S/O on "The Talk" thread...

[Ester Maria]

I think this kind of thing - being so unaware of the facts of life - is actually a pretty recent thing, and it is a very wealthy Western thing. Which isn't to say it is bad, but I don't know that it is better.

 

A 150 years ago people were not only closer to the animal world, they often shared very small homes. If you think about something like the Little House books, and the homes they lived in, it is pretty clear there was not much privacy. It would have been hard for the kids to be totally unawre of the parents activities.

 

That is how it has been for most of human history and it is in much of the world today. The kind of privacy we take for granted is pretty unique. I am not inclined to think that being unaware of such things is really why they had a different attitude to sex.

I think that even in the Little House times there was quite a bit of diversity in how people lived - so while I agree that many lived in very small homes with an intimate atmosphere, there were also others who led more urban lifestlyes, in older buildings with heavier walls separating the rooms, in a culture of greater separation (not only physical separation into different rooms, but I assume also emotional separation, compared to what we know today) from their parents. We probably have somewhat different experiences or different family baggage, but I think that if anything, there is a trend of increased closeness between parents and children and increased openness in terms of what is shared. My mother told me in several instances that she allows herself to talk to me with a certain openness or emotional intimacy her mother would not have permitted herself when talking to her daughter, and I believe I took even that a bit further, in that I talk to my children with a level of openness I do not recall my mother shared with. My children can ask me questions of the kind I would not ask my mother, and yet I feel there is a certain boundary I am not willing to cross with them either.

 

It is not so much about withholding information from them at that age as much as it is not insisting to take it further than a simple lesson in biology. I honestly do not believe that the details on the intercourse, let alone the "rest" of the sexual education (birth control, abortion, non-standard forms of sexual and gender identities, etc.), should be a repertory of an average child - and if it is, the interest should come from them, not the parent "suggesting" these topics. I mean, even sex-centered Freud believed that this age largely belongs, developmentally, to the latency stage. :tongue_smilie: IOW, that there is / should not be atypical interest in sexual topics at that age period. So I am not surprised that the OP's kids show zero interest in talking about it further, as that has been my experience too. Teach biology as developmentally appropriate, but save "further sex ed" for later, has been my tactic.

[Crimson Wife]

I may be missing it, but is this sarcastic?

 

Are you assuming that discussing sex "early" = "definitely NOT doing it with a Biblical POV?"

 

Maybe it was sarcastic, but the medium doesn't convery it.

 

No, it's perfectly possible for a family to discuss the mechanics early and still teach their children that the only proper place for intimate activity is between a husband and his wife.

 

I'm saying that it's not being done with a Biblical POV because I live in the San Francisco Bay Area and I know that holding traditional Judeo-Christian values about sexual morality places me in the minority here.

[Joanne]

No, it's perfectly possible for a family to discuss the mechanics early and still teach their children that the only proper place for intimate activity is between a husband and his wife.

 

I'm saying that it's not being done with a Biblical POV because I live in the San Francisco Bay Area and I know that holding traditional Judeo-Christian values about sexual morality places me in the minority here.

 

Ah. "Here" meant your geographical, not cyber, "here". I was reading it differently.

 

I'm glad I asked. :)

 

(PS: I think that "Biblical POV" in terms of intimacy and sexuality is a bit elusive, anyway.)

[Bluegoat]

I think that even in the Little House times there was quite a bit of diversity in how people lived - so while I agree that many lived in very small homes with an intimate atmosphere, there were also others who led more urban lifestlyes, in older buildings with heavier walls separating the rooms, in a culture of greater separation (not only physical separation into different rooms, but I assume also emotional separation, compared to what we know today) from their parents. We probably have somewhat different experiences or different family baggage, but I think that if anything, there is a trend of increased closeness between parents and children and increased openness in terms of what is shared. My mother told me in several instances that she allows herself to talk to me with a certain openness or emotional intimacy her mother would not have permitted herself when talking to her daughter, and I believe I took even that a bit further, in that I talk to my children with a level of openness I do not recall my mother shared with. My children can ask me questions of the kind I would not ask my mother, and yet I feel there is a certain boundary I am not willing to cross with them either.

 

It is not so much about withholding information from them at that age as much as it is not insisting to take it further than a simple lesson in biology. I honestly do not believe that the details on the intercourse, let alone the "rest" of the sexual education (birth control, abortion, non-standard forms of sexual and gender identities, etc.), should be a repertory of an average child - and if it is, the interest should come from them, not the parent "suggesting" these topics. I mean, even sex-centered Freud believed that this age largely belongs, developmentally, to the latency stage. :tongue_smilie: IOW, that there is / should not be atypical interest in sexual topics at that age period. So I am not surprised that the OP's kids show zero interest in talking about it further, as that has been my experience too. Teach biology as developmentally appropriate, but save "further sex ed" for later, has been my tactic.

 

 

This makes me think of two things. The first is that while I agree that during periods in the past there have been some who lived in situations that allowed for more privacy, I think that really has not been the norm. In the pioneer period, there were some who were able to live that way. If we look a little earlier to the medieval world, even the wealthy would have the entire family in a single bedroom while others working for them would sleep in groups in the hall or other areas. And the poor usually only had one room. This is still common worldwide - a good friend of mine lived in Africa for a while with a pastor and his family - they all, including her, slept in one room.

 

I don't think though that this means that people talked about things in a way that might be considered more "open" In a factual sense I don't think children were normally that sheltered. But I think that often it is precisly that lack of privacy that means people are more circumspect about how they speak. Both because details are not so necessary, and because people feel the need to maintain emotional privacy.

 

But in any case, my point was simply that to imagine that children knowing about the birds and the bees at a young age is a new thing is not really accurate. If people had a different attitude toward sex, it was not because they kept their children from knowing those things. Who knows - maybe it was partly because of that more factual attitude that people treated it differently.

 

I don't think there is much point in pushing information on kids they are not interested in, and it isn't like we can cross what are now serious social taboos to replicate that earlier situation, or would want to. I tend to think that addressing it as it comes up is a reasonable approach. But I don't think it is accurate to say that children were more sheltered or innocent than in the past.

[lionfamily1999]

I think this kind of thing - being so unaware of the facts of life - is actually a pretty recent thing, and it is a very wealthy Western thing. Which isn't to say it is bad, but I don't know that it is better.

 

A 150 years ago people were not only closer to the animal world, they often shared very small homes. If you think about something like the Little House books, and the homes they lived in, it is pretty clear there was not much privacy. It would have been hard for the kids to be totally unawre of the parents activities.

 

That is how it has been for most of human history and it is in much of the world today. The kind of privacy we take for granted is pretty unique. I am not inclined to think that being unaware of such things is really why they had a different attitude to sex.

We have pets and we live near farms. The kids have seen animals going at it. I think it's a lot harder to get around that than one might think. I mean there are animals everywhere, and bugs, and they all have sex. Even an inner city cihld will see flies riding piggy back. It's unavoidable.

 

As for small homes... my money's on most parents being pretty discreet. I just can't imagine Ma and Pa really going at each other while the kids are laying next to them, or throwing the blankets off if they're sharing a room. Squeeks and muffled groans do not a sex education make. If anything it increases the mystery. What ARE they doing? I mean, the kids might know they're doing "it," but they aren't going to know what "it" is, even having watched bulls and cows (who are fairly obvious, my kids all mistaked the bull's you-know for an extra apendage at some point), because it's not the same when Ma and Pa are doing it. (I'm hopefully assuming here that pioneer women were not running around their homes butt naked while the menfolk chased after them attempting to mount and subdue.)

 

IOW, I don't think they were so much better educated. I doubt, seriously seriously doubt, that pioneer children had pictures of the reproductive organs. I seriously doubt that they had books they could linger over or the freedom to ask Ma and Pa about those funny feelings that have started coming up.

[Spy Car]

 

I'm saying that it's not being done with a Biblical POV because I live in the San Francisco Bay Area and I know that holding traditional Judeo-Christian values about sexual morality places me in the minority here.

 

Gosh, I've read this Bible of which you speak. Many of the sex-stories are not exactly great examples of morality.

 

Bill

Edited November 21, 2011 by Spy Car