Barbies "sexing" on the floor.

I always knew it was going to happen at some point. It would be weird if it didn't. Yet I have to admit, my blood did chill last night when I tuned into the kids' Barbie game. They were all on the rug with their friend - who we'll now refer to as "Barbara", mainly because I find the idea of calling a 7-year-old girl "Barbara" amusing.

"So pretend they take all their clothes off, yeah," "Barbara" was saying. "They all take their clothes off, and then start sexing on the floor."

Oh God, just typing it has made me bite my knuckles again, and go "arghk" a bit. I mean, kids do play games that mention sex at some point, don't they? That's just nature. The world would eventually be empty if they didn't. From the moment I conceived my kids, we were all just moving towards the day they'd invite a slightly more precocious friend over, and the slightly more precocious friend got all the Barbies to "sex" on the floor. I KNOW ALL THIS. And yet, I still feel odd and rattled and, if I'm being honest, a bit tetchy about the whole thing. This is for a panoply of reasons. Mainly:

1) I don't really like the kid who was introducing my kids to "sexing" games. I think this is my fundamental bug-bear. "Barbara" is from a bit of a precocious family. Her eight-year-old brother is notorious amongst the Dirty Mummies for having shown one of his friends transsexual porn on the net. "Did you know ladies can have willies?" he started a conversation we are still enjoyably aghast about. If the kids had had their first Barbie sex game with a kid I liked - one who was getting some good, human comic material out of it - then fair enough. Maddie! Tom! Ryan! You're all welcome to start Barbie sex games whenever you like. But "Barbara"'s Barbie sex was a bit - cold, and pitiless. I didn't like her Barbie sex-game technique. It was off-putting.

2) It wasn't just Barbies she was sexing with - it was the High School Musical dolls, too. It's understandable if she wants to make Barbie hump Ken. That's Barbie and Ken. That's clearly the way they roll. But Gabriella and Troy? It just goes against the grain. A Braniac like Gabriella would never sex Troy on the floor in front of Sharpay, Ryan, and a Daddy Pig figurine who just happened to be nearby. "Barbara" couldn't even get the dolls to have sex in character, for crying out loud. What kind of an amatuer were my girls working with?

3) Most importantly of all: it made Eavie cry. She didn't want to take all the dolls' clothes off - she wanted they to drive down to the beach in their pink car, instead, and go for a swim. There's something about a five-year-old girl crying because a seven-year-old girl wants her dolls to have sex against her will that makes you, to be frank, want to ring up Barbara's mother, and shout 'WHAT THE HELL HOUSE ARE YOU RUNNING, YOU FREAK? YOUR KID IS INSTIGATING A PLASTIC GANG-BANG IN MY PLAYROOM AND SHE'S NOT EVEN GETTING ANY DECENT GAGS OUT OF IT. HAVEN'T YOU TAUGHT HER THAT SEX IS A GREAT BIG JOKE? I AM DESPAIRING OF YOU AS I SPEAK."

I haven't, of course. I just said, "Ho ho ho - Barbara's a bit silly with all her sexing, isn't she?" to the kids, once she'd left. But oooooooh, it's left me a trifle mardy. I had to go and put Gabriella's clothes back on, and then put her sitting, primly, on a shelf, before I felt halfway settled again.

Comments

[Sundaeg1rl]

My mother forbade me from owning a Ken doll, for fear of the 'sexing'. Occasionally my Barbies would see some Action Man action if we went to someone else's house, but they generally had to make their own entertainment. Which meant lots of lesbian time! What's funny is that I specifically made one of the Barbies 'butch' by sticking her in a psychedelic jumpsuit and cutting her hair a bit, while the other one was her Pink 'n' Pretty girly best. Very Ellen & Portia!

I think my mum would be aghast if she knew about the Sapphic activity going on. I think she would have preferred Ken's plastic underpant love after all!

[Ron]

I can see the cause for alarm. However, I feel it's necessary to take this into consideration; eventually, there comes a point in everyones life where they learn this type of thing. What perhaps isn't is that it goes against Evie's wishes. Perhaps the best way to handle this would be to educate her. Now that this has happened, maybe she should know. Next it could be helpful to instruct her on how to deal with someone forcing her to play that way. I personally don't see much of a problem in educating them in these matters, as it's all part of life. For centuries.

[Anne]

I'm curious, what does Whimsey think would happen if she used the dreaded S word?

Children have a sexuality. This is uncomfortable for many people and this is why we blank out our own early experiences. I know I didn't start, what I later understood to be masturbating, at 6 because society was overly sexualised or my parents had warped me by explaining how the baby cows at the end of the garden got made. It's because children learn very early on that some things are curious and some things feel good. This will be true even if you don't give them the vocabulary to understand it. And it will only start being wrong if you mix it in with adult conceptions of sexuality.

[Claire King]

I have nothing of use to add to this debate, I am just delighted, with a slight Northern frisson, that it has left you, Caitlin, "a trifle mardy".
Yey.

[Jarrad]

It's interesting that there is still the idea for many people that as soon as a child is told how sex works then they are no longer a child.

Does this strike anyone else as being something of a left over from more Religious times?, when sex was seen as something akin to "evil"? Surely dealing with it in a matter of fact way is the best way to rob it of any mystique and assure your child that it is just another rung on the ladder to adulthood? (Sorry about the cliche of that last phrase).

[Jo]

Whimsy - meant I start having sex later than many of my peers.
I think as long as you bring up your children to respect themselves and their bodies and to not think there is some amazing adult conspiracy surrounding sex then they will wait until they are ready. Obviously tailor your delivery and information to the age of the child but they will find out any way in the play ground and surely giving them the correct knowledge is good.

Standard answer I expect. Babies grow from tiny eggs in a special cosy nest space in the mum, and the dad gives the mum a seed to start the egg growing, which is why children look like both their mums and their dads. If pressed, I'd probably say the dad gives the mum the seed when they go to bed. If pressed again, I'd probably say they'll learn all about it when they are older at school, in biology/nature lessons because it's quite complicated.

Then I'd move briskly on to the next subject! If really, REALLY pressed, I'd probably divert into genetics, and start explaining about DNA, because that will be a combination of difficult to understand plus 'older children' stuff which should, hopefully, satisfy the enquirer's desire for 'privy knowledge unknown to all the other children'....

My policy with all things 'controversial' has been to tell the truth, but not necessarily all the truth. Also, to keep it extremely sicentific, so they don't feel there's anything 'secretly naughty/forbidden/grownup' about it.

[sarah]

Just out of interest Whimsey, what would you/have you said to a six year old who asked questions about where babies came from?

[Lucy]

Mumoftwo, notice I wrote 'I read a comment' re Baby P.; I didn't say I necessarily agreed with it! The idea of taking a hundred children into care to prevent the abuse of one is obviously exaggerated, but I just think that there is some worth in the 'ounce of prevention' model. Nobody wants to cause parents and other carers to live in an atmosphere of suspicion and accusation, but on the other hand, neither would I want to return to the time when abuse, especially abuse within the family, was routinely covered up, and the adult was always believed in preference to the child. I also remember only too well the days when teachers and other authority figures within schools could get away with what would now be seen (and rightly, IMO) as physical assault.

[mumoftwo]

Lucy, I completely agree with you that you should be looking for oversexualisation, i.e a sexual knowledge that other children don't possess (so clearly probably beyond 'sexing' Barbie, given that half the Alphamummies here have said they did exactly the same with their dolls), or it in a totally inappropriate situation or just the sheer persistence of it. It was also the additional information from the mother that convinced you that there was serious abuse in the family which you quite rightly sought, so it seems likely it was something beyond just a 'you show me yours and I'll show you mine' game that triggered your suspicion.

However, where I completely disagree is on the notion that it would be sensible to ruin the lives of ninety nine completely innocent families to find one case of child abuse/death of a child. This is for two reasons: firstly, by spending time and energy pursing the ninety-nine innocent families and filling in the paperwork, there may not be time to visit the 100th. Baby P's social worker was totally overloaded and this must have impacted on her ability to see the family, practically and psychologically. Secondly, treating everyone as child abusers breaks down the bond of society. Everyone feels under suspicion and starts not doing normal things like taking their children to hospital or cuddling them with nothing on after the bath, for fear of being accused. Men feel this most acutely in our society: but has treating them all like potential abusers really led to a decrease in sexual abuse? I've never seen any evidence that it does. Rather people feel less close and more closed as small families and reluctant to ask for help: just the kind of conditions in which child abuse flourishes.

[Nicky]

I've no problem with explain information about sex to children as the questions arise but, like Whimsey, I think it's quite sad that a 7-year old wants to play Barbie sexing instead of doing hair or dressing up or whatever else, and from the sound of Caitlin's post, I would be a bit worried about that little girl.

I think it's better if childhood is full of innocence and fun, and if adult-type knowledge is put off for as long as possible. Children are exposed to much more sexual information these days, along with the styles of clothes available etc etc, and it's not a good thing if they grow up too soon.

[Lucy]

As a former teacher responsible for Child Protection, I find this such a hard story to comment on. Yes, sexual exploration and play is a normal part of child development, and doesn't need to be demonised with words like 'toxic'. But... and it's a big but...where do we draw the line between normal sexual development and the over-sexualisation of children which can be an indicator of sexual abuse? An example: a little boy in my school was behaving sexually towards the girls (he was 5), and this came to light because of their complaints - 'Miss, he gets his willy out and tries to touch me with it.' OK, just sexual exploration? No, turned out that Dad was running quite a business turning out kiddie porn with his son and daughter in starring roles. This was found out because I spoke to his mother, and because of what she told me, alerted the police and social services. So this kind of sexually explicit behaviour can point up abuse that maybe someone is turning a blind, or terrified, eye to. I read a comment about the Baby P. case that maybe it was worth taking a hundred children into care to avoid the death of one; maybe we need to keep a more wary eye out for over-sexualised behaviour, too.

[Whimsey]

Have to say I can't see any connection between not wanting six year olds to know the mechanics of sex has anything to do with starting your periods at the age when, hey, girls start their periods....

[Jo]

Whimsey I am in the other nation. I think knowing about sex is no bad thing. My barbies 'sexed' all the time and I ended up starting rather late.

[F]

Whimsey;

My (catholic) parents' attitude to all things sexual rather echoed yours as I was growing up. Nevertheless, I was one of those children who did have natural curiosity and an awareness of 'what feels good' from a very, very early age. Various friends taught me about sex - it was never a conversation my parents had with me - and we used to role play with each other as well as with toys when we were in primary school. Doubtless you will be surprised to learn that despite this, I didn't lose my virginity till I was in my twenties. However, my relationship with my parents has suffered immensely over the years, thanks to an often judgemental and prudish upbringing. Telling my mother when I started my period was an ordeal akin to telling her that I had done something terrible, and she is hurt to this day that I find it impossible to have conversations with her about anything personal. I love my parents dearly, but cannot talk to them. For your sake and that of your children, I hope you do not alienate them by showing that you consider the natural to be unnatural.

[Whimsey]

As I say, we are 'two nations' - there will, probably, always be those adults who think it's fine and dandy for children to be sexually knowledgeable from a very early age, and those who think children are entitled to a sex-free childhood.

In the end, in practical terms, all we can do as parents is stay away from those in the 'other camp', whichever camp we happen to be in. I don't think either camp will ever agree with each other.

Perhaps, too, some children ARE physiologically more sexually developed/responsive, eg, as Sarah's post about her son indicates. Perhaps in the end it's just a matter of hormones. We know some girls start periods earlier, et, and there may well be non-cultural influences at work here, as well as cultural ones. Sarah's son's (entirely innocent, I would emphasise, in my book) reaction would indicate that.

Maybe too, it simply reflects that some people are far more interested in sex than others!

[sarah]

I agree completely. My daugher knew about sex from the age of four because I was pregnant at the time and she was curious and bright enough to question and question and question again until she had her facts straight. I didn't give a blow by blow account of it, simply answered her questions in an age appropiraite way, my first response being, 'Mummy and Daddy made the baby' ('How?') 'Mummy has an egg in her tummy and Daddy has a seed' (how does it get there?) 'Daddy puts it there' (how does Daddy out it there?) and so it went on.....knowing about sex from an early age does NOT encourage children to begin sexual relationships early and I resent the implication that a child who knows about sex at six years old is a 'bad parent'.

[Gipsy]

Just wanted to offer my support to MoT. I completely agree. I also remember trying to scrap those underpants off Action Man (who decided to paint those on anyway?), and that never let me to early sex, promiscuous behaviour and trying to rip the pants of random men. Some men yes, but not randomly :) Also I've been married for 17 years, so haven't done any pant ripping except on hubs for all that time :D

[mumoftwo]

Whimsey, none of us think it's ok that children view porn. I consider that to be very worrying indeed (and you don't have a clue about whether Barbera has whatsoever, only a throw-away line abut her brother viewing one page which I agree is very unacceptable). However, you can be concerned about the sexualisation of society and try to make very sure your children aren't exposed to explicit material without being blind to the fact that children themselves may a) know about sex in a very rudimentary way (naked people, making babies, no real clue what's actually going on) and b) as SM and Sarah's posts show, children may have sexual or 'tingly' feelings themselves. As the comments here show, this exploratory play has been going on since time immemorial, and is not the result of an over-sexualised society. What an insult to everyone (i.e. most people) that ever played mummies or daddies, or 'sexed' their Barbies to suggest that they were destined for 'early sex'. I was't, and neither were most of the posters here. I actually think it's a sign of an over-sexualised society when people start hysterically interpreting children's silly games with a naked Barbie (or indeed each other) as child abuse, and not part of a normal developmental process. It's if she was doing this in secret, or in a way that suggested too much knowledge, then I'd start to worry. Children play 'bang bang, you're dead' games without turning into mass murderers, I think a similar principle holds here (with an extra layer of shame provided by the adults).

[KM]

Actually, Yummie, I'm not sure Michael would make a good undertaker. Most undertakers I have met have a brilliant sense of humour.

[odtaa]

What is serious is that there are children living with adults who watch hard core pornograpy in front of them.

One kid in my daughter's class, when she was ten, was deeply disturbed, was all knowing and actually sexually assaulted a couple of girls in the class.

This is different from the more innocent being vaguely aware that adults do naughty things.

[Whimsey]

"It's life, it may make you uncomfortable but you are being incredibly judgmental of perfectly normal behaviour.

Get a little perspective."

I do have a perspective, and it's the one that says that the cultural sexualisation of children is child abuse. The child in question has been badly brought up by a parent who clearly doesn't think anything untoward about her six year knowing about sex, in sufficient detail to put two naked people together, and worst of all, most damning of all, is the issue of the children's access to pornography. Pornography is ALWAYS 'perverted sex' - it is NEVER 'good sex', and any exposure to it by adults, let alone children, is always deleterious.

By sexualising this child so early on in her life, she will doubtless end up starting sexual relations far earlier than is emotionally or physically healthy.

We all know that there are those girls who are the 'fast' ones (and boys, too) who will sexualise young because of their upbringing, and those are the ones who will end up starting their sex life far, far too young.

They will echo, doubtless, their own parents' lives.

I do think in the end there are 'two nations' here - those who think early sex is fine, and those who think children are entitled to live sex-free lives.

Best to keep the former away from the latter, and that includes the parents.

So, that's my perspective. And you, by the way, are being judgemental of it.

[Yummie]

Michael clearly didn't have an action man as a child - and it still hurts.

A word of advice, my friend. Take a couple of weeks' sabbatical from your journalistic ambitions and then after that, never revisit the subject again.

You will be a terrible journalist. You clearly have no idea at all about what real people want to / enjoy reading.

Try undertaking.

[douglas]

I always thought Barbie was a Nazi guy...

[Martyn]

To Micheal, who finds this article complete rubbish. Please don't go into journalism as you sound incredibly pompous and boring.

You obviously take yourself far too seriously.