[email protected]

In a message dated 9/7/02 7:44:38 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

<< I am not saying he IS watching this stuff. I am saying that from
what you are telling me, you can't say with much authority that he
ISN'T, because you aren't really paying enough attention to know. >>

I am going to answer this because although you did not direct it at me this
time, I was the one that originally said my son stays up until 2 or 3 am
watching tv and NO I do not "monitor" the content and YES I do trust him to
decide what he is comfortable with.

First of all, I am highly offended by your last comment. "you aren't really
paying enough attention to know"
That was completely rude, false and shows you haven't been reading this
thread very carefully.
If any of the parent's here aren't paying attention at every possible level
with deep, caring concern and friendship, could you please point me to the
post that makes you feel any one of us are doing this?
How could you possibly read "not paying attention" into any one of the posts
I, or anyone else advocating choices, wrote?
First of all, I have been up with my son many times watching shows with him
until very, very late.
Secondly, he DOES talk to me about everything he sees because he knows that
I'm not going to freak out. He knows I'm going to ask questions about it,
comment on it and ask if it was a good episode.
Adults have access to porn...ALL adults in this country pretty much. Why
don't they all watch it? Do you think that all men enjoy it? My dh doesn't,
but he knows I wouldn't freak out if he did want it so he has no reason to
hide it from me.
I have told him point blank that I thought it was pretty weird that he never
bought girly magazines or wanted to watch an erotic movie with me...he just
doesn't. And he knows that if he did want to I am not a person he would have
to hide it from....hence my trust that he isn't trying to hide anything.
Same with my son. He knows that I have sex books in the house. He knows I
have a Kama Sutra game in my closet, he asked what it was about and I told
him.
Sure he's pretty interested in human bodies and doesn't want to advertise
that interest. But anything violent or too intimate bothers him. And if it
didn't, he'd be watching it.
You are assuming a lot of rotten things about children, which really shows me
your lack of trust in their sensibilities.

AND the fact that my tv gets NO porn....whether you understand all the cable
packages in the U.S. or not, I don't get porn, anytime, anywhere.
And it wouldn't matter if I did.
Let's say worst case scenario...he watches some. He's fascinated and is very
curious.
You know what? Yes, he'd talk to me about it. Because I wouldn't freak out, I
would ask him what he thought. I would explain that it is not a realistic
version of sex in an intimate relationship and I would show him some sex
books and talk to him.
I'm a safe haven. Not his enemy.
You are assuming children can have no power over persuasive ads or tv
manipulations, but adults can?
I have more faith in my childs sense, wit and ability to know himself and
what he's about.

Ren

helencolbeck

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., starsuncloud@c... wrote:
> In a message dated 9/7/02 7:44:38 PM Central Daylight Time,
> Unschooling-dotcom@y... writes:
>
> << I am not saying he IS watching this stuff. I am saying that
from
> what you are telling me, you can't say with much authority that
he
> ISN'T, because you aren't really paying enough attention to
know. >>
>
> I am going to answer this because although you did not direct
it at me this
> time, I was the one that originally said my son stays up until 2
or 3 am
> watching tv and NO I do not "monitor" the content and YES I do
trust him to
> decide what he is comfortable with.
>
> First of all, I am highly offended by your last comment. "you
aren't really
> paying enough attention to know"
> That was completely rude, false and shows you haven't been
reading this
> thread very carefully.
> If any of the parent's here aren't paying attention at every
possible level
> with deep, caring concern and friendship, could you please
point me to the
> post that makes you feel any one of us are doing this?
> How could you possibly read "not paying attention" into any one
of the posts
> I, or anyone else advocating choices, wrote?

> First of all, I have been up with my son many times watching
shows with him
> until very, very late.
> Secondly, he DOES talk to me about everything he sees
because he knows that
> I'm not going to freak out. He knows I'm going to ask questions
about it,
> comment on it and ask if it was a good episode.
> Adults have access to porn...ALL adults in this country pretty
much. Why
> don't they all watch it? Do you think that all men enjoy it? My dh
doesn't,
> but he knows I wouldn't freak out if he did want it so he has no
reason to
> hide it from me.
> I have told him point blank that I thought it was pretty weird that
he never
> bought girly magazines or wanted to watch an erotic movie with
me...he just
> doesn't. And he knows that if he did want to I am not a person
he would have
> to hide it from....hence my trust that he isn't trying to hide
anything.
> Same with my son. He knows that I have sex books in the
house. He knows I
> have a Kama Sutra game in my closet, he asked what it was
about and I told
> him.
> Sure he's pretty interested in human bodies and doesn't want
to advertise
> that interest. But anything violent or too intimate bothers him.
And if it
> didn't, he'd be watching it.
> You are assuming a lot of rotten things about children, which
really shows me
> your lack of trust in their sensibilities.
>
> AND the fact that my tv gets NO porn....whether you understand
all the cable
> packages in the U.S. or not, I don't get porn, anytime,
anywhere.
> And it wouldn't matter if I did.
> Let's say worst case scenario...he watches some. He's
fascinated and is very
> curious.
> You know what? Yes, he'd talk to me about it. Because I
wouldn't freak out, I
> would ask him what he thought. I would explain that it is not a
realistic
> version of sex in an intimate relationship and I would show him
some sex
> books and talk to him.
> I'm a safe haven. Not his enemy.
> You are assuming children can have no power over
persuasive ads or tv
> manipulations, but adults can?
> I have more faith in my childs sense, wit and ability to know
himself and
> what he's about.
>
> Ren

That's great for you. Not necessarily so great for your son. I don't
believe my child wants to die. I trust her sense of
self-preservation. Heck, she can even swim! But she doesn't go
out to the pool deck alone. There are dangers , and I monitor her
when she is out there. One could also refer to that as 'paying
attention'.

No, porn won't kill or maim him. But he might not recognize the
subtle ways in which it can affect him. I am not assuming any
'rotten things' about your son, or any other child, but I am aware
that porn is dangerous, deliberately fascinating and compelling
stuff.

I would never advocate 'freaking out', for Pete's sake. I am
advocating keeping tabs on things that could be potentially
detrimental, so that you can discuss it before it sinks in too deep.
My question was, "Do you monitor this at all?" The answer was,
"Nope." This tells me that you are not paying attention. If you
WERE paying attention, the answer would have been "Yes."

H.

achisms5

-=-You are assuming children can have no power over persuasive ads or
tv
manipulations, but adults can?-=-


I think people in general--not talking about anyone on this list--
assume children don't have any power over thise things because they
don't believe that children *should* have any power over much of
anything. They don't give them any credit for being able to reason
through things on any level. And they don't bother to talk to them
about things because they don't think they are capable of
understanding.


I, do think some people are more succeptible to the allure of
commercials though. My dd for one! She wants a lot of what she sees
on TV--she was especially fascinated by the egg wave. She also
thinks a lot of the stain removers look cool. We have TiVo (which is
wonderful btw) and my ds will ff through commercials but my dd
sometimes wants to watch them all.

[email protected]

In a message dated 9/7/02 10:24:41 PM, the_colbecks@... writes:

<< No, porn won't kill or maim him. But he might not recognize the
subtle ways in which it can affect him. I am not assuming any
'rotten things' about your son, or any other child, but I am aware
that porn is dangerous, deliberately fascinating and compelling
stuff. >>

Is this projection?
Are you assuming that ALL people will be fascinated by the same things?

"Compelling" will have to do with a person's interests and needs (as in
needing a distraction, or something to do, or a sort of input or knowledge).

My friend Ric finds ANYTHING about the Indianapolis 500 compelling. I've
never found anything about it even vaguely interesting. (I did drive
another friend from Michigan around Albuquerque looking for Unser Blvd signs
and such, because HE was compelled to know more Indy trivia...)

<My question was, "Do you monitor this at all?" The answer was,
"Nope." This tells me that you are not paying attention. >>

"Monitor" means keep a constant scan on, keep records, be vigilantly alert.
I don't "watch Kirby like a hawk." I live with Kirby in daily, close, soft,
aware conditions.

Your visions of the relationship between a teenaged boy and a mom seem not to
contain the relationships unschoolers are describing here. If you go to one
of the conferences where lots of unschoolers will be you will feel very
differently after meeting and seeing some of these teens in action and with
their families.

Paying attention and living in trust are NOT "monitoring," which is based on
distrust.

Sandra

Mary Bianco

>From: "achisms5" <marydan@...>


>I, do think some people are more succeptible to the allure of
>commercials though. My dd for one! She wants a lot of what she sees
>on TV--she was especially fascinated by the egg wave. She also
>thinks a lot of the stain removers look cool. We have TiVo (which is
>wonderful btw) and my ds will ff through commercials but my dd
>sometimes wants to watch them all.


That's so funny. My son just loves commercials and actually comes out of his
room to watch some when he hears them on. He never bugs me about getting any
of them, he just likes to watch and knows all the little catch phrases to
them and ask be about them all the time. If they do what they say they do
and all. My daughter could care less but she thinks some are really funny.
My youngest, who has no interest in TV for even a second will actually watch
certain commercials for a brief moment. I'm not sure what it is about them.

Mary B

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

Betsy

**
I would never advocate 'freaking out', for Pete's sake. I am
advocating keeping tabs on things that could be potentially
detrimental, so that you can discuss it before it sinks in too deep.
My question was, "Do you monitor this at all?" The answer was,
"Nope." This tells me that you are not paying attention. If you
WERE paying attention, the answer would have been "Yes."**

Maybe not.

Sandra mentioned in one of her posts yesterday that she doesn't have cable.

I don't have cable or a pool, so I don't need a fence around either.

Betsy

[email protected]

> on TV--she was especially fascinated by the egg wave. She also
> thinks a lot of the stain removers look cool. We have TiVo (which
> is
> wonderful btw) and my ds will ff through commercials but my dd
> sometimes wants to watch them all.

LOL! I'm having a flashback! When my son was four? maybe, he thought
everything he saw was a necessary item and the coolest possible whatever.
The Downy Ball (fabric softener, thingy) was one he just loved "mom we
need to get this!" We always joked we hoped he'd never find the shopping
channel.
After having his own money to spend he's very frugal now and we have
zero Downy Balls.
Thanks for swirling that up for me.

Deb L

helencolbeck

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., SandraDodd@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 9/7/02 10:24:41 PM, the_colbecks@s...
writes:
>
> << No, porn won't kill or maim him. But he might not recognize
the
> subtle ways in which it can affect him. I am not assuming any
> 'rotten things' about your son, or any other child, but I am aware
> that porn is dangerous, deliberately fascinating and
compelling
> stuff. >>
>
> Is this projection?
> Are you assuming that ALL people will be fascinated by the
same things?

Good heavens. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

> "Compelling" will have to do with a person's interests and
needs (as in
> needing a distraction, or something to do, or a sort of input or
knowledge).
>
> My friend Ric finds ANYTHING about the Indianapolis 500
compelling. I've
> never found anything about it even vaguely interesting. (I did
drive
> another friend from Michigan around Albuquerque looking for
Unser Blvd signs
> and such, because HE was compelled to know more Indy
trivia...)

Yes, you clearly are. I am not goping to waste my time explaining
to you the difference between pornography and the Indy 500.

> <My question was, "Do you monitor this at all?" The answer
was,
> "Nope." This tells me that you are not paying attention. >>
>
> "Monitor" means keep a constant scan on, keep records, be
vigilantly alert.
> I don't "watch Kirby like a hawk." I live with Kirby in daily, close,
soft,
> aware conditions.
>
> Your visions of the relationship between a teenaged boy and a
mom seem not to
> contain the relationships unschoolers are describing here. If
you go to one
> of the conferences where lots of unschoolers will be you will
feel very
> differently after meeting and seeing some of these teens in
action and with
> their families.
>
> Paying attention and living in trust are NOT "monitoring," which
is based on
> distrust.


Sandra, you might want to look up 'monitor' in the dictionary. It
means " to watch, keep track of, or check, usually for a special
purpose, not "Turn your home onto an oppressive prison in
which children are stunted and warped by shaming and
controlling parents."

I have tired of this. It is clear that real discourse is not your
desire - that became clear a while ago, and I should have given
up then, but it was late last night, and I was tired. You expect that
everyone around you should examine their parenting and
compare it to your perfect standard. Obviously, having reached
perfection in your parenting, you needn't examine your own
practices any further. How comforting that must be.

H.

Fetteroll

... before this heads further down the path it looks like it's heading.

The posts that have flowed through here over the past 2 days represent a lot
of hours trying to answer questions. If the answers haven't been
understandable, perhaps it would be helpful to picture that when two very
different points of view try to communicate they are almost speaking
different languages. Getting angry because someone doesn't seem to make
sense when they're speaking a different language isn't going to improve
understanding.

Joyce
Unschooling-dotcom moderator

[email protected]

> You expect
> that
> everyone around you should examine their parenting and
> compare it to your perfect standard. Obviously, having reached
> perfection in your parenting, you needn't examine your own
> practices any further. How comforting that must be.

I really think people here are trying to share good information with each
other, and want to do so helpfully and peacefully.
All we can do is talk about our ideas and how and why we reached them and
share the results with others who might have never thought of things that
way before.

Unschooling opens up our minds to endless possibilities of natural
learning. Applying that unschooling philosophy to the rest of our lives,
not just reading and math is a natural progression. Some here have just
been trying to explain that natural progression from "letting them learn
to read at their own pace and in their own way" to "letting them learn
at their own pace and in their own way."
No one here has been talking about being neglectful parents. As
unschoolers we are starting from the place of being very deeply involved
parents and seeing the value in natural learning in ALL things, not just
math or reading.
There is real value in trusting children and those here who are saying
they've found that value and see it every day are only sharing what they
know to be true.

If you heard someone say they were Jewish, Orthodox even, but then they
invited you over for a ham sandwich, wouldn't it seem odd to you that the
one thing didn't jive with the other? ( I figured the Christians could
use a break ) So it is with unschooling, to hear someone say they are,
but then that they don't feel like they can trust their children, well,
it naturally brings up some questions. I think that's healthy.

Deb L

[email protected]

In a message dated 9/8/02 1:50:36 PM, the_colbecks@... writes:

<< > Is this projection?
> Are you assuming that ALL people will be fascinated by the
same things?

<<Good heavens. Are you being deliberately obtuse? >>

Is that more projection?

<<Yes, you clearly are. I am not goping to waste my time explaining
to you the difference between pornography and the Indy 500.>>

Analogies are valid tools in logical discussion. And to say something is
"compelling" means something. WHAT do you mean by "compelling"? That one
can be drawn in by it and become mesmerized? IF SO, then not all people are
compelled by the same things, and so to say porn or indy is "compelling" does
not make it so for everyone.

If it is compelling FOR YOU you should not automatically assume it is also
compelling for everyone else.

There are people here saying not everyone is drawn to porn. You seem to be
suggesting everyone IS in danger, because it is "compelling." If it is
compelling for you, and to you, then that is your personal deal. It is NOT
compelling for all people. IF you insist that it is, that would seem to be
projection.

<<Sandra, you might want to look up 'monitor' in the dictionary. >>

I know what it means. I know what projection and compelling are too.

If you're going to have specialized meanings for all your words, we can't
really have a useful conversation.

<<Obviously, having reached
perfection in your parenting, you needn't examine your own
practices any further. >>

Do you know what I am vigilant about? Do you know what I monitor?

My reactions to my children.

How about you stop monitoring people here, and falsely accusing them of being
negligent, and monitor your own thinking and word use and motives?

Sandra

helencolbeck

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., SandraDodd@a... wrote:

>
> <<Sandra, you might want to look up 'monitor' in the dictionary.
>>
>
> I know what it means. I know what projection and compelling
are too.
>
> If you're going to have specialized meanings for all your words,
we can't
> really have a useful conversation.

Actually, YOU were the one personalizing the meanings of the
words in this conversation. Mine was cut and pasted from
Merriam-Webster Online. Yours was your own interpretation of
the word. I agree with your statement above, so please resist
the urge to inflict your own personal interpretations on the words
used here.

> <<Obviously, having reached
> perfection in your parenting, you needn't examine your own
> practices any further. >>
>
> Do you know what I am vigilant about? Do you know what I
monitor?
>
> My reactions to my children.

> How about you stop monitoring people here, and falsely
accusing them of being
> negligent, and monitor your own thinking and word use and
motives?

Oh, Sandra, I wasn't monitoring anyone. I asked a simple
question, and was immediately branded as a control freak.

Your response was so aggressive, so fast, and, in fact YOU
were the first to assume my parenting needed improvement, not
the other way around. You haven't asked ONE question to clarify
'where I am coming from'. You assume you just 'know', and you
'projected' all kinds of assumptions and beliefs onto me.

I'm done. You are welcome to the last word.

Have a nice day.

H.

Mary Bianco

>From: ddzimlew@...

>
>I really think people here are trying to share good information with each
>other, and want to do so helpfully and peacefully.
>All we can do is talk about our ideas and how and why we reached them and
>share the results with others who might have never thought of things that
>way before.




I'm very sure that this is the intention of or at least should be of this
list. What I see, and have seen before on this list, is that in most cases
it doesn't come across that way. It seems to come from some long time
members who have a tendency to jump on the newcomers who are honestly and
hopefully looking for support in their new found or difficult journey of
unschooling, whether it be recent or not. I'm sure their intentions ARE good
and maybe it's that this all comes so naturally to them that it's hard to
see it as any other way. What it does look like, from some, is the "not in
my house never with my kids I always know exactly what to do and always have
attitude." That's what turns people off and makes others defensive. I've
heard people actually tell others they are wrong in what they are doing with
their children or what they are thinking. That's not right and it's
certainly not going to help people come to any realizations either on their
own or with anyone's help. It's none of anyone else's business what they do
with their kids and if someone is getting on this list, I think it's because
they want support and help, so blasting them as to what they are doing isn't
right. Some have actually said, "what I do when that happens is, or why
don't you try etc" but for the most part, no solutions have been mentioned,
just nit picking terms and words and some saying that what they are doing is
wrong. It's not a bit of wonder why out of the hundreds subscribed to this
list, only a handful post. .

Now I know this is just my opinion, but maybe some of you should slow down
and try to help instead of intimidating. Some of you are down right scary.

Mary B

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

helencolbeck

Very tactfully put, and also very true.

H.

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Fetteroll <fetteroll@e...> wrote:
> ... before this heads further down the path it looks like it's
heading.
>
> The posts that have flowed through here over the past 2 days
represent a lot
> of hours trying to answer questions. If the answers haven't
been
> understandable, perhaps it would be helpful to picture that
when two very
> different points of view try to communicate they are almost
speaking
> different languages. Getting angry because someone doesn't
seem to make
> sense when they're speaking a different language isn't going
to improve
> understanding.
>
> Joyce
> Unschooling-dotcom moderator

helencolbeck

Yes. Absolutely. And if you asked them about it, and they said, in
essence, "Who the hell do you think you are questioning my
practices? Who are you to tell me about my religion? You are
clearly ignorant and wicked to have even asked such a
question!!" - you would think they were a bit kooky, to say the
least.

Then you would probably move quickly to the door and make
your escape, which is probably what *I* should have done.

I never said boo about trusting kids. I just suggested that
keeping an eye on what they are watching at 2 AM might be a
good idea. All the rest was 'projected' onto me. Granted, my
response was p[robably not as constructive as it could have
been, but that doesn't mean I said (or believe) even half of the
stuff I have been told I said.

H.

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., ddzimlew@j... wrote:
> If you heard someone say they were Jewish, Orthodox even,
but then they
> invited you over for a ham sandwich, wouldn't it seem odd to
you that the
> one thing didn't jive with the other? ( I figured the Christians
could
> use a break ) So it is with unschooling, to hear someone say
they are,
> but then that they don't feel like they can trust their children,
well,
> it naturally brings up some questions. I think that's healthy.
>
> Deb L

[email protected]

In a message dated 9/8/02 8:35:13 PM, the_colbecks@... writes:

<< I never said boo about trusting kids. I just suggested that
keeping an eye on what they are watching at 2 AM might be a
good idea. >>

And several people (not just me) said they trust their kids to talk to them
or we know what they're doing at 2:00 a.m. and we don't NEED to
look/check/monitor.

Probably what we're doing would look like monitoring to you, but using that
word negates some of the existing trust.

Do you only have a five year old girl?

Sandra

helencolbeck

I also have a one-year-old...

H.


--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., SandraDodd@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 9/8/02 8:35:13 PM, the_colbecks@s...
writes:
>
> << I never said boo about trusting kids. I just suggested that
> keeping an eye on what they are watching at 2 AM might be a
> good idea. >>
>
> And several people (not just me) said they trust their kids to
talk to them
> or we know what they're doing at 2:00 a.m. and we don't NEED
to
> look/check/monitor.
>
> Probably what we're doing would look like monitoring to you,
but using that
> word negates some of the existing trust.
>
> Do you only have a five year old girl?
>
> Sandra

[email protected]

> I never said boo about trusting kids. I just suggested that
> keeping an eye on what they are watching at 2 AM might be a
> good idea. All the rest was 'projected' onto me. Granted, my
> response was p[robably not as constructive as it could have
> been, but that doesn't mean I said (or believe) even half of the
> stuff I have been told I said.

I think the discussion moved beyond your initial comment to some comments
by others and then the broader issue of trust and control. Not
everything that was discussed later on was specifically targeting you.
The talk just naturally moved on and got bigger. I'm sorry you're feeling
picked on. Most don't even remember who started the topic, only that
its alive and growing and expanding.

Deb L

Fetteroll

on 9/8/02 6:28 PM, helencolbeck at the_colbecks@... wrote:

> Oh, Sandra, I wasn't monitoring anyone. I asked a simple
> question, and was immediately branded as a control freak.

This is part of that language problem. The word "monitor" is most often used
in the current culture to imply constantly watching. That's what a heart
monitor does. It may not control but it is constantly watching, not poking
in occasionally to see how everyone's doing. If you apply that denotation of
monitor to parents and children, it carries the message of constantly
keeping an eye on them.

Yes, the original question was about monitoring the *TV* a 12 yo watches at
2 or 3AM. But since a 12 yo is perfectly capable of choosing what he
watches, is knowing what they could stumble over meaningful unless we assume
that they won't just glance and pass by but stop and choose to watch it?

As someone suggested, "monitoring" or watching over a 3 yo is a good idea.
The world they have access to is more dangerous than they're capable of
understanding.

"Monitoring" a 12's TV choices implies that the world they will voluntarily
choose to access is more dangerous than they're capable of understanding.
That the images they will choose to voluntarily watch or be compelled to
watch against their will carry dangers they aren't capable of understanding.

And this is where the discussion has gotten muddled.

It isn't being clearly defined what it is the 12 yo is capable of stumbling
over. Porn is being used and interpretted in a variety of ways and it's not
really clear that the answerers are using a different definition of porn
from the original questioner.

To *me* porn means the type of movies not shown on regular expanded cable
(cable with regular movie channels like HBO and Cinemax.) Porn to me is
stuff you need to go to the backroom of a video rental store for. (I did a
check of the 2AM-3AM movies for tonight. Mostly R (though some below, none
above). Mostly for violence. The only two movies that seem to be about sex
are:

L.A. Johns (Not rated) (HBO2) - The affairs of a top-dollar call girl
(Brittney Powell), whose diverse clients include a CEO who likes to be
dominated and a divorcé who's out to reform her. Madam Jack: Deborah Harry.
Josh: John Terry. David: Thomas Calabro. Roger: Doug Davidson. Joyce Chopra
directed.

Cupid (R) (TMC) - Incestuous siblings solve their romantic troubles with
murder. Zach Galligan, Ashley Laurence, Mary Crosby.

Assuming that's typical, that would be the level of "porn" that a 12 yo
could stumble over or choose to watch. *If* the family has cable. And *if*
the family subscribes to movie channels.)

So it would make the discussion clearer if those with questions were more
clear about the type of content -- maybe specific movies -- that they would
be concerned about a 12 yo stumbling over. The term porn is just too vague.

It's also not clear why the 12 yo is watching.

Someone asked what to do about a one time traumatizing incident. I *think*
in that question is the suggestion that it's possible that seeing one image
could scar a child for life. So perhaps that's why the answers -- that the
relationship is such that the kids will bring anything that troubles them to
the parents -- aren't seeming satisfying.

And another question seems to be about them watching "porn" and the
questions aren't all using "watching" to mean the same thing. Some are
refering to seeing a movie that is troubling. Some are saying that it's
natural for (some) kids to want to see it so they'll watch it eagerly. And
in that eagerness they will build up some unhealthy ideas about
relationships. Some are saying that porn is addictive or compelling so kids
will be compelled to watch it even though they don't feel totally
comfortable doing so and they'll get sucked into that dark alley. Some are
saying that porn is so compelling that the images of men degrading women
will override the loving relationship images that have been modeled for 12
years.

So why the 12 yos are watching needs cleared up before the discussion will
yield any satisfying answers for the questioners.

> You haven't asked ONE question to clarify
> 'where I am coming from'. You assume you just 'know', and you
> 'projected' all kinds of assumptions and beliefs onto me.

The words we use don't carry what *we* mean into someone's head. The words
attempt to *recreate* what we mean in someone's head. And if the words we've
used mean something different to the person we're talking to, that person
will respond as though we've asked a totally different question than what we
think we asked.

I think, not just here but in general, that it isn't the responsibility of
the answerer to figure out what we mean. It's *nice* if someone takes extra
time to help us ask what we're trying to ask. And the reason it's nice
rather than expected is because whenever we ask a question we are imposing
on someone's time. Yes, they voluntarily choose to answer but volunteering
to help doesn't mean they owe us anything. We owe it to ourselves -- because
presumably we want the answer! -- and we owe it to those trying to help to
be as clear as possible so we don't waste their time. Sometimes that means
working extra hard at figuring out what their answers mean and why they are
answering the way they are. Sometimes that means rewording our question.
Sometimes that means figuring out how the answerer is using words
differently than we are and adapting our language to theirs.

Joyce

[email protected]

In a message dated 9/9/02 7:55:52 AM, fetteroll@... writes:

<< Yes, the original question was about monitoring the *TV* a 12 yo watches at

2 or 3AM. But since a 12 yo is perfectly capable of choosing what he

watches, is knowing what they could stumble over meaningful unless we assume

that they won't just glance and pass by but stop and choose to watch it? >>

There WAS no twelve year old.

<<So it would make the discussion clearer if those with questions were more

clear about the type of content -- maybe specific movies -- that they would

be concerned about a 12 yo stumbling over. The term porn is just too vague.>>

So the movies' availability AND the twelve year old were hypothetical.

<<And the reason it's nice

rather than expected is because whenever we ask a question we are imposing

on someone's time. Yes, they voluntarily choose to answer but volunteering

to help doesn't mean they owe us anything. We owe it to ourselves -- because

presumably we want the answer! -- and we owe it to those trying to help to

be as clear as possible so we don't waste their time.>>

And calling someone "deliberately obtuse" when the whole situation was
trumped up from NOTHING is an abuse of the list's time and energy.

("Good heavens. Are you being deliberately obtuse?
. . . .
"Yes, you clearly are.")

Will it be argued now that "obtuse" doesn't necessarily have a negative
connotation in that context?

Sandra

Fetteroll

on 9/9/02 10:00 AM, Fetteroll at fetteroll@... wrote:

> and we owe it to those trying to help to
> be as clear as possible so we don't waste their time.

Just to clarify, we don't owe anything to anyone who is only pretending to
be helpful.

The people here are trying their best to be helpful.

> And this is where the discussion has gotten muddled.

And if my point got lost in all the words ;-) the problem is there are
multiple issues being discussed. Trying to discuss whether to monitor/be
aware of what a 12 yo is watching is tough to discuss if we're not all in
agreement on the effects of pornography on a 12 yo.

So perhaps a better place to start is "Do you think pornography is damaging
to kids?"

(How is pornography defined? How are the kids accessing it? It's being
assumed there's some common foundation everyone's operating from and that
isn't true.)

But what's *really* tough and makes the discussions difficult is basing a
discussion on hypotheticals. Any situation can be hypothesized. And "what
if's" can lead anywhere. They can be seemingly perfectly reasonable "what
ifs" -- eg, "What if your son were watching pornography?" but the problem is
they don't match a real situation. If the situation isn't real we can only
discuss what and not why. And it's the why that's most important. Whether a
12 yo should watch pornography is ultimately merely an exercise in argument
beacuse the real issue is *why* a particular 12 yo is watching pornography.

Joyce

[email protected]

In a message dated 9/9/02 10:25:22 AM Central Daylight Time,
fetteroll@... writes:


> And if my point got lost in all the words ;-) the problem is there are
> multiple issues being discussed. Trying to discuss whether to monitor/be
> aware of what a 12 yo is watching is tough to discuss if we're not all in
> agreement on the effects of pornography on a 12 yo.

Or agreeing on what pornography is exactly. I don't think what is shown on
cable is porn, some do. I do think that there are some specific shows on
channels like HBO, Cinemax, and Showtime that are what could be described as
*soft* porn. But I don't think those are any worse than what you could
possibly see in a movie. It's just that is all you see in these shows. I
don't think Playboy is porn, but I do think there are magazines out there
that are porn. I think it is natural for a 12 to whatever age teen boy to be
interested, or curious and want to see what all the hoopla is about. And I
don't see anything nasty or wrong with that. I also think the same goes for
girls. I don't see anything wrong with a young boy having a Cosmo, or a
Playboy or whatever in his bedroom or bathroom. I know when I was a teen,
(there aren't that many magazines out for girls) I read harlequin romances
and the best parts were the pages I dogeared. <g> I also found a copy of
Playgirl once and WOW! That was fun for me! <bg> (I think I still might have
that stashed away in one of my boxes saved from highschool.) Is there
anything wrong with it? IMO, no. Did my folks monitor it? They probably
thought they did, but they must not have been too vigilant. Did I hide it?
Yes, because I instinctively knew that my parents would have thought it was
wrong. Do I have a good healthy sexual relationship with my husband, are my
morals in the right place? Yes, and yes. Did my romance novels, trashy sex
filled books, and my one copy of Playgirl ruin me? Nope! Is Sandra's son
going to be ruined by some Anime that has nudity or his Cosmo stashed in his
bathroom? No. He is developing a good ideal of what a healthy sexual
relationship is from his parents. A little cartoon girl with her naked,
exaggerated breasts exposed (Japanese Anime doesn't show the pubic region as
a cultural thing, and even if it did, I still don't thing it would be wrong.
And Darin just informed me that there are different levels of Anime called
Hentai and Magna.) and a half naked waif in Cosmo isn't going to damage him
or another kid. Unless that is, if someone shames him and holds his small
interest up as example of something nasty and bad. So if your 12 yo son is
watching Bedtime Stories on Cinemax Late Night I wouldn't throw a hissey. And
if he rents a graphic Anime I wouldn't worry. It isn't going to make him some
sexual deviant. Anymore than a girl reading a romance novel, with heaving
breasts and thrusting members swelling against the center of her womanhood,
is going to destroy her.
~Nancy


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

<<. It seems to come from some long time
members who have a tendency to jump on the newcomers who are honestly and
hopefully looking for support in their new found or difficult journey of
unschooling, whether it be recent or not>>
If a new nursing mom comes to La Leche League, who has been supplementing
with formula because she has been told she doesn't have enough breastmilk,
would the LLL leader praise her choice of bottlefeeding? Of course not, they
would help the Mom understand that breastfeeding without the use of
supplements was going to get them on the road to succesful breastfeeding
relationship. Faster and with less trouble. Same with this list.
That was an analogy. I found it helpful to say it that way.
<<Now I know this is just my opinion, but maybe some of you should slow down
and try to help instead of intimidating. Some of you are down right scary.>>

Maybe those who come with questions should read for a while first. Or not
blast those who have attempted to answer in their own style of writing, for
not using the reader's style of communication.
There are tons of places to get support on and off line. This email list is
a place to get a variety of help from a variety of people. For no cost. FREE
EDUCATIONAL ADVICE!! Wow, here in the DC area, you pay upwards of $300 an
hour for it!
When new to the listers start paying anything to the answerers of questions,
then they can start telling the people who are spending tons of time and
typing skills how to answer.
Maybe the people who are "scary" are telling you things that you need to
hear.
Those who are scary to one poster are caring, compassionate and experienced
to another poster.


~Elissa Cleaveland
An unlesson'd girl, unschool'd, unpractic'd;
Happy in this, she is not so old
But she may learn.
W.S. The Merchant of Venice III, ii, 160

MO Milligans

At 01:40 PM 9/9/02 -0400, you wrote:

>Maybe those who come with questions should read for a while first.
==
Ya know, I was trying to do this, but guess it's just not in me. <eg>

Todd

Our HOME page
http://rambleman.tripod.com/index.html