|
|
|
CHILDREN, SEX & SELF-IMAGE Byline: BY SHERE HITE The second, on male sexuality (1981), revealed the high levels of infidelity among husbands; the third (1988) assessed women's emotional lives. Now, amid cries that the family is breaking down, Shere Hite has released her 420-page Hite Report on the Family - focusing on the hidden sexual lives of children, and based on more than 3,000 respondents to Hite's questionnaire. The Herald's exclusive extracts of the latest Hite Report begin today, and continue throughout next week. CHILDREN in our society go for about 10 years without body contact. When you think about it, they are almost completely physically cut off from others between the age of five and 15. They are not supposed to touch anyone, or be touched, more than perfunctorily. They cannot kiss more than quickly and shyly, or feel themselves kissed back, lie pressed together chest to chest, feeling the full length of their body pressed next to another's for more than a second, or sleep close together. At what moment does it begin? When does one become aware that one shouldn't touch too much, shouldn't explore, shouldn't ask questions? That there is something about the body, especially the naked body, that is not quite proper For many children, especially after the age of five or six, the only intimate physical contact they have with anyone is with their parents when they are punished. Through the family system, we say over and over again that one must "respect" the hierarchy of man-on-top, that those in power (the parents) deserve the power, that we must "respect" them - only because this is the way we had to live and see our parents when we were children. Thousands of little flowers should be blooming, but instead girls are told, even today, to hide menstruation, to be sexual yet ashamed of their (social constructed) sexuality, to express their sexuality to men only and to be ashamed of that expression when other women are around. Most girls, for example, begin masturbating quite early, and many before puberty, according to the information collected in this new Hite Report. Forty-five per cent of girls, according to these findings, begin masturbating by the age of seven, and over 60 per cent by the age of 12. They almost always discover masturbation alone, by themselves, and secretly. Sometimes girls try masturbation because they have heard it is possible, but far more commonly, they simply discover it by listening to their own bodies or finding one day that something they do feels very good. The downside is that so many girls learn to associate shame and guilt with touching themselves and with sex in general. Feeling guilty for feeling pleasure ... all too often, the messages become inextricably intertwined. Later the guilt and "danger" can become part of the fun. Wanting people to look at one's genitals, at least in fantasy - but in reality, being terrified that a lover will look too closely, carefully keeping the light turned out during sex, propping the sheets strategically around one, worrying about what he or she is thinking and sees during cunnilingus ... yet fantasising like mad during sex that hundreds are watching one's crotch. Ironically, this is a common juxtaposition in many women's psycho-sexual identities. According to my research for this book, while almost 60 per cent of boys in my sample have masturbated with another boy present, only about 9 per cent of girls have. Boys' masturbation is much less hidden. This denial and hiding seen with masturbation continue at the moment of first menstruation. Seventy-two per cent of girls and women in this survey say they felt inadequately prepared for this event, so minimal was the discussion. Only 12 per cent of fathers discussed menstruation with their daughters. Not even 10 per cent had been given a celebration to mark the occasion. The beginning of menstruation could be a magical and fascinating moment in a girl's life. Instead there is a kind of hush-hush atmosphere. It would seem as if girls are not supposed to feel any pride in their maturing adulthood and bodies. In some more "liberated" families, there is a reaction such as, "well, it's normal, so what? Don't let's get carried away and make a big deal out of it." The family should clearly recognise the daughter's body as good. Instead, the onset of puberty and menstruation is greeted with the cry "Be a good girl", according to 97 per cent of those in this study. Said one respondent: "Be a good girl" was like a religious chant in my house. It meant to be whatever they wanted me to be at the time. It meant be a little Christian, be virginal, be obedient, be passive, be a little mother to my dolls, be a cook, be a homemaker." Anger and any sign of rebelliousness are definitely not a part of"femininity", although they are often praised and received with interest and respect in boys. In the code of "feminine" behaviour which most mothers believe they should teach their daughters, boys are allowed much more leeway: "Boys will be boys", but girls must not "throw tantrums", must smile and "calm down", not "go out and make a spectacle of themselves" by doing daring things. Most mothers (and of course fathers are participating heavily in this genderising system, frequently in covert ways) do not realise they are participating in the genderising of girls. Like mothers in Africa who force clitoridectomy on their daughters, these Western mothers truly believe they are bringing up a proper, charming and socially acceptable individual. Girls who fight back are simply "rebellious", and need even more to "be tamed". How mothers and fathers deal with daughters' anger and resentment is very troubling. I doubt most parents truly realise what damage they are doing by not allowing girls to be angry about anything, no matter how wrong. As one woman describes this repression in her answers to the Hite survey: "My family's - and especially my mother's - depiction of me was always as someone who explodes. I was 'the one' in the family they all said had a 'wild temper', was 'likely to explode', and they used to rag me about it. I don't think it was true." At the same time that girls are expected to hide their sexuality(masturbation, menstruation, or questions about their parents' physical relationship), they are confronted with a barrage of covertly sexual, pre-defined images of "themselves", in television and magazine ads, as well as in films and videos. Pornography as we know it, in the negative context for women that our society has created (with its double standard of "good girls" and "bad girls", its definition of "sex" as intercourse and so on), more or less slaps girls in the face with the message, "Female sexuality is raunchy and women who are sexual are dominated. If you want to have sex, if you like sex, you'll be like this: cheap. You'll degrade yourself. A female who likes sex is promiscuous, once she starts she can't stop, she becomes a whore, she'll 'do it' for any man who wants it'", plus thousands of other absurdly distorted notions." The messages that are received/given in the family all seek to take away a girl's power; menstruation is not your power, masturbation is not your power, pride in your body being female is not your power. Also, girls can have no information, so they cannot have that power either. Certainly, the negative attitudes and tensions surrounding the beginning of dating are remarkable. According to respondents to this Hite Report, girls learn early (as do boys) that sexuality must not be discussed in the family. So, the more important this part of their life becomes, the more distance is created from the family, and the more a double identity becomes entrenched as a way of life. Incredibly, 79 per cent of parents seem to more-or-less pretend that dating and sexual feelings just aren't happening: "It's funny", said one respondent, "the first time my mother talked to me about anything related to sex was when I was getting married at 27. She said, 'I think it's time we talk', and we both laughed". Or said another: "I told my mother the first time I truly wanted to make love, even though I had stopped short of doing it. This met with such shock and disapproval, and consequent restrictions, that I kept quiet from then on, sorry that I couldn't share this new part of me - my sexuality." THIS forcing of the self underground does not strengthen the emotional or psychological development of the person. It puts the individual in turmoil as they try to make sense of the whole picture, as well as their feelings. Meanwhile, the socialisation applied to boys is perhaps much harsher and more scorching than the girls receive: being plucked of all the tender emotions and alienated from the female half of humanity. Is this worse than what happens to girls - i.e. being forbidden action and anger? Both are terrible. It is often said, "It's women who bring up boys; it's women's fault if men are too 'macho'." This is not borne out by my research. According to boys' statements, it is not women but men and other boys who teach them their emotional identity. The remarks and taunts of other boys and men, even their own father, are what boys say "bullies them into shape" during these years - quite painfully so. Most men and boys say that they were taunted (or they taunted others) with phrases like, 'Don't be a sissy |' or 'He's a mamma's boy - gonna tell your mother?' and told: 'Act like a man'. Said one respondent: "When my mother died, and I saw her in the casket, I started to cry and bawl almost like a baby. One of my sisters said something like, 'Why don't you shut up | You're acting like a baby.' I felt resentment at not being able to cry for my own mother's death. Is that what 'being a man 'means?" Boys describe a lot of pressure not to associate with girls ("You're a sissy if you play with girls"), not to have girls as friends ("Girls are for sex") and to spend their time with other boys. There is also an enormous pool of resentment, uncovered by our survey, on the part of boys towards their sisters; over and over again they say that their sisters had things easier as children. At first this seems surprising, as girls describe so vividly how their brothers were favoured, encouraged intellectually, given special dating privileges and more freedom. And yet, from the boys' point of view, girls may have it better: "They can cry and get sympathy," said one respondent, "they are told they are pretty, they get cuddled and loved." Instead boys are invited to join a different world: teasing, cruelty, showing they can compete with other boys for "grossness" by doing things like blinding dogs or cats and not flinching, not showing any emotion except pleasure - cutting off their own feelings of empathy. We accept these male attitudes as the way of the world. But they aren't inevitable. They represent in fact a terrible form of emotional cruelty carried out by the patriarchy to frighten boys into compliance and loyalty. But, interestingly, most men in this research do not feel that they are typically male. When asked their opinion, they usually state that they do not know if it will be valid because they are "not typical"; in fact, the great majority respond in just this way. Is this because most men are living a lie, so to speak? Because they know, deep down, that they are "different", that they (thankfully) do not "measure up" to all the "male" criteria, i.e. they are not dehumanised and insensitive to pain? We can change this process. Women have deconstructed and reconstructed their lives in the last 20 years. Men can too. One of the most remarkable changes seen in this research data is how in the 1990s so many women in their teens and twenties now say they think being a woman is a fine thing. "I'm proud to be a woman," said one. "I'm more free than if I were a man. I can be myself without 'power behaviour'. Women have a lot more freedom". "I like being a woman because I understand the world better than if I were a man", said another. Ten years ago it would have been said that men had more freedom and privilege. Now, 85 per cent of the women in this study under 25 speak highly of women's qualities, using phrases such as "sparkling, playful, considerate, creative", or "emotional adultness, emotional independence, concern for other people's emotional state, talent for organisation". In the 1990s, there is now also an emerging spirit of respect and understanding between mothers and daughters: most women still describe their mother as "giver" but 30 per cent see this as positive rather than "wimpy". There has been a big difference in 20 years. Girls now do not see their mother in the same way that girls in the 1970s saw their mothers. They see her as a much more exciting person, not someone they have to "understand", while desperately hoping they will never be like her. In the 1970s, girls were angry with their mother, considered her "useless", because the mother could not help the daughter out of the role of being a female and into a career and life of respect and power, the new life she wanted; the life she wondered why her mother had never demanded, or gone after. On the other hand girls thought that their father had a lot to teach them, show them, that their father could help them join the world, that he was a much better model. In a way, it was difficult for mothers to be good role models for their daughters during the 1970s: almost all girls and young women wanted to have jobs and careers as well as families, and they looked at their mother, who did not have a job or career, and thought her inadequate. Daughters thought they would never accept the inequality around the house -housework, emotional housework, love - that they observed in their mother's marriage. In a way they were right, and now that they have come of age, they have indeed changed the family structure - yet they have also learned to understand the historical moment of their mother's situation, and the advances that women of so many previous generations have made for us. One hears constantly that the family is in trouble, that it doesn't work any more. But what we are witnessing now - and participating in - is a revolution in the family. Finally democracy is catching up with the old, hierarchical, father-dominated family. And this Hite Report salutes the gentler and more diverse family system that seems to be arising - and that does not keep its members in terror: fathers in terror lest they not be "manly" and be able to support it all; mothers in terror lest they be beaten in their own bedrooms and ridiculed by their children; children in terror of being forced to do things against their will. What is happening is a transformation of the culture, not a collapse. Let's continue the transformation, believe in ourselves, and go forward with love, not fear. In our private lives and in our public world, let's hail the future and make history. From The Hite Report on The Family by Shere Hite, published in Australia by Bloomsbury
Publication: Sydney Morning Herald - Publication date: 26-2-1994 - Edition: Late - Page no: 1 - Section: Spectrum |
| Copyright
2005, Hite Research International All rignts reserved. |