Honey, I Told The Kids The Truth About The Stork

[SigmaSD]

I wasn't harmed in any way when I found out that my sis and bro where my half sis and bro, since they are considered my siblings no matter what.

If I was a parent I wouldn't mind telling my children the truth, but sexuality might need to wait until they're older. I won't lie to them, I'll just say "I'll tell you when you're older". They just won't understand at a young age.

[Gero50]

I agree with you 100% on this kids have every right to know about how these things work and why.

[DOOM!]

Parents are notorious for being liars. When they're kids we say "You can be anything you want to be!" but as soon as they're teenagers and want to be a rock star they say "Well now be realistic honey." for srs

Well sure, they can't always cuddle your ideas even at such old age. Suppose you're 20 and unemployed and say you'd like to become president; "Of course you can, honey" would sound out of the question.

To make this short, I believe nobody should lie. We do, but generally, we shouldn't. Why shelter your children? It's only going to hurt them in the end. I asked where babies came from when I was five. My mom told me the entire truth, but I totally didn't get it. Then, I asked again when I was eight, and understood from there on. Am I harmed in any way? No. I asked why one of the kids in my second grade class told me I would burn in hell because I didn't believe Jesus. She told me because some people aren't as open to diversity. I asked why my godfathers lived together, my mom said because they're married (back in the day when you could get married in California). Am I corrupt? No. It's not like she made me watch porn or anything, she just told me the truth, because everyone has the right to know the truth.

The only thing my mom protected me from was horror and gore. And quite frankly, I'm happy. I can just imagine the nightmares I would have :/.

You already made it horribly long and I would like to inform you that I have absoluteley NO intention to read any further.

I'd say you should be 100% true because then your kids will get on them internets and learn all about it there and think your just a lair or really stupid
and that is no good :\

Why not give'em teh internetz in the first place, then?

I just tell the kids they have AIDS

Aaaaand threaten them to close the pool!

[Akihiko Yamamoto Hozagaki]

You already made it horribly long and I would like to inform you that I have absoluteley NO intention to read any further.

Necessary? I don't think the whole world needed to know that you "informed me". If you're too lazy to read the text, there's an expression we use called "tl;dr". However, you usually use it when people are talking directly to you.

[Capernicus]

Well sure, they can't always cuddle your ideas even at such old age. Suppose you're 20 and unemployed and say you'd like to become president; "Of course you can, honey" would sound out of the question.

Well, yes, considering that the Constitution stipulates that one must be at least 35 years of age to be President. However, that's not what my statement was trying to address. My issue lies with the "You can be anything you want to be!" statement, not the "Well now be realistic honey."

[Forgotten Show]

Umm, so what you're saying is that the oppressive Victorian/50's blocking of any and all knowledge of sexuality and the wall of ignorance it threw up between people and their own mortality is dissolving?

No. What I'm saying is that there are appropriate ages for information to be effectively learned and understood instead of replicated for the sake of improving social standing (which is one of the most common themes of children and adolescents). We're not talking about teaching acceptance and safe sex practices. We're talking about 8-10 year olds thinking it's okay to fool around with each other sexually, and about 11-14 year olds thinking they're mature enough for sex. We're talking about children ingrained with the idea that violence against others is normal and almost accepted/celebrated in today's (American & Western) culture.

Nowhere have I stated that outright repression is the, or even an, answer. But there is a significant difference between 10-year-old Johnny knowing what BJs are and trying them with his friends and a late-high-schooler experimenting with sex. Comparing Japan to the United States is a non-argument; the cultures are too dissimilar to expect similar results for similar educational and social actions.

Protip: Never bring up psychology as an argument, all I have to do is wait three years and every thing you've mentioned will be found either flat out wrong or inconclusive.

Protip(s): there are as many people checking each other's research in the field of psychology as there are in any other medical field, especially when it's published; there aren't many sacred cows, as is appropriate for any science. Additionally, information regarding children has been steadily building over the years, as is being reflected in the increased success of treatments for those that need it (wait three years, hm?). Lastly, self-medication =/= addiction. It's people believing they are qualified to make determinations about whether they have bipolar disorder, or depression, or manic disorder, or any number of other anxiety and depressive problems for which we see commercials advocating help in a pill.

I strongly support the free availability of information, but what's shown on the radio or TV isn't free availability. It's availability to those who pay the most for air time. I've never heard a commercial for an anti-depressant state that anti-depressants alone are much, much less successful than therapy alone, let alone therapy paired with prescribed anti-depressants. Yet, in speaking to virtually anyone, one would think that drugs were really the best, if not the only, way to handle honest-to-God depression. Do you see the problem?


You wanna tell your kids about the birds and the bees? Cool, won't find any argument from me about it. The sex talk is an important one to have. But let's start being realistic about what we expect kids to understand at varying ages, and start explaining the whole thing, not just the sex part. Let's start talking about consequences. Maybe get kids involved in the more simple finances involved with food and housing so they have a better understanding of the level of dedication one has to put into being a parent (since, you know, parenthood should be involved in any sex talk given what sex can lead to). Research with the kids the known effects, short and long term, of birth control. Bring up condoms and their limitations. By the time kids start fooling around sexually, they should be doing so knowing more than just what a BJ is or how to get/give one.

"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."




Bad Memory

[wolfgirl90]

To be honest, my parents never told me that babies came from "the stork" (or about Santa Claus or about the Easter Bunny). I found out about "where babies came from" when I was about 6 or 7 years old (second grade). My teacher was pregnant at the time (most likely the first time I had seen that), so I decided to ask my mom about it. She pretty much taught me the basics of sex during that conversation. I am rather thankful that my parents chose to be honest with me.

When it comes to sex, I think that parents should be honest with their children. Kids are going to find out about sex and where I live, sex education begins at the fourth grade (ages 9-10), so if kids didn't learn about sex before this time, the school system is about to drop a HUGE bombshell on the kids (also, here, sex-ed is safe sex-based, not abstinence based).

Lastly, self-medication =/= addiction. It's people believing they are qualified to make determinations about whether they have bipolar disorder, or depression, or manic disorder, or any number of other anxiety and depressive problems for which we see commercials advocating help in a pill.

Actually, self medication as much less to do with the diagnoses of bipolar disorder and depression and more about the perceived treatment of the individual who already has these particular disorders. Because of this, while self-medication does not mean the same thing as an addition, self-medication often leads to an addiction of the drugs and substances in question. For example, a person with clinical depression doesn't drink to figure out if they are depressed but rather drinks in order to alleviate the symptoms of their depression.

I strongly support the free availability of information, but what's shown on the radio or TV isn't free availability. It's availability to those who pay the most for air time. I've never heard a commercial for an anti-depressant state that anti-depressants alone are much, much less successful than therapy alone, let alone therapy paired with prescribed anti-depressants. Yet, in speaking to virtually anyone, one would think that drugs were really the best, if not the only, way to handle honest-to-God depression. Do you see the problem?

Not really, because the effects of prescription drugs are usually on par with those of therapy. In fact, psycotherapy is usually used for people who are not old enough to take anti-depressants on their own, usually those under the age of 18 (of course, that isn't to say that adults do not turn to therapy because many of them do). You do not see a commercial that states that anti-depressants are "much, much less successful than therapy alone" because that isn't true, not because of money (plus that wouldn't make any sense).

I understand what you trying to get at, but the thing is, correlation does not necessarily equal causation. More information about sex does not mean that people are automatically going to have sex; more information about certain drugs does not automatically mean that people are going to go out and take those drugs. And if they DO end up doing those things, it does not necessarily mean that the television or the Internet was the actual cause of their choices in the matter.

[Forgotten Show]

Actually, self medication as much less to do with the diagnoses of bipolar disorder and depression and more about the perceived treatment of the individual who already has these particular disorders. Because of this, while self-medication does not mean the same thing as an addition, self-medication often leads to an addiction of the drugs and substances in question. For example, a person with clinical depression doesn't drink to figure out if they are depressed but rather drinks in order to alleviate the symptoms of their depression.

I thought as much was inferred with my statement, as I've said nothing to the contrary. Simplifying into discussion-relevant examples seemed more prudent. Ya mighta misread me a bit.

Not really, because the effects of prescription drugs are usually on par with those of therapy. In fact, psycotherapy is usually used for people who are not old enough to take anti-depressants on their own, usually those under the age of 18 (of course, that isn't to say that adults do not turn to therapy because many of them do).

Incorrect on both counts. Research by both American and Australian psychologists agree that prescription drugs (namely SNRIs and SSRIs) take considerably longer than CBT to take effect. More recent research spearheaded by the University of Pennsylvania and Vanderbilt University effectively debunks the previous position of the American Psychiatric Association that prescription drugs are the only effective treatment for moderate to severe therapy, particularly in adolescents. American and Aussie research also agrees that those youngin's with symptoms of the aforementioned disorders are more likely to be on meds than in a psychologist's or psychiatrist's office. (hint: You'd surprise not a single mental health professional if you were to tell them this. Honest.)

I understand what you trying to get at, but the thing is, correlation does not necessarily equal causation. More information about sex does not mean that people are automatically going to have sex; more information about certain drugs does not automatically mean that people are going to go out and take those drugs.

I stated neither position. It is a fact that sex is occurring at younger and younger ages, as it is also a fact that self-medication for perceived physiological and psychological problems. I agree and have also said (here even) that correlation does not equal causation, but if you've ever been around any kind of accredited research you realize that correlation does a damn good job at pointing you in the right direction. Are you willing to argue that the increased glorification of sexuality and violence in youth-targetted media, and that youths are generally exposed to in other media, play no role whatsoever in the trend toward sexual experiences at younger ages and increased frequency of violence? If not, why not?


Bad Memory