Judith Levine, _Harmful to Minors_

[walkitout]

I read through page 48, then I just couldn't take any more. Having gone over the reviews on Amazon, I feel like my take on this book is a very solitary one; most of the people who had issues with it complained about the them-vs-us/blame the right perspective they saw in the book (altho interestingly enough, a lot of them actually liked the book other than that, which is sort of a clue right there).

What has stopped me is 3 instances of error/dishonesty that I just can't get past. One (using "normative" rather than "normal" for what can only be called specious (sounds good; happens to be totally false) reasons I've already posted about. The other two that stood out:

(1) In the introduction, she tosses out a statistic that a quarter of teenagers contract STDs. p xxiv: "One in four of these adolescents contracts a sexually transmitted disease each year, with genital herpes, gonorrhea, and chlamydia leading the list." No note; no source. R. and I have tracked this data, together and independently, over a long period of time. We haven't seen all the studies, but we've never seen anything like this. Yes, perhaps close to a quarter of teens get an STD. But the top of the list is _always_ occupied by HPV, with the rest trailing consistently in the single digit percentages. (Also in the intro, she refers to STDS as "serious to fatal". Er, HPV, so not that big a deal.)

(2) Really misleading use of notes. This happened several times, but this really stuck in my craw, p 44: "Attorney General Janet Reno's decision to lay siege to the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, was based in part on rumors of child abuse going on inside. 100 In the ensuing conflagration, eighty people died, including twenty-four children. 101"

Here's note 100:

"Evidence suggests that statutory rape, or sex with minors, did occur at Waco. David Koresh did so with the parents' consent, because his followers believed it "was his religious duty to father 24 children by virgin mothers." Because the parents cooperated, the state did not bring charges. Dick J. Reavis, the Ashes of Waco: An Investigation..."

If Levine wants to say, hey, getting a bunch of wack jobs to let him rape their children is NOT a good reason to kill children, I will so support her. Fine. Law enforcement maybe did not handle the situation in an optimal -- or even a good -- way. But you have to go to the note to find out that _yes_ child abuse was happening, and even there, she doesn't _call_ it child abuse, she calls it "sex with minors".

Three strikes is enough for me to stop, especially after the debacle that was my experience with Kristin Luker's book.

However, I'm now going to go off on a bit of a tangent, based on the aforementioned little trip through the reviews of Levine's books on Amazon.

(1) According to a review, the book that she published after this book detailing her father's descent into Alzheimer's: "She makes herself examine her relationship with her father (which has always been fraught) and her mother (whom she resents for leaving her ill father for another man)." And: "As her father worsens, Levine gets closer to him." The review also indicates that her manipulation of the meaning of normative is being accepted unquestioningly (which is a big chunk of the problem with specious claims -- they sound plausible, so people don't check them). (Reed Business Information review)

(2) A still more recent book about not buying (the Reed Business Information review has some hilarities in it) has an ALA review which includes this gem: "Many of her points are intentionally provocative; for instance, not buying makes her feel vulnerable and having to ask for help."

While I don't know Levine, as near as I can tell, she does not have children of her own, which does not necessarily mean she's insensitive to some of the issues surrounding children's sexuality, but which in my experience is worrisome. A lot of people who were damaged by their own upbringing figure it out before they have kids; some of the rest figure it out after they have kids. The ones who never have kids often were the most damaged, and are the least able to separate enough from the parents who messed with them to realize that, well, their parents messed with them.

Let's just say there's some low hanging evidence here.

To speak in favor of both Levine and _Harmful to Minors_, I will note that her description of "child porn"/sexual predators and so forth is refreshing and eye-opening. I had suspected that a lot of this stuff was ginned up (maybe not entrapment, but maybe not that far off); she supplies some support for that belief. It is entirely possible that large chunks of the book that I didn't read include a lot of similar information that would be valuable to have. So this isn't precisely a negative review of the book, so much as it is a set of observations as to why I was unable to read it, and why I'm very suspicious of her as a person. Sampling later in the book suggests, for example, that she advocates supervision of small children. Don't ignore play that involves a lot of touching, but don't interrupt it, either, as long as it is friendly and safe. This is an approach I could fully support. (See chapter "Good Touch")

But then a few pages later on, her discussion of "privacy" for children (just like her favorable comment about how children sharing beds with adults a couple centuries back pushes them towards the adult world -- not so much; it keeps them safe and alive) is problematic beyond belief.

So. Good luck to you if you want to read it. I'm putting my copy up on TitleTrader.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

The most recent study I know of suggests your figures are correct: see http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/03/11/teen.std.ap/. HPV was the only one in double digits, chlamydia, trichomoniasis, and herpes being the others found. Gonorrhea and syphilis didn't occur in this population.

HPV does contribute to cervical cancer, which can be fatal, but it's true that most cases are not serious.

My feeling about a lot of sexual abuse (whether of minors or between supposedly consenting supposed adults) is that sex is a MEANS of abuse, not really the point. The point is people acting like bloody idiots to each other IN GENERAL, not who rang whose ding-dong. Demonizing the sexual part of such relationships, and *only* the sexual part of them, is ridiculous.

--Helen S.

HPV and normaliciousness

[walkitout]

Certainly, cervical cancer is a big deal. But only a few kinds of HPV lead to it, and even those kinds are cleared entirely from the body without the assistance of a vaccine or any treatment by most people. Even those who will ultimately develop cervical cancer have many opportunities to catch it and treat it (most of which will be successful) and it will take years if not decades to develop. Hard to see HPV, per se, as a big deal. (Altho I do recognize that for several years now, a large number of people have been trying to convince us it's a big deal and I may yet succumb to that point of view.)

I certainly agree that demonizing the sexual part of abuse, and ignoring, say, using belts or wooden spoons to beat the heck out of people, would be ridiculous. That said, I think that sexual mistreatment, particularly in conjunction with an imbalanced power relationship, is pretty serious stuff (at least as bad as verbal/emotional abuse, falling somewhere on the continuum of other kinds of violence against the person).

I really, really, really like "normalicious". I may start using it.

Re: HPV and normaliciousness

[(Anonymous)]

With the sexual abuse business, it often seems to me that some people are hyper-focused on it being bad *because it's sexual* -- as if expressing sexuality around children were what was so wrong -- but ignoring the power-play element. I suppose it's that I was brought up on the catchphrase "rape is violence that involves the genitals" (which, while a gross oversimplification, has a lot of truth in it). I do, of course, agree that violence/power-tripping involving one's sexuality is damaging psychologically in *different* ways than other kinds of violence.

I wasn't really thinking about the beating-up kind of abuse at all in this connection, though obviously they can occur together, feed off each other, all that.

here's a mystery

[walkitout]

http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm

"HPV infection. Approximately 20 million Americans are currently infected with HPV, and another 6.2 million people become newly infected each year. At least 50% of sexually active men and women acquire genital HPV infection at some point in their lives."

http://www.cdc.gov/std/Trichomonas/STDFact-Trichomoniasis.htm

"Trichomoniasis is the most common curable STD in young, sexually active women. An estimated 7.4 million new cases occur each year in women and men."

Given the information here, it sounds like more young women get Trichomoniasis than HPV. Which sounds really wrong to me. I'm confused.

Re: here's a mystery

[(Anonymous)]

Can you get trich more than once?

Helen

Re: here's a mystery

[walkitout]

Yes. It's a parasite, so no long term immunity.