[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Responses to [perceived] assaults... (it's long, sorry ... or maybe not *g*)

[Laura Ingalls Huntley]

> Diana:
> >Why would I voluntarily tell my son everything I know about sex before
he's
> >ready to hear it?  Overloading kids with info they are not ready for is
not
> >the way to explain sexual feelings and intercourse to a child.
>
> John:
> Oh, honestly, nobody's suggesting that. And your use of "overloading"
> perpetuates a commonly-held Anglo-American perception that children are
> ignorant.

I agree with John here.  My own mother's opinion, which I share, is that
kids should be told about sex when they ask.  I did so at age 6 (whereas my
younger brother was 10 or 11).  I remember at this time having at least
vague idea about sex (the "what goes where" part, if nothing else) from
basic playground gossip.  My first point is that adults simply don't give
kids credit for being aware of sex and sex-related issues.  My (much)
younger sister is in first grade now, and crushes and boys and Britney
Spears's sex appeal (*much* to my dismay) are a big part of her and her
peers' lives.  I don't doubt that she has heard the word "sex" before, and
at least knows enough about it to dissolve into a fit of giggles when it is
mentioned.

My second point is that you *should* educate your children about sex as much
as possible.  Because, a) they're already learning about it from possibly
undesirable sources and b) it's just the right thing to do.  Okay, perhaps
part b isn't so much a reason as an opinion, but think about it.  Not
talking about sex with kids will very likely lead to feelings of curiosity
(who knows where they're going to go/what they're going to do to satisfy
this curiosity), apprehension, embarrassment etc.  These feelings are really
what makes a lot of kids have unhealthy idea/feelings/reactions to sex,
which leads to unhealthy attitudes and actions when they grow up.  The
misinformation, lack of information, and social stigmas about sex that they
will pick up if you don't step in to explain will be *very* dangerous down
the road, especially when they hit puberty.  How will they know, for
example, that their urge to masturbate isn't sinful or dirty (as, I promise
you, they will have inferred from their peers by then)? It's not enough to
just mention things such as this to them when the time comes, as society's
often damaging ideas will be ingrained in them by then.

If you're uncomfortable talking to your child about sex (which is entirely
understandable, although probably also a symptom of our culture's ridiculous
attitude about sex) there are a number of very good books for all age
ranges.  I'm not suggesting that you take you five or six year old aside and
barage them with information (you would probably fail miserably anyway, they
have very short attention spans -- esp. concerning things they don't
understand), but if they ask, tell them.  When they stop seeming interested,
stop.  I understand that you might feel that they are asking these questions
because of exposure to undesirable things (NC-17 fanfics, for example), but
the truth is, they're going to get some information *somewhere*...from their
friends, TV, movies, internet...*somewhere*.  Remember that a little
information is a dangerous thing.

And by all means, make sure they *at least* have some good literature on it
before they hit puberty.

And, really, if you do happen to try to explain something out of their
league, they won't be "overwhelmed" or damaged in any way.  When you try to
explain something to a kid that can't grasp a concept, they just lose
interest.  I remember my mother trying to show me what a condom was/did at
age 6 (because I asked) and I just couldn't get past the fact that it looked
like a balloon (I actually made her blow it up for me).

> John:
> Studies show that in countries where love, sexual feelings and
> intercourse are explained by various degrees at an age-appropriate level
> without acute societal embarrassment, children make more stable, rational
> and informed decisions about their own lives and sex lives.

Exactly what I was trying to say, only much more eloquent and succinct.  I
am Christian and attended a Christian grade school and it pains me to see my
friends making bad decisions about sex now because their parents thought it
was wrong to educate them.  When sex is shameful, desirable, and mysterious
all at once, teens have a tendency to do it without talking about it (which
leads to unprotected sex or improperly used protection as well as emotional
damage and confusion), do it for the wrong reasons (peer pressure, SO
pressure, etc.), and not even know that it could be better.  It's the job of
the parent, IMO, to make sure their kid can make rational, emotionally and
physically healthy, and mature decisions about sex and sex related things .
A good way to ensure this is to educate, educate, educate - it not only
combats ignorance, it knocks sex off its dark-shrouded pedestal.  IMO, sex
has no business being secretive and forbidden.  Except in trashy romance
novels.

Meira:
> I used to live in the neighborhood that's at the other side of the city,
and
> beyond that there was noting but sand. I used to enjoy walking my dog late
> at night there because it is deserted, and there's no one there. One day,
a
> car drives by and stops next to me and the people inside tell me "Why are
> you walking all alone in this part of the neighborhood for? Don't you know
> that you can get assaulted and raped here?" Since then, I never ventured
out
> that far. I used to pass near the construction sites, where bedouins and
> foreign workers worked without the slightest fear (and they even invited
me
> for a cup of tea once after mentioning that the bedouin tea is my
favorite).
> So I knew since then that it's dangerous to be there at such a late hour
of
> the night, and yes, it did open my mind, but it damaged me more than it
> helped me.

You see that as *damaging*? Let's bring your example full-circle here.  A
child is being subjected to something that is known to be harmful (whether
it be wandering alone at night or society's assumption that homosexuality is
not normal) and you see it as better that they continue to be subjected to
it on the basis that they're happier that way and bad things have yet to
happen?  Isn't it a basic parental responsibility to keep their children
from harm?

> Diana:
> >Other kids may get negative ideas and reinforcement of
> >free-floating stereotypes about gay people or hetero people that
> >take much work to undo by their parents.
>

So the way to combat these negative ideas is to ban knowledge of the
subjects altogether?




> Me:
> Forgive me for putting words into your mouth, John, but this is what I get
> from your words:
> You want so much to be considered equal in society (or perhaps you want
that
> for all gay population), that you don't think for a second about those
that > have nothing against homosexuals and lesbians, they simply don't want
to be
> gay.

What does wanting to be gay have to do with the inclusion of gay characters
in books?  I don't think John wants Diane to become a lesbian or encourage
her child to be homosexual.  He just objects to her implication that having
gay characters (or even the possibility of gay characters) in the HP novels
would somehow damage her and her child's reading experience.

On the other hand, I go to a "magnet" school -- which is basically a public
boarding school for brains.  And here, I do perceive a bit of a social
pressure to be at least bisexual...*at least* experimentative.  However, I
think this comes from the philosophy that at least *I* have, which is that
anyone can be attracted to anyone if they have an open mind.  Futhermore,
most of us come from very socially restrictive schools (my old friends would
gag for hours if they saw two little girls holding hands...which was esp.
horrible for me, as I mainly express/get affection through physical means),
and I think the social pressure to do some exploring of your sexual
orientation is actually quite helpful -- we've all been pushed in the other
direction for so long, some people need a little nudge to get going.  In the
long run, I see everyone evening out to the place where they most belong,
based on their own feelings.


> John:
> Your comparison of hobbies with a sexual orientation is as offensive to me
> as it is ludicrous.
>
>
> Meira:
> I don't think it's ludicrous. The idea is the same. It's all about taste
and
> personal preference. She would have proven the exact same point if she
were
> to discuss personal pizza topping preferences (some people like pepperoni,
> others like anchovi, and i saw in the pizza place menu that they have a
> pineapple topping option, so *some* people might like it), or about
anything
> else that people get to have a personal preference in.
>
>

Eep.  Being gay isn't like choosing a pizza topping.  Many people feel that
there is absolutely no choice involved at all. (personally, I think it's not
cut-and-dried either way...and, in any case, each person/case is different)
However, I think both you and John misinterpreted what Diane was saying --
she meant that reading slash was a personal choice, not being
homosexual...they are completely different things.  I know *a lot* of
heterosexual women who enjoy slash immensely.



> John:
> Diana, nobody ever killed a Trekkie for being a Trekkie.

On a completely random tangent, my old neighbors had a Star Trek console
painted in their basement.  *nods*

> John:
> Of course they do. But children also have the right to *develop* their own
> vision of the HP characters from reading the books *and input* from
fanfics,
> discussion groups and other sources that bring in ideas they are able to
> understand.
>
>
> Meira:
> I agree on this one too, but that doesn't mean that the kids have to be
> exposed to a (het *or* gay) sex-fest in a fic that was poorly rated.

*growls* But then your argument is against NC-17 fics and not slash at all!
Slash does NOT EQUAL SEX.


> Diana:
> >The problem we are going to have with coming to an agreement on this is
> >that I
> >feel that several fanfic writers and defenders feel it's okay to muddle
> >with
> >others' personalized and internal images of the HP characters, even
> >children's
> >views of the characters, because it will cause "growth", "acceptance",
> >"tolerance" and "understanding".
>

So...you're saying...no fanfiction should be allowed at all?  I'm a bit
confused.

> Me:
> No, she said "slashy or sex-filled [whether gay or <hetero>]" (emphasis
> mine). I agree with Diane.

Okay.  She said slashy OR sex-filled.  So, she objects to all slash AND
sex-filled het.

> Diana:
> >I went to a fanfic site to see how the organization was since so many
> >responses to my original post went out of their way to tell me that there
> >was
> >no way I could "stumble" upon stuff I didn't want to read and everything
> >was
> >so properly labelled and clear that I must be an idiot if I did end up
> >reading
> >something that tainted my personal image of the HP characters.  The main
> >page
> >had a bunch of blurbs for new fics in no particular grouping or in any
way
> >sorted.
>

If you actually tried to read one of these fics, there would be a) a screen
asking if your were of age if it were R-rated and b) a heading on the actual
fic giving rating, summary, and possible pairings.  FA doesn't need anything
stronger than these warnings because they don't even post NC-17 fics.

> Meira:
> That is only on Fiction Alley. I don't know all fanfic sites out there,
and
> I don't presume to have facts about it, but I assume that not all fanfic
> sites are organized like that.

As someone who has actually gone *looking* for NC-17 fics (both het and
slash) I assure you that all of the sites I found (even the personal ones)
explicitly warned for both sex scenes and slash.  I'm sure there are those
out there that *don't*, but as I did not find any, I assume they are a small
minority.

> Diana:
> >What I actually found was blurbs written in such a way as to be
> >quite memorable [so you'd want to read the story, obviously] and
> >they were able to bring forth instantaneous unwelcome images.

As FA does not allow for explicit sex scenes, and there's no way they would
allow something explicit in a blurb, I must assume that these "unwelcome
images" came from reading something that mentioned a same sex pairing.  If
you get offended by the words "Draco is torn between loyalty to his father
and his love for Harry" or even "Draco and Harry get it on with a pair of
handcuffs and a whip" -- well, perhaps you *do* need to learn to be a bit
more open-minded.

Meira:
> Well, just as a closing note, each person is entitled to his or her own
> opinion about things. Acceptance means not only straight people accepting
> gay people (as relevant to this issue, but is right with everything else
> too), but also gay people accepting that there are those that might feel
> uncomfortable with homosexuals.

No.  Gay people definitely do *not* have to accept or respect that.  It's
prejudice.  People have a *right* to hate homosexuals and people of color
and whomever else they feel -- however, it IS prejudice, and saying that
John should be okay with people who look down on him for being a gay person
is like saying that the Jewish people should have respected Hitler's POV.

Also, in closing...I wanted to ask John about the term "homosexual".  It is
not considered derogatory at all at my school -- but we definitely aren't
representative of any other society than our own (this is what happens when
you stick 150 teenagers in a small dormitory and cut them almost completely
off from the rest of the *world*).  Logically, I would have thought that
"homosexual" would be *less* offensive than "gay", as homosexual just sort
of explains the nature of one's sexual orientation (like a medical or
scientific term, really...as opposed to heterosexual) and gay is slang.

Laura