The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[FoolKiller]

Sex adjective vs sex verb and sex noun

 

[BHRxRacer]

You mean I'm not judgmental?

By the common definition of judgmental, and from your opinions on this subject, no. You're not judgmental.

Sexually.



No it doesn't.

Make up your damn mind.

 

[FoolKiller]

By the common definition of judgmental, and from your opinions on this subject, no. You're not judgmental.

Is that what you meant by Christian? All I'm doing is not being judgmental. Do you believe that to be a trait in Christians?

 

[Exorcet]

Make up your damn mind.

What is there to make up? I'm not going to trip over some silly semantics. Also the two lines in my post have nothing to do with each other and can't really be answered with one line.

Sexual attraction is physical attraction driven by instinct. Why does sex need to be involved? Especially when you're looking at organism that can choose to not give in to instinct.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Is that what you meant by Christian? All I'm doing is not being judgmental. Do you believe that to be a trait in Christians?

Being judgmental? Online and through TV? Yes, more often than not unfortunately. I know how things are with Islam though, so I don't associate judgmental/hateful Christians with the faith itself. I also give each new Christian* I meet the benefit of the doubt that they're not one of those ignorant hateful people I see online or on TV.

*or a member of any faith, really.

Why has this become the discussion?

Sexual attraction is physical attraction driven by instinct. Why does sex need to be involved? Especially when you're looking at organism that can choose to not give in to instinct.

My bad, I was under the impression the minute you get attracted to something you jump on it and rape it.

 

[Imari]

How did it become acceptable all of a sudden, and how do you know it's acceptable now among the majority?

It didn't become acceptable all of a sudden. It was a slow and gradual process.

Better yet, how did black people going into bars or dating white women suddenly become acceptable in southern states of America? How hard did civil rights movements in the US had to fight? You could argue the majority in at least a few states were opposed to the idea, but it happened in-spite of them. Shouldn't have happened according to your logic.

Why shouldn't it have happened according to my logic? You're going to have to spell that one out for me.

Hmm. Enough? like, percentage? How would you know "enough" people have started tolerating it.

Because you're not getting the **** kicked out of you for being gay any more.

No, due to a potential lack of understanding of sex and all it entails, which could lead to negative consequences for them.

What negative consequences? Be specific.

When they're old enough.

When is old enough?
How did you arrive at that number?
Why then and not now?

If they got curious about it and asked, I'd answer and go through the whole deal. What I'm trying to avoid is getting them curious in the first place.

Why avoid a child's curiosity?
What is so bad about them asking the question that you would go out of your way to create situations where they won't ask you this stuff?

I don't want visible sexuality, period. I've explained my reasons enough times to every member now. I'll stop.

You haven't been clear about it at all. I'm not sure how much is you tripping over your own words, so let's cut the ******** and just accept your assertion.

No visible sexuality from either heterosexual or homosexual couples. Taking a normal PG rated show, what elements would you find objectionable that a "normal" adult viewer like myself might not?

(I'm not in any way a normal viewer, but we can pretend.)

That's not even a part of the story, and you ought to know it by now given I've explained a dozen times.

Maybe you have, but it's been poorly and in pieces. It's hard to put it all together, as it appears a lot of the time that you're going back and forth on stuff. Perhaps you don't mean to, but your position is in no manner clear.

I'm trying to cut to the heart of the matter and get a clear reason why you don't want to teach your kids about gays. You refer a lot to negative consequences, as you linked to, but not what those consequences are. Most of the questions above I can figure out the answers to if I know what you're trying to avoid by not teaching your children about this stuff.

Maybe it's obvious to you, but I don't see any obvious negative consequences to children learning how sex works before their sex bits work, and more than I see negative consequences to them learning how cars work before they can drive. But that's my view of the world. I'd like to understand yours, if possible.

It's talked about a lot here too, and it's unfortunate. If everybody followed my recommendation, the kids wouldn't know enough to talk about anything. (improbable) Problem solved.

Seriously? You think that you can cut all children off from information about sex and they just won't take any notice?

It's hard enough to keep them believing in Santa Claus, and that has the entire society and media supporting the lie. And he's only "active" for one night.

Boys and girls are carrying genitalia around with them 24/7. From the moment they find out that there's a physical difference between the two sexes (and good luck trying to withhold THAT information from them) it's a ticking clock before they ask why boys and girls are different.

(Most) Children are not stupid, as much as adults would like to believe they are. They're just as smart as you are, but they have 20+ years less experience in dealing with people trying to feed them BS. I think it's kind of mean to take advantage of that.

 

[Exorcet]

Why not teach your kids about gays?
Why not teach your kids about sex?

No, due to a potential lack of understanding of sex and all it entails, which could lead to negative consequences for them.

I missed this. Why link back to my post, which was about pornography and not sex?

Q: Are okay with allowing children watching pornography? If not, why

A:

No, due to a potential lack of understanding of sex and all it entails, which could lead to negative consequences for them. This to me is a very separate issue from gay couples which is about as child unfriendly as informing a child that he or she has a mom and dad.

 

[Denur]

@BHRxRacer: A few days ago:

@BHRxRacer: Hi, I get the feeling that you don't know what homosexuality is.

A person is gay when he/she can only be attracted to people of the same sex. Just like you are (probably) only attracted to the opposite sex. You never chose to be straight, like a gay person never chose to be gay. It is not some fetish. This means that a gay man can fall in love with another man and I'm talking real love with all the associated feelings: Joy when the person is close, feeling pain when he is gone and of course sometimes lust. Gay sex is a side effect of being gay, not the other way round.

Am I making any sense?

You answered:

Yes.

Which should have been "No" (considering your posts afterwards) and explains the second part of your answer:

I don't see how that's relevant to my stance though.

I think we have a different interpretation of the word "homosexuality" and possibly "sexuality" or even just "sex".

Which leads me to the following, serious, question:

If you have to fill out a legal form and get to field: "Sex", what are you most likely to answer?

A: Yes please
B: Male
C: Other, ...

 

[BHRxRacer]

@Imari your posts are so long, brawh. I haven't slept yet, and I gotta stay up for qualifying and then errands. I'll respond after I get a decent sleep session.

I missed this. Why link back to my post, which was about pornography and not sex?

Q: Are okay with allowing children watching pornography? If not, why

A:

So if you explain sex to them at the age of 7, you'd then allow them to watch porn?

Which leads me to the following, serious, question:

If you have to fill out a legal form and get to field: "Sex", what are you most likely to answer?

A: Yes please
B: Male
C: Other, ...

Is that seriously, a serious question? I've cased this forum enough, but I'll indulge you. The answer is B. Next question?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Ask the folks that tolerate gay parades.
...

That would be, 1 father one (boy)friend. Not two fathers.
...

If you have a way of showing(not telling) two guys are gay on TV without sex acts (which I defined earlier), please tell me.
...
They don't need to understand two people are in love....with benefits.

Yeah, a pretty ****** way of looking at things. You say you don't marginalise but... well, you need a dictionary to check some of the words you use.

I'm not a homophone but thanks for the laugh.

Yup, dictionary.

So, lets look at a balanced educational view of what seems to be acceptable in teaching. Certainly there was peturbance at "Nansen primary was one of four Birmingham academies where teachers were told not to use images showing 'even the slightest intimacy between the sexes'."

You'd love that curriculum, you really would... so far everything you say (once the flamph is cut away, and there's much of that) marks you out as a bigot and a homophobe, although of course that's only my opinion based on the apparently hateful things that you intimate you think.

 

[SniperRed3]

I haven't slept yet,

In all honesty, if you're losing sleep defending and explaining your point it probably isn't a good point

 

[Denur]

I'll indulge you. The answer is B. Next question?

Thank you. Just one more.

"What describes a homosexual best?"

A: Someone who has sex with a person of the same sex
B: Someone who is attracted to someone of the same sex

Can you also please explain why the answer you chose is better than the other?

 

[Imari]

@Imari your posts are so long, brawh. I haven't slept yet, and I gotta stay up for qualifying and then errands. I'll respond after I get a decent sleep session.

The short version is this.

I think you're getting tied up in your own words. Whether you realise it or not, what you've said so far hasn't made your position entirely clear, and has contained some contradictory points.

Instead of playing pick the logical fallacy, I'd rather cut straight to the chase and ask you what exactly it is that you're protecting your children from by this policy of not explaining the birds and the bees to them.

I realise it's more complex than that, and if you'd like to explain the whole thing of how you choose the right age to teach them and so on then that would be great. But I can get a long way with exactly what you're protecting your children from.

No euphemisms, no political correctness, no weasel words, just your pure, straight and honest opinion about what you think goes wrong when children are taught this stuff early.

And why. Whatever you may think is obvious, it's unlikely to be obvious to me, and even if it is I'd rather not make assumptions.

You may think you've said this before in this thread many times, and maybe you have. I think everyone would benefit from a condensed "this is what I think and why in bullet points" version.


Then you'll get people arguing with you over what you actually think, not what they think you think. (If that makes any sense).

At the moment it seems like you're spending 75% of your time simply clarifying what your position is, and people are trying all sorts of weird stuff to try and elucidate exactly what you're thinking. Just be honest and put it all out there.

 

[Exorcet]

So if you explain sex to them at the age of 7, you'd then allow them to watch porn?

You're again making connections that don't exist. How would you even reach that conclusion? Sex =/= pornography. Talking to a child about sex doesn't require you to then force them to sit at a computer and watch people acting it out. Having a sex talk with your kids is something a parent should plan to do.

 

[BHRxRacer]

although of course that's only my opinion based on the apparently hateful things that you intimate you think.

quote one hateful sentence I said.

As far as acceptable teaching, it depends on the society and of course the laws in place.

In all honesty, if you're losing sleep defending and explaining your point it probably isn't a good point

? I wasn't losing sleep because I'm on here. It was already 4am, and I had to be up at 8:30 for a hospital visit. Didn't trust myself to wake up so I stayed up. But yeah you're right, doing anything while sleepy is worse than doing it drunk (I think).

Not that I don't take my own advice though. I only had a 2 hour nap and here I am posting until my friend picks me up.

Thank you. Just one more.

"What describes a homosexual best?"

A: Someone who has sex with a person of the same sex
B: Someone who is attracted to someone of the same sex

Can you also please explain why the answer you chose is better than the other?

B. The first answer doesn't describe homosexuals exclusively.

I think you're getting tied up in your own words. Whether you realise it or not, what you've said so far hasn't made your position entirely clear, and has contained some contradictory points.

I don't think I contradicted myself at any point. I answer questions, and leave things out that you may THINK would contradict my answers.

No euphemisms, no political correctness, no weasel words, just your pure, straight and honest opinion about what you think goes wrong when children are taught this stuff early.

And why. Whatever you may think is obvious, it's unlikely to be obvious to me, and even if it is I'd rather not make assumptions.

You may think you've said this before in this thread many times, and maybe you have. I think everyone would benefit from a condensed "this is what I think and why in bullet points" version.


Then you'll get people arguing with you over what you actually think, not what they think you think. (If that makes any sense).

You mean like this:

LONG STORY SHORT

All I want is an environment that's rated 'O' for "oh **** now I have to prematurely teach my kids about sex because of what they saw in public or on TV". **** me right? That's the way I want things to be. You either agree, or you don't. Don't be a bigot and try to force your opinion.

??

Ok, let me try to re-do that.

I have seen little kids, below 12 years of age, get a "mi gusta" face when they see "intimacy" in public or on TV. After that, they start asking about sex, and obsess about it. You can argue the kids are "born this way"*, and they would've asked questions eventually regardless of what they saw. You can argue it's a rare occurrence. That's all good, but seeing how these kids were deprived from an innocent childhood at such a young age makes me sad, and it makes me wish I don't have to see it happen to my kids, if I ever have any. So, I'd rather not take any risks. What if I do my best, and my kids, at say, 7 years old, ask questions? I'll answer them as comprehensively as possible, and teach them all they need to know. I wouldn't be happy that I had to do that at an early age, though. I'd rather we do "the talk" after they hit puberty. This has nothing to do with homosexuality, it goes for any intimacy.


Let's see how many people read this and not nitpick something from another post.

*Sometimes I can't resist taking jabs at overly sensitive people. Guilty as charged. Sorry. I don't do it to troll, I just think I'm doing you a favour. Ironically it's what you guys argue here. You'll meet some nasty things in life, better prepare for them as early as possible right? Better see them a joke first, maybe it'll decrease your sensitivity when you see the real thing. You're welcome.

You're again making connections that don't exist. How would you even reach that conclusion? Sex =/= pornography. Talking to a child about sex doesn't require you to then force them to sit at a computer and watch people acting it out. Having a sex talk with your kids is something a parent should plan to do.

Your reason for not allowing kids to watch pornography is that they're not sexually educated enough. Correct? If you would eliminate that reason, would it then be acceptable for them to watch it?

 

[Exorcet]

You mean like this:

The immediate question there is, why is this in the homosexuality thread then?

Ok, let me try to re-do that.

I have seen little kids, below 12 years of age, get a "mi gusta" face when they see "intimacy" in public or on TV. After that, they start asking about sex, and obsess about it. You can argue the kids are "born this way"*, and they would've asked questions eventually regardless of what they saw. You can argue it's a rare occurrence. That's all good, but seeing how these kids were deprived from an innocent childhood at such a young age makes me sad, and it makes me wish I don't have to see it happen to my kids, if I ever have any. So, I'd rather not take any risks. What if I do my best, and my kids, at say, 7 years old, ask questions? I'll answer them as comprehensively as possible, and teach them all they need to know. I wouldn't be happy that I had to do that at an early age, though. I'd rather we do "the talk" after they hit puberty. This has nothing to do with homosexuality, it goes for any intimacy.

Then why is it here? Why did you focus on gay examples?

I also still don't see where kids are losing childhoods. If anything it sounds like your way of raising kids will leave them vulnerable to things because it assumes they should be as ignorant as possible. I personally disagree with that.

Your reason for not allowing kids to watch pornography is that they're not sexually educated enough. Correct? If you would eliminate that reason, would it then be acceptable for them to watch it?

It's partially about education (knowledge) and partially about comprehension (understanding). As sex and pornography are not one in the same, covering one doesn't necessarily cover the other. Kids knowing about sex is fine assuming they're ready for it, that doesn't make them ready for pornography.

I doubt kids will have trouble understanding one person loving another. They might have trouble understanding why one person is leashed to bed with his/her mouth taped while someone else (or five other people) are having their way with that person. Let's also not forget that kids learn by imitating.

 

[Famine]

What if I do my best, and my kids, at say, 7 years old, ask questions? I'll answer them as comprehensively as possible, and teach them all they need to know. I wouldn't be happy that I had to do that at an early age, though. I'd rather we do "the talk" after they hit puberty.

A child that is old enough to ask the questions is old enough to receive the answers - and leaving it until after they hit puberty is a spectacularly bad idea, moreso if they happen to be female.

 

[BHRxRacer]

@Exorcet Later

A child that is old enough to ask the questions is old enough to receive the answers - and leaving it until after they hit puberty is a spectacularly bad idea, moreso if they happen to be female.

I disagree. Your argument would hold true if he asked the questions on his own, without external influence. I disagree on the second part as well. Teaching the kids to keep their privates private should suffice until they're old enough to ask questions.

 

[Famine]

I disagree. Your argument would hold true if he asked the questions on his own, without external influence.

Define "external influence". Generally most kids ask these sorts of questions when their parents - or family friends - produce another one.

I disagree on the second part as well. Teaching the kids to keep their privates private should suffice until they're old enough to ask questions.

Generally it's a considerably better idea to teach your daughters about their period well before they have one than to not say a thing about it until they have one. For a start, if there's sanitary products in the house and they know how to use them, it's a lot less messy, but also because the typical reaction to menstruation from children who know nothing about it is either extreme panic or introversion due to thinking they're going to die.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Define "external influence". Generally most kids ask these sorts of questions when their parents - or family friends - produce another one.

That falls under external influence. Anything other than the kid's pure imagination, is external influence. There's a lot of it, I know. That's not my point. How far do you think a child would go not knowing about sex, if he was magically raised alone on an island with no other animals?

Generally it's a considerably better idea to teach your daughters about their period well before they have one than to not say a thing about it until they have one. For a start, if there's sanitary products in the house and they know how to use them, it's a lot less messy, but also because the typical reaction to menstruation from children who know nothing about it is either extreme panic or introversion due to thinking they're going to die.

Oh, that. Of course. "Honey, when you're old enough to have babies, you're going to menstruate". External influece..?

 

[Famine]

That falls under external influence. Anything other than the kid's pure imagination, is external influence.

Even the parents? Crikey.

There's a lot of it, I know. That's not my point. How far do you think a child would go not knowing about sex, if he was magically raised alone on an island with no other animals?

If the child was there forever? Forever*, obviously - give or take the odd erection/menstruation and hormonally-driven appetite for something they have no concept of.

They'd also know nothing of pretty much anything, so quite what the point you're making is escapes me.

*Which would be a very short time before their death from malnutrition

Oh, that. Of course. "Honey, when you're old enough to have babies, you're going to menstruate".

And that is the talk you're going to give to your prepubertal daughters?

Best of luck.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Even the parents? Crikey.

You mean their existence? I don't get your point. I've already said external influence is everywhere, there's no real escape from it. There are ways to minimize it.

I never cared how or where I came from until a later age. Having parents, seeing other babies didn't move me. I did eventually, but how do I know other kids won't stay oblivious for longer than I did?

If the child was there forever? Forever*, obviously - give or take the odd erection/menstruation and hormonally-driven appetite for something they have no concept of.

Maybe my question wasn't clear. Could he have built up curiosity on his own to find out about sex, before hitting puberty? If yes, and it is a yes from what you said, then obviously you agree with me that it's external influence that prompt the questions.

They'd also know nothing of pretty much anything, so quite what the point you're making is escapes me.

Quite the point indeed

*Which would be a very short time before their death from malnutrition

I said magically.

And that is the talk you're going to give to your prepubertal daughters?

That's not the whole of it, no. That's not the point anyway. You can also say a boy would freak out if he discovered masturbation on his own. It's not just girls that need warnings. The warnings can be done while maintaining ambiguity.

Is this the point you're trying to make? Those warnings will lead to questions anyway?

 

[Famine]

You mean their existence? I don't get your point. I've already said external influence is everywhere, there's no real escape from it. There are ways to minimize it.

You're talking about literally shielding children from all forms of sexuality, gender and reproduction until they're old enough to want to do it - without any prior guidance, advice or warning.

How do you know when your kid has hit puberty?

I never cared how or where I came from until a later age. Having parents, seeing other babies didn't move me. I did eventually, but how do I know other kids won't stay oblivious for longer than I did

They will. Some will be curious much, much sooner. The average age for the question "Where do babies come from?" is FOUR. How do you answer that question but stick to the mantra of telling them nothing about sex until they're old enough to physically procreate?

Maybe my question wasn't clear. Could he have built up curiosity on his own to find out about sex, before hitting puberty? If yes, and it is a yes from what you said, then obviously you agree with me that it's external influence that prompt the questions.

Uhh... that makes no sense. Yes the child can build up curiousity on their own to find out about sex before hitting puberty in the environment in which there are no external influences which means that no it isn't external influences that prompt the question.

Humanity is given over to introspection and we reach the point at a very young age of wondering how we got there and where we're going. Amongst the many facets of a parent's job is to guide children through answers to the questions. Finding out what penises and vaginas are and do is no more robbing a child of their childhood than finding out that they're going to die - it's part of normal human development and I'm amazed you think it's okay to stifle that.

Quite the point indeed

Uhh, you're not making any sense. Your example seems to be the argument that an isolated child won't know anything about sex so it's clearly external influences that make them think about sex [insert segue] talking to children about sex is wrong. The problem is that they won't know anything about anything. You could substitute the word "sex" for literally anything - chocolate, male pattern baldness, cricket, the concept of time.

How do you get from "isolated kids won't know anything about sex" to "you should only talk about sex when they've reached puberty"?

That's not the whole of it, no.

How can there be anything else if you refuse to talk about sex until she's already had her first period?

That's not the point anyway.

Actually, it is. You are, to repeat, talking about literally shielding children from all forms of sexuality, gender and reproduction until they're old enough to want to do it - without any prior guidance, advice or warning.

You can also say a boy would freak out if he discovered masturbation on his own. It's not just girls that need warnings. The warnings can be done while maintaining ambiguity.

Only if you ban follow-up questions.

Is this the point you're trying to make? Those warnings will lead to questions anyway?

It's part of it. What's the first response that a girl who, let's remind ourselves, you've literally forbidden from talking about or asking about her vulva (because privates should remain private when they're children) will give when you tell her that some blood will fall out of it for four days every month when she's ready to have babies?

 

[BHRxRacer]

You're talking about literally shielding children from all forms of sexuality, gender and reproduction until they're old enough to want to do it - without any prior guidance, advice or warning.

Not old enough to want to do it. Old enough to ask about it on their own.

How do you know when your kid has hit puberty?

...? There are physical signs. Growing much taller all of a sudden, voice change, etc. I won't leave that late though. I'd consider it at 10-12 for boys and 8-10 for girls.

They will. Some will be curious much, much sooner. The average age for the question "Where do babies come from?" is FOUR.

I'd like to know where you got that average from.

How do you answer that question but stick to the mantra of telling them nothing about sex until they're old enough to physically procreate?Uhh... that makes no sense. Yes the child can build up curiousity on their own to find out about sex before hitting puberty in the environment in which there are no external influences which means that no it isn't external influences that prompt the question.

I was trying to establish the difference between an isolated kid and a non isolated one.

Humanity is given over to introspection and we reach the point at a very young age of wondering how we got there and where we're going. Amongst the many facets of a parent's job is to guide children through answers to the questions. Finding out what penises and vaginas are and do is no more robbing a child of their childhood than finding out that they're going to die - it's part of normal human development and I'm amazed you think it's okay to stifle that.Uhh, you're not making any sense. Your example seems to be the argument that an isolated child won't know anything about sex so it's clearly external influences that make them think about sex [insert segue] talking to children about sex is wrong. The problem is that they won't know anything about anything. You could substitute the word "sex" for literally anything - chocolate, male pattern baldness, cricket, the concept of time.

They'll be guided, in time. It doesn't all have to happen at the age of 4.

you've literally forbidden from talking about or asking about her vulva (because privates should remain private when they're children)

No, they're not forbidden to ask or talk about these things, if they do. Let me clarify the privates thing. Privates should remain private= Keep them under their clothes in public and not let strangers touch them.

Only if you ban follow-up questions.

That's if there are follow up questions. There's a 99% chance there is, if that's what you're trying to get across, but I won't take the 1% risk.

 

[Famine]

Not old enough to want to do it. Old enough to ask about it on their own.

You said "I'd rather we do "the talk" after they hit puberty.". That's old enough to want to do it.

They actually ask questions about it long, long, long before then. So which is it? Do you answer their questions, honestly, as they ask them throughout their childhood or wait until puberty?

...? There are physical signs. Growing much taller all of a sudden, voice change, etc. I won't leave that late though. I'd consider it at 10-12 for boys and 8-10 for girls.

Whoops, you missed your daughter's first menstruation already - 8 is FAR too late.

Incidentally, I tricked you. Unless you're taking blood samples and measuring hormone levels, there is no way to tell your child has entered puberty. By the time you've noticed - growth spurts, voice changes (you're kinda guy-oriented), breasts, body hair - they've already been there for 18 months.

I'd like to know where you got that average from.

Books. Six is considered pretty late for that question.

I was trying to establish the difference between an isolated kid and a non isolated one

The difference being one gets no instruction on anything because there's no-one to ask, where the other gets no instruction on anything because the people they ask won't answer.

The isolation example doesn't help further your notion that children must not come into contact with anything to do with sex ever because it robs them of childhood.

They'll be guided, in time. It doesn't all have to happen at the age of 4

No, they're not forbidden to ask or talk about these things, if they do. Let me clarify the privates thing. Privates should remain private= Keep them under their clothes in public and not let strangers touch them.

That's if there are follow up questions. There's a 99% chance there is, if that's what you're trying to get across, but I won't take the 1% risk.

You're really all over the shop here. You won't tell your daughter she'll menstruate because there's a 1% chance she won't ask follow-up questions? What?

First you say kids must not be exposed to any form of concept of sex until they hit puberty, then you say you'll answer their questions if they ask them (they will), which is exposing them to the concept of sex. Which is it exactly?

 

[BHRxRacer]

We have a winner! Someone didn't read the big bold post

You said "I'd rather we do "the talk" after they hit puberty.". That's old enough to want to do it.

They actually ask questions about it long, long, long before then. So which is it? Do you answer their questions, honestly, as they ask them throughout their childhood or wait until puberty?

First you say kids must not be exposed to any form of concept of sex until they hit puberty, then you say you'll answer their questions if they ask them (they will), which is exposing them to the concept of sex. Which is it exactly?

Here

I have seen little kids, below 12 years of age, get a "mi gusta" face when they see "intimacy" in public or on TV. After that, they start asking about sex, and obsess about it. You can argue the kids are "born this way"*, and they would've asked questions eventually regardless of what they saw. You can argue it's a rare occurrence. That's all good, but seeing how these kids were deprived from an innocent childhood at such a young age makes me sad, and it makes me wish I don't have to see it happen to my kids, if I ever have any. So, I'd rather not take any risks. What if I do my best, and my kids, at say, 7 years old, ask questions? I'll answer them as comprehensively as possible, and teach them all they need to know. I wouldn't be happy that I had to do that at an early age, though. I'd rather we do "the talk" after they hit puberty. This has nothing to do with homosexuality, it goes for any intimacy.


Let's see how many people read this and not nitpick something from another post.

*Sometimes I can't resist taking jabs at overly sensitive people. Guilty as charged. Sorry. I don't do it to troll, I just think I'm doing you a favour. Ironically it's what you guys argue here. You'll meet some nasty things in life, better prepare for them as early as possible right? Better see them a joke first, maybe it'll decrease your sensitivity when you see the real thing. You're welcome.

moving on.

Whoops, you missed your daughter's first menstruation already - 8 is FAR too late.

I don't know what planet you're from but over here the average is 9.

they've already been there for 18 months.

Which is why I said I won't leave it that late. Did you not read that?

You won't tell your daughter she'll menstruate because there's a 1% chance she won't ask follow-up questions? What?

No. Maybe I mis-phrased that one. There's a 99% chance she has follow up questions, and as I said in the conclusion post, I'd answer.

The reason for "shielding" the kids, is hope of that 1% chance to happen. Is that clear?

 

[Famine]

We have a winner! Someone didn't read the big bold post

The problem is that you keep contradicting yourself. It doesn't really matter what the big bold post (that I quoted) says, because you say something different practically every other post.

I don't know what planet you're from but over here the average is 9

I'm from the planet where "average" (in this usage, the "mean") is the sum of all numbers added together and divided by the amount of numbers in the set.

Nine is an average. It is not a lower bound. If you're waiting until she is eight, there is roughly a one in six chance she's menstruated before you've warned her about it.

Which is why I said I won't leave it that late. Did you not read that?

Try reading your own posts:

There are physical signs. Growing much taller all of a sudden, voice change, etc. I won't leave that late though. I'd consider it at 10-12 for boys and 8-10 for girls.

There you said you wouldn't leave it as late as waiting for them to have overt physical changes - you'd consider (consider!) it at 8-10 for girls and 10-12 for boys. Eight is far too late.

No. Maybe I mis-phrased that one. There's a 99% chance she has follow up questions, and as I said in the conclusion post, I'd answer.

The reason for "shielding" the kids, is hope of that 1% chance to happen. Is that clear?

Nope. The reason for shielding kids from any concept of sexuality is because if you tell them about it 1 in 100 of them won't ask any other questions? That's not a reason - it doesn't even make sense as a concept, much less as reasoning.

There's only two reasons to shield a child from any information. The first is that you're embarrassed about it and the second is if you believe that information will do them harm. Ignoring the fact that all information is useful and potentially life-saving, learning about sex, reproduction and sexuality is part of normal childhood development and is not harmful in any way - unless you're actually having sex with them, which is really very harmful indeed. Indeed it's significantly more harmful to keep the information from them and have them, unarmed, learning about sex from schoolfriends who get inaccurate information from all sorts of unsavoury sources (those with older brothers particularly).

Which leaves us with embarrassment. Given that girls have killed themselves (girls are prone to do this) due to getting their first period completely unaware of what's happening and assumed they're seriously ill to be bleeding from there for four days, I have to wonder how much value there is to being too embarrassed to talk to her about it.


And that's why schools now teach it. Embarrassed parents can't be trusted with the job so none of us are - which puts us in the amusing situation of having our children told about sex by the people most likely to sexually abuse them (other than us - parents are by far the largest proportion of abusers and killers of their children). Of course they also do it too late.

 

[LeMansAid]

I have seen little kids, below 12 years of age, get a "mi gusta" face when they see "intimacy" in public or on TV. After that, they start asking about sex, and obsess about it. You can argue the kids are "born this way"*, and they would've asked questions eventually regardless of what they saw. You can argue it's a rare occurrence. That's all good, but seeing how these kids were deprived from an innocent childhood at such a young age makes me sad, and it makes me wish I don't have to see it happen to my kids, if I ever have any. So, I'd rather not take any risks. What if I do my best, and my kids, at say, 7 years old, ask questions? I'll answer them as comprehensively as possible, and teach them all they need to know. I wouldn't be happy that I had to do that at an early age, though. I'd rather we do "the talk" after they hit puberty. This has nothing to do with homosexuality, it goes for any intimacy.

The immediate question there is, why is this in the homosexuality thread then?

Did you end up answering this question? It is exactly the same question as came to mind when I read your post. To quote myself:

Getting down to brass tacks: Are we just seeing what happens when people aren't honest?

Along the way I think there's been some (conscious, sub-conscious, unconscious?) ambiguity on whether we're talking about sex, or sexuality (read - sexual orientation). Please note (as @FoolKiller pointed out) that a gender is a sex, but not of the verb variety, just as sexual orientation is not. If you're against kids seeing anything that might make them aware that homosexuality exists, then say that!! People are pretty cluey around here and will see through your charade anyway. Your big clarification (in bold, no less) clearly states that "this has nothing to do with homosexuality". So take it somewhere else. Start a new thread. But don't come in here and feign generalities in an attempt to gain acceptance of your views under false pretenses.

 

[Imari]

You mean like this:

??

No, that explains what you want, but not any of the reasoning behind it. It's so vague as to be nearly useless, and says nothing about what you're actually trying to protect your children from.

Ok, let me try to re-do that.

I have seen little kids, below 12 years of age, get a "mi gusta" face when they see "intimacy" in public or on TV. After that, they start asking about sex, and obsess about it. You can argue the kids are "born this way"*, and they would've asked questions eventually regardless of what they saw. You can argue it's a rare occurrence. That's all good, but seeing how these kids were deprived from an innocent childhood at such a young age makes me sad, and it makes me wish I don't have to see it happen to my kids, if I ever have any. So, I'd rather not take any risks. What if I do my best, and my kids, at say, 7 years old, ask questions? I'll answer them as comprehensively as possible, and teach them all they need to know. I wouldn't be happy that I had to do that at an early age, though. I'd rather we do "the talk" after they hit puberty. This has nothing to do with homosexuality, it goes for any intimacy.

I'm still not really seeing the reasoning. In neither of those do you really explain why you think this is a good thing to do, and exactly what negative effects you're trying to avoid.

I'll say it again, this stuff is not obvious to someone like me who does not think that teaching children about sex is a bad thing.

I'm not sure I understand "mi gusta" either, but I looked up this:

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/me-gusta

And it seems to fit. I don't think it's necessarily true, I think it's largely a by-product of children being starved of information about sex. Hungry people get that same face when you put them in front of a table full of food.

You'll excuse me if I pick a single sentence out of the middle, but the reasoning seems to be "children taught about sex lose their innocence, and that's bad". Forgive me if I'm oversimplifying, and please feel free to expand on it more if you can.

For starters, it raises more of my lists of questions:
Why is innocence so preferable for a child?
What is "innocence" exactly, and why does learning about sex remove it?
What is it about a childhood lived with the knowledge of sex that is worse for the child than a childhood lived in innocence?


But I think @Famine is doing a much better job than me of disabusing you of the quote unquote "reasoning" behind your chosen parenting method, and of outlining the potential damage it could do to your child.

 

[FoolKiller]

if he discovered masturbation on his own.

If? I don't know of anyone that had their Dad help show them how it worked. Well, no one who is stable.