We live in a world where children - barely more than babies, really - are becoming sexually active at a disturbingly (by our modern-day, first-world standards) young age. However, it seems there is a distressing tendency to gloss over the experiences of others which might enlighten children as to the realities of sexual activity. Keeping children ignorant of the "official" word on sex until they are in fifth grade, as they were in my school district, merely ensures that the first pieces of information they receive will be skewed either by the media, older children they come into contact with, or their peers.
Perhaps more dangerous is the willful ignorance that seems to be perpetuated as to what children are doing and how early it is happening. While it is important not to stigmatize the functions of the human body to avoid complicating and de-normalizing the reactions teens have to their own sexual urges as they enter puberty and begin to become sexually active, it is also critical that the predicaments they face be explored in ways which seek to explain (or even simply exhibit) exactly what is going on with today's youth.
Everywhere children look, relationships are sterilized and promoted. In "real" life, from Britney and Justin on down, kids see only what is "good" about being with someone else: wearing nice clothing, eating meals out and the occasional chaste kiss. In the more "fantastic" forms of media, like film, they are bombarded with films that make a first date seem like the opening act to an all-night orgy (whether it's shown on camera or not).
Why, then, do we become so prudish when it comes to showing the darker side of sexual experience? Is it simply a conspiracy on the part of the religious/moral right? Is our public, prudish face descended from the basis of our country in Puritan ideals, dating back to the Pilgrim's landing at Plymouth?
For an example of how sexually explicit works of art are viewed, one need look no further than Toronto, where Larry Clark recently showed his latest film, "Ken Park." Like his past films ("Kids" and "Bully"), "Ken Park" deals with explicit and disturbing relationships between underage teens. Although Clark uses actors who are over the age of consent (eighteen in this country, sixteen in most others, though even then only for heterosexual relationships) and is a critically acclaimed director whose work showcases the real issues faced by children today, he has to fight to get his films made and distributed due to their graphic sexual content and his refusal to water down the reality of many teens' lives in order to make their subject matter more palatable.
In "Kids," Clark showed everything he could about the sex lives of teens: a teenage boy who seduced every girl in sight, the panic of AIDS testing, and the horror of rape. Although "Ken Park" has not yet been released, tales of how it shocked both the Toronto and Venice Film Festival have already been reported in major news outlets, and Clark is already anticipating having a difficult time finding distributors for a film that he felt was so important, he spent ten years trying to make it.
Although there is clearly a fine line between these types of sexually explorative films and simple child pornography, it seems that there should be more awareness of - if not the films themselves - the themes they are trying to illuminate.
Children are having sex. According to your moral beliefs, this may be right or it may be wrong, or it may be a matter of indifference - but the fact remains that people who are economically and practically incapable of caring for themselves (let alone any possible results of these escapades) are taking part in what is basically a biological act dressed up in an emotional costume.
Again, it is clear that there is a difference between viable artwork and child pornography, and do not think I am advocating the latter. But if these were films about crime (Clark's "Bully," for example), the controversy would be far weaker. "Bully" was not nearly as notorious as "Kids," although that film depicted the actions of a group of teens who murdered a classmate - a far more harmful act, in the long run, than a smattering of sex acts.
Because we are biologically capable of and predisposed toward reproduction at an early age, no one should be surprised by the proclivities of younger teens toward sexual experimentation. Sex may be an expression of love in literature, but boiled down for reality it is, in its most basic form, the simple act of a species trying to propagate and continue. But whether it's because of the media or because of religious hang-ups based on guilt, sex has come to mean more than just biology, transcending into the realm of ethereal emotions of love, betrayal and misery.
How educating children as to the consequences, both physical and emotional, of their actions (especially through the art of cinema, a medium they have been brought up to appreciate) can be wrong is beyond me. While there is obviously a difficult line to be walked between showing adults exactly what so many young teens are going through and child pornography, demonstrating these issues should not be regarded as flat-out wrong - especially in cases where artists are using models of legal age and stories with valid points to illustrate the current state of affairs in the social lives of many "young adults."
