Love this: sex positive parenting

[Scrub Jay]

 

 

DS did K in a private school, and one day told the teacher his penis was hurting.  She said "Oh no, we don't use that word, we say 'weiner.'"  Huh??  Like penis is a bad word?  One of the many reason we decided to homeschool.

 

That's whacked.

 

And, at least IMO, wiener is such an unattractive sounding word.  Blech.

 

[LatteMama]

I love how this turned into what we all call our private parts.  I taught my dd the correct terms from the very beginning.  And at some point I told her that in public we would just say privates or bottom so we wouldn't offend people who aren't use to plain speaking.  It didn't seem like a big deal.

[marbel]

First time in a long time I actually laughed out loud at a post. Thank you!

 

On topic:  we've always used proper terminology-- just labeling body parts like any other.  

 

DS did K in a private school, and one day told the teacher his penis was hurting.  She said "Oh no, we don't use that word, we say 'weiner.'"  Huh??  Like penis is a bad word?  One of the many reason we decided to homeschool.

 

 

That's whacked.

 

And, at least IMO, wiener is such an unattractive sounding word.  Blech.

 

 

Seriously.  It is also the name of a food  (Some of you might say, a food-like substance.) 

 

Never understood that as a euphemism. 

[TeacherZee]

okay, so maybe a little off topic, but this conversation reminds me of the stuff my dd1 said when she was  almost three.

 

"mommy, you know the difference between boys and girls?" "Girls have bobo's, (that's what we called the whole vulva, vagina, etc... area, they know the real names) and boys have mustaches." haha a lot of men in our family have mustaches.

 

She was taking a bath, and dd1 looks at us and says "Daddy, boys have penis', and girls have toasters." We were laughing so hard. She came up with that one on her own.

 

My mom always called my brothers man parts tallywackers. Now, every time I hear that word, I laugh. 

 

For the record, we've always talked openly with our girls about the correct terminology for our anatomy. We just chose to use more cutesy names when they were little. To each his own.

 

Not picking on you but I've been thinking about this post for the last hour :)

 

The problem with names like this is that most people wouldn't know what the kid meant if they used tallywackers. If little Johnny comes to me and says that MommysPervyBoyfriend or UnclePerve has been playing with my tallywacker, I could just as easily think that they meant something else (for the record I would probably investigate a bit more but you know...). I was thinking about it because I have been binge watching one of those 911 shows and one of the elderly patients told the EMT that he needed something (can't remember the word now) and both the EMT and I went huh :confused1: . Turned out that he needed to go to the bathroom, but I certainly wouldn't have guessed that.

 

Just a thought.

[Murphy101]

I am very pro abstinence. I think abstinence pledges are stupid. And they kinda squirm me out. So do purity rings, promise rings (wth IS that anyways? A promise to some day make a real promise? Hello? An engagement ring is a promise ring. Fish or cut bait!), daddy/daughter or mommy/son "dates".

 

A side funny....

 

I was dropping ds18 off to spend the day at his girl friend's house in my way to take the rest of the kids somewhere else and I joked as I pulled into the drive way, "Alright. You know the drill. No secluded snookie corners, no shutting bedroom doors..."

 

He interrupted laughing and said, "Don't worry, Mom. I know. I've got all the bases covered."

 

Me, feigning shock and horror, "No covering bases! No touching ANY bases!"

 

He was laughing so hard he could hardly open the van door.

 

LOL Good times. :)

[Freckles]

TeacherZee, I don't call it that. My mom does. She raised kids in the 70's when you didn't talk about anything. At least in my world. She still asks the grandkids if they need to go tinkle.  I suppose if you don't know what they are referring to, you could ask them to point to it. I don't have the answers. I just thought it was a funny word.

[Murphy101]

Not picking on you but I've been thinking about this post for the last hour :)

 

The problem with names like this is that most people wouldn't know what the kid meant if they used tallywackers. If little Johnny comes to me and says that MommysPervyBoyfriend or UnclePerve has been playing with my tallywacker, I could just as easily think that they meant something else (for the record I would probably investigate a bit more but you know...). I was thinking about it because I have been binge watching one of those 911 shows and one of the elderly patients told the EMT that he needed something (can't remember the word now) and both the EMT and I went huh :confused1: . Turned out that he needed to go to the bathroom, but I certainly wouldn't have guessed that.

 

Just a thought.

No, the problem with that is the concept that one should parent children under the presumption they are going to be molested/raped.

 

I don't have that presumption and have no reason to think I should start having it.

 

And no, that doesn't mean I'm naive or ignorant that happens or that I would ignore it if it did. Very much the opposite actually.

 

ETA: I have no issue with using clinical accurate terms. Use whatever. I really don't care. But using scare tactics to get someone to use certain terms over other terms is not persuasive to me.

[Halftime Hope]

Somehow I doubt that. Unless you physically beat your children in public and deny them education (especially the girls), unless you send them out to work 12 hours a day to contribute to the income of your family, unless you don't provide toothbrushes in your home, you've benefited from so-called experts. 

 

Really?!?  Hmmm.  Remember, you were responding to Martha's statement that she "ha not bothered to look into what so called parenting experts say in a long time."  

 

1) Just clarifying:  you are saying that it takes a parenting expert to teach parents not to do the bolded above?   Or perhaps if I extrapolate what you might have meant, trying to be generous, that is the work of parenting experts that led to historical societal changes that made it the norm not to do the bolded above?  Medical professionals, scientists, educational and social reform advocates, even Victorian-era do-gooders: yes.  Parenting experts?  I'd be very, very surprised.

 

2) But back to Martha's statement about her individual experience with her family.  I'll concur with her:  it has been the "parenting experts" that I've read that made me want to rip up their books (so no one else would have to endure their hogwash), or at least ignore entire sections.    Give me individual books on child-related topics any day, but on the topic of parenting, you get people that are extremely opinionated and generally have little understanding that they need to provide parents with a wide-ranging tool-kit.  In fact, it was authors that took the approach--"here is a tool-kit and the philosophies behind them"--that were the most useful, and I can think of maybe three books with that approach.  The "parenting experts"...were not.    My experience.  Martha's experience. Just us and ours. Doubt away.

 

I learned just about everything good on parenting that I know from the grace-filled work of the Holy Spirit speaking to me about "this child, in this moment,"   from extended family, and from mentors I admired in the trenches, not from experts. 

[Halftime Hope]

"Sex positive" isn't about manners. It isn't about honesty. It isn't about the mechanics of biology. It's a term the author uses to reflect the idea that sexuality is morally neutral, and is treated as such from the very beginning. It isn't "wrong" to stimulate yourself at the table, it's unhygienic and socially inappropriate, and so should stop. But it isn't "wrong" to stimulate yourself. Teaching concepts like masturbation as morally neutral is where the "positive" comes into play. Those of us who grew up in a home where certain lectures were not delivered and yet a particular understanding was endorsed throughout the family will recognize that messages are taught, ideologies are passed on, and formal lessons are not necessary for this. I maintain we all grew up like this. It's how culture is passed, and guilt associated with sex is part of our society's culture. This author is not only doing the opposite, she's sharing it with those who may not have considered such an idea.

 

The "meta message" in the author's house is that sex, and the components that contribute to ideas about sexuality, are morally neutral. Because this message is not dependent on age, I think we can let go of that detail, as it isn't integral to the point she's making. It's a red herring. Sexual behaviors (like self stimulation, and presumably sexual orientation, identity, and activity when older) don't please or disappoint a parent or an invisible parental figure who is watching everything you do. There is no moral value placed on this behavior. Because most moral value placed on sexuality is negative outside a very specific, limited set of parameters (heterosexual, two partners to a relationship, less commonly of the same race and/or religion, etc), a "sex positive" home would be where these parameters are lifted and there is no assigned or presumed default negative moral value. 

 

Part of the problem here is that when the author says her approach is a sex-positive one, she is implying that other approaches are sex-negative.  She might have needed to have thought that one through a bit more. 

 

[TeacherZee]

I was mostly thinking out loud because reading this thread and seeing the episode right after each other made me think about the fact that using cute words might not always be the best. I don't think that anyone should parent with the idea that kids might be molested, and I love the cute words kids come up for different things (the toaster was hilarious) but I am also a bit of a language freak and I prefer using the correct word. That said I would never correct a kid who said tallywacker and say that no we must call it penis. Am I making sense :) It is getting late here :)

[Halftime Hope]

I am very pro abstinence. I think abstinence pledges are stupid. And they kinda squirm me out. So do purity rings, promise rings (wth IS that anyways? A promise to some day make a real promise? Hello? An engagement ring is a promise ring. Fish or cut bait!), daddy/daughter or mommy/son "dates".

 

A side funny....

 

I was dropping ds18 off to spend the day at his girl friend's house in my way to take the rest of the kids somewhere else and I joked as I pulled into the drive way, "Alright. You know the drill. No secluded snookie corners, no shutting bedroom doors..."

 

He interrupted laughing and said, "Don't worry, Mon. I know. I've got all the bases covered."

 

Me, feigning shock and horror, "No covering bases! No touching ANY bases!"

 

He was laughing so hard he could hardly open the van door.

 

LOL Good times. :)

 

So, is that what you've been calling them, bases?   :smilielol5:

 

[albeto.]

Really?!?  Hmmm.  Remember, you were responding to Martha's statement that she does not follow parenting experts.  (I'll come back, edit this, and quote her exactly.)

 

1) Just clarifying:  you are saying that it takes a parenting expert to teach parents not to do the bolded above?   Or perhaps if I extrapolate what you might have meant, trying to be generous, that is the work of parenting experts that led to historical societal changes that made it the norm not to do the bolded above?  Medical professionals, scientists, educational and social reform advocates, even Victorian-era do-gooders: yes.  Parenting experts?  I'd be very, very surprised.

Oh dear. Yes. Technically you are right. Beating children didn't come from parenting experts, just experts who advised society about the negative effects of beating children. Working 12 hour days didn't change because of the tireless work of parenting experts, just experts who advised society about the negative effects of working 12 hour days or the positive benefits of education. Etc. Etc. My point is that one need not read Dr. Sears to benefit from people who do, in fact, study certain details and share conclusions with the public.

 

2) But back to Martha's statement about her individual experience with her family.  I'll concur with her:  it has been the "parenting experts" that I've read that made me want to rip up their books (so no one else would have to endure their hogwash), or at least ignore entire sections.    Give me individual books on child-related topics any day, but on the topic of parenting, you get people that are extremely opinionated and generally have little understanding that they need to provide parents with a wide-ranging tool-kit.  In fact, it was authors that took the approach--"here is a tool-kit and the philosophies behind them"--that were the most useful, and I can think of maybe three books with that approach.  The "parenting experts" were not.    My experience.  Martha's experience. Just us and ours. Doubt away.

I see your point. Fwiw, I'm talking about bigger trends, not individual advisers.

 

I learned just about everything good on parenting that I know from the grace-filled work of the Holy Spirit speaking to me about "this child, in this moment,"   from extended family, and from mentors I admired in the trenches, not from experts.

 

When I was a Christian, I thought it was the holy spirit speaking to me but I realized it was my own thinking, connecting various dots. I'd be curious how you know a spirit is talking with you as opposed to you being aware of certain thoughts, but it's a bit more tangential than is probably justified for this topic. 

[albeto.]

Part of the problem here is that when the author says her approach is a sex-positive one, she is implying that other approaches are sex-negative.  She might have needed to have thought that one through a bit more. 

 

I agree with her for the reasons I stated above (certain behaviors and attitudes that fall outside the traditional, conservative opinion are correlated with negative moral value, and that contributes to further negative effects). 

[happypamama]

The abstinence pledges I am familiar with are ones that were done in a large group setting. The kids would be sitting in a hall and a speaker would get everyone pumped up about it and talk about purity and wedding night gifts and controlling hormones. Then there was a lot of external pressure to sign one right then and there. She disliked the pressure to sign right now and that people were aware of who signed. She felt it created a negative peer pressure situation instead of giving kids time to think and reflect if that was an actual value and goal of their's. Also...she felt that it made a mockey of the idea that sex was so "holy and sacred" if it took a pep rally to get people to sign on to that idea.

 

 

There might be other ways to handle an abstinence pledge though, I was only exposed to them though invites to church youth events. I didn't regularly attend any of these churches. Or any church

Yup. While I agree with the sentiment, that's what I am familiar with as well, and I think those are not the right reasons for doing such things. :)

[Garga]

I've gotta go soon and I didn't get to finish reading, but did anyone point out that the little girl probably wasn't playing with her vagina or vulva? She was probably playing with her clitoris.

 

Since we're being all proper about using the correct word and all.

 

:D

[Cricket]

I'm chuckling a little bit here because wasn't Matt Walsh raked across the coals in a recent thread for blogging about parenting while only having one (or is it two?) small children?  Maybe he just doesn't have the right opinions?  :001_smile:

 

I was raised in a conservative Christian home and my parents treated conversations about sex in much the same way as the author.  We weren't told sex was scary or that we'd only want to have sex with our spouses and never be sexually attracted to anyone else.  We didn't sign abstinence pledges.  Sex wasn't a taboo subject.  My parents were realistic but also had clear boundaries and expectations.  At the same time, we knew as kids that if we crossed those boundaries, we were still loved.

[SwallowTail]

Two thoughts

1.Anyone remember the Seinfeld episode where he dated a girl named Mulva?

 

We just say what it is like finger or toe. Just words. I do kind of agree way up post that she sounds a little know it all. We all do when we have strong feelings. I let others do as they will as long as I can do the same. Though the time a kid in the church nursery started talking about his " talleywhacker" I did burst out laughing.

 

It was Delores.....which rhymes with....

[Ipsey]

This thread reminded me of a thread several years ago where a mom was trying to figure out if she should take the door off her son's bedroom to keep him from having Tea with himself, and several others chimed in with limiting the number or length of showers sons could have for the same reason.

 

No one here is saying anything like that, but I think it's probably an example of what negative sex-training might look like.

[Storygirl]

We use correct terminology in my household, but growing up, no private parts were ever named, except for "bottom." However, I read a lot and watched tv and had friends who used various words for private parts, and around age eight or so, I found I was confused. What were the right words for these things? I didn't know. I felt I should know. So one day while my mother was bathing (she didn't mind if we sat in the bathroom and talked to her during her bath), I pointed and said, "What is the right word for those other than b*o*o*b*i*e*s?" She did answer, but I'm sure she was embarrassed. I knew she would be, and it took a lot of guts for me to do that. I don't want my children to have that kind of experience.

 

I just thought it was worth making the point that if we are open with our children and they know that they can ask us anything without being embarrassed or causing the parent to act embarrassed, that that is what is most important. It is good and right to impart our own values to our children about s*xuality, and it is good and right to allow them to openly discuss their thoughts as they sort through things for themselves (which everyone has to do). Just the other day I explained a s*xual innuendo to my daughter in a matter of fact way, because something had come up in a conversation with her friends. I want her to know that she can come to me with anything, and that I will be willing to talk to her about it.

[fairfarmhand]

 

You can study case studies til the cows fornicate on the front patio and it still isn't going to help you actually parent your own kid. Because our own kids are not case studies.

 

 

oh dear. If the cows (I'm hoping you were using cows as a collective noun. We usually have a bull and a cow "doing it." Cattle is my general term...but I digress )were copulating on my front patio...

 

1. we'd be out walking that $%^& electric fence to find the stupid short in it!

 

2. We're replacing some of the stones in the front patio. Cows and bulls are too big to be hanging out on the patio and would break them.

 

3. I'm going to let the cattle do their thing till they are happy with the result. There's no good way to move a 2000 pound bull when a cow is in heat.

 

I could go on about the intricacies of the bovine reproductive cycle, but I really know more than you want to hear.

 

Oh by the way, when your husband takes the bull for a breeding soundness exam at the vet, you probably want to make your nine year old daughter stay home. Taking samples, measuring scr*tal size, etc. are just not what you want to discuss with your 9 yo girl.

 

On the other hand, she did learn proper anatomical terms for the animals. And now, at age 16, she plans on being a large animal vet.

[Laura Corin]

I've gotta go soon and I didn't get to finish reading, but did anyone point out that the little girl probably wasn't playing with her vagina or vulva? She was probably playing with her clitoris.

 

Since we're being all proper about using the correct word and all.

 

:D

 

'Vulva' includes the clitoris.  It is the female external genitals.

 

L

[hillfarm]

I live at the end of a dead-end road, so many new things do slip by me, but "sex positive"? Is it just me or is this one of the most awkward phrases you have heard of late? Makes me think of gram positive and gram negative slides from biology. To my ear, it sounds like made up jargon from someone trying too hard to coin a phrase.

 

Regarding the topic, this is news? We are a Christian farm family. My dd has known about the specifics of mammalian reproduction from the time she first began to notice what the cattle and sheep were getting up to in the barnyard, so since she was 3 or 4yo. She understood that there was nothing wrong with it, nothing to hide, just another one of those many things we didn't discuss in public so as not to upset those with more tender sensibilities.

 

With regard to her own body, I have always told her as much of the truth as she wanted to know. No need for fancy labels, no need to proclaim my cleverness in an article. BTW, if anyone cares, dd is now 15yo.

[Jayne J]

'Vulva' includes the clitoris. It is the female external genitals.

 

L

Now, see, this is the problem. If you have daughters, it is utterly exhausting to correctly identify the issue. Are we talking about the entire vulva? The labia? Clitoris? Vagina? So, I vote we use the handy-dandy term invented by my daughter. Her brother had a penis, with which he could pee, so she must have a Me-nis. "Because it belongs to me!" Take that Freud!

:laugh:

[Murphy101]

oh dear. If the cows (I'm hoping you were using cows as a collective noun. We usually have a bull and a cow "doing it." Cattle is my general term...but I digress )were copulating on my front patio...

 

1. we'd be out walking that $%^& electric fence to find the stupid short in it!

 

2. We're replacing some of the stones in the front patio. Cows and bulls are too big to be hanging out on the patio and would break them.

 

3. I'm going to let the cattle do their thing till they are happy with the result. There's no good way to move a 2000 pound bull when a cow is in heat.

 

I could go on about the intricacies of the bovine reproductive cycle, but I really know more than you want to hear.

 

Oh by the way, when your husband takes the bull for a breeding soundness exam at the vet, you probably want to make your nine year old daughter stay home. Taking samples, measuring scr*tal size, etc. are just not what you want to discuss with your 9 yo girl.

 

On the other hand, she did learn proper anatomical terms for the animals. And now, at age 16, she plans on being a large animal vet.

LOLOL. My dad and uncle own small cattle ranches! Yes, I most certain didn't use correct terms. LOL

[Zebra]

Am I the only one who keeps seeing this thread title on the list, and reads "positions" instead of "positive"?  

 

 

[Halftime Hope]

Oh dear. Yes. Technically you are right. Beating children didn't come from parenting experts, just experts who advised society about the negative effects of beating children. Working 12 hour days didn't change because of the tireless work of parenting experts, just experts who advised society about the negative effects of working 12 hour days or the positive benefits of education. Etc. Etc. My point is that one need not read Dr. Sears to benefit from people who do, in fact, study certain details and share conclusions with the public.

 

All sarcasm aside, there really is a substantive difference between what we call parenting experts today--people who are specifically invested in studying the ins and outs of parental behavior and the effects on the children--as opposed the people who, out of their moral convictions, changed society generations ago.  Very little of that was directly related to "parenting", except perhaps for the beating as discipline part.  The work hours and education were not primarily parenting issues, even though the decisions were carried out or enforced by parents.  They were absolutely, directly related to 1) economics and 2) to convictions about the value of human beings.  Christians, specifically Methodists, led the way on these issues, but that's really another thread entirely.

 

But even more basic, more foundational, I find it surprising that you would imply that Martha would be doing wretched things to her children without "experts", given the fact that most parents on this board make fairly radical choices for the benefit of our children, choices that are *entirely* different from our societal norms.   My working assumption is that most parents work very hard to do what they think is best for their children. 

 

Albeto, truly, I've worked hard to check my tone, and to try not to be abrasive in the way I write.  If it is coming through that way, please forgive me.  It is not my intent.  I do disagree with you, but hopefully it is amicably and with congeniality.

[albeto.]

All sarcasm aside, there really is a substantive difference between what we call parenting experts today--people who are specifically invested in studying the ins and outs of parental behavior and the effects on the children--as opposed the people who, out of their moral convictions, changed society generations ago.  Very little of that was directly related to "parenting", except perhaps for the beating as discipline part.  The work hours and education were not primarily parenting issues, even though the decisions were carried out or enforced by parents.  They were absolutely, directly related to 1) economics and 2) to convictions about the value of human beings.  Christians, specifically Methodists, led the way on these issues, but that's really another thread entirely.

In all sincerity, without sarcasm, I mean to share that I suspect these things we're talking about are all quite related, in the same way Newtonian physics is related to astrophysics today. The trends established regarding the treatment of children in the beginning of last century influence the trends we see today. We may not recognize the details, the particular studies, or the individuals who collect, analyze and communicate the data to their community of peers, but we are all inspired by the outcome nevertheless. In the way I don't understand, or need to understand the details of physical laws including the mechanics of space flight, nevertheless I benefit from the smoke detectors in my home. In the way we don't study the economic effects of providing a free and appropriate education to all children in this country, I have been raised in a society that values wide spread education and eschews child labor.

 

If you look at the trends of the Christian communities that were outspoken against the established treatment children, consider what they were working against: The established, accepted treatment of children. This treatment was assumed by most members of society to be appropriate and responsible. It wasn't a matter of shaking things up because society got bored with beating kids. Most of society genuinely believed in, and advocated, a physical approach that would horrify most of us if we were to apply it to our children. It horrifies us today because society changed. It was at one time The Way Things Are. 

 

Further, that you continue to imply that Martha would be doing horrific things to her children if it were not for the ripple effects of  "parenting experts" who had gone before creating all kinds of beneficial social change just boggles the mind, given the fact that most parents on this board make choices for the benefit of our children, choices that are *entirely* different from our societal norms.

 

By pure chance most of us would have done those very things to our children we interpret as rather horrific today simply because that's what we would have understood to be appropriate. We would have done these things because those people we admired in the trenches did these things. We would have done these things because that's how we would have been raised. Christians would have interpreted their emotions to reflect the holy spirit confirming they're doing the right thing.

 

In my own opinion, things that are considered mainstream (conventional parenting tactics like teaching children to identify with and embrace traditional gender roles) will be considered horrific in another century by future mainstream society. Society evolves, and it does so based on increased information (more data, more ideas introduced into the mix). Martha's comment about not relying on that information is a misrepresentation of how information is communicated in society, but I do recognize your point in your last post about specific individual books and personalities (like Dr. Laura or whoever). 

 

I think it's rather horrifying to raise a child in the way the columnist did in the link I provided on page one (my first post in this thread). Most people here, I suspect, would not consider that horrifying. Maybe some think it's unnecessary, maybe some think it's overboard, and I imagine many think that's the compassionate way to respond to a child under those circumstances. I think of this as emotional correction, the 21st century version of traditionally accepted (and celebrated!) physical correction popular in the turn of the last century. In the way people proudly beat their children with rods and switches a century ago, parents proudly condition their children to be horrified with non conventional sexual identity and behavior. I think as information about sexual orientation and identity is slowly seeped into the collective awareness of the nation, society will modify its collective mind about such things. That's the way things go. Every social trend works this way, and raising children is no different. In a hundred years, another "Martha" will proudly say she would never coerce her child to defy his or her natural orientation, and will proudly say that no one contributed to her philosophy. I call shenanigans. ;-)

 

Albeto, truly, I've worked hard to check my tone, and to try not to be abrasive in the way I write.  If it is coming through that way, please forgive me.  It is not my intent.  I do disagree with you, but hopefully it is amicably and with congeniality.

 

Then please accept my apologies. I've tried to answer in kind. There's no feeling of snark on my end, but rather a respect for an honest exchange of ideas. Thank you for being more patient with me than I was with you.

 

 

[Joanne]

Halt time and albeto, what a mature, classy exchange.

[Scarlett]

In all sincerity, without sarcasm, I mean to share that I suspect these things we're talking about are all quite related, in the same way Newtonian physics is related to astrophysics today. The trends established regarding the treatment of children in the beginning of last century influence the trends we see today. We may not recognize the details, the particular studies, or the individuals who collect, analyze and communicate the data to their community of peers, but we are all inspired by the outcome nevertheless. In the way I don't understand, or need to understand the details of physical laws including the mechanics of space flight, nevertheless I benefit from the smoke detectors in my home. In the way we don't study the economic effects of providing a free and appropriate education to all children in this country, I have been raised in a society that values wide spread education and eschews child labor.

 

If you look at the trends of the Christian communities that were outspoken against the established treatment children, consider what they were working against: The established, accepted treatment of children. This treatment was assumed by most members of society to be appropriate and responsible. It wasn't a matter of shaking things up because society got bored with beating kids. Most of society genuinely believed in, and advocated, a physical approach that would horrify most of us if we were to apply it to our children. It horrifies us today because society changed. It was at one time The Way Things Are.

 

 

By pure chance most of us would have done those very things to our children we interpret as rather horrific today simply because that's what we would have understood to be appropriate. We would have done these things because those people we admired in the trenches did these things. We would have done these things because that's how we would have been raised. Christians would have interpreted their emotions to reflect the holy spirit confirming they're doing the right thing.

 

In my own opinion, things that are considered mainstream (conventional parenting tactics like teaching children to identify with and embrace traditional gender roles) will be considered horrific in another century by future mainstream society. Society evolves, and it does so based on increased information (more data, more ideas introduced into the mix). Martha's comment about not relying on that information is a misrepresentation of how information is communicated in society, but I do recognize your point in your last post about specific individual books and personalities (like Dr. Laura or whoever).

 

I think it's rather horrifying to raise a child in the way the columnist did in the link I provided on page one (my first post in this thread). Most people here, I suspect, would not consider that horrifying. Maybe some think it's unnecessary, maybe some think it's overboard, and I imagine many think that's the compassionate way to respond to a child under those circumstances. I think of this as emotional correction, the 21st century version of traditionally accepted (and celebrated!) physical correction popular in the turn of the last century. In the way people proudly beat their children with rods and switches a century ago, parents proudly condition their children to be horrified with non conventional sexual identity and behavior. I think as information about sexual orientation and identity is slowly seeped into the collective awareness of the nation, society will modify its collective mind about such things. That's the way things go. Every social trend works this way, and raising children is no different. In a hundred years, another "Martha" will proudly say she would never coerce her child to defy his or her natural orientation, and will proudly say that no one contributed to her philosophy. I call shenanigans. ;-)

 

 

Then please accept my apologies. I've tried to answer in kind. There's no feeling of snark on my end, but rather a respect for an honest exchange of ideas. Thank you for being more patient with me than I was with you.

In the spirit of an honest exchange.....you seem preoccupied with gender identity. I see reference to it in so many of your posts.

[albeto.]

In the spirit of an honest exchange.....you seem preoccupied with gender identity. I see reference to it in so many of your posts.

 

It's a major component of sex shaming. It's quite relevant to the conversation. 

[GinaPagnato]

It was Delores.....which rhymes with....

 

Thank you-- I was about to post this to make sure the record was correct. But you beat me to it!  :)

 

"Mulva" was one of the names that Jerry's friends guessed when he couldn't remember her first name.

 

 

Seinfeld ....  :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Scarlett]

It's a major component of sex shaming. It's quite relevant to the conversation.

Sorry I just don't get the leap from telling a 4 yo not to touch his/ her privates at the dinner table to gender identity.

 

Also what you call shaming some of us call morals.

[Joanne]

Sorry I just don't get the leap from telling a 4 yo not to touch his/ her privates at the dinner table to gender identity.

 

Also what you call shaming some of us call morals.

Which is why the author wrote, why I posted it and why we are discussing it.

[Tammi K]

Which is why the authority wrote, why I posted it and why we are discussing it.

 

Wait, I'm confused. Is the mother with the three year old, and as far as I can tell, no other qualifications than being the mother of a 3 year old, the 'authority'?

[Halftime Hope]

When I was a Christian, I thought it was the holy spirit speaking to me but I realized it was my own thinking, connecting various dots. I'd be curious how you know a spirit is talking with you as opposed to you being aware of certain thoughts, but it's a bit more tangential than is probably justified for this topic. 

 

WARNING: this post is off topic for the thread and is specifically to answer Albeto's question.  Don't bother to read it if that will bother you.

 

 

My caveat:  this is my own experience, and I have no idea whether it works/worked this way for anyone else.

 

I used to wonder how one distinguishes between thoughts that are wise/appropriate/good, but that are probably *my own application* of truth or principle, from thoughts that are the Holy Spirit "speaking" (not aloud) into my heart and mind.  I've pondered this question several times over the years.

 

When I became a parent of children who were talking and reasoning and arguing, children who needed correction, redirection, and lessons in how one chooses correctly in complex or difficult situations--all the good and difficult parenting tasks--I began to experience odd moments.  Unusual moments.  They were probably less than ten instances all told, but they were moments in which what came out of my mouth was something so radically different than anything I would have done on my own, different than what my logical application of principles would have been, that I knew beyond even the deepest doubt that it was of God and not anything coming out of my own thinking.  Again: I would have parented entirely different that what came out of my mouth.  In one case, I remember standing in front of my child thinking, "Wow! That was pretty good!!!!"  And every single time, it was filled with grace and it struck to the very heart of the matter. 

 

Now that might not seem like a big deal to others, but I process verbally--I often know what I think *after* I've heard the words coming out of my mouth.  And getting to the heart of the matter often takes me several refinements.  So what I shared above really is significant.  Another measure of the difference was that, in most cases, the response from my kids was an immediate breaking down of the defensiveness that sometimes accompanies being corrected.

 

So that describes for you the moments that I am quite certain were "Holy Spirit" moments. 

 

But here is what has changed in my thinking:    I now understand that all truth is God's truth; all goodness and holiness comes from Him.  Everything I do well/right is due to the Holy Spirit instructing, helping me understand, giving me daily wisdom, transforming me.  It renders my question about whether it came from my own thinking a moot point.

 

Please also understand that the transformative work I'm describing above is not any kind of a brag or "yaay, look at me" thing.  Be willing to be transformed is part of the battle, and it's one that I struggle with constantly.  I want to be [insert lovely character quality here], but I usually want my way, my rights even more. So, yeah.  It's a wonderful thing I have a lot more years to be worked on.  :-) 

 

Thanks for hearing me out.  All the best! 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cricket]

Wait, I'm confused. Is the mother with the three year old, and as far as I can tell, no other qualifications than being the mother of a 3 year old, the 'authority'?

 

She might have meant "author".  I read that twice too!

[Scarlett]

Wait, I'm confused. Is the mother with the three year old, and as far as I can tell, no other qualifications than being the mother of a 3 year old, the 'authority'?

Pretty sure she meant author. LOL

[Catwoman]

Wait, I'm confused. Is the mother with the three year old, and as far as I can tell, no other qualifications than being the mother of a 3 year old, the 'authority'?

I don't think she's anything but an over-sharing and self-important mom who doesn't yet realize that these "amusing" anecdotes about her little girl could eventually cause a lot of embarrassment for the poor kid.

 

I can't speak for Joanne, but I'm assuming she meant "author" and her iPad changed it to "authority," because there is absolutely nothing about that author that indicates that she is an authority on anything.

[Scrub Jay]

Well, I'm going to still read it as authority, just so I can read it in my head ala

.

[Catwoman]

Well, I'm going to still read it as authority, just so I can read it in my head ala

.

When you put it that way, it makes perfect sense. :D

[Joanne]

Wait, I'm confused. Is the mother with the three year old, and as far as I can tell, no other qualifications than being the mother of a 3 year old, the 'authority'?

Autocorrect.

[SKL]

While I was away takin care of business, it occurred to me that maybe the author of the linked article (in the OP) has some major hangups of her own.  I mean, how many of us would think, "wow, I just caught my 3yo touching herself and *didn't* lose my shit.  I am so awesome, I think I'll go write an article about it."  See, it never would have occurred to me to be uncomfortable with my preschooler touching herself.  Certainly nothing article-worthy.  I mean, it's kind of like announcing "my kid spilled her milk and I *didn't* beat her."

 

Contrary to the tone of many comments here, I don't think it's that common in the US for people to lose it over wee kids discovering their bodies.  Maybe the author isn't up on this because we don't all chat about this around the water cooler.  "Oh, junior discovered his penis today, it was so cute."  (Though I have accidentally run across some people who post that stuff on YouTube.)  I know I keep that stuff within my family because I do in fact believe it's my kid's body and she's entitled to privacy.

[albeto.]

Sorry I just don't get the leap from telling a 4 yo not to touch his/ her privates at the dinner table to gender identity.

Please allow me to explain a bit more about what I've posted upthread. When I commented about certain behaviors and attitudes that fall outside the traditional, conservative opinion and how they are correlated with negative moral value, I include the example of the preschooler's self-stimulation at the table. As I understand them, conservative beliefs about sexual behaviors are largely identified by a rather specific set of parameters that are assigned a positive moral value. These parameters includes such things as mutual consent, maturity, romantic attraction, and serious commitment. These parameters exclude such things as self stimulation, public display of unconventional sexual behavior, and sexual gratification outside the context of marriage. The author challenges some of society's collective parameters by challenging traditional moral values assigned to certain behaviors (namely, sexual gratification outside the context of traditional marriage). The author does this by very specifically divorcing the objective behavior (self stimulation) from moral value (wrong).

 

To the 4 year old, being redirected from the table is nothing more than another quick experience, one to be compiled along with all the other experiences that reference sexuality. For the most part, these experiences will be fleeting, quickly forgotten behind more pressing things that command her attention (like washing her hands and getting back to her peas). But they add up and will be joined by other experiences, eventually including those experiences that acknowledge certain images, and even certain people to be sexually arousing. A decade or so of these individual experiences will combine in her mind to create a general meta-lesson about sexuality and its relationship to morality, reinforced by her family and community. This meta-message will be the backdrop against which she understand her puberty. How she interprets her mind's and body's response to certain stimuli will be guided in no small part by this general understanding, what she will have grown up to assume is "true" and "good."

 

If touching herself is understood to be morally wrong, if it is a sin, then she learns that experiences related to her sexual organs (including her brain) are either "good" or "bad" depending on where they fall within these familiar/conventional parameters. If touching herself is understood to be morally neutral, however, she learns from the beginning that experiences related to her sexual organs (including her brain) are either "good" or "bad" depending on where they fall in relation to a different context. The context in the author's example is in public, while eating. This excludes the component about touching and enjoying that stimulation.

 

So that's not so much a leap as much as it is many years of constant messages from her body, her family, her society. She alone will have to navigate these waters, but we should not loose sight of the fact that her navigation skills will be pretty well established by the time she falls in love for the first time, and her mentors, her parents, will have been the ones teaching her how to navigate. If she is conditioned to feel guilty, I think she will have been set up to suffer unnecessarily, and unjustly. 

 

 

Also what you call shaming some of us call morals.

 

I think this is related to my last post to Half time about what we call "morals" today, and how information inspires the evolution of any society's moral code. What you call morals today includes things that would have been considered scandalous to previous generations. Empowering girls to have careers, for example, wasn't just not popular, it was "bad" for society. We would be surprised, no doubt, to know what practices you and I have today that might be considered scandalous in a century or two centuries from now. It's reasonable to assume that just as society's moral code has evolved over the last few centuries, today's moral code will be similarly modified in time. I think the difference between you and I are where we fall on the timeline of social norms. What you consider to be moral is what I may consider to be unethical conditioning. Only time will tell of course, and who knows what we'll find out by the time we draw our last breath. 

[albeto.]

While I was away takin care of business

 

Curse my dirty mind that goes straight to "Freudian Slip"!

 

[Dory]

While I was away takin care of business, it occurred to me that maybe the author of the linked article (in the OP) has some major hangups of her own.  I mean, how many of us would think, "wow, I just caught my 3yo touching herself and *didn't* lose my shit.  I am so awesome, I think I'll go write an article about it."  See, it never would have occurred to me to be uncomfortable with my preschooler touching herself.  Certainly nothing article-worthy.  I mean, it's kind of like announcing "my kid spilled her milk and I *didn't* beat her."

 

Contrary to the tone of many comments here, I don't think it's that common in the US for people to lose it over wee kids discovering their bodies.  Maybe the author isn't up on this because we don't all chat about this around the water cooler.  "Oh, junior discovered his penis today, it was so cute."  (Though I have accidentally run across some people who post that stuff on YouTube.)  I know I keep that stuff within my family because I do in fact believe it's my kid's body and she's entitled to privacy.

 

I was in a household last summer where a two year old girl was sitting on the couch playing with herself and the lady of the house tied into her, chewed her out good, informed her that was never to happen again. She got a swat on her bum, and a thorough hand washing. There are still people who do lose it over a kid discovering her body. It's really sad.

[Scrub Jay]

I was in a household last summer where a two year old girl was sitting on the couch playing with herself and the lady of the house tied into her, chewed her out good, informed her that was never to happen again. She got a swat on her bum, and a thorough hand washing. There are still people who do lose it over a kid discovering her body. It's really sad.

 

That's heart breaking.

 

[SKL]

Coming in late and asking a weird question- is telling the child to go wash her hands sex positive?

 

I know what you mean.  I actually found quite a few comments in her article to be kind of sex negative or just plain negative.  A lot of "we don't" and "leave the room."

 

[unsinkable]

I know what you mean. I actually found quite a few comments in her article to be kind of sex negative or just plain negative. A lot of "we don't" and "leave the room."

 

 

Like her second paragraph?

 

 

"We don't play with our vulvas at the table. Go wash your hands and finish your food," I scolded. She nodded, ran off to wash her hands, and resumed picking at her dinner instead.

 

Why scold? Isn't a neutral reminder more positive...whatever your parenting philopsophy? The poor girl, doing something normal and natural and she gets scolded?

 

:lol:

[momto10blessings]

Nm

[stripe]

Am I the only one who is wondering how old this woman's children are?

Yes, and this is important because sex is not primarily an issue with three year olds. Being permissive about touching your own genitals or telling a three year old that sex is wonderful is entirely different from dealing with teenagers and teen sexuality that actually might involve other people and things like broken hearts, diseases, and pregnancy, not to mention sex that isn't wonderful (it does happen!). I just don't think anyone's talking to a child about lust, condoms, and so forth, and, if they are, the kid isn't going to understand.

 

I, too, thought saying "we don't play with our vulvas, now go wash your hands" isn't very "positive" (saying something about where it is okay to touch or something would be a different matter, or just saying, that's a private thing), not to mention it very strongly informs the child that her vulva had dirtied her hands. (I am just saying, it doesn't suggest what she thinks it does. I tell my kids all the time to stop picking their toes at mealtimes so I do not disagree that she should wash her hands.) And anyway, when and where do "we" play with "our" vulvas? Do we ever play with our vulvas... together?

 

I think the article about anyone other than her is filled with extreme straw men.

 

This is the line I dislike:

 

 

As parents, we lie all the time.

I say -- lady, speak for yourself. I don't lie all the time. I don't think I've ever deliberately lied to my kids, and I don't make it a habit with anyone. That includes the tooth fairy, when dinner's going to be ready, whether you can take a big number away from a small number, and all the rest.