Subject:
|
Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 22 Dec 2001 17:56:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1387 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
>
> > > they are 9 and 12. That topic ought not to come up with a 3 year old other
> >
> > Hunh? Why the heck not?
>
> I said why.
I missed that. I'm still missing it, in fact, as I read back through your
note.
The sum of what you wrote on this specific subthread is:
> My children have been told that people are gay and encouraged
> to think about it and recognise it as a lifestyle choice that
> I don't necessarily recommend (because society is so hard on
> gays) but will embrace if they choose it. but they are 9 and 12.
> That topic ought not to come up with a 3 year old other than in
> the "yes, Bill and Ted are a family" context. To deny that Bill
> and Ted might actually *be* a family is to deny reality and to
> be insufficiently tolerant.
And I agree with every last detail of your note except when you suggest that
three year olds shouldn't have access to that information.
> 3 is in my view too young to get into the anatomical details of
> how exactly gay love works. Or straight love for that matter. It's frankly,
> likely to be boring to the 3 year old anyway and not particularly relevant.
Boring and irrelevant are perfectly good reasons (perhapse the best reasons of
all) for not discussing something, but that should (IMO) be driven by the
child, not the adult. If it's dull, then they will ask only the most cursory
questions and be satisfied with the answers. But as long as they are asking
questions, I think they deserve honest and detailed answers regardless of their
age. Protecting them from information that they actually want is silly and
mean.
I understand that some people aren't comfortable talking about human sexuality.
I personally think they ought to get over it, but if they can't then they
should honestly tell their kids that they're not comfortable discussing it and
procure another form of education.
> But the part you trimmed (why did you do that?)
Only the part I quoted was relevant to my point. I wasn't trying to
misrepresent you. Sorry, if you took it that way.
> explains that I would (and
> did, in fact, as we've known gay couples since forever) explain "Helen and
> Carmella are Jenny's parents, just like we are your parents" at that point
> without making a big deal about anatomy.
That's fine. I wasn't attacking your practice (though I've always wanted you
to engage in one of the child-rearing discussions that I'm so passionate about)
I was asking for clarity on what I thought was a bad idea and possibly not
really what you meant.
For instance: If Nik (isn't that your son's name (and correct spelling)?) at
three had accepted that a family had two moms instead of a mom and a dad and
had then asked more about the differences in such families and what lead to
homosexual pairings etc, would you have answered freely or would you have
censored his understanding?
I acknowledge that it would be odd for a kid of that age to pursue that topic
to that extent, but I'm asking a hypothetical about what if he'd _wanted_ to
know more.
Sorry if my tone bugged you,
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
101 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
