|
Post by What Hat on Feb 12, 2010 10:42:54 GMT -5
I notice that you didn't include Dads wrestling with girls. Do you have a problem with that? How about a Dad wrestling with a 14 year old girl? Do you feel it is appropriate for a mom to wrestle with a 13 year old boy? I assume you have not spent much time with teenagers recently. In my experience, teenage girls often engage in physical play with their fathers and male siblings. When a girl enters her teenage years, she does not suddenly become a purely sexual being beyond contact. That is a naive view indeed. Teenagers - girl and boy - are still children. As such they exhibit juvenile behaviours, even as they gradually (and sometimes very slowly) edge toward greater maturity. I find the suggestion that teenagers are suddenly hyper-sexualised beings to be irksome and damaging to normal cognitive and social development. Why should mothers not wrestle with their teenage sons? Where did you get that crazy-ass rule? As a teenager I loved giving my mother bearhugs and showering her with kisses, and trying to show her how strong I was by attempting to lift her up. My brothers were\are the same. It is an expression of filial love. Even now, in my later twenties, I still hug and kiss my mother unashamedly. I fear the day when hyper-vigilant fools with their irrational made-up-rules that exceed the primness even of the Victorians, foist their dysfunctional ideas on the rest of us and make every expression of affection a sexual act. I can tell you from personal experience that they do change virtually overnight. And the result is that the entire mode of physical interaction, parent to child, changes as well. Of course, you still hug and interact physically. But you don't walk right into the bathroom to give your daughter a new bar of soap the same way at age 14 as you do at age 3. To take an extreme example. It's not as simple as saying "no hugs" or "continue to hug". In setting a professional code of conduct you need to look at the kinds of interactions, the potential risk of the trusted person taking advantage, and even the cultural context. Some kinds of touching are appropriate and some are not, also depending on the situation. The obvious advantage of having a code that describes or limits adult-child interaction is that risk of sexual impropriety is reduced. But it also helps to prevent the kind of whisper campaign that can occur when someone is socially inept. And there is a kind of safety buffer around the child so that inappropriate behaviour cannot be masked as a show of affection. The unfortunate result is that in many situations the adult cannot uninhibitedly show affection as they might have in years gone by. It does not rule out every show of affection though. These codes have to be designed to the situation and are intended for adults working with children in a professional or volunteer capacity. However, even relatives and friends need to place limits on their behaviour so that kids are protected. I just Google'd and found that the US govt has a book on producing such guidelines, not only for interaction between youth and adults, but also on screening employees/ volunteers and other issues. Here is the link: www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/PreventingChildSexualAbuse.pdf
|
|
|
Post by jason on Feb 12, 2010 11:06:37 GMT -5
I think you've missed my point What.
Common sense must surely prevail in any situation; of course as children get older the boundary of individuality and personal responsibility enlarges. That is self-evident. However, your example situation is simply beyond the scope of my comments - it is a response, but not to the substance of my post. It also serves to remind me of the reason I do not bother with these kinds of topics. My blood pressure rises inordinately at ridiculous readings of my (and other's) posts.
At least give your fellow posters credit for a common deposit of reason so that we do not need to cover the obvious. The standard "I did not write that" or "I do not assert that" style response then derails the meaningfulness of the discussion. As such your remark about the difference between a 3 year-old and a 14 year-old in the bathroom is so far removed from my statement, that it does not warrant a response.
I think you've clouded the issue by conflating parental interaction with professional interactions between adults and children. Such interactions are rightly governed by strict principles designed to keep the professional space safe by those who access it. As a professional who works with young people, I operate within such guidelines myself.
I think you also make a very common error in assuming that there are vast numbers of adults in the world who would take advantage of sexually-inexperienced and underage teenagers. The reality - and I know that does not count for much around here, but I place it on the table nonetheless - is that the overwhelming majority of adults do not engage in such behaviours. Statistically, it is unlikely that most teenagers would ever encounter such a situation.
There seems to be a disturbing absence of proportion in the comments on this issue. The measures that seem to be favoured are those which regulate the normal, everday natural interactions between parents and their children. It's the old fallacy: something should be done; we are doing something; ergo, it is what should be done.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 12, 2010 11:49:47 GMT -5
I think you've missed my point What. Common sense must surely prevail in any situation; of course as children get older the boundary of individuality and personal responsibility enlarges. That is self-evident. However, your example situation is simply beyond the scope of my comments - it is a response, but not to the substance of my post. It also serves to remind me of the reason I do not bother with these kinds of topics. My blood pressure rises inordinately at ridiculous readings of my (and other's) posts. At least give your fellow posters credit for a common deposit of reason so that we do not need to cover the obvious. The standard "I did not write that" or "I do not assert that" style response then derails the meaningfulness of the discussion. As such your remark about the difference between a 3 year-old and a 14 year-old in the bathroom is so far removed from my statement, that it does not warrant a response. I think you've clouded the issue by conflating parental interaction with professional interactions between adults and children. Such interactions are rightly governed by strict principles designed to keep the professional space safe by those who access it. As a professional who works with young people, I operate within such guidelines myself. I think you also make a very common error in assuming that there are vast numbers of adults in the world who would take advantage of sexually-inexperienced and underage teenagers. The reality - and I know that does not count for much around here, but I place it on the table nonetheless - is that the overwhelming majority of adults do not engage in such behaviours. Statistically, it is unlikely that most teenagers would ever encounter such a situation. There seems to be a disturbing absence of proportion in the comments on this issue. The measures that seem to be favoured are those which regulate the normal, everday natural interactions between parents and their children. It's the old fallacy: something should be done; we are doing something; ergo, it is what should be done. You are correct in that I was not addressing the substance of your previous post. I found the tangential thought that kids do not change "overnight" arresting as it's the opposite of my experience, and I was commenting on that observation only in the first paragraph. And I probably did not capture your comment all that accurately. The rest of my post changed tack and was on a different subject. To some extent the entire dialogue going back 10-20 posts is somewhat at cross purposes, as I don't believe clearday, fs and yourself are really all that far apart in perception if you hash through all the details. I guess the substantive question is whether you feel a formal set of guidelines relating to worker-youth interaction is required or not. The other points you raise are side issues as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Feb 12, 2010 11:56:27 GMT -5
But you don't walk right into the bathroom to give your daughter a new bar of soap the same way at age 14 as you do at age 3. To take an extreme example. What if your 14 year old child was handicapped or injured and unable to care for herself? freespirit
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 12, 2010 12:00:53 GMT -5
I notice that you didn't include Dads wrestling with girls. Do you have a problem with that? How about a Dad wrestling with a 14 year old girl? Do you feel it is appropriate for a mom to wrestle with a 13 year old boy? I assume you have not spent much time with teenagers recently. In my experience, teenage girls often engage in physical play with their fathers and male siblings. When a girl enters her teenage years, she does not suddenly become a purely sexual being beyond contact. That is a naive view indeed. Teenagers - girl and boy - are still children. As such they exhibit juvenile behaviours, even as they gradually (and sometimes very slowly) edge toward greater maturity. I find the suggestion that teenagers are suddenly hyper-sexualised beings to be irksome and damaging to normal cognitive and social development. Why should mothers not wrestle with their teenage sons? Where did you get that crazy-ass rule? As a teenager I loved giving my mother bearhugs and showering her with kisses, and trying to show her how strong I was by attempting to lift her up. My brothers were\are the same. It is an expression of filial love. Even now, in my later twenties, I still hug and kiss my mother unashamedly. I fear the day when hyper-vigilant fools with their irrational made-up-rules that exceed the primness even of the Victorians, foist their dysfunctional ideas on the rest of us and make every expression of affection a sexual act. I agree Jason. We are becoming a paranoid society when it comes to touch. Touch is healing in many ways. I think we are doing ourselves a great disservice to be labelling hugs as off limits. I need hugs and so do children. I think it's very sad we have to think twice about giving someone a hug because they might think it's a sexual overture.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 12, 2010 12:33:21 GMT -5
I agree Jason. We are becoming a paranoid society when it comes to touch. Touch is healing in many ways. I think we are doing ourselves a great disservice to be labelling hugs as off limits. I need hugs and so do children. I think it's very sad we have to think twice about giving someone a hug because they might think it's a sexual overture. I think the issue here shouldn't be focused on NEVER touching, hugging etc. The issue is in setting guidelines that should be followed in 'normal' circumstances. An example from work is that touching a coworker is considered to be taboo in the sense that it can be PERCEIVED as sexual harassment. This perception doesn't even have to be from the two involved in the touching, but also by an observer. When leaving work for an extended absence recently for surgery, my female boss came up to me at the end of the day and gave me a real good old fashioned 'I really care about you' type of hug and let me know she would be praying for me while I was going through surgery and recovery. She would normally never hug one of her employees, but this was a very appropriate hug based on her personal relationship with me as an individual that she cared about as a friend. Appropriate? You betcha. Touching can be appropriate depending on the circumstances. The members of our motorcycle club greet each other with hugs when we get together. Again it is very appropriate. Scott
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Feb 12, 2010 12:45:03 GMT -5
I think the issue here shouldn't be focused on NEVER touching, hugging etc. The issue is in setting guidelines that should be followed in 'normal' circumstances. It seems to me that child perps do things despite all guidelines and codes of conduct and normal social behavior. What they are doing is not normal. [An example from work is that touching a coworker is considered to be taboo in the sense that it can be PERCEIVED as sexual harassment. This perception doesn't even have to be from the two involved in the touching, but also by an observer. Sometimes I think the workers--especially the ones who are 18 year old children themselves--are kinda thrown to the wolves. They aren't quite "professionals in a counceling career" but then, they aren't quite not either and then they have to navigate between a wide variety of homes/cultures and they often do not have any training in leadership, management, social problems, communication, dealing with people, etc. When leaving work for an extended absence recently for surgery, my female boss came up to me at the end of the day and gave me a real good old fashioned 'I really care about you' type of hug and let me know she would be praying for me while I was going through surgery and recovery. She would normally never hug one of her employees, but this was a very appropriate hug based on her personal relationship with me as an individual that she cared about as a friend. Appropriate? You betcha. Touching can be appropriate depending on the circumstances. The members of our motorcycle club greet each other with hugs when we get together. Again it is very appropriate. Scott awwwwwwwww... that's sweet. freespirit
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 12, 2010 12:45:40 GMT -5
I agree Jason. We are becoming a paranoid society when it comes to touch. Touch is healing in many ways. I think we are doing ourselves a great disservice to be labelling hugs as off limits. I need hugs and so do children. I think it's very sad we have to think twice about giving someone a hug because they might think it's a sexual overture. I think the issue here shouldn't be focused on NEVER touching, hugging etc. The issue is in setting guidelines that should be followed in 'normal' circumstances. An example from work is that touching a coworker is considered to be taboo in the sense that it can be PERCEIVED as sexual harassment. This perception doesn't even have to be from the two involved in the touching, but also by an observer. When leaving work for an extended absence recently for surgery, my female boss came up to me at the end of the day and gave me a real good old fashioned 'I really care about you' type of hug and let me know she would be praying for me while I was going through surgery and recovery. She would normally never hug one of her employees, but this was a very appropriate hug based on her personal relationship with me as an individual that she cared about as a friend. Appropriate? You betcha. Touching can be appropriate depending on the circumstances. The members of our motorcycle club greet each other with hugs when we get together. Again it is very appropriate. Scott Yes there likely needs to be guidelines. I agree hugs are appropriate, what I find sad is that not everyone would agree her hugging you was appropriate and would be seen in a negative way. If everyone hugged more often it might become more accepted I don't know. We definitely have many unwritten rules of when, who and where we can hug. That's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 12, 2010 13:18:09 GMT -5
I agree Jason. We are becoming a paranoid society when it comes to touch. Touch is healing in many ways. I think we are doing ourselves a great disservice to be labelling hugs as off limits. I need hugs and so do children. I think it's very sad we have to think twice about giving someone a hug because they might think it's a sexual overture. I think the issue here shouldn't be focused on NEVER touching, hugging etc. The issue is in setting guidelines that should be followed in 'normal' circumstances. An example from work is that touching a coworker is considered to be taboo in the sense that it can be PERCEIVED as sexual harassment. This perception doesn't even have to be from the two involved in the touching, but also by an observer. When leaving work for an extended absence recently for surgery, my female boss came up to me at the end of the day and gave me a real good old fashioned 'I really care about you' type of hug and let me know she would be praying for me while I was going through surgery and recovery. She would normally never hug one of her employees, but this was a very appropriate hug based on her personal relationship with me as an individual that she cared about as a friend. Appropriate? You betcha. Touching can be appropriate depending on the circumstances. The members of our motorcycle club greet each other with hugs when we get together. Again it is very appropriate. Scott Yes there likely needs to be guidelines. I agree hugs are appropriate, what I find sad is that not everyone would agree her hugging you was appropriate and would be seen in a negative way. If everyone hugged more often it might become more accepted I don't know. We definitely have many unwritten rules of when, who and where we can hug. That's for sure. Not contradicting you here, snow, but to go from there, the problem is that unwritten rules contain all kinds of ambiguities. 1) Some adult individuals do not know where the boundaries are in the present day world, 2) children need to clearly understand when a line has been crossed, 3) perps will trade on ambiguities to mask their motives and intentions and get closer to their targets. Positions of trust are ideal for pedophiles.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 12, 2010 13:23:02 GMT -5
But you don't walk right into the bathroom to give your daughter a new bar of soap the same way at age 14 as you do at age 3. To take an extreme example. What if your 14 year old child was handicapped or injured and unable to care for herself? freespirit The answer is obvious of course, but I'm trying to figure out what your point is. I wasn't ever trying to say that there should be no physical contact when your child enters puberty, but definitely the relationship changes. And the child lets you know. Don't know if you've been there or not, but I have. In any case, the entire question of the parent-child relationship is just a tangent, from what I see.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 12, 2010 13:26:47 GMT -5
I assume you have not spent much time with teenagers recently. In my experience, teenage girls often engage in physical play with their fathers and male siblings. When a girl enters her teenage years, she does not suddenly become a purely sexual being beyond contact. That is a naive view indeed. Teenagers - girl and boy - are still children. As such they exhibit juvenile behaviours, even as they gradually (and sometimes very slowly) edge toward greater maturity. I find the suggestion that teenagers are suddenly hyper-sexualised beings to be irksome and damaging to normal cognitive and social development. Why should mothers not wrestle with their teenage sons? Where did you get that crazy-ass rule? As a teenager I loved giving my mother bearhugs and showering her with kisses, and trying to show her how strong I was by attempting to lift her up. My brothers were\are the same. It is an expression of filial love. Even now, in my later twenties, I still hug and kiss my mother unashamedly. I fear the day when hyper-vigilant fools with their irrational made-up-rules that exceed the primness even of the Victorians, foist their dysfunctional ideas on the rest of us and make every expression of affection a sexual act. I agree Jason. We are becoming a paranoid society when it comes to touch. Touch is healing in many ways. I think we are doing ourselves a great disservice to be labelling hugs as off limits. I need hugs and so do children. I think it's very sad we have to think twice about giving someone a hug because they might think it's a sexual overture. I think the opposite is also true in some ways. Hugs are very common as a greeting now between friends and family; at least in our circles. Whereas 10-20 years ago they were not common at all in these parts. Personally, I find them highly annoying in most cases. We go to a family get together with 20-30 people and you have to hug everybody. When you arrive and again when you leave.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Feb 12, 2010 14:10:30 GMT -5
I think the opposite is also true in some ways. Hugs are very common as a greeting now between friends and family; at least in our circles. Whereas 10-20 years ago they were not common at all in these parts. Personally, I find them highly annoying in most cases. We go to a family get together with 20-30 people and you have to hug everybody. When you arrive and again when you leave. Weeeeeeeeeeell... maybe for the next family event you should stop bathing for a few days, leer at people, then launch yourself at them and breathe heavily against their neck. After that, they would probably avoid you. just an idea... ;D fs
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Feb 12, 2010 14:40:02 GMT -5
The answer is obvious of course, but I'm trying to figure out what your point is. Point? Nobody needs to be making a point in order to post on TMB.... ;D ;D Anyway, massage therapists, physical therapists, chiropractors, doctors, nurses, physical trainers, day-care workers, karate instructors, wrestling coaches, yoga teachers, etc physically touch people. All of us treat our family or our friends-who-are-family different physically than other people we come into contact with. These things are moral and healthy and normal. But some of the stuff on this thread kinda reminds me of the Time magazine article that explored the question if all men are rapists. www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,980115-8,00.html freespirit
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 12, 2010 14:46:17 GMT -5
One comfort with TMB is everybody here is an expert!
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Feb 12, 2010 14:49:45 GMT -5
LOL, lin. freespirit
|
|
|
Post by degem on Feb 12, 2010 15:41:22 GMT -5
mmmm-I am a "demonstrative" person-have been all my life.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Feb 12, 2010 15:55:05 GMT -5
Me too, Gem.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 12, 2010 16:43:10 GMT -5
The answer is obvious of course, but I'm trying to figure out what your point is. Point? Nobody needs to be making a point in order to post on TMB.... ;D ;D Anyway, massage therapists, physical therapists, chiropractors, doctors, nurses, physical trainers, day-care workers, karate instructors, wrestling coaches, yoga teachers, etc physically touch people. All of us treat our family or our friends-who-are-family different physically than other people we come into contact with. These things are moral and healthy and normal. But some of the stuff on this thread kinda reminds me of the Time magazine article that explored the question if all men are rapists. www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,980115-8,00.html freespirit Okay, but my massage therapist goes through a meticulous ritual to avoid any hint of impropriety. I doubt this would have been the case 20 years ago. And he's male (and so am I if that wasn't clear). So ... what stuff on this thread are you referring to?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 12, 2010 16:51:36 GMT -5
Yes there likely needs to be guidelines. I agree hugs are appropriate, what I find sad is that not everyone would agree her hugging you was appropriate and would be seen in a negative way. If everyone hugged more often it might become more accepted I don't know. We definitely have many unwritten rules of when, who and where we can hug. That's for sure. Not contradicting you here, snow, but to go from there, the problem is that unwritten rules contain all kinds of ambiguities. 1) Some adult individuals do not know where the boundaries are in the present day world, 2) children need to clearly understand when a line has been crossed, 3) perps will trade on ambiguities to mask their motives and intentions and get closer to their targets. Positions of trust are ideal for pedophiles. That's pretty much what I meant when I spoke of unwritten rules. They are totally ambiguous and therefore, unknowable in many instances. It is a fine line to walk with children. You don't want to tell them so much that you scare them half to death of all strangers and yet you need to make them cautious enough to protect themselves and know when a boundary has been crossed. It next to impossible to get it exactly right imo.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 12, 2010 16:56:57 GMT -5
I agree Jason. We are becoming a paranoid society when it comes to touch. Touch is healing in many ways. I think we are doing ourselves a great disservice to be labelling hugs as off limits. I need hugs and so do children. I think it's very sad we have to think twice about giving someone a hug because they might think it's a sexual overture. I think the opposite is also true in some ways. Hugs are very common as a greeting now between friends and family; at least in our circles. Whereas 10-20 years ago they were not common at all in these parts. Personally, I find them highly annoying in most cases. We go to a family get together with 20-30 people and you have to hug everybody. When you arrive and again when you leave. Yes I think men have a harder time with that then women. It can get a bit much sometimes. And there is always some guy that just loves to hold on just a little longer than others, yuck. But for the most part, hugging is a way of connecting with others and I don't want to see it outlawed completely, not that I think it will of course. ps. fs had a great idea for how you can avoid further hugs LOL.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 12, 2010 16:59:31 GMT -5
One comfort with TMB is everybody here is an expert! LOL lin, we are all experts on all sorts of stuff that we just know we're right about!! What can I help ya with??
|
|
|
Post by Rob Sargison on Feb 12, 2010 17:09:36 GMT -5
Not contradicting you here, snow, but to go from there, the problem is that unwritten rules contain all kinds of ambiguities. 1) Some adult individuals do not know where the boundaries are in the present day world, 2) children need to clearly understand when a line has been crossed, 3) perps will trade on ambiguities to mask their motives and intentions and get closer to their targets. Positions of trust are ideal for pedophiles. That's pretty much what I meant when I spoke of unwritten rules. They are totally ambiguous and therefore, unknowable in many instances. It is a fine line to walk with children. You don't want to tell them so much that you scare them half to death of all strangers and yet you need to make them cautious enough to protect themselves and know when a boundary has been crossed. It next to impossible to get it exactly right imo. I think I blame Kinsey and the sexual revolution. We have all become so aware of our 'sexuality' that we interact as walking penises and vaginas, afraid to touch in case our bits and pieces become involved, creating boundaries that we never used to bother about, while we watch on in confused amazement as our 12 year olds, or younger, go to school and learn how to put on condoms.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 12, 2010 17:35:15 GMT -5
Not contradicting you here, snow, but to go from there, the problem is that unwritten rules contain all kinds of ambiguities. 1) Some adult individuals do not know where the boundaries are in the present day world, 2) children need to clearly understand when a line has been crossed, 3) perps will trade on ambiguities to mask their motives and intentions and get closer to their targets. Positions of trust are ideal for pedophiles. That's pretty much what I meant when I spoke of unwritten rules. They are totally ambiguous and therefore, unknowable in many instances. It is a fine line to walk with children. You don't want to tell them so much that you scare them half to death of all strangers and yet you need to make them cautious enough to protect themselves and know when a boundary has been crossed. It next to impossible to get it exactly right imo. Hmm, that reminds me. Going back a few years but we found the following quite helpful with our kids. Although now that I look at that I realize most abuse comes from acquaintances not strangers. If I recall the book does cover that. Anyway, there's probably better stuff out now, but a storybook like this makes it easier to discuss. Ironically one of our kids' favourite Berenstain Bears books was 'Too Much TV' even though we didn't have one.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 12, 2010 17:40:12 GMT -5
I think the opposite is also true in some ways. Hugs are very common as a greeting now between friends and family; at least in our circles. Whereas 10-20 years ago they were not common at all in these parts. Personally, I find them highly annoying in most cases. We go to a family get together with 20-30 people and you have to hug everybody. When you arrive and again when you leave. Yes I think men have a harder time with that then women. It can get a bit much sometimes. And there is always some guy that just loves to hold on just a little longer than others, yuck. But for the most part, hugging is a way of connecting with others and I don't want to see it outlawed completely, not that I think it will of course. ps. fs had a great idea for how you can avoid further hugs LOL. I don't see how a 'greeting' type hug could ever be inappropriate or a problem. I just find them mostly insincere and too time consuming. Especially those hugs that start with both arms thrown in the air and a little yell. Give me a break. I do like hugs ... at Christmas time, someone I haven't seen for a while, our kids anytime, and close relatives and friends. But in many cases I find it's the "new handshake". So thanks fs on the "great idea" but I need a better idea than that. Open to suggestions.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 12, 2010 17:40:52 GMT -5
That's pretty much what I meant when I spoke of unwritten rules. They are totally ambiguous and therefore, unknowable in many instances. It is a fine line to walk with children. You don't want to tell them so much that you scare them half to death of all strangers and yet you need to make them cautious enough to protect themselves and know when a boundary has been crossed. It next to impossible to get it exactly right imo. Hmm, that reminds me. Going back a few years but we found the following quite helpful with our kids. Although now that I look at that I realize most abuse comes from acquaintances not strangers. If I recall the book does cover that. Anyway, there's probably better stuff out now, but a storybook like this makes it easier to discuss. Ironically one of our kids' favourite Berenstain Bears books was 'Too Much TV' even though we didn't have one. Oh, does that book take me back. Yes books like that do help I think. I agree that most of the sexual assault that goes on with children is usually someone they know and have grown to trust. Predators seem to have a lot of patience growing these relationships developing both the trust of the parent and the child before starting the abuse. That's what makes it so insidious. It not only causes harm sexually, but it also betrays a trust which in many ways is worse.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 12, 2010 17:42:37 GMT -5
That's pretty much what I meant when I spoke of unwritten rules. They are totally ambiguous and therefore, unknowable in many instances. It is a fine line to walk with children. You don't want to tell them so much that you scare them half to death of all strangers and yet you need to make them cautious enough to protect themselves and know when a boundary has been crossed. It next to impossible to get it exactly right imo. I think I blame Kinsey and the sexual revolution. We have all become so aware of our 'sexuality' that we interact as walking penises and vaginas, afraid to touch in case our bits and pieces become involved, creating boundaries that we never used to bother about, while we watch on in confused amazement as our 12 year olds, or younger, go to school and learn how to put on condoms. As much as Kinsey so on were completely nuts (so I'm told, according to the latest psychology), I think on this topic we're better off today than when the subject was a huge taboo and all matter of sexual impropriety was swept under the rug.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 12, 2010 17:46:37 GMT -5
I think I blame Kinsey and the sexual revolution. We have all become so aware of our 'sexuality' that we interact as walking penises and vaginas, afraid to touch in case our bits and pieces become involved, creating boundaries that we never used to bother about, while we watch on in confused amazement as our 12 year olds, or younger, go to school and learn how to put on condoms. As much as Kinsey so on were completely nuts (so I'm told, according to the latest psychology), I think on this topic we're better off today than when the subject was a huge taboo and all matter of sexual impropriety was swept under the rug. Well in a sense I do agree with that. We have come through a long period of time where sex was taboo to speak about. That was extreme imo. We now have gone the other direction where it is involved in almost everything you see. That is also extreme. I think we will see things come to the middle at some point. That seems to be how things go, like a pendaleum, to far one way then too far the other and then slowly coming to the middle.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 12, 2010 17:55:36 GMT -5
As much as Kinsey so on were completely nuts (so I'm told, according to the latest psychology), I think on this topic we're better off today than when the subject was a huge taboo and all matter of sexual impropriety was swept under the rug. Well in a sense I do agree with that. We have come through a long period of time where sex was taboo to speak about. That was extreme imo. We now have gone the other direction where it is involved in almost everything you see. That is also extreme. I think we will see things come to the middle at some point. That seems to be how things go, like a pendaleum, to far one way then too far the other and then slowly coming to the middle. You mean as far as popular culture is concerned I think? Personally I think that's more a reflection of how open our society is. The mores you see in movies and TV reflect that of a segment of society, but not all society. At least not here in multi-cultural Canada. Another example is that many people think the Dutch (my background) are very liberal with legalized prostitution and drug use. But that's not really the case. They let people do that, but a great majority do not approve of those things. Well ... at least my relatives over there do not (they are non-professing people, BTW).
|
|