Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on July 03, 2017, 10:05:43 AM
-
How sad!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40410459
-
And lying behind this is the fact that young girls are learning about what they 'should' look like from porn.
-
And of course the same applies to boys, and about behaviour.
-
Oh absolutely.
-
How sad!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40410459
More than tragic, imo. :o
-
And lying behind this is the fact that young girls are learning about what they 'should' look like from porn.
But - if there's as much porn about as we're told, or rather, if young people are seeing as much porn as regularly and in the numbers we're led to believe, then surely they're going to be exposed to genitalia of all shapes and sizes.
I doubt very much indeed that there are very many female professional porn performers who have undergone labiaplasty, so that would seem to suggest that these youngsters are for the most part seeing normal variation of normal bodies. If I'm right and that's the case, the demand for surgery from girls as young as the article states must be coming from elsewhere.
-
Isn't that (a) an argument from incredulity, and (b) one contradicted anecdotally by the example in the article? Are you saying that pirn is realistic in its expectations of bodies?
-
There's a 'western fashion' for near, small labia. And tiny waists/ large breasts. And no body hair, incidentally. How are fashions accommodated?
How much porn is 'about' is open to question but my daughter was sexually harassed by a boy using porn as a weapon at her school. Eventually I had to step in and in the end the school realised the only way to control both viewing porn and cyber bullying on site was to ban smartphones.
-
We are talking about pre teens which is frightening, why the heck are their parents and medics allowing them to go through this mutilation?
-
We are talking about pre teens which is frightening, why the heck are their parents and medics allowing them to go through this mutilation?
We are also talking in the main from the report about teens but I think the same objection applies.
-
The report mentions girls of eleven and twelve. This worries me hugely. 😕
-
We are also talking in the main from the report about teens but I think the same objection applies.
No under 18 should have this sort of surgery unless they have a definite medical problem, not a perceived one.
-
No under 18 should have this sort of surgery unless they have a definite medical problem, not a perceived one.
Agree. And no one should have it on the NHS ever without a definite medical problem.
-
Agree. And no one should have it on the NHS ever without a definite medical problem.
Agreed.
-
Is it not also a reflection on how (some) parents have lost the ability to explain things to their children and indeed protect them from social media.
I don't know the solution to all this but there really should be a legal age limit for this sort of thing to be even considered.
BTW the same argument holds for tattoos and piercings AFAIAC.
I now know that I am a fully paid up grumpy old man as I am going to utter the phrase why can't we just let children have their childhood.
I know it is all much more complicated to protect youngsters these days, but as a society we have got to find a way through the mess that the internet has created for so many in this world. I realise that sounds like a call for some kind of censorship - but in my naivety I think to myself it worked for the film industry, surely it is not beyond our capabilities to bring some control to bear on all that is 'out there'.
There are parental controls but that means that some parents will have to start acting like parents instead of trying to be 'mates' with their offspring.
Yep - definitely grumpy.
-
Is it not also a reflection on how (some) parents have lost the ability to explain things to their children and indeed protect them from social media.
I don't know the solution to all this but there really should be a legal age limit for this sort of thing to be even considered.
BTW the same argument holds for tattoos and piercings AFAIAC.
I now know that I am a fully paid up grumpy old man as I am going to utter the phrase why can't we just let children have their childhood.
I know it is all much more complicated to protect youngsters these days, but as a society we have got to find a way through the mess that the internet has created for so many in this world. I realise that sounds like a call for some kind of censorship - but in my naivety I think to myself it worked for the film industry, surely it is not beyond our capabilities to bring some control to bear on all that is 'out there'.
There are parental controls but that means that some parents will have to start acting like parents instead of trying to be 'mates' with their offspring.
Yep - definitely grumpy.
I consider myself fortunate that our children were kids in the days before everyone had computers and mobile phones. However, I do know that my husband and I would have insisted that their computer/phone use was restricted, and only permitted when we were around to supervise it. No that wouldn't have made us popular, but far better than what is going on today.
-
I realise that sounds like a call for some kind of censorship - but in my naivety I think to myself it worked for the film industry, surely it is not beyond our capabilities to bring some control to bear on all that is 'out there'.
On the contrary: I don't see that there's any way of doing so.
Given the bigger picture - that there are repressive regimes around the world very keen on censorship and denying their citizens free speech and free expression - on the whole that's a good thing.
-
It's hard, Trent. My daughters take a strongly anti porn stance because of how they have encountered it through other children and haven't engaged with it. But peer pressure is terrible and as much as I can switch on parental controls, other parents don't and trust me, most teenagers can circumvent them in a blink of an eye anyway. Also parental controls generally come from the States and not only censor porn but swearing (which as a parent I'm not fussed about) and, very often, LGBTI issues, which I want them to be able to engage with.
I have no clue if I'm getting this right but I've found the best thing is actually to be a friend in a way, and talk about stuff that I gather most parents don't talk to their kids about, including labia size and goodness knows what else. My girls also happen to follow a lot of young feminist activists on social media and maybe some of that will rub off on their little bro. The only option is to talk about it, talk about it and talk about it some more.
-
I agree with much of what you say, trentvoyager, but I think it's naive to think that censorship worked that well in the past, of that there are not crucially different challenges presented by the we, not least the idea that parents have to be more tech savvy than their kids. Now the industry could make it easier for parents but it will still need some form of level of commitment and understanding by people that they seem incapable of in protecting their financial details.
To an extent, I think it is one of the reasons why MGM needs to be addressed because it works as a gateway 'drug' to mutilation. As noted, I think we also have to be careful of such surgery being offered on the NHS, though for anyone reading I should emphasise genuine medical issue includes genuine mental health issues.
-
... parental controls generally come from the States and not only censor porn but swearing (which as a parent I'm not fussed about) and, very often, LBTGI issues, which I want them to be able to engage with.
My nannyish ISP - before I changed the settings anyway - blocked links to anti-Islamic sites on this very forum.
I've heard of searches for things such as single-sex schools and the like being blocked as well.
-
I feel sorry for my two married daughters and spouses have to cope with their kids who spend all the time they are permitted, and probably more, on their computers and phones.
-
My nannyish ISP - before I changed the settings anyway - blocked links to anti-Islamic sites on this very forum.
I've heard of searches for things such as single-sex schools and the like being blocked as well.
Yes, I found when using parental controls I couldn't access sites on meditation and Buddhism.
-
I feel sorry for my two married daughters and spouses have to cope with their kids who spend all the time they are permitted, and probably more, on their computers and phones.
Why?
-
Yes, I found when using parental controls I couldn't access sites on meditation and Buddhism.
WTF?
-
WTF?
Dodgy spirituality. And as for anything New Age...
-
Why?
Because trying to keep an eye on what they are up to on their computers and phones, which is what any good parent should be doing, isn't easy.
-
Because trying to keep an eye on what they are up to on their computers and phones, which is what any good parent should be doing, isn't easy.
What about trust?
-
It's hard, Trent. My daughters take a strongly anti porn stance because of how they have encountered it through other children and haven't engaged with it. But peer pressure is terrible and as much as I can switch on parental controls, other parents don't and trust me, most teenagers can circumvent them in a blink of an eye anyway. Also parental controls generally come from the States and not only censor porn but swearing (which as a parent I'm not fussed about) and, very often, LBTGI issues, which I want them to be able to engage with.
I have no clue if I'm getting this right but I've found the best thing is actually to be a friend in a way, and talk about stuff that I gather most parents don't talk to their kids about, including labia size and goodness knows what else. My girls also happen to follow a lot of young feminist activists on social media and maybe some of that will rub off on their little bro. The only option is to talk about it, talk about it and talk about it some more.
Hi Rhi
Yes, I realize it is hard - and I, as a non-parent, probably don't understand just how hard it is. And as ever, there are parents who just do not care. So complete regulation of the situation is imo impossible, but it still doesn't mean we should stop trying to restrict what children have access to as you are obviously trying to do.
As to Shaker's point about censorship - if what you are saying about parental controls from USA blocking LGBTI content then his argument that some form of restriction can't be imposed is incorrect.
Anyway as I implied before it is a huge morass of a mess and I don't envy anyone bringing up children. (I never did, to be fair!)
-
It's hard, Trent. My daughters take a strongly anti porn stance because of how they have encountered it through other children and haven't engaged with it. But peer pressure is terrible and as much as I can switch on parental controls, other parents don't and trust me, most teenagers can circumvent them in a blink of an eye anyway. Also parental controls generally come from the States and not only censor porn but swearing (which as a parent I'm not fussed about) and, very often, LGBTI issues, which I want them to be able to engage with.
I have no clue if I'm getting this right but I've found the best thing is actually to be a friend in a way, and talk about stuff that I gather most parents don't talk to their kids about, including labia size and goodness knows what else. My girls also happen to follow a lot of young feminist activists on social media and maybe some of that will rub off on their little bro. The only option is to talk about it, talk about it and talk about it some more.
Applause! I think there is a huge issue about openness which is often portrayed as 'being a friend' that is missed. Good friends also have some rules, and good parents probably need more rules. We, as ever, have a problem about where we get information and where we feel we can discuss it but that was as much, if not more true, in the days of Victorian parenting. We cannot exchange an inability to talk to out children about sex because we cannot treat them seriously, to one where we cannot talk because we fo not treat us seriously.
-
As to Shaker's point about censorship - if what you are saying about parental controls from USA blocking LGBTI content then his argument that some form of restriction can't be imposed is incorrect.
... as much as I can switch on parental controls, other parents don't and trust me, most teenagers can circumvent them in a blink of an eye anyway.
-
Fair enough point Shaker - but I still don't buy the 'shrug of the shoulders' option. It just seems we are surrendering to the WWW and not thinking enough about ways of limiting it's effect in these and similar circumstances.
-
My mother told me at the age of 13 that she wasn't allowing me to read Salem's Lot. Needless to say, I read it all the quicker and since I had been a year or so younger when I read The Rats was somewhat underawed by the what was in it. Indeed in terms of what my mother wanted to 'protect' me from Jaws was worse, as was much of the Greek mythology that I had been reading for years, and been encouraged to read. Oliver Twist is far more horrific and darker than Salem's Lot.
-
Fair enough point Shaker - but I still don't buy the 'shrug of the shoulders' option. It just seems we are surrendering to the WWW and not thinking enough about ways of limiting it's effect in these and similar circumstances.
Because I just don't think it can be done.
I'm of that generation of whom it was said that the kids could programme the VCR where the parents were clueless. The technology changes but the principle remains exactly the same.
What one person can make, another person can break. There's no uncrackable safe or unforgeable currency. Create all the parental controls you like - it won't be a parent but a 12 year-old who gets around them.
-
I consider myself fortunate that our children were kids in the days before everyone had computers and mobile phones. However, I do know that my husband and I would have insisted that their computer/phone use was restricted, and only permitted when we were around to supervise it. No that wouldn't have made us popular, but far better than what is going on today.
They would find away around your restrictions. Kids huh!
-
The genie is out of the bottle on this one, frankly.
-
I consider myself fortunate that our children were kids in the days before everyone had computers and mobile phones. However, I do know that my husband and I would have insisted that their computer/phone use was restricted, and only permitted when we were around to supervise it. No that wouldn't have made us popular, but far better than what is going on today.
So they would never have been allowed around to any other children's houses? Or to have travelled to school on a bus with other children without you supervising them? Or to have been in school during break in the company of other kids without you supervising them?
-
So they would never have been allowed around to any other children's houses? Or to have travelled to school on a bus with other children without you supervising them? Or to have been in school during break in the company of other kids without you supervising them?
Their secondary school's policy on phones and computers would have been laid down by my husband as he was the head teacher. We would have checked on the parents of the friends they visited and asked how they viewed such matters. Anyway we didn't have that problem thank goodness.
-
Their secondary school's policy on phones and computers would have been laid down by my husband as he was the head teacher. We would have checked on the parents of the friends they visited and asked how they viewed such matters. Anyway we didn't have that problem thank goodness.
If any parent tried to check with me on 'how I viewed such matters' they'd be told to go away. Or words to that effect.
-
If any parent tried to check with me on 'how I viewed such matters' they'd be told to go away. Or words to that effect.
How unpleasant, it is a perfectly reasonable question if one wishes to protect one's children.
-
How unpleasant, it is a perfectly reasonable question if one wishes to protect one's children.
So you would need to protect your children from me?
-
So you would need to protect your children from me?
Presumably you have lines too in parental behaviour? I could use a reductio but you seem to find them offensive.
-
Presumably you have lines too in parental behaviour? I could use a reductio but you seem to find them offensive.
I don't give parents a grilling before they are allowed to have my kids in their house. It's called 'trust'.
I wouldn't like drug taking in front of my kids but 'do you snort coke while your kids have friends over' isn't something I feel the need to ask.
-
So you would need to protect your children from me?
We would never have let our children visit their homes of their friends unless we got to know the parents well first.
-
We would never have let our children visit their homes of their friends unless we got to know the parents well first.
Seriously? Not even for tea?
So did you ask these parents about their drug taking, porn watching and so on? Just to be sure?
-
Seriously? Not even for tea?
So did you ask these parents about their drug taking, porn watching and so on? Just to be sure?
If I had any suspicion they watched porn, took drugs, were alcoholics or smoked, our children would never have been permitted anywhere near their homes!
We got to know the parents of all our children's friends and with one exception we had no problems with them. The exception we reported to social services and the children were removed when it was discovered he was abusing them. Fortunately they went back to their mother who had divorced him.
-
If I had any suspicion they watched porn, took drugs, were alcoholics or smoked, our children would never have been permitted anywhere near their homes!
Smoking? Ffs.
Otherwise, that's it. You don't need to grill parents and ask how they 'view such matters'. It's offensive in the extreme. Most people are ok and trustworthy. And you cannot expect them to enforce your rules in their home.
-
If I had any suspicion they watched porn, took drugs, were alcoholics or smoked, our children would never have been permitted anywhere near their homes!
Plenty of people do all these things and more besides; it doesn't mean to say they do so while kids are around.
ETA: what Rhiannon said.
-
Plenty of people do all these things and more besides; it doesn't mean to say they do so while kids are around.
Yes, it is what is done while in charge of the kids that matters.
-
Floo said she didn't have that problem so really doesn't know how she would have struck the balance between trust and overseeing.
Mine used computers from quite young (kids didn't have mobiles then), and frankly they understood them better than I! I only knew what i needed to know for work. My husband was more proficient but it never occurred to us to spy on the girls. Yes we did trust them for better or worse. My parents trusted me (didn't have computers then but there have always been dangers), of course they didn't know everything but I was alright.
It's very sad to think that 9 year old girls are worried about their genitalia, at that age it's usually all neat and tidy. I remember when I was 12 or so wondering if mine was normal as it seemed to have changed so much. Though i`generlly talked to my mum about things quite freely I couldn't quite ask her about that. After a while I didn't worry about it. Girls at school talked about theirs and I realised we were all much the same.
Plastic surgery in such a delicate area is so drastic! If kids have seen neat little-girl-type minges on porn sites they should know that those who produce porn - airbrush and even put make up on genitals. It's all fake.
Boys who see that sort of stuff must have a completely distorted idea about a woman's body & vice versa. Also about what is and isn't acceptable. Porn is horrible when you think many kids get their sex education from it on their 'phones now. Never mind the craze for taking a photo of your bits and distributing it.
Anatomy must be taught in detail so fact and fiction can be separated - and feelings talked about.
(My eldest once talked about girls having their clit pierced, like an ear piercing only 'down there'. She'd heard about it at school and couldn't believe it. Neither could i and made some comment about how a girl with a piercing there would be aware of it all the time. My youngest,then about twelve piped up, "That's why they have it done!" .)
I don't give parents a grilling before they are allowed to have my kids in their house. It's called 'trust'.
I wouldn't like drug taking in front of my kids but 'do you snort coke while your kids have friends over' isn't something I feel the need to ask.
You're right (tho' can't imagine parents taking drugs in front of kids). If your children are confident in themselves, and in you, they'll be able to set their own limits & respect the trust you put in them.
Sensible parents are also aware that there will be a few things about their childrens' lives that they don't know & that's normal too.
-
Yes, it is what is done while in charge of the kids that matters.
Indeed. Otherwise, people's personal affairs are exactly that.
-
If I had any suspicion they watched porn, took drugs, were alcoholics or smoked, our children would never have been permitted anywhere near their homes!
We got to know the parents of all our children's friends and with one exception we had no problems with them. The exception we reported to social services and the children were removed when it was discovered he was abusing them. Fortunately they went back to their mother who had divorced him.
Confirmation bias lives and breathes. My parents smoked but I vaguely hope they would have worried about me being friends with your children as you abused them with logical fallacies.
-
Sensible parents are also aware that there will be a few things about their childrens' lives that they don't know & that's normal too.
Not only normal but essential.
-
Not only normal but essential.
Quite. This is why I don't assume to supervise my kids' use of their devices.
-
Confirmation bias lives and breathes. My parents smoked but I vaguely hope they would have worried about me being friends with your children as you abused them with logical fallacies.
I have no idea what you are talking about? Surely protecting children from people whose lifestyles will do them harm is what all good parents should be doing.
Our children claimed to have enjoyed their childhood, and our part in it. We encouraged them to question everything and we always listened to their opinions.
-
I have no idea what you are talking about? Surely protecting children from people whose lifestyles will do them harm is what all good parents should be doing.
Our children claimed to have enjoyed their childhood, and our part in it. We encouraged them to question everything and we always listened to their opinions.
You just used an example of confirmation bias to justify yourself. That you don't understand the dangers of illogical thinking like that is sad but why should you be allowed to abuse your children and their friends like that?
-
I have no idea what you are talking about? Surely protecting children from people whose lifestyles will do them harm is what all good parents should be doing.
The parents' "lifestyles" are their own business and exceedingly unlikely to impinge on someone else's kids in the length of time it takes to go round for tea or to play games or whatever. I'd imagine in fact that when one lot of kids goes round to the house of other kids they'd rather be out of the way of the oldies in any case. Kids typically don't go round to houses to visit their friends' parents; they go to visit their friends.
-
The parents' "lifestyles" are their own business and exceedingly unlikely to impinge on someone else's kids in the length of time it takes to go round for tea or to play games or whatever. I'd imagine in fact that when one lot of kids goes round to the house of other kids they'd rather be out of the way of the oldies in any case.
They were our business if we didn't approve of them, and thought they would harm our children.
-
They were our business if we didn't approve of them, and thought they would harm our children.
Which to me demonstrates a downright creepy level of control and intrusion, as well as a lack of trust of the other parents.
-
Which to me demonstrates a downright creepy level of control and intrusion, as well as a lack of trust of the other parents.
You only trust people if you have reason to trust them. I make no apology for the way we brought our kids up, they weren't unhappy, believe you me they would certainly have screamed blue murder if they were, they had complete freedom of speech.
-
You only trust people if you have reason to trust them.
I'm a long way from being a people person to put it mildly, but what a sad and impoverished view to take - where everyone is guilty until proven innocent, automatically untrustworthy until demonstrated otherwise. I'm not necessarily a great one for loving my neighbour - I'd much rather remain friends and leave it there - but no thanks, not for me.
-
I'm a long way from being a people person to put it mildly, but what a sad and impoverished view to take - where everyone is guilty until proven innocent, automatically untrustworthy until demonstrated otherwise. I'm not necessarily a great one for loving my neighbour - I'd much rather remain friends and leave it there - but no thanks, not for me.
Still one could presumably stop your children going to the house of other parents who say their house is haunted - I mean there must be something not quite right there, surely.
-
You only trust people if you have reason to trust them.
That is horrendous.
-
Still one could presumably stop your children going to the house of other parents who say their house is haunted - I mean there must be something not quite right there, surely.
Tut ;D
-
That is horrendous.
Why is horrendous?
-
Still one could presumably stop your children going to the house of other parents who say their house is haunted - I mean there must be something not quite right there, surely.
Ehhhhhhhh?
-
We would never have let our children visit their homes of their friends unless we got to know the parents well first.
what about if they were invited to a child's birthday party?
At their home?
Not all working parents would have time for you to "get to know them well" before hand.
My two would have been upset at not even being allowed to go to a friends party.
:o
-
what about if they were invited to a child's birthday party?
At their home?
Not all working parents would have time for you to "get to know them well" before hand.
My two would have been upset at not even being allowed to go to a friends party.
:o
We would have been irresponsible if we hadn't got to know the parents first. Our girls know well the parents of all their kid's friends.
-
We would have been irresponsible if we hadn't got to know the parents first. Our girls know well the parents of all their kid's friends.
Isn't that choosing your children's friends though?
Children don't always choose friends just because their parents, get on well with their friends parents.
-
Isn't that choosing your children's friends though?
Children don't always choose friends because their parents, get on with their friends parents.
Fortunately it didn't happen.
-
We would have been irresponsible if we hadn't got to know the parents first. Our girls know well the parents of all their kid's friends.
How unhealthy.
-
Fortunately it didn't happen.
I think your attitude is awful!
Your poor kids!
:o
-
I think your attitude is awful!
Your poor kids!
:o
What is awful about protecting young kids from unsuitable people? It is a great pity more parents don't do so today.
-
Fortunately it didn't happen.
You sure about that?
-
What is awful about protecting young kids from unsuitable people? It is a great pity more parents don't do so today.
It's your judgemental attitude towards other people, Floo.
People you don't actually know.
I'm appalled! TBH.
That level of control isn't good.
-
You sure about that?
Yes quite sure.
-
It's your judgemental attitude towards other people, Floo.
People you don't actually know.
I'm appalled! TBH.
I said we made a point of finding out about people first, far better safe than sorry, what on earth is wrong with that? I feel sorry for kids who have parents with very lax attitudes! :o
-
I said we made a point of finding out about people first, far better safe than sorry, what on earth is wrong with that? I feel sorry for kids who have parents with very lax attitudes! :o
It's controlling! Has nothing to do with children being safe.
-
My best friend's father had been in prison. Big deal. It could be worse, he could be a Tory.
-
Isn't that choosing your children's friends though?
Children don't always choose friends just because their parents, get on well with their friends parents.
I used to know a woman years ago - a Palestinian woman; not that that would normally be in any way relevant to mention, save that it may highlight a cultural difference - and one day we were talking about kids and their friends. She was expressing disapproval of one of her daughter's friends and I, in my casual white secular top end of working class not quite middle class but you never know liberal way, casually said: "Ah well. You can't choose your children's friends, can you" thinking that the conversation would flow easily and effortlessly on thereafter.
From the look on her face I might as well have said I wanted naughty bum fun with the Queen Mother. She was absolutely aghast. The very idea that you can't and moreover shouldn't dictate the friendships that your children make was incomprehensible to her.
-
My best friend's father had been in prison. Big deal. It could be worse, he could be a Tory.
For a fair few that's one and the same thing.
A few more in the fullness of time, I'll wager.
-
It's controlling! Has nothing to do with children being safe.
And of course as an adult you say, yes mum, we had a great childhood. What else can you do?
-
It's controlling! Has nothing to do with children being safe.
Or even having bits of their penises
-
I think floo makes a lot of things up and harks back to a time that never was. We're not talking about 6 year olds are we? When our children get past 12 or so they must be allowed to choose their friends and have some privacy - and some trust from parents. If they don't they will rebel. I certainly would have.
-
My job is to ensure my kids no longer need me. That means that they have to have their own lives. And they need to know that I respect and trust them.
-
I supect there are still some people who take the (at latest) 1950s view that children are chattels of the parents and scaled-down versions of them.
I consider it healthier to regard children as people in progress, and especially by the time they ease out of prepubesence into adolescence as adults in waiting. That's why, as I said in an earlier post, it's vital that they have secrets and secrecy - that's what Montaigne called our own little back room where we can be our own true and essential and authentic selves. This is the very heart of character formation and self-building - interfere in that and you fuck up people for life. Interfere in that and you don't want autonomous adults living their own lives according to their lights, you want carbon copies of yourself.
-
I supect there are still some people who take the (at latest) 1950s view that children are chattels of the parents and scaled-down versions of them.
I consider it healthier to regard children as people in progress, and especially by the time they ease out of prepubesence into adolescence as adults in waiting. That's why, as I said in an earlier post, it's vital that they have secrets and secrecy - that's what Montaigne called our own little back room where we can be our own true and essential and authentic selves. This is the very heart of character formation and self-building - interfere in that and you fuck up people for life. Interfere in that and you don't want autonomous adults living their own lives according to their lights, you want carbon copies of yourself.
And copies that are never free of you.
-
Yup.
-
My job is to ensure my kids no longer need me. That means that they have to have their own lives. And they need to know that I respect and trust them.
That's right and that's what real love is, letting people be themselves and make decisions. Kids aren't property, they need guidance and protection sure but as they get older they have to learn to make their own decisions - including mistakes - and to mix with all sorts of people from different backgrounds.
-
That's right and that's what real love is, letting people be themselves and make decisions. Kids aren't property, they need guidance and protection sure but as they get older they have to learn to make their own decisions - including mistakes - and to mix with all sorts of people from different backgrounds.
It's the letting kids make their own mistakes in their own way which is the last ditch for most parents though.
It's entirely understandable, and a rare parent who trusts enough in learning by/from experience to see their offspring suffer in the short term in order to take on board the lesson in the long term, though.
-
My job is to ensure my kids no longer need me. That means that they have to have their own lives. And they need to know that I respect and trust them.
Yes, I feel the same way.
-
It's the letting kids make their own mistakes in their own way which is the last ditch for most parents though.
It's entirely understandable, and a rare parent who trusts enough in learning by/from experience to see their offspring suffer in the short term in order to take on board the lesson in the long term, though.
Yes I remember my youngest learning to ride a bike without stabilisers. I was so scared he was going to fall off, I couldn't let go of the bike . ( running alongside)
He was furious lol.
I learnt as I went along, as did they.
It's hard watching them do something where they might fall off and get hurt, but mine told me off, in no uncertain terms if I tried to fuss over them 🙂
Letting them cross the road on their own for the first time is hard too.
Trouble is, if you wrap them in cotton wool, they don't learn.
-
It's the letting kids make their own mistakes in their own way which is the last ditch for most parents though.
It's entirely understandable, and a rare parent who trusts enough in learning by/from experience to see their offspring suffer in the short term in order to take on board the lesson in the long term, though.
You're right there Shaker and of course it does depend on the severity of the mistakes.
-
I think floo makes a lot of things up and harks back to a time that never was. We're not talking about 6 year olds are we? When our children get past 12 or so they must be allowed to choose their friends and have some privacy - and some trust from parents. If they don't they will rebel. I certainly would have.
You are a LIAR! >:( I don't make anything up, I know exactly how it was. I make no apology at all for the way we brought our kids up, they are thoroughly decent adults with good reputations.
It is a pity some other parents don't ensure their under 16s are kept safe and protected, instead of letting them run riot as some seem to do.
-
You are a LIAR! >:( I don't make anything up, I know exactly how it was. I make no apology at all for the way we brought our kids up, they are thoroughly decent adults with good reputations.
It is a pity some other parents don't ensure their under 16s are kept safe and protected, instead of letting them run riot as some seem to do.
I do understand you anger here, Floo, but you are talking about a different time. That was then and this is now. Do you really think that you could isolate your children from the all-pervasive influences of today? Even today, I would suggest that most adults have negotiated an extremely difficult adolescence to become "thoroughly decent adults with good reputations".
-
Another apology from me. I was only going on the impression I formed from what you said floo but it was no more than that.
-
I do understand you anger here, Floo, but you are talking about a different time. That was then and this is now. Do you really think that you could isolate your children from the all-pervasive influences of today? Even today, I would suggest that most adults have negotiated an extremely difficult adolescence to become "thoroughly decent adults with good reputations".
I wouldn't wish to isolate my kids from the internet etc if they were young in this day and age, good grief I am not that much of a moron! I would be keeping a watchful eye on what they were up to, which surely any responsible parent should do. It would appear too many parents haven't a clue what their children are doing.
When our middle girl was 13 she announced one evening she was going out to a town some distance away with the Venture Scouts who were 18. There was no way on earth we would have permitted that! She wasn't exactly thrilled as you can imagine, and stated she would never be that mean to her kids! I frequently hear from her sons, particularly the younger one who is nearly 13, how mean she is being to them! Being a kind Granny I offer to phone the Social Services so he can be taken into care. Funny he changes his tune immediately, and says his very old Mum (43) isn't that bad after all. ;D
-
Another apology from me. I was only going on the impression I formed from what you said floo but it was no more than that.
Apology accepted. :) What exactly have I said, which gave you that impression? I am far from perfect, but I don't make stuff up. I do admit though that my life story is far from ordinary, even I find it hard to credit sometimes.
-
I am sorry floo, I obviously misunderstood you but didn't mean to offend you. I'll be more careful from now on.
"I do admit though that my life story is far from ordinary, even I find it hard to credit sometimes."
That is intriguing! Especially for a person like me who has had a very ordinary life by most standards (not boring though - i hope).
More important than us and our adult kids is the problem of youngsters being dissatisfied with normal parts of their bodies, based on mucky stuff they've caught a glimpse of.