Sex Ed for Preschoolers (snarking on one of ours, perhaps)

[Glass Cowcatcher]

From time to time I follow the Love, Joy, Feminism blog. It used to be linked on NLQ so a lot of people here will probably know what I'm talking about.

I agree with Libby Anne maybe, 90% of the time. However I find her views on children and sex/violence somewhat questionable:

Sally may only be in preschool, but she’s grown up watching TV shows alongside Sean and I...Sally has sat with us – or played nearby – while we’ve watched Gilmore Girls, Big Love, HBO Rome, The Tudors, Mad Men, and Sherlock. Last spring when the latest season of Game of Thrones came out Sally was with us as usual. But we found that we had to cover her eyes more with this show than we ever had to with the others, and in case you think I’m referring to the fact that it shows nudity and sex, I’m not. I’m referring to the violence.

Our policy toward sex and violence in on the screen is pretty much the opposite of my parents’ policy. Growing up, I remember being told to look away from a movie when it showed anything more than a chaste kiss. In contrast, I rarely remember being told to look away from violence...But our approach with Sally is different. As Sean is fond of saying, we want Sally to grow up seeing sex as a normal part of life, but we don’t want her to grow up seeing violence that way.

http://www.patheosDOTcom/blogs/lovejoyf ... nd-tv.html

I'm not quite sure this approach jives with me. Having watched some of those shows, the sex is not always in a "normal" context--some is adulterous, some is manipulative, some is very much outside the normal experience of most people's sexuality. Very little of it is "safe" sex. Not to mention, how could this contribute to body issues? It seems like too much, too soon to me.

Also, I'm not sure why she considers violence not to be a part of everyday life. Sadly it is. It's not a good thing to try to expose kids to, with media, but sometimes it does lead them towards wider understanding of the world--my conversations with the offspring about US presidents have gone this way.

Then, there was "Sex Ed for the Preeschooler:" :shock:

Sally took me aback the other day by finding my vibrator. I had thought it was thoroughly put away, but apparently not. She held it up, a curious but wholly innocent look on her face.

Mommy, what is this?

So many other women would have simply freaked out, taken the vibrator away, and told her she wasn’t supposed to see that, or else told her nothing at all. I didn’t, though. Without registering that anything at all was amiss, I said the following:

That’s mommy’s vibrator. When you are all grown up you can have one too. Here, let me have my vibrator and I’ll put it away.

As Sally handed me the vibrator, I knew that I was setting up lines of trust – and barring the door against shame. If I’d responded differently Sally might have thought my vibrator was something shameful, or she might have become curious about this forbidden object and, knowing she couldn’t ask me, looked elsewhere for answers.

Now I’ll readily admit that Sally didn’t ask what my vibrator was for. But I think I could answer honestly and appropriately even if she did.

For example, several weeks ago we were watching a movie and there was a sex scene. I don’t try to shield Sally from those the way I try to shield her from violent scenes. Sally turned from the movie to me in confusion.

Mommy, what are they doing?

I thought a moment and then replied:

They’re having sex. Sex is something grownups do. When you’re a grownup, you can have sex too, if you want to.

http://www.patheosDOTcom/blogs/lovejoyf ... ooler.html

First of all, this is IMO WAY to intimate information to share about a young child on the Internet.

Second, I think I would have answered more vaguely... this would fall under the "things I do not want to have to explain to the preschool teacher" category. :lol: I think it is an excellent idea for parents to tell children that there are ways to satisfy themselves without actually having intercourse, but the daughter was I think about 3 when she wrote this.

Third, I think she is conflating "private" with "Forbidden." I do not think her daughter would be shamed if she had said something like, "This is one of Mommy's private things."

This last part of the SEFTP just struck me as odd:

When Sally sees her daddy naked (i.e. right after a shower), she comments on his penis. She doesn’t have one, after all. So we talk about how daddy has a penis but Sally and mommy have vaginas, etc. And again, all this is with done without anything to induce shame or guilt or feelings of secrecy.

I get that they're trying to be open and all, but, again, they're conflating shame with normal social boundaries. I also worry that being this open would make the child rather vulnerable to sexual predators.

(Again, I want to stress that I think this blogger addresses religious issues with wonderful clarity and articulation most of the time. Her parenting approaches just seem poorly thought out to me sometimes, like she's basically just flipped fundyism on its head.)

Edited for riffles and clearer title.

[kpmom]

I would not have a child that young watch those shows she mentioned. You can be "open", but I don't think the parents are being age appropriate with letting her watch these shows.

And yes, sharing these stories on the internet about a child that young is icky and possible dangerous (i.e., weirdos reading the blog).

[Imora]

I don't have kids so I don't really have a stance on the sex/violence thing.

But I do really get the jeebees about putting what is really a personal, intimate conversation between mother and daughter on the internet for all to see.

But then again, I guess she is sharing it to help others... :?

Hmmm, I am bit of a fence sitter today!

[luckystone]

I do think it's crazy when people go over the top shielding sex and not violence. It's quite common - even the classification system in the US does it.

Having said that, if the girl is 3 why is she watching those shows? You don't have to shield it but you don't have to repeatedly show her things with sex scenes, omg. And you're right, it's not all "sex is sex and is natural" because sometimes it shows more complicated things than two adults who love each other, it could be rape or cheating or incest (Game of Thrones, right?) and that could be quite confusing.

I don't think the other stories are weird

[DistantStar]

I've just seen the first two episodes of the first season of Game of Thrones (I have the next DVD on hand, loaned from a friend will watch later) and would not want a young child watching -- we're talking, in different scenes, rape and adultery going on, a beheading that was awfully graphic, plus a bunch of political stuff that a kid just isn't going to get. Fantasy does not equal kid friendly. While I would be a lot quicker to censor violence rather than sex in general, in what I've seen of the series so far, it's the sort of sex I would censor as much as I would the violence. I understand the impulse not to censor on principle but I wonder if this is one of those things that growing up non-fundie lends a bit more perspective on -- just because censoring ALL sex is bad doesn't mean that censoring SOME sex is bad.

I enjoy that blog and read it fairly regularly and I like her matter-of-factness with sex in general. Though I can't see being quite that open about a vibrator -- "Oh, that's something that's Mommy's -- here, I'll take it" is as far as I could go with a little one. I remember being told something similar about those tampons I found under the sink, and while perhaps a slightly fuller explanation might have been a good idea, I nonetheless survived fine and knew about periods before mine arrived.

[Deleted07]

I would not want a child (let alone a just out of toddler stage 3 year old!) watching Game of Thrones, to me that is just crazy!

Its one thing to be candid and talk opening and honestly about sex and your body etc. Its another to let them watch, what is essentially in my mind, Porn.

I saw the first episode and it made ME blush! I freely admit I'm a little prude with such things, However I just don't like the idea in general of a child watching sex scenes OR violence for that matter, especially when that content is clearly rated R18+ (at least here it is, not sure about the USA) and she is 15! years younger at just 3!

To me it promotes unrealistic expectations, and advanced interest in the subject matter beyond the years of the childs actual comprehension!

I'll probably get jumped all over for my thoughts, but I won't apologies for them, to me this is just too much for a 3 year old baby.

[Glass Cowcatcher]

I would not want a child (let alone a just out of toddler stage 3 year old!) watching Game of Thrones, to me that is just crazy!

Its one thing to be candid and talk opening and honestly about sex and your body etc. Its another to let them watch, what is essentially in my mind, Porn....

To me it promotes unrealistic expectations, and advanced interest in the subject matter beyond the years of the childs actual comprehension!

I'll probably get jumped all over for my thoughts, but I won't apologies for them, to me this is just too much for a 3 year old baby.

Yeah you summed it up, like I was trying to.

Why introduce adult matter that a young child has no interest in?

[Glass Cowcatcher]

I enjoy that blog and read it fairly regularly and I like her matter-of-factness with sex in general. Though I can't see being quite that open about a vibrator -- "Oh, that's something that's Mommy's -- here, I'll take it" is as far as I could go with a little one. I remember being told something similar about those tampons I found under the sink, and while perhaps a slightly fuller explanation might have been a good idea, I nonetheless survived fine and knew about periods before mine arrived.

I remember finding a babysitter's tampons when I was that age, and that's exactly how she handled it. A simple "You'll understand when you're older." I have no lasting shame issues. :lol: The offspring currently refers to menstrual pads as "mommy diapers."

[Maude]

I understand the concept of age-appropriateness as it applies to the general public (movie theatres, schools, etc.), but beyond that, I find it much more malleable. Each child is an individual, and I think it's a parent's job to treat them as such, setting rules and boundaries accordingly. Some children can handle violence, some children can't. I think the key here is communication, which it seems like Libby Anne is handling well, in my opinion. I also don't see a problem with the vibrator story. Sally simply found it and wanted to know what it was, which Libby Anne explained. I don't find that intimate at all.

[Glass Cowcatcher]

I understand the concept of age-appropriateness as it applies to the general public (movie theatres, schools, etc.), but beyond that, I find it much more malleable. Each child is an individual, and I think it's a parent's job to treat them as such, setting rules and boundaries accordingly. Some children can handle violence, some children can't. I think the key here is communication, which it seems like Libby Anne is handling well, in my opinion. I also don't see a problem with the vibrator story. Sally simply found it and wanted to know what it was, which Libby Anne explained. I don't find that intimate at all.

Of course each child is different, but there's nothing in her blog about Sally being particularly precocious about television. Libby Anne seems to let her child watch whatever she wants on television (as long as it's not violent) on principle, because she did not get to watch anything as a child.

[lilith]

I wouldn't let my kids watch those series, and they are 5,7 and 8. I had to pause True Blood when a child came in last night and turn my iPad so he couldn't see the screen, and it has the same level of violence and sexuality as those shows.

Its not just the sex and violence, it is that they are presented in a complex context. There is a reason children's entertainment tends to be quite black and white - they don't understand nuances. So of they see a character that they perceive as 'good' doing soething horrific it confuses them.

As far as the vibrator goes, I would probably answer in pretty much the same way, although I probably wouldn't use the word vibrator. Just "this is one of mummy's private things. You have things you dont like other people to touch, and I don't like other people touching this. We have to respect other people's privacy.".

Noticing her father's genitals? Kids do that, my boys both went through a stage of being fascinated by my genitals in the shower. She dealt with it pretty normally - boys and girls are different, I would reinforce prior discussions that have stressed that those parts are private and we only look at them and touch them in private and they are just for us, we don't let others touch them or touch other people there until we are bigger, and even then only if we really want to.

My daughter knows about periods and tampons and the pills I take to stop me having another baby simply cause she has no respect for my privacy and I try to give her simple accurate answers. The boys also have no respect for my privacy, but they dont ask the same questions - I have told them girls are made different, and that seems to cover it for them for now.

[Maude]

Of course each child is different, but there's nothing in her blog about Sally being particularly precocious about television. Libby Anne seems to let her child watch whatever she wants on television (as long as it's not violent) on principle, because she did not get to watch anything as a child.

I can see where that could be a problem, especially since Sally doesn't seem able to handle things like violence. I just keep thinking back to when I was small and had little to no censorship, so it's a strange topic for me.

[Glass Cowcatcher]

I can see where that could be a problem, especially since Sally doesn't seem able to handle things like violence. I just keep thinking back to when I was small and had little to no censorship, so it's a strange topic for me.

My biggest problem is really that she's putting these stories about her children up the internet.

[Imora]

My biggest problem is really that she's putting these stories about her children up the internet.

Yes, I said that too a few posts ago too.

But then I gave it even more thought as I was sort of undecided as to whether it is a bad thing. But the more I think about it the more I think it is.

I can equate it to say the time my mum and I had conversations about boys, periods, sex etc. And then how would I feel if she put it in the Christmas newsletter that gets sent around the world to all our rellys overseas. I mean... :oops:

[GiGi_41]

I'm sorry I have to post this since we are talking about vibrators

youtube.com/watch?v=4VtzSDI8u2o

And I have had to deal with the vibrator issue in my house.... This is my answer

"That is GiGi's personal item. We don't go into other people's drawers without their permission. Please put it back" usually I'm snickering.

[Austin]

#1, I disagree with her posting about her child on the webz.

Our children rarely watched TV because we didn't watch much, and they had videos. That part was never an issue, but I seriously doubt I would have been okay with them watching any of those shows.

I don't see it as crossing "social boundaries" for a child to see the opposite sex parent in the nude as it's the context of everyday life and it's been that way from the beginning. We are very open about nudity in our home and our boys have very healthy and appropriate, IMO, attitudes about sex and nudity. Plus, it depends on whose social boundaries we're discussing. Many other countries are not nearly as uptight about nudity as we Americans are and their kids turn out fine.

I am all for answering directly and honestly any questions a child of any age may ask. I don't actually think she handled the situation with the vibrator that poorly, although it may have been presumptuous for her to assume Sally will one day have one. Not everyone has or wants one. We answered our sons questions directly, but only the questions they asked, volunteering no additional information. This way, the child takes it in stride and if he/she wants additional info, they'll ask. Often, they don't and they just get back to the business of playing or whatever it was they were doing before the question came up.

My $.02

[ElphabaGalinda]

It's one thing to answer your three year old's sex and body related questions in an honest manner when they come up naturally. In this case what she's doing is deliberately exposing her daughter to a show that's pretty much porn with a great plot, and also has a lot of violence and concepts that are far beyond a three year old's understand. This is completely age inappropriate. Sure you shouldn't censor what kids watch, but you need to wait until they're old enough to express an independent interest, and no way is a 3 year old asking to watch Game of Thrones. Noticing the vibrator or her father's genitals are totally normal behaviours and questions, and I would answer them pretty much the same way. Watching a show that includes graphic sex and violence far beyond a 3 year old's comprehension level is not the same thing and a 3 year old isn't going to enjoy that sort of thing, because they won't get it. Why not wait until the kid asks questions or expresses an independent interest?

[snarkbillie]

"That is GiGi's personal item. We don't go into other people's drawers without their permission. Please put it back" usually I'm snickering.

This is basically what I did when my kid found mine.

[Austin]

I had no problem censoring TV, both content and the amount of it. Books, no. TV, most definitely.

[Deleted07]

I had no problem censoring TV, both content and the amount of it. Books, no. TV, most definitely.

Totally! You just reminded me that my sister had a picture storybook for kids specifically talking about where babies come from etc. Admittedly her kid didn't start asking until they were about 8!

But still, I don't see why this parents wouldn't just buy and read her one of those books to help explain the subject matter?

Going as far as watching an actual sex scene with your 3 year old, to me is just bizarre.

[Witsec7]

Totally! You just reminded me that my sister had a picture storybook for kids specifically talking about where babies come from etc. Admittedly her kid didn't start asking until they were about 8!

But still, I don't see why this parents wouldn't just buy and read her one of those books to help explain the subject matter?

Going as far as watching an actual sex scene with your 3 year old, to me is just bizarre.

I agree with both of you. My DD still has a pop up book about where babies come from, and a pop up Kama Sutra she thugged from me when she was about 12 :lol:

[Glass Cowcatcher]

I agree with both of you. My DD still has a pop up book about where babies come from, and a pop up Kama Sutra she thugged from me when she was about 12 :lol:

I think that's a much more natural way to expose kids to sex than seeing it on TV. My experience had been that kids can understand the nuts and bolts of how the body works better than the context of why it works.

[Artemis]

I'd never have put that type of information up on the internet. Is that the child's real name? Doesn't that woman have ANY boundaries? You can be open with children about sexuality without shoving information in their faces, and setting them up with situations where they are going to get curious. As far as learning about bodies and sexuality, mine learned all the facts and basics before puberty, so they could process pure information without too much emotional involvement.

And I agree - television was severely censored in my house, both content and amount. Books weren't, although it's fair to say that certain of my husband's and my more interesting books weren't on public display.

[Deleted03]

I think that in the case of Game of Thrones she is voluntarily lying to herself: sex is violent on Game of Thrones. So why would she hide her kid's eyes during violent scenes but not during violent sex scenes.

About halfway through the season 2 I realized there is absolutely no "foreplay" other forms of sex other than penetration. And it is violent (not saying it's necessarily bad, but we're not talking about leisurely sex here).

I might allow a 12 yo to watch the show - maybe earlier if books have been read before, but a small child? when are they watching this show? there's a reason it airs at 9PM...

I have no issue with the kids seeing their parents naked. it's way better than never seeing anyone naked, seriously.

Anyone who blogs about their kids will risk putting too much anyway, so I think it,s more of an issue of talking publicly about your kids or not than her particular handling of it IMO.

[ILoveJellybeans]

I wouldnt let a three year old watch something with violence and sex in.

Its ok to answer a childs questions about sex and our bodies in an age appropriate way, and I think she answered the question well and didnt go into too much detail. I wouldnt tell a three year old what it was for though, cause they dont need to know that.

I have no problem with children seeing their parents naked (although if I had a kid, they wouldnt see me naked as I cant even pee when the cat is watching), or noticing the difference between boys and girls.

I think shes trying to hard to be a cool, very open mom.