Children and Santa, tooth fairy, etc

[excreationist]

Even amateur porn typically depicts a couple of exhibitionists putting on a show for the camera, which is different than fucking for the sake of it. It's a weird way to be introduced to sex.

I'm saying video that is as realistic as possible. So either there would be actors that are trying not to put on a show, or ordinary people who aren't aware of the camera or are acting like they're not aware of the camera.

 

[bigfield]

Even amateur porn typically depicts a couple of exhibitionists putting on a show for the camera, which is different than fucking for the sake of it. It's a weird way to be introduced to sex.

I'm saying video that is as realistic as possible. So either there would be actors that are trying not to put on a show, or ordinary people who aren't aware of the camera or are acting like they're not aware of the camera.

Actual porn isn't like that. Which should answer your question why "kids can't freely watch porn".

 

[excreationist]

Even amateur porn typically depicts a couple of exhibitionists putting on a show for the camera, which is different than fucking for the sake of it. It's a weird way to be introduced to sex.

I'm saying video that is as realistic as possible. So either there would be actors that are trying not to put on a show, or ordinary people who aren't aware of the camera or are acting like they're not aware of the camera.

Actual porn isn't like that. Which should answer your question why "kids can't freely watch porn".

Ok then my question would be why can't kids freely watch videos of people having sex as realistic as possible? bilby said the only problem he is aware of with porn was that it is unrealistic - so not unrealistic = no problem?

 

[bigfield]

Actual porn isn't like that. Which should answer your question why "kids can't freely watch porn".

Ok then my question would be why can't kids freely watch videos of people having sex as realistic as possible? bilby said the only problem he is aware of with porn was that it is unrealistic - so not unrealistic = no problem?

That's moving the goalposts. Actual porn isn't realistic.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But it isn't that children don't lie. It is just that they haven't they haven't yet figured out when they may get away with it and when it is obviously a lie.

I was thinking more about when they point to the person in the checkout line and shout, 'She's fat!'
And we try to get them to NOT say that. When they can look and they know good and well that she's fat.
Explaining to them that the truth is not acceptable in that situation is difficult.

A three year old covered in cookie crumbs sitting next to a broken cookie jar when asked, "who broke the cookie jar?" may well answer, "not me.".

That's different. it's not an untruth. The brain at that stage examines the consequences of being the one who broke the cookie jar, and then chooses an alternate view of reality where he was not culpable.

Kind of like Trump, but cute.

Also young kids haven't yet figured out when they really shouldn't say some of the truths that they do. They may well point to a special and distinguished guest in your home that you are trying to impress and ask, "Why are you so fat?"

Exactly. just when they think they have a grasp on the facts of the matter, we confuse them by saying they cannot bring up the facts.

- - - Updated - - -

....Like telling someone, "He's okay, once you get to know him." He's not. The fact is, he's a cunt, but you get used to it.

You could just say "we don't get along very well".

And even that's shading the truth. You make it sound like it's a difference of opinion, when the fact is he doesn't get along AT ALL with ANYONE and if you didn't need his input to do your job, you wouldn't even say 'you get used to it.'

 

[Keith&Co.]

Also parents could say to the kid that they don't want to tell them -

Except part of my job as a parent is teaching them how the world works.
And being there to answer their questions.

If you keep saying 'I don't want to answer that question' they'll stop asking questions. And that's a serious blow to your relationship. And your eventual evaluations as a parent.

So you have to pick a line, somewhere. Something between full disclosure and clamming up.
And sometimes that will include shading the truth. Or lying.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with swearing?

It offends me. Maybe it was the way I was raised. It is entertaining sometimes but I find it difficult to swear.

When my kid was born, there were three of us in my office at Guided Missiles School with newborns.
We created a swear jar, 25 cents for every word on the list.
It cleans your language up pretty quickly. Not because of the money, but because of spending every minute knowing five people were paying very close attention to every fucking word coming out of your mouth.

So inside of two months, we were pretty clean, verbally (and we had bought the division dinner at a restaurant).

But we came to find out, we couldn't get any work done. No one paid any attention to our requests. Found that in the Navy, if something wasn't fucking important, it just wasn't important. We had to teach ourselves to swear all over again.

My oldest joined the Navy, too. IN boot camp, someone wrote an anonymous note for the suggestion box, protesting 'all the darned swearing.' His chief asked everyone 'who the fuck thought there shouldn't be swearing in the Navy?'
Turned to my son. "And Co.? Was this you?"
"Chief, no, chief!"
"How can I be sure?"
"Chief, both my parents are retired first class petty officers, chief."
"....Story checks out."

 

[DrZoidberg]

bilby said "the only problem with pornography that I am aware of lies in its unrealistic nature" - i.e. it is a "problem". He also said "Kids can't effectively learn about sex from porn, because it depicts highly unrealistic relationships, and gives them a totally unrealistic set of expectations" (I thought he implied that was harmful)

Well bilby said the only problem was it being unrealistic. If it was realistic then surely that would eliminate it's sole "problem". (in his view)

I think it's bullshit. People who aren't seriously psychologically ill have no problem sorting fact from fiction. I don't think that's a problem at all. The problem arises if parents don't talk with their kids about sex at all, and the only available information is porn. But then again... that's an obsolete problem today. Today all the sensible and good sex ed anybody could possible want is freely available on-line. Forums like this give kids an incredibly powerful tool to reach out anonymously to others in their situation.

This whole thing about sex in film should be realistic just stinks of paternalism and moralism. And it makes no sense. Why would that be desirable in any way? It's not true for any other kind of fiction, so why should it be true for porn?

....I'm a product of the 70'ies. My generations parents believed that children should be told about sex in excruciating detail. With pictures. The result is that I can't have sex with women who aren't shaved (and certainly not with a full bush), because otherwise it just brings back these flashbacks of adolescent bouts of panic, which I had no idea wtf I was seeing and I could not make any sense of it. Not any serious damage though. But unnecessary. No child should be exposed to the stuff I was. That just can't be healthy.

So you can only have sex with someone that would look prepubescent (shaved) than someone that reminds you of sexual scenes you saw in your childhood in the 70's (not shaved)? I wonder why you weren't traumatised by breasts as well. That's odd. BTW I am turned off of bushes too but I don't look at them. I'm far more turned off by "outies" (rather than "innies").
That goes against what bilby was saying. bushes (70's) are realistic and the "only" problem is the unrealistic nature.

I'm a boob guy. And prepubescent women don't have big boobs. So, so much for that theory. I don't think it has anything to do with prepubescents.

It's a good question, on the boobs. Because I saw a lot of floppy and saggy boobs, out of their bras, and I like breasts like that. But I don't think it's unusual either. We develop our sexuality in strange ways. It's rarely a straight line from one thing to another.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Actual porn isn't like that. Which should answer your question why "kids can't freely watch porn".

Ok then my question would be why can't kids freely watch videos of people having sex as realistic as possible? bilby said the only problem he is aware of with porn was that it is unrealistic - so not unrealistic = no problem?

That's moving the goalposts. Actual porn isn't realistic.

Made-For-Middle-School-Porn would be three high school boys telling each other lies about sex. Like, stick a penny in the pussy, and if she has an STD, it'll tarnish. If she's a virgin, it'll come out shiny...

Then cut to the back seat of a late-model car, where one of the boys is telling his girl 'You won't get pregnant if-'

Then two hours of discussion about "How many lies did YOU note?"

Finish with a Navy hygiene video. That one about the sailor who was careful in Guam, Japan, Hawaii, and Australia, then got six kinds of STD in San Diego...

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think 6 year old would be curious about what causes a women to become pregnant and how the baby comes out. I think some kids at that age think you can get pregnant from kissing and babies can come out the belly button.

I can still remember my brother and I having this conversation. So we went to the basement and my Mom who was washing clothes in one of those old twin Dexter's with the wringer told us that women have a special opening where babies come out. That satisfied us and away we went.

 

[skepticalbip]

I think 6 year old would be curious about what causes a women to become pregnant and how the baby comes out. I think some kids at that age think you can get pregnant from kissing and babies can come out the belly button.

Absolutely six year olds are curious. Their curiosity should be satisfied but I think that video is well beyond an explanation that would satisfy a 6 year old's curiosity. It could well even confuse a 6 year old. A general explanation addressing their question in general every day terms is something that would be understandable to a 6 year old. What child at that age has any idea what a cliterus or uterous is? Bringing up terms or other things that mean nothing to them in an explanation doesn't address their curiosity, it only makes the whole thing more mysterious.

Now by maybe 12 or 13 the child is ready for a more detailed explanation like that video.

 

[TSwizzle]

Not a parent, but if I were to handle it, I would let them figure out on their own that they're not real.

They figure it out soon enough. The smart ones keep quiet they are on to us and play along for a few years, milking it.

 

[excreationist]

I think 6 year old would be curious about what causes a women to become pregnant and how the baby comes out. I think some kids at that age think you can get pregnant from kissing and babies can come out the belly button.

Absolutely six year olds are curious. Their curiosity should be satisfied but I think that video is well beyond an explanation that would satisfy a 6 year old's curiosity. It could well even confuse a 6 year old. A general explanation addressing their question in general every day terms is something that would be understandable to a 6 year old. What child at that age has any idea what a cliterus or uterous is? Bringing up terms or other things that mean nothing to them in an explanation doesn't address their curiosity, it only makes the whole thing more mysterious.

The video introduces the body parts in an extremely clear way! While showing pictures, it says:

"You can see that the mother has an opening between her legs. It is called a vagina. Right above the opening she also has a clitoris. The father has a penis and testicles."

"...into a hollow space inside the mother called the uterus or womb"

It doesn't assume any prior knowledge of those names! It is done for a purpose... if a child wanted to discuss body parts (such as their own) then it would be helpful to know the names. Though saying the baby grows in the mother's "tummy" is easier to learn, I think it is good to mention the proper name just in case the child can remember it.

So the video/picture book can show things visually unlike a parent usually does. And rather than saying this thing goes there it ends up naming the items along the way (e.g. the sperm goes into the womb/uterus).

Now by maybe 12 or 13 the child is ready for a more detailed explanation like that video.

Some girls are having periods at the age of 9 (and giving birth) - something that video doesn't cover at all. I think you over estimate how thorough that video is. It doesn't show an accurate cutaway view of the uterus either - something that is sometimes covered in school sex ed.

 

[excreationist]

....Like telling someone, "He's okay, once you get to know him." He's not. The fact is, he's a cunt, but you get used to it.

You could just say "we don't get along very well".

And even that's shading the truth. You make it sound like it's a difference of opinion, when the fact is he doesn't get along AT ALL with ANYONE and if you didn't need his input to do your job, you wouldn't even say 'you get used to it.'

If he has a job, surely he gets along with some people to some degree. If he doesn't get along with anyone you could say "he doesn't get along with anyone very well".

 

[excreationist]

Also parents could say to the kid that they don't want to tell them -

Except part of my job as a parent is teaching them how the world works.
And being there to answer their questions.

If you keep saying 'I don't want to answer that question' they'll stop asking questions. And that's a serious blow to your relationship. And your eventual evaluations as a parent.

So you have to pick a line, somewhere. Something between full disclosure and clamming up.
And sometimes that will include shading the truth. Or lying.

What if they ask you how often you have sex or your history of masturbation. Maybe there are some questions that you'd decline to answer. And you can still be honest and do that.

 

[excreationist]

I think it's bullshit. People who aren't seriously psychologically ill have no problem sorting fact from fiction. I don't think that's a problem at all. The problem arises if parents don't talk with their kids about sex at all, and the only available information is porn. But then again... that's an obsolete problem today.

See post #42 - note those kids are 9 and 11 years old! If they had watched that cartoon and paid attention they wouldn't have said what they did.

Today all the sensible and good sex ed anybody could possible want is freely available on-line. Forums like this give kids an incredibly powerful tool to reach out anonymously to others in their situation.

Well it obviously didn't work in the case of those two kids.

This whole thing about sex in film should be realistic just stinks of paternalism and moralism. And it makes no sense. Why would that be desirable in any way? It's not true for any other kind of fiction, so why should it be true for porn?

Well what if their parents didn't talk to them about sex and they learnt things from unrealistic porn?

It's a good question, on the boobs. Because I saw a lot of floppy and saggy boobs, out of their bras, and I like breasts like that. But I don't think it's unusual either. We develop our sexuality in strange ways. It's rarely a straight line from one thing to another.

I get turned off by saggy boobs - maybe from being used to perky boobs in movies and soft-core porn. It's good you like saggy boobs so that those women would have someone that's really satisfied with them.

 

[skepticalbip]

The video introduces the body parts in an extremely clear way! While showing pictures, it says:

"You can see that the mother has an opening between her legs. It is called a vagina. Right above the opening she also has a clitoris. The father has a penis and testicles."

"...into a hollow space inside the mother called the uterus or womb"

It doesn't assume any prior knowledge of those names! It is done for a purpose... if a child wanted to discuss body parts (such as their own) then it would be helpful to know the names. Though saying the baby grows in the mother's "tummy" is easier to learn, I think it is good to mention the proper name just in case the child can remember it.

So the video/picture book can show things visually unlike a parent usually does. And rather than saying this thing goes there it ends up naming the items along the way (e.g. the sperm goes into the womb/uterus).

Now by maybe 12 or 13 the child is ready for a more detailed explanation like that video.

Some girls are having periods at the age of 9 (and giving birth) - something that video doesn't cover at all. I think you over estimate how thorough that video is. It doesn't show an accurate cutaway view of the uterus either - something that is sometimes covered in school sex ed.

When educating, it is best to tailor how the information is given to the student's interest level and ability to understand.

If someone asks how to boil an egg, what do they actually want and need? What would be the most appropriate instructions?

1. Place a pot on the stove with enough water to cover the egg. Heat the water until it boils. Place the egg in the pot and continue to boil for about three minutes. The egg should now be done.

2. Describe what an egg is, what a stove is, how the stove works, present a chart showing the boiling temperature of water vs. altitude, explain why altitude matters, etc, etc.

 

[excreationist]

....When educating, it is best to tailor how the information is given to the student's interest level and ability to understand....

So are you saying in sex ed, you should only teach them what they want to know? So if they don't ask about periods, then don't teach them, etc? It is easier just to cover the main topics at once. That video goes for 4:25. If they learnt something they didn't ask to learn that is just a couple minutes of extra time in their life.

 

[skepticalbip]

....When educating, it is best to tailor how the information is given to the student's interest level and ability to understand....

So are you saying in sex ed, you should only teach them what they want to know? So if they don't ask about periods, then don't teach them, etc? It is easier just to cover the main topics at once. That video goes for 4:25. If they learnt something they didn't ask to learn that is just a couple minutes of extra time in their life.

You really do have a knack for missing the point and mis-stating it. Intentional???

You read "what they want know" from "student's interest level and ability to understand"? That seems to indicate a serious lack of reading comprehension.

 

[excreationist]

Skepticalbip: I think many 6 year olds would be interested and be able to understand that cartoon. And what's the big deal if they aren't interested? It's educational. They might not be interested in math.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

How do you handle Santa / tooth fairy / easter bunny and children?
Do you
1) Actively teach children about those things
2) Agree with children if they are talking about those things
3) Tell them they are made up if the child specifically asks
4) Actively tell children that those things are made up

To me it seems a bit immoral to lie about these things to children but I guess there is pressure from society to allow young children to believe these things.

So far on a Christian message board all three replies would tell the kids the truth.

I strongly believe in lying to children, as often as you possibly can, to train them to see through it and to think for themselves. Just because a grown up says something doesn't make it true. Just because their mom, dad, or teacher said something doesn't make it true. They need to learn to investigate and think for themselves. Plus, its fun to lie to kids.

 

[bigfield]

I strongly believe in lying to children, as often as you possibly can, to train them to see through it and to think for themselves. Just because a grown up says something doesn't make it true. Just because their mom, dad, or teacher said something doesn't make it true. They need to learn to investigate and think for themselves. Plus, its fun to lie to kids.

http://www.elise.com/quotes/ask_calvins_dad

Ask Calvin’s Dad

Q. Where does the sun go when it sets?
A. The sun sets in the west. In Arizona actually, near Flagstaff. That’s why the rocks there are so red.

 

[excreationist]

....I strongly believe in lying to children, as often as you possibly can, to train them to see through it and to think for themselves. Just because a grown up says something doesn't make it true. Just because their mom, dad, or teacher said something doesn't make it true. They need to learn to investigate and think for themselves. Plus, its fun to lie to kids.

What about "monkey see monkey do?" I mean wouldn't it make kids more likely to lie and be dishonest if their role models are? I think too much dishonesty can be bad for relationships because you aren't communicating on a deep level.

 

[skepticalbip]

....I strongly believe in lying to children, as often as you possibly can, to train them to see through it and to think for themselves. Just because a grown up says something doesn't make it true. Just because their mom, dad, or teacher said something doesn't make it true. They need to learn to investigate and think for themselves. Plus, its fun to lie to kids.

What about "monkey see monkey do?" I mean wouldn't it make kids more likely to lie

Kids are natural liars. They just don't know how to do convincingly so we think it is cute - find a kid sitting on the kitchen floor covered in peanut butter... ask him if he has gotten into the peanut butter again and his answer will most likely be, "no" with his chin down to his chest and eyes rolled up to see you.

I think too much dishonesty can be bad for relationships because you aren't communicating on a deep level.

I think you just jumped to the specific to general fallacy.

 

[DrZoidberg]

....I strongly believe in lying to children, as often as you possibly can, to train them to see through it and to think for themselves. Just because a grown up says something doesn't make it true. Just because their mom, dad, or teacher said something doesn't make it true. They need to learn to investigate and think for themselves. Plus, its fun to lie to kids.

What about "monkey see monkey do?" I mean wouldn't it make kids more likely to lie and be dishonest if their role models are? I think too much dishonesty can be bad for relationships because you aren't communicating on a deep level.

You're mixing things. You can lie about far removed bullshit. As long as you are honest about your emotions. That's why Christianity is so evil. It teaches us to lie to ourselves

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Indeed. I think the difference between Lie and Betrayal needs to be pointed out. I told my nephews that the moon is made of cheese and that the sky is blue because it is a reflection of the water. They figured out why both can't be true. That's very different from lying that the stove isn't on and telling them to lean on it. They do see the difference.

 

[ronburgundy]

As someone who thinks indoctrination into religion is generally immorally abusive, I don't think playing along with these sort of fantastical holiday myths is a big deal. The difference lies, as with all moral issues, in the impacts and consequences.

Santa and the Easter Bunny are very limited, self-contained myths with little implications for the rest of life and virtually 100% of kids come to reject these untruths by early adolescence at the latest. In contrast, theism and all major religions have massive implications for every aspect of life, and the majority of people retain those untruths until death and even those they reject them often remain heavily impacted in indirect ways. Also, unlike religion, those Santa myths do not teaching kids to reject science and rational thought in favor of "faith" as a way to understand the world. That said, there are plenty of kid's fantasy movies, including some holiday movies, that do actively promote unreason and faith and depict reasoned skepticism as something that only bad or "close-minded" people do. I think those are garbage and to be avoided.

 

[Underseer]

How do you handle Santa / tooth fairy / easter bunny and children?
Do you
1) Actively teach children about those things
2) Agree with children if they are talking about those things
3) Tell them they are made up if the child specifically asks
4) Actively tell children that those things are made up

To me it seems a bit immoral to lie about these things to children but I guess there is pressure from society to allow young children to believe these things.

So far on a Christian message board all three replies would tell the kids the truth.

I was raised without religion, but a lot of people who were raised in religion who later freed themselves from religion report that figuring out that Santa wasn't real made it easier to figure out that God is also an imaginary friend.

 

[ronburgundy]

How do you handle Santa / tooth fairy / easter bunny and children?
Do you
1) Actively teach children about those things
2) Agree with children if they are talking about those things
3) Tell them they are made up if the child specifically asks
4) Actively tell children that those things are made up

To me it seems a bit immoral to lie about these things to children but I guess there is pressure from society to allow young children to believe these things.

So far on a Christian message board all three replies would tell the kids the truth.

I was raised without religion, but a lot of people who were raised in religion who later freed themselves from religion report that figuring out that Santa wasn't real made it easier to figure out that God is also an imaginary friend.

That's possible, although I am skeptical that people can accurately report what actually played a causal role in their change in religious ideas. Also, it's likely that they would only see Santa as an analogy to God after they already have come to doubt God, which means the perceived similarity of Santa and God is more of an effect rather than a cause of deconversion.

That said, I do think that when people deconvert from their "birth" religion, it greatly increases the odds that they give up theism and religion altogether. There is a saying that "the best way to ensure your child is an atheist, is to raise them Catholic." It refers to the idea that there are so many intellectual and moral reasons for people to reject Catholocism in the modern world that many do leave and once they do they "keep going" toward atheism.