Adultification - The new buzzword?
Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2024 2:29 am
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:
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:
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.
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:
Source: https://unrollnow.com/status/1867318873562747312I 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.
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:
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"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."
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.