Can Religious Fanaticism be Child Abuse?

[ku]

I have just watched some TV and saw some shocking brutal child abuse in the form of religious fanaticism. It is all caught on video and you can see it at

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCODIhAXbQM

 

I am afraid for the children and I am thinking of going to police to get permission to get these children away from this crazy woman.

 

What I would like to know is whether legally this woman's behavior is classified as child abuse.

[YT2095]

don`t be a dork!, as if REAL LIFE comes accompanied with mood music! *sheesh*!

[alan2here]

Thats Religion. as wrong as it is that is what Religion is all about.

[Sayonara]

don`t be a dork!, as if REAL LIFE comes accompanied with mood music! *sheesh*!

 

It's from a US "Wife Swap" style show.

 

I.E. the people are real.

[Bluenoise]

I can't really see any child abuse from that clip. She was yelling and very upset, but it wasn't directed at her children. Like her children were upset by it, but that doesn't make it child abuse.

Like maybe forcing them to pray? Well how's that any different from all the other activities parents force children todo.

 

It's definatley bad parenting. Maybe you could argue that she's neglecting her childrens emotional well being, and that neglect counts as abuse. But then I think you'd accuse all parents of abusing their children at some point by that arguement.

 

I think your really stretching it to call it child abuse.

 

Maybe I missed something I'm pretty hungover.

[AL]

I have just watched some TV and saw some shocking brutal child abuse in the form of religious fanaticism. It is all caught on video and you can see it at

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCODIhAXbQM

 

I am afraid for the children and I am thinking of going to police to get permission to get these children away from this crazy woman.

 

What I would like to know is whether legally this woman's behavior is classified as child abuse.

That's the "God Warrior" from Trading Spouses. She spent time with a family of New Agey astrologers on the show, and she came back to her own home thinking those New Agers were Satan worshippers.

 

She later apologized for making a scene, and the family claimed she wasn't normally like that. Plus, she appeared on Jay Leno and she was very good-natured on that show, even though she knew Leno had poked fun at her several times. Someone even made a "God Warrior" action figure that was a gross caricature of her and sold it on eBay, and she was OK with that too. Maybe she just wanted to make a scene for the cameras...or maybe she's just an incredibly unstable manic-depressive who's happy some times and explosively crazy at other, unpredictable times.

[YT2095]

well that makes This:

I am afraid for the children and I am thinking of going to police to get permission to get these children away from this crazy woman.

part even worse then, unless there`s a clause in the program that strictly forbids the police from watching it, I think it`s a reasonably Safe bet that they aready Know about it

[GutZ]

I know crazy people. I've seen that episode, that lady is wacky! Her family can cover it up all they want.

[Sisyphus]

I know plenty of people whose future children I feel a profound sense of pity for. But awful parenting is not the same as child abuse. And besides, without all the neuroses our parents inflict on us, hardly anybody would have a sense of humor as an adult.

 

EDIT: Damn, I just watched some clips from it. I don't care if it was heavily edited, unless the part that was edited out was her saying, "now let's pretend I'm a psychopath." But again, does an obviously crazy parent = child abuse? Wouldn't you have to diagnose real trauma in the kids, even beyond them acting similar to the parents when they reach adulthood? I don't know.

[spoonyspoon]

Dude relax! I saw that on tv maybe over a year ago. Its kind of a dumb show but I'm gonna take a wild guess here and ASSUME that most likely millions and millions also watched it plus bout 100,000 on utube that don't count the other utube like sites,the millions from Leno and other shows she or her episode were featured on. Do you still think that you would have been the ONLY other human being to consider or actually reporting her behavior to authorities.Excuse if I'm wrong, but the way your post was worded, it seemed like you may have thought you were the first and only person to view it. Chill dude plese. enjoy life ! open your eyes to others and other opportunities that you may encounter.Life is more than "I"

[KLB]

Whoa!!! That was freaky! I imagine that the children and father were totally embarrassed by her actions. Either she was grandstanding for the TV cameras or she is completely unstable.

[ParanoiA]

I think you all are being a little soft. I mean, why is it a good idea to raise kids in a utopian environment? Everybody acts like children are so fragile. They are definitely fragile, but not to the point they should be sheltered from anger, rage, love, hate, dirty words, sex, violence - everything. IMO, I believe children should be exposed to everything, just as an adult.

 

So, bad parenting? Without some kind of damage to point to, I'd have to say not at all.

[Phi for All]

I think you all are being a little soft. I mean, why is it a good idea to raise kids in a utopian environment?

Strawman. Asking for a lack of certain abuses is NOT asking for Utopia.

Everybody acts like children are so fragile. They are definitely fragile, but not to the point they should be sheltered from anger, rage, love, hate, dirty words, sex, violence - everything.

I may be wrong but you seem to be using "shelter" as in "hide them away from all exposure to". While I agree that kind of "shelter" is wrong, I believe some sort of "shielding" is necessary. Exposure can be gradual until a child has a firmer grasp of certain concepts. We read easy books before we tackle Shakespeare, right?

IMO, I believe children should be exposed to everything, just as an adult.

Ouch. No way. Just... absolutely not. This is so wrong my fingers are cramping from typing so hard. Again, a shielding or filtering of the level of exposure is necessary. I'm definitely going to talk about sex with my child first and not just say, "Here, Google 'teen sex' and see what comes up!" And we talk about various religions first so when she sees someone like the lady in the video she has some kind of context and doesn't assume this person is a normal representative of her religion.

So, bad parenting? Without some kind of damage to point to, I'd have to say not at all.

Some scars aren't visible.

[YT2095]

Some scars aren't visible.

 

well said! in fact the visible ones tend to hurt less too.

[ParanoiA]

Strawman. Asking for a lack of certain abuses is NOT asking for Utopia.

 

Not sure about the strawman, because I'm not arguing with anybody. That was just my opener. Wasn't directed at any particular post. Just wanted to ponder the thought that perhaps our obsession with shelter and gradual introduction is actually silly and misguided.

 

I may be wrong but you seem to be using "shelter" as in "hide them away from all exposure to". While I agree that kind of "shelter" is wrong, I believe some sort of "shielding" is necessary.

 

Why? Why is shielding necessary? Other than your conditioned mindset, what is actually a good reason to shield a child from these things? Parental guidance and teaching is necessary, so why limit reality?

 

Ouch. No way. Just... absolutely not. This is so wrong my fingers are cramping from typing so hard. Again, a shielding or filtering of the level of exposure is necessary. I'm definitely going to talk about sex with my child first and not just say, "Here, Google 'teen sex' and see what comes up!" And we talk about various religions first so when she sees someone like the lady in the video she has some kind of context and doesn't assume this person is a normal representative of her religion.

 

None of this makes any sense. You want to shield them so you can talk to them about sex first? Did you talk to your child about violence before they watched bugs bunny smash elmer fudd with a frying pan? I'm not sure why it matters which is first, as long as you get the talk taken care of before they are of age to experiment. Why does it matter if a 10 year old watches a sex scene?

 

And I didn't say be irresponsible and let google raise your kid. I said why shelter or shield from reality? Why not let them be exposed to everything in life, as it happens.

 

Some scars aren't visible.

 

Well sure, the worst ones aren't. But that's damage isn't it? Not sure why this is a reply to my post. I guess it sounded like I meant physical damage - I mean both.

[Phi for All]

Not sure about the strawman, because I'm not arguing with anybody. That was just my opener. Wasn't directed at any particular post. Just wanted to ponder the thought that perhaps our obsession with shelter and gradual introduction is actually silly and misguided.

You clearly stated,

I think you all are being a little soft. I mean, why is it a good idea to raise kids in a utopian environment?

directing your comment at everyone. No one had suggested raising kids in a utopian environment, that's an easy argument to refute, therefore a strawman when used in this instance.

Why? Why is shielding necessary? Other than your conditioned 'mindset, what is actually a good reason to shield a child from these things? Parental guidance and teaching is necessary, so why limit reality?

Why do you put poisons where toddlers can't reach them? They can't understand some things and it's dangerous to expect them to. Kids at every age lack the complexity of knowledge and experience to handle *every* aspect of the raw, unfiltered world, and they learn best at a measured pace. This seems so simple I think we have a misunderstanding of terms or something.

None of this makes any sense. You want to shield them so you can talk to them about sex first?

I want to shield them from porn before I can explain sex on a more basic, filtered level.

Did you talk to your child about violence before they watched bugs bunny smash elmer fudd with a frying pan?

No, *while* she watched him do it. My daughter didn't watch network or cable TV until she was three and a half. Prior to that we watched PBS and videos because I didn't want her to learn about "reality" from commercials and cable TV.

Im not sure why it matters which is first, as long as you get the talk taken care of before they are of age to experiment.

Trying to explain in stages as applicable and doing some decent groundwork before full exposure seems like common sense to me. This is what I would call "shielding" or "filtering" and it's what I do as a parent.

Why does it matter if a 10 year old watches a sex scene?

You'd have to define "sex scene" but if the definition includes what most would consider porn then I think you have a problem. A ten-year-old is not of an age to experiment with that kind of sex, imo.

And I didn't say be irresponsible and let google raise your kid. I said why shelter or shield from reality? Why not let them be exposed to everything in life, as it happens.

"As it happens" is an important phrase here. Reality shouldn't catch your child unprepared and that's what your original comment sounded like. Reality happens anyway, I just believe in arming and armoring my child so she can make the best decisions. I don't have to hide the poisons now because she's more capable of understanding their effects at the age of eight. But she's just grasping the concept of religion right now and I certainly wouldn't want her to see the woman in the OP's video and consider her typically religious.

Well sure, the worst ones aren't. But that's damage isn't it? Not sure why this is a reply to my post. I guess it sounded like I meant physical damage - I mean both.

Well, yes. You asked if allowing your children to be exposed to everything was bad parenting and then said, "Without some kind of damage to point to, I'd have to say not at all". When your ten-year-old misunderstands the sex scene you let him watch it's tough to point to the damage you've done that leads him to abuse his lover when he's older.

[ParanoiA]

Why do you put poisons where toddlers can't reach them? They can't understand some things and it's dangerous to expect them to. Kids at every age lack the complexity of knowledge and experience to handle *every* aspect of the raw, unfiltered world, and they learn best at a measured pace. This seems so simple I think we have a misunderstanding of terms or something.

 

Phi, you ought to know me by now, I question everything. Especially time honored traditions and conditioned behaviors - things we all do without even thinking about them - like "shielding" our children from reality. I love to question that stuff. This is not unhealthy.

 

We put poisons where toddlers can't reach them because they'll hurt themselves. We cover their eyes during sex scenes because we associate sex as a dirty thing while violence is perfectly fine. You had no issues explaining violence while your child watched, but this never occured to you about sexuality? Why would porn be so bad? Other than I can't think of a good reason why a kid should see it..I really don't see a bad one either.

 

It feels wrong, because I and you and probably everyone in the country has been taught the same backwards thinking about how sex is dirty and bad and violence is kick ass. If my child can take the media scaring the hell out of him with terrorism, he can handle porn. If my child can watch grown men kill each other on TV then he can handle porn.

 

You think that you don't lack the complexity of knowledge and experience to handle *every* aspect of the raw, unfiltered world? Kids are more resilient than adults, if anything your child could handle it better than you. Children have a level of adaptability that adults don't have.

 

It seems to me, if children grew up in an atmosphere where we're not "shielding" them from everything, then they won't be so curious and stupid about it when they get older. Instead of learning about sex when their 14, eager to do it by 15, pregnant by 16 - they could have learned about sex when they were 8, weren't eager to do it since they didn't have the hormones and physiological make-up to be eager about it, not such a big deal at 15, pregnant when they're ready.

 

I'm totally out on a limb here, no doubt. But consider how other cultures don't shield so much in sexuality and language. Look at the UK. I don't have the numbers myself, but I believe they enjoy a lower sex crime rate and lack of idiots that are "offended" by such things - and they are far more liberal about sexuality. It's just not as big of a deal to their youth. They're exposed to this sort of thing regularly on TV.

 

I have to wonder if part of that is because their society, their parents, didn't make a big deal out of it. Kids are curious, they want to learn. They're especially curious about what you hide from them, or shield from them. A natural rebel of sorts. We always joke about how kids want to do what you won't let them. Maybe we should stop hiding or shielding, and get started "teaching". Show them the world, rather than spotting up the picture with blackout.

 

A ten-year-old is not of an age to experiment with that kind of sex, imo.

 

Well yeah. What did you think I meant? I'm just saying, why do I cover up my 10 year old son's eyes when there's a nude scene? Why do I insist on plugging his ears during the moaning and porn style music? What on earth am I afraid of? I'm basically passing on my insecurites and conditioned behavior onto him. For what? Because I'm afraid a 10 year old would know what sex looks like? But it's no problem for him to see what a severed head looks like? Come on...none of this really means anything. How is any of that going to hurt him. How does it "jade" his behavior?

 

When your ten-year-old misunderstands the sex scene you let him watch it's tough to point to the damage you've done that leads him to abuse his lover when he's older.

 

Now, how do you get that? How do you connect the dots here? If he watches a sex scene at 10, he might abuse his lover when he grows up? If a child is not shielded, rather exposed to everything, then he will likely have seen hundreds of sex scenes by the time he's old enough to have a lover. I doubt every single one of them is going to be a rape scene. That's the only thing I can think of that would make that connection.

 

Again, I'm just going to close in saying that everything is relative. If you present sexuality as a natural, good, healthy, fun thing from day one, then there's no reason for them to feel bad or associate anything negative with it.

 

This is why it's so easy to watch violence - for all of us. We've been doing it since the day we were born. We are completely desensitized to it. We can watch all kinds of blood and gore, with our kids right there next to us, and most of us don't give it a second thought.

 

I wonder if all reality should be exposed for what it is from day one. Giving children a chance to "get over" the real world, rather than be so easily shocked and awed about things that really aren't very shocking or awesome.

[YT2095]

wow!, so many holes to pick in THAT arg!

 

for a start the British Don`t "have sex" least of all the Married ones, and the only thing stiff and Up is our Lip. (it`s important to maintain a stiff upper lip).

 

next, your saying that Violence is "Kick ass" etc... How about turning that arg around to one where they should see Neither Violence nor pr0n, one is Not the same as the other as you`re making it out to be.

BOTH are wrong.

and just because ONE seems acceptable doesn`t make the other so, and as cliche` as it sound the old maxim "Two wrongs don`t make a right" springs instantly to mind.

 

now I CAN appreciate what you`re saying here! seriously, I can, and it would be interesting to play it out and see what happens (you might even be right), but I think I`de like a Reset Button on the entire experiment if it went tits up!

[ParanoiA]

now I CAN appreciate what you`re saying here! seriously, I can, and it would be interesting to play it out and see what happens (you might even be right), but I think I`de like a Reset Button on the entire experiment if it went tits up!

 

Well said. I'm sure not going to experiment on my kids...

 

..but I'm going to keep this debate for parties...since politics and religion are always out...

[Royston]

I love to question that stuff. This is not unhealthy.

 

Within reason...yes.

 

We put poisons where toddlers can't reach them because they'll hurt themselves. We cover their eyes during sex scenes because we associate sex as a dirty thing while violence is perfectly fine.

 

You've made blanket associations with sex and violence i.e you believe (as in we...whoever you're referring to) that all sex scenes are considered dirty, and all levels of violence are ok...hilarious. Who is this 'we' ?

 

You had no issues explaining violence while your child watched, but this never occured to you about sexuality? Why would porn be so bad? Other than I can't think of a good reason why a kid should see it..I really don't see a bad one either.

 

Simply because, violence is a lot less complex when it comes moral ground than sex...you cause suffering to somebody, so violence equates to 'bad'. Now explain the moral ground when a child is exposed to sex...it's all very well questioning pornographic exposure to a child, but you haven't even addressed why it would cause problems.

 

It feels wrong, because I and you and probably everyone in the country has been taught the same backwards thinking about how sex is dirty and bad and violence is kick ass. If my child can take the media scaring the hell out of him with terrorism, he can handle porn. If my child can watch grown men kill each other on TV then he can handle porn.

 

Your child can't 'handle' porn, because the issues around sex are far more complex than violence. In fact violence merges into porn, so explain that to your kids. Children won't understand sexual desires, because they are yet to feel sexual desires...so how can they possibly understand it. Violence OTOH, is a lot easier to explain .

 

You think that you don't lack the complexity of knowledge and experience to handle *every* aspect of the raw, unfiltered world? Kids are more resilient than adults, if anything your child could handle it better than you. Children have a level of adaptability that adults don't have.

 

So we condition kids to be resilient to 'all' violence and 'all' sexual practices...lol. Kids want to play and have the space to fulfill their curiosity, and not have their curiosity fulfilled and handed on a plate. Remember, 'you' still have to explain what is being exposed to them...I think in many examples, this would be decidedly hard, don't you think.

 

It seems to me, if children grew up in an atmosphere where we're not "shielding" them from everything, then they won't be so curious and stupid about it when they get older. Instead of learning about sex when their 14, eager to do it by 15, pregnant by 16 - they could have learned about sex when they were 8, weren't eager to do it since they didn't have the hormones and physiological make-up to be eager about it, not such a big deal at 15, pregnant when they're ready.

 

Yeah, because kids don't question why they're born until they hit 15...pleeeease, there's a difference to explaining the birds and the bees, and exposing your child to porn.

 

I'm totally out on a limb here, no doubt. But consider how other cultures don't shield so much in sexuality and language. Look at the UK. I don't have the numbers myself, but I believe they enjoy a lower sex crime rate and lack of idiots that are "offended" by such things - and they are far more liberal about sexuality. It's just not as big of a deal to their youth. They're exposed to this sort of thing regularly on TV.

 

That's just plain BS., and yes...you're out on a limb.

[ParanoiA]

Simply because, violence is a lot less complex when it comes moral ground than sex...you cause suffering to somebody, so violence equates to 'bad'. Now explain the moral ground when a child is exposed to sex...it's all very well questioning pornographic exposure to a child, but you haven't even addressed why it would cause problems.

 

Not sure if I'm reading that correctly, but that's my point - I don't know that it would cause problems so why would I possibly address it?

 

I see no lack of morality in consensual sex. You are correct in that sexuality is far more complex - finally a good answer. But, how much do children understand about what's on the TV screen?

 

When a 6 year old is watching TV, he probably doesn't understand at least half of what's going on, socially. So what if it's a sex scene or a documentary on planet formation - he's not going to understand it either way. I doubt that means he's going to grow up wanting to abuse planetary scientists or abuse his future lover.

 

Complexity does not equal impossible. It means continued learning. Did you learn 100% of everything there is to know about sex at one sitting? Was all of that explained to you with perfectly clear understanding of all of the subject material before you ever saw a single sex scene in a movie? Or even a raunchy sex scene in a porn?

 

Why is it that a child is thought to be so fragile that they'll explode with mental trauma if they were witness these things? Early humans didn't even know to hide these things, as far as we can tell. Are all of our ancestors buried in mental disorder from generations and generations of exposure to reality without shielding and proper measured exposure?

 

So we condition kids to be resilient to 'all' violence and 'all' sexual practices...lol. Kids want to play and have the space to fulfill their curiosity, and not have their curiosity fulfilled and handed on a plate. Remember, 'you' still have to explain what is being exposed to them...I think in many examples, this would be decidedly hard, don't you think.

 

No, I meant that kids can adapt to just about anything. There's no real way to associate right or wrong, inherently, without being taught, conditioned, raised - however you want to put that.

 

If I walked around my house naked, my kids would freak and I hope would eventually call the police because daddy's gone nuts. Because they've been raised in an environment where they recognize that as abnormal and wrong.

 

But if I walked around my house naked from the time they were born, they would think nothing of it. Their friends would freak and call the police instead.

 

I'm just saying that sex, rage, violence, hate, love, friendship, loss, death, life - all of these things are a part of life - some are complex, but I don't see the point in measured exposure, shielding them from these things. If they are exposed to them all throughout their life, I simply believe they will be more level headed and tolerant, healthy.

 

Yeah, because kids don't question why they're born until they hit 15...pleeeease, there's a difference to explaining the birds and the bees, and exposing your child to porn.

 

Ok, but tell me how it's bad. I'm still waiting for a good answer. "It's complex" is not a good answer. Violence can be complex too. Sometimes it's in self defense, sometimes it's vengence, passion, evil - plenty of complexity, although not as much so as sexuality.

 

That's just plain BS., and yes...you're out on a limb.

 

It would be more persuasive if you'd provide an argument. BS? Tell me why. We know that more sexually liberal cultures enjoy lower rates in sex crimes - I just don't know by how much.

[-Demosthenes-]

Thats Religion. as wrong as it is that is what Religion is all about.

 

Mmhhh, generalization

[Royston]

I see no lack of morality in consensual sex. You are correct in that sexuality is far more complex - finally a good answer. But, how much do children understand about what's on the TV screen?

 

When a 6 year old is watching TV, he probably doesn't understand at least half of what's going on, socially. So what if it's a sex scene or a documentary on planet formation - he's not going to understand it either way. I doubt that means he's going to grow up wanting to abuse planetary scientists or abuse his future lover.

 

Exposure to something a child doesn't understand, and explaining what the child is being exposed to are obviously different. You were inferring that it seems bizarre that there should be 'hang ups' about the content a child is exposed to. Don't you think that a child might ask about what they're being exposed to ?

 

Complexity does not equal impossible. It means continued learning.

 

Stick to the context of the thread.

 

Did you learn 100% of everything there is to know about sex at one sitting? Was all of that explained to you with perfectly clear understanding of all of the subject material before you ever saw a single sex scene in a movie? Or even a raunchy sex scene in a porn?

 

No, and there is no end to a child's questions, but consider these two examples...(and excuse the crudeness)

 

Two people meet, they chat over a glass of wine, and then hand in hand they go to a bedroom and have sex.

 

Two people meet, they chat over a glass of wine, and then hand in hand they go to a bedroom and one beats the other over the head with a dildo, while the other screams 'oh God, I love curtains'

 

This is the difference between sex education, and social education...one is quite simple, the other requires a lot of explanation.

 

Why is it that a child is thought to be so fragile that they'll explode with mental trauma if they were witness these things? Early humans didn't even know to hide these things, as far as we can tell. Are all of our ancestors buried in mental disorder from generations and generations of exposure to reality without shielding and proper measured exposure?

 

Ancient man, and a child brought up in present influences are hardly comparable. How do you think 'early humans' would react around the influences modern culture dictates. You seem to be ignoring the fact that parents have to explain what the child is being exposed to.

 

kids can adapt to just about anything. There's no real way to associate right or wrong, inherently, without being taught, conditioned, raised - however you want to put that.

 

If I walked around my house naked, my kids would freak and I hope would eventually call the police because daddy's gone nuts. Because they've been raised in an environment where they recognize that as abnormal and wrong.

 

That's hardly abnormal and wrong, but if you don't normally walk around naked...then it is, in your kids eyes, but it's not dirty, just different.

 

So you would be in a position to explain this difference to your children.

 

Now try explaining the difference if you were walking around in a gimp mask, with a carrot nestled between your thighs. Now you 'could' explain it in the same fashion that you explained 'why you walked around naked', but don't you think some other questions will be raised by your kids...i.e what's the purpose of the carrot, and why is my friends Dad not walking around with a carrot between his thighs.

 

Ok, but tell me how it's bad. I'm still waiting for a good answer. "It's complex" is not a good answer. Violence can be complex too. Sometimes it's in self defense, sometimes it's vengence, passion, evil - plenty of complexity, although not as much so as sexuality.

 

Complex is a good answer, for all the reasons I've stated above, and violence can be complex...but not for the same reasons sex is a complex.

 

It would be more persuasive if you'd provide an argument. BS? Tell me why. We know that more sexually liberal cultures enjoy lower rates in sex crimes - I just don't know by how much.

 

I don't recall you saying sex 'crimes', but sex related problems are rife in the UK, hence council housing for single mothers is such a problem.

[ParanoiA]

You were inferring that it seems bizarre that there should be 'hang ups' about the content a child is exposed to. Don't you think that a child might ask about what they're being exposed to ?

 

Well yes, and you should explain it to them. I was just making the point that just because a child doesn't know what's going on (like in a sex scene), doesn't mean they'll grow up with a perverted view on sex. They'll ask out of curiosity, and you should answer. Answer like it's no big deal...because it isn't.

 

This is the difference between sex education, and social education...one is quite simple, the other requires a lot of explanation.

 

Agreed. What makes you think this is inexplicable? I'm not sure I get your point here. Yes, the dildo curtain fetish leaves some explaining to do...."Son, when you get older your hormones will kick in and you will understand sexual urge. Sexual desires can be strange sometimes. This is a good example. Don't think it's bad or violent, you can see they are enjoying themselves. Most people don't do that though, so it's by no means, average."

 

Sorry..that just wasn't that difficult. You really think a child can't understand that? If so, you're underestimating them...

 

Now try explaining the difference if you were walking around in a gimp mask, with a carrot nestled between your thighs. Now you 'could' explain it in the same fashion that you explained 'why you walked around naked', but don't you think some other questions will be raised by your kids...i.e what's the purpose of the carrot, and why is my friends Dad not walking around with a carrot between his thighs.

 

Well they would probably be over 5 before they ask since nothing will seem out of place until around then. Although I'm sure they would have grabbed the carrot several times throughout their infanthood - that would be creepy.

 

When they asked, I would tell them what the purpose of the carrot is...(whatever it is...it's your plot, not mine) And I would remind them that their friend's dads don't run around like that because they simply aren't into it. Just like your friend's dad drives a Chevy pickup and I drive a Ford ranger. Different strokes for different folks.

 

Why does that seem so daunting? Just talk to your damn kids..they're people man. You don't have to cover everything with sugar and gum drops.

 

Complex is a good answer, for all the reasons I've stated above, and violence can be complex...but not for the same reasons sex is a complex

.

 

No it's not, because complexity is not beyond their ability. Manipulation is complex, and they do a terrific job at it. Just explain it to them. They will soak up what they can and repeated exposure will solidify these things throughout their life. We already learn that way.

 

We talk about drugs to our kids - at least I do. They didn't understand what all of these drugs are or why people would do them, even after my lecture on it. But the subject comes up from time to time, and I go back through it. They ask new questions, getting deeper and deeper into the subject matter. They learn a little at a time. That doesn't mean they need to be sheltered or shielded away from anything that goes beyond their current understanding. When they see drug use on TV, they ask about it - that is, if they care. Usually they don't.

 

I don't recall you saying sex 'crimes', but sex related problems are rife in the UK, hence council housing for single mothers is such a problem.

 

I was sticking with sex crimes, because that's unacceptable sexual deviance. Weird sex is not. Weird is subjective. Holland also enjoys a lower sex crime rate, arguably as a result of legalized prostitution and an extremely liberal outlook on sexuality.

 

If you quit making it a big deal...it won't be a big deal.

[Royston]

If you quit making it a big deal...it won't be a big deal.

 

Well, I don't think it's a big deal...kids will come across porn et.c with or without the guidance of their parents, and will most likely have no adverse effects when they grow up.

 

From your earlier posts it seemed as though you were implying that the entire spectrum of violence and porn should be acceptable for children to be exposed to...but it seems you don't think that, or maybe you weren't clear on what level of violence et.c is acceptable. TBH I watched horror films, martial art films, and read...sorry looked at porn at an early age. I have know a couple of friends where it did mess them up as a kid...one turned out to be a raging perv (he wasn't prior to porn exposure), and the other threw tantrums before going to bed because he was petrified of falling asleep (this went on for a couple of years.)

 

EDIT: Although I've always been a firm believer that if a child does grow up to be violent or peverted, then they probably would of been anyway, regardless of what films they watched at a younger age.

 

Kids are obviously vulnerable, and easily persuaded and influenced...I guess I just wasn't clear on your position, plus I was in a rotten mood yestarday.