Question 2:
Most of you seem to agree that child sexuality is natural and normal on its own, but becomes problematic in the context of our culture. Do late-twentieth-century images (e.g. Calvin Klein ads, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Barbie, etc.), books (most famously, Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret, Forever and other books by Judy Blume), and films (Kids, the new Lolita, PG-rated movies with sex and nudity) involving child/adolescent sexuality promote or encourage kids to become sexually active before their time? Do they influence the rates of teen pregnancy and STDs, and the age at which kids lose their virginity today? Or, could it be argued that they promote positive sexual identities, comfort with one's own changing body, better gender/sexual relations and a freedom to ask questions?

Childhood, as we understand the term, is a relatively recent invention, but I think we might all agree that it's a good one -- that it's better to allow the lengthy "hands off" that we accord

children in this culture than, for instance, to betroth them or put them to work before puberty, as most cultures have done (and as many still do).
     That said, I think it's too simple to draw either of the conclusions that this question suggests. In the first place, kids don't become "sexually active before their time." They become sexually active at their time, whether or not they are surrounded by late-twentieth-century culture. Children far beyond the reach of Barbie and Judy Blume become sexually active as soon as they are able, and always have. They don't need any cultural encouragement to do so -- in fact, they will do so, unless they are strongly encouraged not to.
     But that isn't as simple as it sounds, either. One of the ruling conflicts at the heart of child-rearing (and indeed at the heart of civilization itself) is that (a) some things must be prohibited, and (b) prohibiting things makes them more desirable. Those cultural autocrats who believe that condoms, sex education and, yes, Calvin Klein ads should be unavailable to children, lest it "give them ideas," are bereft of ideas themselves. (They should perhaps pay closer heed to the Bible they so frequently thump, which begins with a story that demonstrates that it is human nature to taste the very fruit which is most expressly forbidden.) Besides, children don't need twentieth-century culture to give them ideas. Their hormones give them ideas. Surely the earlier average onset of puberty is more accountable for early loss of virginity than poor Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
     True, there are social factors that account for increases in teenage pregnancy, STDs, and so forth. But the bugaboos that appear on the self-appointed Virtue Warriors' list of evils have nothing to do with them. In households where any pretense of family life has disappeared, so will the other appurtenances of civilization, including any understanding of what it might mean to be sexually responsible. You can ban Jerry Springer and rap records till the cows come home, but you won't stop teenage sexual experimentation in a neighborhood where the only adult who shows any interest in kids is your local gang leader. When single mothers are kicked off welfare and forced to look for non-existent jobs rather than care for their children -- believe me, whether or not those children happen to catch sight of a Calvin Klein ad pales into insignificance.
     (One question: Barbie may encourage inordinate spending, but why would she encourage inordinate sexual activity any more than the equally lissome Sleeping Beauty did, for instance, in the Disney cartoon, or the more outlandishly erotic Betty Boop, back in the day?)
     On the other hand, when you ask whether all these cultural outcroppings, "as mere reflections of reality," promote "positive sexual identities" and all those other good things, I have to smirk. Worse than any of the other late-twentieth-century cultural diseases that you've named is the one that supposes that various cultural artifacts have to be looked at as simple message-bearing devices, tub-thumping for this value or that, educating our hapless young. What pernicious nonsense. I don't think the establishment of, for instance, "role models" is an important function of art and culture -- even of low art and low culture. I don't think a single person was ever saved from a life of crime by watching movies in which the cops won and the criminal was brought low. I don't think that a single child will ever glean a lesson from William Bennett's Book of Virtues that will make him or her more virtuous -- though I do think that reading powerful narratives, whether Bennett-approved or Bennett-condemned, can raise questions that result in the formation of strong moral attitudes.
     In fact, it is the very taking in of culture -- even the crappiest culture -- that potentially roils attitudes and arouses thought, especially when it's done in an atmosphere that encourages people to take culture seriously, in all its complexity. When a kid takes something seriously, even Buffy the Vampire Slayer, that kid may be more inclined to take himself or herself seriously -- to consider the possibility that life may have dimensions other than the most immediate.
     That may not, as you put it, "promote positive sexual identities" or "better gender/sexual relations." But it's a start.

Judith Levine responds

Question 1
A. M. Homes
James Kincaid
Judith Levine
Michael Medved
Stephen Schiff
Celine Texier-Rose
Naomi Wolf

Question 2
A. M. Homes
James Kincaid
Judith Levine
Michael Medved
Stephen Schiff
Celine Texier-Rose
Naomi Wolf

Question 3
A. M. Homes
James Kincaid
Judith Levine
Michael Medved
Stephen Schiff
Celine Texier-Rose
Sally Mann

Question 4
A. M. Homes
James Kincaid
Judith Levine
Michael Medved
Stephen Schiff
Celine Texier-Rose