• CREATE AN ACCOUNT
  • LOG.IN
  • CONTENTS
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • ARCHIVE
  • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US

  • Home
  • News
    • Business
    • NewsFlash
  • A&E
    • Movie Times
    • TV Listings
    • A&E Blog
    • Art Galleries
    • Best Bets
  • Opinion
    • Columns
    • Voices
    • Letters
    • In Memoriam
  • Events
    • Today
    • Search
    • Submit
    • Best Bets
  • Living
    • Travel
    • Sports
    • Peeps
  • Food & Drink
    • All Restaurants
    • Delivery
    • All Bars & Clubs
    • Drink Specials
    • Open Now
  • Outdoors
    • Outside Insider
    • Spotlight On
    • Features
  • Classifieds
    • Real Estate
    • Jobs
    • Autos
  • Personals
  • Obits

Innocence Glossed

Sex Ed Lands Candid Mom in Jail


Thursday, November 22, 2007
By Starshine Roshell (Contact)
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us. del.icio.us.
Digg! Digg!
furl furl
google google
newsvine newsvine
reddit reddit
technorati technorati
Facebook Facebook
Yahoo! My Web 2.0 Yahoo!

I apologize in advance if my column ends abruptly today; chances are good I'll be hauled off to jail before I finish saying what I'm about to say.

You see, I did an unforgivable thing. Some might even call it abusive.

Starshine Roshell

I allowed my fourth-grader to wander into the room while I was watching Boston Legal, during which two lawyers ravaged each other in office chairs, elevators and (heaven forgive them) a judge's chamber.

My son now has a twisted understanding of what it means to take the law into ones' own hands.

But it doesn't end there.

A few weeks ago, the boy saw his father and me making out in the kitchen while he was trying to eat his breakfast.

I didn't think much of his premature exposure to the tawdry under-belt of life until I heard that a Wisconsin mother was recently arrested — just want to make sure you read that right: a-r-r-e-s-t-e-d — for having a factual but explicit discussion about sex with her kids. Amy Smalley, 36, allegedly told her 11- and 15-year-old sons about some of her sexual experiences, described oral sex and showed them a vibrator.

Now, I'm not saying I want the woman baby-sitting my kids. Clearly there's a line between "educating" and "seriously grossing out," and she appears to have crossed it. The younger boy, not surprisingly, told a school counselor the discussion made him uncomfortable.

But felony? Really?!

Opponents of school-sponsored sex education are always saying the subject should be addressed at home, not in the classroom. But when a parent opens her mouth on the subject — as well as the, um, drawer on her night stand — she faces more than three years in prison and fines of up to $10,000.

All of which reminds me of a call I got recently from a parent at my son's school. It seems my 9-year-old had found a Playboy magazine sitting in plain view at the not-especially-kid-friendly home of a relative. Unbeknownst to me, he had perused the periodical (the "College Girls" issue, oy) and chosen to share his insights with his classmates the next day.

My husband and I talked with our son about age-appropriate reading material, and the downside of discussing girlie mags on the playground. But it didn't surprise me that he peeked at its pages; it's natural to be curious about anatomy and, well, dorm life.

No, what surprised me most was a comment this other parent made. "I'm sure you understand," he said, and he was very nice about the whole thing, but ... "We like to keep our kids innocent as long as we can."

We do?

The facts are these: Sex is as integral a part of human life as food, and sleep. And like rainwater rushing down a mountain, dodging rocks and circumnavigating trees to get to sea level, kids will learn about sex one way or another.

That's why I've always valued information over innocence, preparation over protection. So did Ms. Smalley, who, in the end, proved to be a protective mother after all. Still maintaining she did nothing wrong, she pled guilty and accepted a year of probation so her kids wouldn't have to stand trial against her — a far more traumatic experience than hearing about mom's adult-oriented romps.

She'll have to think twice now before answering her teens' questions about adulthood, which is sad. Until they come for me, I'm going to keep watching my sordid sitcoms and kissing my spouse willy-nilly. No pent-up lawmaker's going to tell me how to ...

You'll have to excuse me. Someone's pounding on my door.

For more, visit www.StarshineRoshell.com.

Story Help (Click-ability)
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.

Comments

Discussion Guidelines

Your comment re: "sex is something that should be addressed at home" is DEAD ON ! How dare these sanctimonious prudes say, "We won't teach your kids and neither will you... under penalty of law." Once again, Star, you gave the nail on the head.

outlawvalley (anonymous profile)
November 23, 2007 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

". . .because Smalley's children were 11 and 15, they were near or at the age of puberty, making it acceptable for their mother to explain sex to them. But, according to the criminal complaint, the younger son objected. The boy told a counselor about the discussion and, when asked by police, said he preferred that his mother 'keep that kind of information personal,' according to the criminal complaint."

Would any ADULTS be comfortable, hearing their parents talk about sex?

Under the "What's Wrong with America" banner, this is the sort of crap that show the difference in "LETTER OF THE LAW" people, and "intent of the law" people (CAPS used for emphasis).

The morons. . . .

equus_posteriori (anonymous profile)
November 27, 2007 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As always, Starshine, I appreciate your frank approach. In this essay, however, I think the subject is more complex than “information versus innocence.”
You might be giving the parent of the other boy short-shrift. Innocence does not necessarily mean under-informed, or a puritanical denial of life and passion. It may mean guarding the imagination of a child, not so much from the facts of sex, as from distortions and dysfunctions of the adult world around the subject.
When I was a nine-year-old boy, in fact, my older brother and sister showed me my father’s secret stack of Playboy magazines on the upper shelf of his office closet. I didn’t really know how to assimilate this fact. It created a tear in the fabric of my world-view. Why do these women take their clothes off for the camera? Why does my father have these? Does my mother know, and what does she think? Would I get whipped if they found out I knew? There was a bad or shameful feeling about the whole thing. The fact of the magazines colored the way I looked at my father. When I was with him, I would try to imagine him buying or looking through the magazines. I was trying to put my mind around an apparent duplicity.
Meanwhile, every so often, when I could get away with it, I would climb up on a chair in the office, and look through the top two or three issues. By the time I was 12, I was getting very aroused by the magazines, and by the age of 14, I was looking at them almost daily and relieving myself by masturbation. This practice became a habit and an addiction which carried with it unbearable secrecy and shame. The duplicity of my father had now become my own duplicity. I was desperately afraid someone in the family would find out, or my parents would suspect what was happening.
This “lost innocence” became a drain-hole in my life, sapping my energy and attention. If I was not daydreaming about sex, I was pre-occupied with shame and a feeling of being soiled.
With my daughter I have tried over the years, during “teachable moments” to emphasize the wholesomeness and poetic beauty of sexuality. I told her, when she was younger, that the outer facts of sex might sound grotesque, but as her body, mind and emotions matured she would experience desire and perceive the poetry. I also told her that many people in our culture don’t get it. They trivialize, deflect and caricature sex with crude humor or expletives. But I told her, as you move through and observe all of this, somewhere preserve the thought that sex is sacred.
I’m tempted to specify a Hindu maxim in this respect. Its general form is “Those who preserve dharma (law, order, the natural way of things), dharma will preserve.” Here, I would apply it, “Those who preserve sex, sex will preserve” or at least, “Those who do not debase sex, sex will not debase.”

witwaltman (anonymous profile)
November 29, 2007 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So much for “innocence,” (my above comment.) As for “information,” I do not think the woman in the story was merely educating her sons. There is something prurient about recalling her own experiences and displaying a vibrator to them. I do not believe it is a line, as you have described it, between information and disgust. To merely describe it like that puts it on par with getting grossed-out over open-heart surgery on the science channel. This is not merely a matter of anatomical disgust, and I would guess the boy’s “discomfort” is far more complex. If an adult outside of your own family were to tell your son about their own sexual experiences, and exhibit a sex-toy, I am sure you would consider that borderline, if not outright, sexual abuse. The fact that the adult in the story was not an outsider, but the boys’ own mother makes the story that much sadder to me.

How many billions of neural connections are evolving daily in an adolescent boy’s brain? It is like a wildfire. The front edge is the burning line of attention. In its wake is formed his concept of selfhood, values, goals, motives. When and how sexuality is introduced into this dynamic interior world is not a trivial consideration. As you correctly say, kids will learn one way or another. When knowledge of sex comes through the backdoor, it will most likely be a distortion which can infect the imagination, as I think my personal story illustrates. The sad thing is when, for many kids, like the boys in the story, there is no front door.

witwaltman (anonymous profile)
November 29, 2007 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post a comment

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:

EVENT CALENDAR

Previous Month | Next Month

Today's Events Best Bets Submit an Event

Local Weather

Currently:
Smoke
Temperature:
71.1°
Wind:
5 SSW

Surf Report
  • Specials
  • InPrint
  • Top Emails
  • Blue Green Guide 2008
  • Summer Camp Guide 2008
  • Wedding Guide 2008
  • SBIFF 2008 All Access
  • 2008 Election Info
  • Best of Reader's Poll 2007
  • Calendar of Fundraisers
  • Local Bands
  • Kid's Mother's Day Issue
  • Made in Santa Barbara
  • Zaca Fire 2007
  • UCSB Students Connect with Veterans and Others Touched by the Horrors of War
  • Cory Cordero-Rabe’s Sound Lab Brings a Community - Based Studio to S.B.
  • Goleta Tax Won’t Endanger Measure A
  • Let the Dog Days Begin
  • New Hires and New Roles at SBMA, the Arts Fund, Westmont, and UCSB
  • Brooks Institute’s Mariah Tauger Is Taking Her Camera to Beijing
  1. Early Morning Gap Fire Update
  2. Gap Fire Reaches Critical Stage
  3. Gap Fire Morning Outlook
  4. Gap Fire Intensifies
  5. Gap Fire Map Online
  6. Update From Friday Afternoon Gap Fire Press Conference
  • CREATE AN ACCOUNT
  • LOG.IN
  • CONTENTS
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • ARCHIVE
  • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US
Google
 
Independent.com Web
Copyright ©2008 Santa Barbara Independent, Inc. Reproduction of material from any Independent.com pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. If you believe an Independent.com user or any material appearing on Independent.com is copyrighted material used without proper permission, please click here.
This is our Privacy Policy.