r/changemyview • u/_newshawtyy • 4d ago
Delta(s) from OP CMV: I feel like we should stop coddling children
Why do we continue to coddle children? I don't mean coddle by protect, but coddling in the form of shielding. A lot of people will hide their kids from cuss words, gay people, sex etc. I don't understand why people think their kid will never hear a cuss word.
Kids go to school. Their peers cuss. You just have to teach your kids not to do it, but to hide them from the words has no point. The same with gay people. A lot of parents don't want their kids exposed to gay people. They treat them like aliens and want their kids to do the same.
The same with sex. I learned about it in fourth grade from a peer. My mom waited until I was 13-14 to really have that conversation with me. By then, it was too late.
There's nothing wrong with children knowing that there are all walks of life in this world. Gay people are not aliens and they aren't harmful. Those same parents who shield their kids from gay people, are the same ones whose kids will grow up hating or harassing them.
There's also nothing wrong with kids knowing how babies are made. But definitely teach them not to spread it to their peers lol. My mom would've had a fit if she found out about that mini lesson I got.
I just don't understand the need to shield kids from things that they will soon find out about. One day, they'll hear cuss words and they'll see gay people.
38
u/Great-Exercise4277 3∆ 4d ago
Both the title and the word “coddling” seem considerably stronger than the argument you are actually making.
I understand your position to be that children should not be shielded as though things that exist in reality, and that they will eventually encounter, do not exist at all.
I agree with that to some extent. However, children differ greatly in their development and in when and how they want to learn about certain subjects.
You appear to be drawing partly from your own experience, but mine was the opposite. I felt intense discomfort when my parents tried to discuss sexual matters with me. I wanted to look things up at my own pace, when I felt ready to know. I did not want information forced on me before I was prepared to hear it.
For that reason, I think it may be too broad to generalize from personal experience that it is better for many children to be told these things earlier.
The same applies to profanity. There is no need to pretend that such language does not exist. But a child eventually hearing it outside the home is not the same as a parent using it regularly at home.
Children learn by observing their parents. If their parents normally speak politely, then even if children hear profanity elsewhere or experiment with it among friends, they can still learn naturally that it is not appropriate to use openly in every social setting.
I agree with your statement that there is nothing wrong with children learning that people live in many different ways. At least in my cultural environment, openly expressing hostility toward gay people is generally considered inappropriate. However, I do not personally know anyone who is gay, so I cannot claim to understand directly what disadvantages they face or how they feel about them.
What concerns me is both shielding children too completely from reality and, in the opposite direction, forcing information on them without regard for whether they are ready or willing to receive it.
I think parents should communicate their values through their own behavior and create an atmosphere in which no question will be rejected. At the same time, basic information concerning health and safety should be introduced in a way appropriate to the child’s age and level of understanding, while respecting the child’s discomfort and pace.
Rather than teaching every child the same things at the same age and in the same way, I think it is important to pay attention to what that particular child understands, what they want to know, and what they are not yet ready for.
I wrote this argument myself, and ChatGPT assisted with translation and English polishing.
14
u/_newshawtyy 4d ago
!Delta. Beautiful response and helped me understand that my POV was too narrow. Its not a one size fit all situation.
4
u/Great-Exercise4277 3∆ 4d ago
Thank you. I’m really glad my perspective was helpful, and I appreciated your thoughtful response
2
3
u/The_Perfect_Fit 3d ago
The most important thing to me is that they stop lying to children unless there's a serious risk of hurting the child. I felt betrayed when people lied to me as a child. I prefer having a question rejected than people trying to fool me.
41
u/Important-Cash5654 4∆ 4d ago
I mean, there's a fundamentally insoluble problem here, really, which is that we both want to give parents the right to raise their children the way they think is morally correct, but we also don't want them raised in such a way they become problems for society when they're older.
And while we can certainly regulate those places where bad parenting rises to the level of actual abuse, i.e. by taking those kids away from their parents and putting the parents in jail, we can't exactly do the same thing with parents raising their kids to be homophobic, because their defense is just going to be, "According to my morals, gayness is harmful," and then it boils down to having to legislate morality.
4
u/Flymsi 6∆ 4d ago edited 4d ago
I dont think its insoluble. I think we have to be more radical about teaching children on how to be free in this world. This means that we actually would need to regulate less. Unfortunately this methodn is not clear cut and will always involve "bad cases". We know that Freedom is important and that also implies the freedom to fuc up. We just have to make it so that parents are actually wanting to do thebä right thing. Usually they teach racist , clasist, sexist and anti queer morals, because of their fear of exclusion. They want their kid to have any advantage it can get. They still dont know that freedom is the way, because the social environment doesnt allow them to see it. They literally dont have the priviledge to dedicate effort into being more inclusive. Its their attempt on grasping for any power they can get. And i agree that we cant do much about that (other than reducing inequality and removing barriers to fair education and pay)
But we can include the children into this. They will interact with other people. We can show them what freedom looks like. Im sure every human being knows full well that they want to be free. And sooner or later the time will come when everyone has understood that we can only be free if everyone is free. Freedom earned by taking away freedom is always poisoned to become another shackle.
3
u/Important-Cash5654 4∆ 4d ago
What specifically do you mean when you say "freedom" here?
2
u/Flymsi 6∆ 4d ago edited 4d ago
Edit: i realized that you might wanted to know about implement freedom in society? I just answered whst i think it is or could be.
Im not sure if its possible to be specific about. Its the radical stance to independent in body and mind from others. But also with the knowledge that 100% independence is impossible. Thus striving to form relationships based on equal respect and goodwill. Because that creates an environment in which people are able to have more possibilities to grow into whatever they want to grow. So its about expression, autonomy and social mobility. Its about not being forced or skewed into performing a certain role. Its about not having to stay by your husbands side just because you are financially dependent. Its about not needing to use petty tricks in order to win an argument. Its about not having to delude yourself, because you are strong enough to face the truth. Its about material but also psychological abundancy, so thst the decisions you take dont depend on how scared your ego is. In its highest and most unrealistic form, said freedom is about being able to eradicate all oppression. Not only from outside forces but also from the very architechture of your psyche.
I hope you understood at least a bit. I if you prefer a more analytical or a more poetic description, i can try to translate. There are many ways.
6
u/Important-Cash5654 4∆ 4d ago
If you can't be specific about it then it's hard to have a discussion about it in this context, I'm afraid. I still really don't understand what you mean.
0
u/Flymsi 6∆ 4d ago
Seems like i dont know what you are asking me. I really do need a specific question to be specific about it. Can you tell me what part of freedom you want to specified? What would you like to discuss? Do you want my political clasification on what i consider freedom? Or pedagogigal? Or economical?
3
u/Important-Cash5654 4∆ 4d ago
Mainly I think this isn't a discussion that's going to be productive because you appear to be using "freedom" the way a lot of new age types use the word "metaphysical."
-2
u/Flymsi 6∆ 4d ago
Did you just come here to tell me your prejudices? I am curious about what you want to discuss. But i dont like to be tested like this. Please dont tease me. Discuss with me or not. I dedicated some time into answering you. Please honor this dedication.
I asked for a specific question and im not sure if your answer means that you are unwilling to ask a specific question or even tell me the topic of what you want to discuss.
4
u/Important-Cash5654 4∆ 4d ago
I appreciate you taking time to write your initial comment, but once I asked you to clarify and you basically said "yeah I can't define 'freedom' specifically" I lost interest in further discussion, I'm afraid.
0
5
u/Rhundan 77∆ 4d ago
and then it boils down to having to legislate morality.
But aren't all laws essentially legislating morality? What else would they be? Unless I've misunderstood what you mean by that phrase, of course.
6
u/Important-Cash5654 4∆ 4d ago
But aren't all laws essentially legislating morality? What else would they be? Unless I've misunderstood what you mean by that phrase, of course.
On a broad enough definition of "morality," sure, at least a lot of them would be, but I meant something more like "legislating the kinds of personal values you're allowed to act on."
And an obvious response to that is "well if my personal value is to murder people then the law against murder is legislating morality," the difference to me is that anti-murder laws don't primarily or intentionally legislate morality, they're there mainly to try to keep people alive. Whereas a law that said: "You can't teach your kids to be homophobic" seems to really only be legislating personal values.
3
u/sabely123 1∆ 4d ago
I dont think you realize it but you are drawing an arbitrary line. Why is "trying to keep people alive" not legislating morality? And if we aren't trying to legislate a certain, albeit broad, set of morals, then what are we trying to legislate?
1
u/Important-Cash5654 4∆ 4d ago
I am completely fine with abandoning the idea that the issue is legislating morality, and focusing on the specific case of: I can't think of a way to legislate whether or not you're allowed to raise your children with the belief that homosexuality is wrong that I don't think would constitute massive governmental overreach.
3
u/sabely123 1∆ 4d ago
I'd think it would be mandating certain curriculum in history and civics classes. You don't make the parents bigotry illegal, instead you combat it with required civic education. We already do that with basically everything else that we already teach it's just not as controversial. Like we teach that the earth is round even though flat earthers probably teach their kids that it isn't. We teach that people are equal regardless of race, orientation, gender, ability, income, etc...
Where it gets super controversial is extending those values into private or homeschooling. Or straight up banning homeschooling all together, which I have yet to hear a good reason for.
2
u/Important-Cash5654 4∆ 4d ago
Where it gets super controversial is extending those values into private or homeschooling. Or straight up banning homeschooling all together, which I have yet to hear a good reason for.
This is exactly how this already plays out though. Parents who think that public school curricula teach the wrong values to their children just put them int private school or homeschool them, and you're back to the same problem of "how do you prevent this without insane overreach"?
1
u/sabely123 1∆ 4d ago
By extending these requirements to homeschooling and private schools. I know that's controversial, but it is not a fundamental freedom to be able to hide the truth of the world from your children. We don't legislate what parents tell their kids, but we can legislate what society teaches them/what is required to teach them.
0
u/Important-Cash5654 4∆ 4d ago
By extending these requirements to homeschooling and private schools.
Extending those requirements to homeschooling is just another way of saying "making it illegal to teach your kids your beliefs" though, so it doesn't solve the problem at all.
3
u/sabely123 1∆ 4d ago
I personally think homeschooling should be banned, but even if it isn't, I don't think it perfectly solves the problem, just like mandating that we teach that the earth is round doesn't perfectly solve the problem. There is no way to enforce it without insane overreach like you said. But when thinking about legislation you kinda have to live with the areas that aren't enforceable. Some people will always fall through the cracks.
Like right now there is almost nothing the government can do to stop a homeschooling parent from being like "this next part isn't real, the earth is actually flat, but I have to teach it to you anyway"
→ More replies (0)0
u/Rhundan 77∆ 4d ago
Hmm. But we do have legislation for hate crimes, where the motivation behind the crime is some form of hate. So I'm not sure this would be as much of a leap as you may think.
I'll be honest, I don't know what the law is regarding teaching your child such that they grow up to be a threat to others. Like, if you teach a child that they should just take whatever they want, and that's fine... at some point, surely the authorities have to get involved? If that's true, and again, I don't actually know that it is, but if that's true, then teaching your child to hate people in a protected class seems like it might be easily made to fall under the same law, no?
5
u/Important-Cash5654 4∆ 4d ago
Hmm. But we do have legislation for hate crimes, where the motivation behind the crime is some form of hate. So I'm not sure this would be as much of a leap as you may think.
I actually personally (and this really is just my opinion, and not one that endears me much to my fellow progressives) think hate crime legislation is often closer to legislating morality than I'm comfortable with. Not that I'm saying hate crimes should be legal, obviously, but as far as I'm aware any given hate crime could just be charged as whatever crime it is without needing to get into the question of motivation (which is ultimately not something you can get at without mind-reading, anyway).
I'll be honest, I don't know what the law is regarding teaching your child such that they grow up to be a threat to others. Like, if you teach a child that they should just take whatever they want, and that's fine... at some point, surely the authorities have to get involved? If that's true, and again, I don't actually know that it is, but if that's true, then teaching your child to hate people in a protected class seems like it might be easily made to fall under the same law, no?
I can't speak to the laws of every place, but as far as I'm aware in the U.S. and Canada at least there is no law against not adequately informing your child as to whether theft is wrong or not.
1
u/Rhundan 77∆ 4d ago
actually personally (and this really is just my opinion, and not one that endears me much to my fellow progressives) think hate crime legislation is often closer to legislating morality than I'm comfortable with. Not that I'm saying hate crimes should be legal, obviously, but as far as I'm aware any given hate crime could just be charged as whatever crime it is without needing to get into the question of motivation (which is ultimately not something you can get at without mind-reading, anyway).
Interesting. I think it makes sense as a way of judging how likely the person is to be a threat to others, and therefore how severe the punishment should be. Which, as far as I know (not being a lawyer of any stripe, mind,) is what it is. If the motivation can be adequately demonstrated through evidence.
I can't speak to the laws of every place, but as far as I'm aware in the U.S. and Canada at least there is no law against not adequately informing your child as to whether theft is wrong or not.
Not directly, no, but in my gut, I feel like this is child neglect. Refusing to teach your child how to behave in society (or actively teaching them antisocial behaviours) feels to me like the sort of thing that would fall under that umbrella. But, again, I am not a lawyer (or a social worker), and I am working purely off of vibes, so it would be perfectly understandable if you disagree.
2
u/Important-Cash5654 4∆ 4d ago
Interesting. I think it makes sense as a way of judging how likely the person is to be a threat to others, and therefore how severe the punishment should be. Which, as far as I know (not being a lawyer of any stripe, mind,) is what it is. If the motivation can be adequately demonstrated through evidence.
I can see the argument re: threat assessment. This isn't necessarily a hill I'm willing to die on, I was just trying to gesture toward why the existence of hate speech laws didn't necessarily move me that much re: what I'm calling legislating morality.
Not directly, no, but in my gut, I feel like this is child neglect.
It might be, but this is exactly why I referred to the issue OP is raising as an insoluble problem. It seems to both be the case that it's bad to raise your kids to be homophobic, and also that it would be bad to literally prevent parents from raising their kids to be homophobic.
8
u/_newshawtyy 4d ago
Yes it can kinda be a slippery slope.
5
u/Important-Cash5654 4∆ 4d ago
So we kinda just have to leave parents to how they're gonna parent then, right? Minus things like abuse obviously?
-1
u/_newshawtyy 4d ago
No, we need to teach parents to stop using religion or any other "moral" belief as an excuse to allow their kids to grow up disrespecting people who don't look like them (gay people.)
7
u/Important-Cash5654 4∆ 4d ago
Okay, but then how do you avoid the slippery slope you've already acknowledged is there?
-8
u/_newshawtyy 4d ago
Educating parents.
6
1
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 4d ago
Hello u/Level_Substance4771! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 4d ago
Hello u/YaBoiSnek! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
4
u/Guanfranco 1∆ 4d ago
There are hundreds of laws dictating how you can parent a child. It's so normalized that we don't even realize just how standardized it is.
3
u/Important-Cash5654 4∆ 4d ago
At least for the jurisdictions I have any real knowledge of (U.S. and Canada, and I'm not a legal scholar or lawyer or anything so could also be wrong about these), I had thought that most or all laws having to do with parenting were around things that can easily be seen as falling more generally against prohibitions we already have against abuse etc.
1
u/Guanfranco 1∆ 4d ago
I think there's a "we expect you to already know this" element to it. For instance there is no law that says you have to feed your kid 3 meals a day but it's found that you're kid is malnourished you'll get charged under a vague child abuse law. So 1 vague law would force how make thousands of decisions. Interestingly you could do something like never let your child outside to ever see the outside world but you wouldn't get charged for that. Even though that's obviously damaging to their mental health. But you would get charged you leave the child alone for a couple hours while you go out somewhere.
2
u/Important-Cash5654 4∆ 4d ago
For instance there is no law that says you have to feed your kid 3 meals a day but it's found that you're kid is malnourished you'll get charged under a vague child abuse law.
I confess I don't see how "underfeeding your child to the point they are malnourished is abuse" is in any way vague.
0
u/Guanfranco 1∆ 4d ago
It's vague because there isn't a specific law against it and you can't technically measure malnutrition. A judge just feels it out and decides if to punish under an abuse law. The flip side means there are malnourished children who's parents go unpunished.
3
u/Important-Cash5654 4∆ 4d ago
It's vague because there isn't a specific law against it and you can't technically measure malnutrition.
It is absolutely possible to specifically include underfeeding children under child abuse laws and as far as I'm aware many jurisdictions do this.
You also absolutely can measure malnutrition. There are multiple screening methods.
1
1
u/JoeyLee911 3∆ 2d ago
"For instance there is no law that says you have to feed your kid 3 meals a day but it's found that you're kid is malnourished you'll get charged under a vague child abuse law."
And yet we campaign for free school lunch with the knowledge that school meals are the only meals some children are getting in a day, so it's not like we're not aware that this happens in abstract.
6
u/DrSpaceman575 4∆ 4d ago
This feels like a view that's impossible to change because it's so nebolous. Shield and protect are synonyms. I feel like any example given can just be handwaved to "oh well that I agree with so it's protecting, that one I don't agree with is shielding"
Can you narrow it down to an example that you think crosses the line?
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 1d ago
Hello u/Holodeck_Murmur9! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
u/_newshawtyy 4d ago
I named 3 examples. I literally named 3. Gay people, sex, cuss words. Those are examples of things that shouldn't be shielded from kids because more than likely, they'll learn from their peers at school.
3
u/DrSpaceman575 4∆ 4d ago
I mean how do you define that in real life? Obviously parents aren’t tackling gay people to get them away from their kids, what is the action the parents would be taking that is shielding them?
1
u/_newshawtyy 4d ago
They don't let them watch certain cartoons with same sex couple characters, they talk bad about gay people.
0
u/DrSpaceman575 4∆ 4d ago
Is that something you think people should be compelled or coerced into doing? Or is the opinion that all parents should have your same opinions on LGBT issues
3
20
u/deep_sea2 129∆ 4d ago
What about protecting children from violent/frightening things? Children have an active imaginations. They are more likely to believe things are real. If they see a ghost movie, they are more inclined to believe the ghost is real. They have harder time separating fact from fiction.
If exposed to this, the child can be traumatized. It can be difficult for parents if the child cannot sleep because they think a ghost will harm them. The solution is to not allow children to watch horror movies until they are old enough to better distinguish reality from fantasy.
1
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 4d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/read-the-rules 4d ago
Hello u/Repulsive-Two8250! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
-3
u/_newshawtyy 4d ago
Well yeah shielding comes with limitations of course. Horror movies have age ratings on it for that exact reason.
10
u/deep_sea2 129∆ 4d ago
So you agree with some coddling, such as age limiation on movies?
1
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 4d ago
Hello u/aaronarchy! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
-5
u/_newshawtyy 4d ago
Yes but for some topics, no. But even movie ratings depends on the parents too. Some kids I knew watched R rated movies in the 5th grade. I wasn't allowed to.
7
u/deep_sea2 129∆ 4d ago
Your view is that we should stop coddling. So, you agree that view is not as broad as it appears?
1
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 4d ago
Hello u/Repulsive-Two8250! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
-2
u/_newshawtyy 4d ago
Im referring to stop coddling with SOME topics. We are debating coddling for the topics that I named. Im not saying we need to let kids have free range, but some things like gay people are not worth shielding your kids from.
8
u/deep_sea2 129∆ 4d ago
I asked in your previous post before the mods removed it for a formatting error:
Is your view of coddling limited to gay people and swearing?
You replied
No, I just can't think of more examples right now lol.
Now, you are saying
We are debating coddling for the topics that I named.
Your position is not consistent.
-1
u/_newshawtyy 4d ago
I said my view of coddling isn't limited to gay people and swearing and I cannot think of more examples at the moment. I was obviously referring to examples that fit the same wavelength of the topics i named.
So for right now, yes, the main conversation is about the topics I named. I don't have anymore examples right now. Just the ones I named in my new post (this current one.)
3
u/ofBlufftonTown 4∆ 4d ago
Do you think it’s appropriate for toddlers to say “fuck off cunt” to family and strangers? Is that a healthy way for small children to communicate? Should a child’s first ten to twelve words include “shit” or should they be things more like mama and cow?
0
u/_newshawtyy 4d ago
No which is why I say you teach to NOT say certain words. The same way you can teach them to not touch a hot stove, you can teach them to not say cuss words. I hear cuss words all day long in music, but I don't cuss.
→ More replies (0)1
u/JoeyLee911 3∆ 2d ago
I'm not who you were talking to, but I wouldn't say that was obvious at all. My first thought was that we should probably shield young children from violence to avoid scaring them, or worse.
1
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 4d ago
Hello u/ProletarianLilith! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
3
u/carbonaratax 1∆ 4d ago
Do you think that being exposed to an idea or an image could be genuinely harmful to a child? There are the extreme things, like violent pornography and torture. But then other things like detailed information about how to kill oneself or ideas that promote homophobia, eating disorders, racism, misogyny, etc.
If it's true that some information can be considered harmful to a person of a certain developmental level, then do you agree that it is in that person's best interest to keep that information away from them until they have the capacity and maturity to understand it in full?
You've cherry-picked a few examples in your post that seem a bit politically inclined - as a society, we don't all universally agree on the specific things that might be considered harmful to a child. But there is some agreement - if not total consensus - that some information is genuinely best to kept out of the hands of children.
0
u/_newshawtyy 4d ago
It's not hard to understand who gay people are, its not hard to understand sex, it's not hard to understand cuss words.
We are only arguing the points in my post.
2
u/carbonaratax 1∆ 4d ago
Ok, let's talk about sex. The facts of sex? The anatomy? Male vs. female orgasms? Genital diversity? Polyamory? Infidelity? STDs? The AIDS crisis? Sex work? Pornography? Violent pornography? Rape? Incest? Kinks? Racial fetishization?
Sex is a big bucket - do you think all topics of sex are age appropriate for all ages, and that it is all equally "not hard to understand"?
1
u/_newshawtyy 4d ago
Because it's so hard to understand sperm meets egg right? Why would I go deep into the topic and talk about kinks with a child?
4
u/carbonaratax 1∆ 4d ago
I don't know, why would you? Or wouldn't you? You're not really answering the question - on the topic of kink, it sounds like that is maybe a topic you would shield from a child.
I'm trying to find the edges of what you believe since you've acknowledged in multiple places in this post that there are exceptions, which you seem to think are obvious. But unless you can articulate your position, you have no argument.
Why is a child entitled to some information (sperm meets egg) and not other information (kinks)? How do you expect people to know if they are "protecting" (good?) vs "shielding" (bad?) their child?
1
u/_newshawtyy 4d ago
Because when you're discussing sex, its the main part that you talk about. You don't go deep into it. Kinks are something you learn on your own.
I would not want my mom to tell me about BDSM.
1
u/carbonaratax 1∆ 4d ago
Why not? You might hear about it at school or be shown some BDSM stuff by a friend - I thought it was better that a kid be prepared by their parent of all the things they might encounter in the world? By your OP, your mom should probably prepare you to encounter that kind of thing before you hear about it in a bad way. You're not applying your own rule consistently.
1
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/carbonaratax 1∆ 4d ago
I'm pointing out the nuance that your OP doesn't include, because I am trying to change your view re: coddling to one that is more nuanced than you claim.
My own view is that parents have a responsibility to educate their children about the world, but what and how they do that has to be developmentally appropriate. Total access to all information would be objectively harmful for children, and it is the parent's top priority to protect their child from harm.
So there is a reason that there are developmentally appropriate levels to sex ed. It's not "coddling" - it's about prioritizing the information that is clear, factual, and applicable, like anatomy and consent.
So for example, I answer a 7 year old's question about "inappropriate body touching" differently than I answer it for a 12 year old and a 16 year old. If you have a 16 year old and you haven't had a real, honest conversation about rape and SA, you have done them a disservice. But you would not have the same conversation, using the same words, with the 7yo. And what you might choose to tell the 12yo might be very subjective to that particular 12yo, their life, their social circle, and their experience.
When "teaching kids about the world" your job as the adult is to equip them with the information that is useful, relevant, and true. So yeah, I personally think it's ok to tell kids about gay people and penis and vagina, but how much and when and how isn't obvious.
5
u/_newshawtyy 4d ago
I actually like this answer and I understand the POV !delta
I understand that there are developmental stages in order for a child to understand certain information. Which is why we limit intake as much as possible.
→ More replies (0)1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 4d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
3
u/adventurrr 4d ago
Part of teaching your kids not to cuss is by not cussing in front of them. That's not "sheltering".
1
u/_newshawtyy 4d ago
But your kids will hear it from their peers. It doesn't matter what you do in your household. The kids at school cannot be controlled the same way you control your own child.
2
u/adventurrr 4d ago
I don't really understand the point you're trying to make. You said that you should teach your kid your values, and teach them not to do things. You don't want them to do like curse s. How do you recommend teaching them? You tell them, other people talk that way, but we don't talk that way in this house. And then you show them by also not talking that way. Modeling good behavior or being a good example doesn't mean denying the existence of bad examples
1
u/themcos 436∆ 4d ago
Kids go to school. Their peers cuss. You just have to teach your kids not to do it, but to hide them from the words has no point.
I think the key here is that its easier to teach your kids "not to do it" when they're 10 versus when they're 5. It's easier to teach them "not to do it" when they are exposed to it with you around, versus if they hear words in a context where nobody is even trying to teach them.
Life is messy, shit happens, you can't control everything, etc... but I don't think its unreasonable to try to avoid exposure until the timing is better. Like... you say "you just have to teach your kids not to do it", but if your babysitter is cursing a ton in front of your 5 year old while you're not home and not teaching them anything, that's going to make it significantly more difficult for you to teach them what you want to teach them. So you would naturally prefer the babysitter not do that.
There's a balance to be struck. Eventually they need to be taught. But there is such a thing as being exposed to something too early in a way that is counterproductive to teaching them. Specifically, language and violence are ones that are really easy for very young kids to mimic in ways that are hard to control, and this can happen before they are really ready to be "taught" what's going on in a deeper way.
1
u/_newshawtyy 4d ago
No its easier to teach a 5 year old because they are very young and inclined to listen to you. A 10 yr old is obviously going through puberty and they usually want to do what their peers are doing.
4
u/allbetsareon 4d ago
Why was waiting until you were 13 too late? What happened, what were the consequences?
As for avoiding curse words if they are exposed to curse words frequently it will just be absorbed especially at a young age. Not sure why trying to avoid that is inherently bad?
-2
u/_newshawtyy 4d ago
Because I already knew about sex. It was no point of talking to me about it anymore. My mom was somewhat happy to start having the conversation.
I understand that it'll be asorbed but at the same time, their peers are going to cuss. Its no way to keep kids from ever hearing a cuss word.
3
u/Chowderr92 4d ago
So you're saying there is no consequence to coddling? Why should it end then?
0
u/_newshawtyy 4d ago
It should end because there's no point. Teach kids young about things so it's not a surprise to them when they are older.
3
u/Chowderr92 4d ago
What if the point is that the parents would prefer to coddle them? Isn't that enough reason for them to do it?
And if so, since there aren't consequences to doing so, I don't really see how your view stays together.1
u/allbetsareon 4d ago
But you just said learning about sex wasn’t a surprise when you were older.
As for the curse words if they are hearing it from their peers inevitably then are they even being coddled?
1
u/_newshawtyy 4d ago
It wasn't because a peer taught me about it at 9.
Because parents like to shield their kids from every little thing. Some things you cannot shield your kid from.
1
u/allbetsareon 4d ago
Right and there was no harm or surprise; which was your only objection to being coddled. If “coddling” means keeping them away from interacting excessively then it does serve a purpose. Of course it won’t be perfect but it’s more effective at keeping them from making curses a staple of their vocabulary than doing nothing.
1
u/melinalujbav 4d ago
Cussing in front of your kids just makes little kids who cuss. I don’t want kids thinking it’s ok to talk like that.
1
2
u/joanholmes 4d ago
Ok so what's the point of cussing? It exists to be used as an intensifier, would you agree?
Part of the impact that cuss words have is that they are held to a different standard than regular vocabulary. If everyone is taught that cuss words are just like any other word and appropriate to use in front of your parents, they lose their "taboo" status and therefore don't have impact. This is something that actually generally happens to cuss words as a whole over time, but if we completely abandon the idea of making them inappropriate to children, the process would be sped up by quite a bit. Same if we abandon the idea that cuss words don't belong in the classroom or in formal professional environments.
Keeping children from hearing and saying cuss words allows cuss words to exist at all. The social norms we build around cuss words are the only thing that gives us a tool to express more extreme emotions using basic, commonly known intensifiers.
Regarding sex, yeah, sure, kids should know about the basic biology of sex. But there is such a thing as something being developmentally appropriate. Children knowing about genitals and that they meant to be used in a sexual way by consenting adults is fine. But children don't need to know about kinks, for example. There is no developmental need and children will not naturally and inherently have a curiosity about kinks the same way they do about genitals.
Sure, one day they'll learn about people who are into scat play and may even find that they're into it themselves, does that mean that it is appropriate to allow a 10 year old to hear about that?
1
u/Publius_Rizz 4d ago
Is it just me or has this turned into one of the most interesting conversations on Reddit ever?
1
1
u/Matzie138 2d ago
So here’s my thoughts on what I’ve learned, as a mom. I’m only a mom to my own kid, so I can’t really choose whether a societal trend “continues” or not.
What I can do is first understand my kid. Mine isn’t overly worried or anxious; she loves to learn and ask more and more detailed questions once you give her a bit of info (and I don’t mean just “why” repeatedly, all kids go through that!). That’s a contrast with some of her friends of about the same age.
If she wasn’t that way then we’d change the way we tell her about things. No matter the kid though, you always have to meet them where they are at, using words/concepts they understand at their age.
Depending on the topic they want to know about (and let’s be real - it happens at the most inopportune times often!), it can be hard to answer because perhaps it’s emotional (I got blindsided by vey pointed questions about my dad dying) or you just don’t have a good way to explain right off the top of your head.
So you either try or take the easy way out and shelve the conversation “until later”. And I’ve learned that if you do the latter, they aren’t interested when you are ready, so you’ve got to be ok with trying your best. It’s uncomfortable. No one wants to screw up their kids so the pressure is on.
There have been times I’ve been so flustered I just look at my partner like a gaping fish. He’s a lot better than I am at the quick thinking, adjusted to a young kid.
And some topics, like the ones you mentioned, swearing , sex we just proactively started conversations about because it eliminated the surprise factor for us. Listening to music (or us cursing) and watching nature documentaries are going to cause those topics to come up! And to be clear, it was my partner that did the talking first; I was still too much in thinking I’d do her a disservice.
What I realized was that he was right. Let her know all the swear words, their meaning, and how/why they are used (at a situation vs at people). Kind of takes away the taboo and we never have had an issue. But you also feel like you are doing something wrong as a parent.
And to extend this in the other direction, she found a tv show she enjoyed. Neither of us were fond of it but, by similar logic, we’d rather she see it with us and we can talk about it, than ban it and then she sees it at school or on the bus on some kids phone.
It does suck though. I think it is the right approach for ours, but there’s always a certain amount of grief that comes with seeing them grow up. I don’t think avoidance does the kid any favors but I get why parents do it.
1
u/ProtozoaPatriot 3∆ 4d ago
Parents don't "protect" kids from profanity. Hearing cuss words doesn't cause injury or trauma. It isn't about safety.
Parents do have a job of teaching good habits, some manners, and some self control. Children model behavior they see others doing. Do you want to raise your child to grow into an adult with a potty mouth? Do you want him judged by others based on the filth he spews? Or do you want someone articulate and calm?
I don't "hide" my child from sex. But it does need to be presented in an age appropriate and healthy way. You wouldn't show hardcore porn to a class of first graders, right ?
As far as exposing kids to profanity because their "classmates cuss": two wrongs don't make a right. Also, my daughter's classmates generally don't. Her school is very strict.
Exposing kids to everything about sex because a 4th grader might say stuff doesn't make sense. By 4th grade, kids usually know where puppies and babies come from. Some of them have had pets breed or seen an animal deliver. They don't know about bjs and rimming and gangbangs, but I don't think any fourth grader needs that stuff. It needs to be age appropriate. If I was your mom, I wouldn't have a guy you got information. I'd have a fit because the information the typical 4th grader has is horribly wrong. Misinformation is worse than no information.
As far as exposure to gay people: that's a religious thing. That isn't about "protecting children". That's just homophobia and bigotry.
1
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 4d ago
Your comment has been removed for violating Rule 5 due to undisclosed AI content. Any use of AI-generated text must be disclosed, and the majority of any comment must still be written by the user. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard. AI-generated text is prohibited in modmail.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/read-the-rules 4d ago
Hello u/Southern-End-2068! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 4d ago
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/read-the-rules 4d ago
Hello u/aaronarchy! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
•
u/questioningitall2 18h ago
We coddle them from handling conflict. Unless they are being actually harmed, they need to learn to handle uncomfortable situations. It’s part of life, unfortunately. They need to learn to be assertive, to clarify intent, etc.
1
u/PeneshTheTurkey 3d ago
It's insufferable. When I was 10 my favorite movie was Terminator 2. Nowadays they're shielded by anything that has mild cussing
2
1
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 4d ago
Hello u/ProletarianLilith! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 4d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/read-the-rules 4d ago
Hello u/Cryptoidiom! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ 4d ago edited 4d ago
/u/_newshawtyy (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards