thinks nothing of utilizing whatever potential launching-off spots, including Rightwing/Con-servative anti-bonding HYPE, in order to reach their objective. Plain and simple.

so it's interesting to see how people like Jess, despite being opposed to tradcons that may problematise 5th graders for wearing revealing clothes via the lens of purity culture, feminists like Jess do it under the guise of "sexualisation" which, while it may look "better" insofar that it's no[t] centred around shaming of the underage woman, it still stigmatises and seeks to erase childhood sexuality by portraying it as a form of "moral corruption" caused by external forces such as male sexuality.

Well, like i said above, most of what passes for "male sexuality" is very very patriarchal. Thus she has a point.

She might agree with me that kids have their own style of sexuality, and OUGHT TO BE LEADING such interactions, instead of some male (even an age-peer) coming in and Telling them "How" it's "Supposed To Be" done.

Get it?

Indeed, regardless of whether it's "anti-sexualisation" efforts or purity culture, both paradigms try to erase and stigmatise youth sexuality as a form of oppressive/degrading externalisation imposed upon by some evil pe[d?]o or something.

No, i don't think both paradigms try to erase youth sexuality, i think the antipatriarchal feminist wants to PRESERVE THE DREAM of the girls!! Which is sexual, but is not yet STUCK in the prevailing Narrative, that is AWFULLY STUCK in PATRIARCHAL centrickism!!

Got it now?