Responses to [perceived] assaults... (hope it's a bit shorter this time *g*)

[meira_q <mb2910@hotmail.com>]

OK, this time I'm doing a bit more snipping ;)
It seems that people have managed to misunderstand me as well *sigh* 
that's what happens when you belong to a species of people who are 
not telepaths ;-)

> > John:
> > Oh, honestly, nobody's suggesting that. And your use 
of "overloading"
> > perpetuates a commonly-held Anglo-American perception that 
children are
> > ignorant.


Laura: 
I agree with John here.  My own mother's opinion, which I share, is 
that kids should be told about sex when they ask.  
<snip>
My first point is that adults simply don't give kids credit for being 
aware of sex and sex-related issues.
<snip>
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.
<snip>
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.
<snip>


Me:
I totally agree on this, *but* I still think that there is such a 
thing as information overload. Learning about sex should be a natural 
process as is learning to walk or talk, and IMHO, also learning to 
read.
If your 4 year-old asks you how babies are born will you really 
explain all about erections, the period, foreplay etc, or will you 
explain the "what goes where" version in terms that the kid can 
understand? (not to mean that kids are stupid, but just that they 
will get the answer for their question in a way that they will 
understand).

Laura:
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.


Me:
Oh, please don't patronize me. One thing is being embarassed about 
thinking of your parents having sex (which I admit to feeling that), 
and another totally different thing is overcoming that sort of 
embarassment to being able to talk openly to the kid.
And I do agree on giving them a book, that is appropriate for their 
level of understanding (again, not because of stupidness, but because 
of the same reason you won't explain math in university terms to a 6 
year-old).


Laura:
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.

Me:
That is exactly the point that I'm trying to get across.
And if they are getting bored, it's probably a sure sign that the 
parent has to change tactics, or vocabulary, and explain things not 
as in when parents say "choo-choo" to mean train, but somewhere 
between that and the language-level required for a dissertation ;-).

Laura:
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.


Me:
Well, it is difficult to create a sterile enviroment for them, and 
not too desireable, but at this point they should be comfortable 
enough to know that they can come to their parents with any question 
and know that they are going to get the answer that they were looking 
for, and not a "choo-choo" version, and neither a dissertation level 
of information (well, depending on their age).
You should always adapt the information to the one who will get it. 
For example, you will get nowhere if you try to explain what "pink" 
is to someone who was born blind.


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


Me:
Of course. Definitely.


Laura: 
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.
<snip>


Me:
They will get bored, and frustrated at the fact that they don't 
understand what you try to explain to them, and causing your kid to 
lose interest in your explanation is a sure way to make him not want 
to go to you for further explanations (like when my dad tried to 
explain something in math for me when I was 16. I was so bored, I 
kept nodding off, and I swore that I would never ask help from my dad 
again, even though he was an engineer, and I didn't know anyone who 
was better at math stuff than him, simply because he bored me with 
his explanations).


> > 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.
 

Laura:
> 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.


Me:
I totally agree on this one. Ignorance is bad.


> 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.


Laura: 
> You see that as *damaging*? 


Me: 
Yes, I do.
I'm talking about an almost 20 year old person here, walking with a 
large dog.
I enjoyed the silence there, and since the people-in-the-car incident 
(however much they were right), I never got to enjoy my late-night 
walks with my dog. Walking in that area in broad daylight just isn't 
the same.


Laura:
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

Me:
Who would be stupid enough to let their kids (specially if the kids 
are young) wander alone at night?

Laura:
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?


Me:
It is a basic parental responsibility, yes. You say "A child is being 
subjected to something that is known to be harmful...or society's 
assumption that homosexuality is not normal". First of all, don't let 
John hear that *g*. Second, if to me homosexuality *is* a normal 
thing and I couldn't care less if my kid turned out to be gay (or 
lesbian), what would be wrong with that? (unless you are talking 
about kids getting raped here, in which case, I must remind you that 
rape has nothing to do with sexual tendencies.)


> > 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.


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


Me:
What does what Diana said have to do with Laura's words?


> > 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.


Laura: 
> What does wanting to be gay have to do with the inclusion of gay 
characters in books?


Me:
Nothing, but the way that John was speaking his mind made me think 
that his opinion of being straight is totally wrong. My idea of John 
is that he's "straightophobe", if such a thing exists.


Laura:
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.


Me:
There's a difference between thinking "But (male character) and 
(other male character) are simply *not* shippable, but I can see how 
(male character no. 3) and (male character no. 4) might work out" and 
between thinking "Any straight couple is wrong, everyone should be 
gay" and thinking "any gay character is wrong, everyone should be 
straight".


Laura:
On the other hand, I go to a "magnet" school -- which is basically a 
public boarding school for brains.

Me:
Where do you put the rest of your bodies when the brains are 
studying? ^-^


Laura:
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.


Me:
Sexual exploration and experimentation shouldn't happen because of 
peer pressure. Nothing should happen because of peer pressure. Where 
are your brains when it comes to that? (refrains from using the 
old "if everyone will jump off a bridge will you jump off it as well" 
phrase)


> > 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 
<snipping my own comment>


Laura:
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)

Me:
If being gay or straight or bi isn't about personal taste and 
preference, then what *is*?
Be it genetics, personal choice or whatever you'd like to think makes 
someone gay or straight or bi, it *is* what you prefer. It's who you 
are personally attracted to.


Laura:
> 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.


Me:
I am a heterosexual woman and I enjoy slash immensely...
*waves various slashy ship flags* ^-^.


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


Me:
Ooohhhhh.....
I'm planning on befriending an artist who would be willing to paint 
the Enterprise, or the Voyager on my wall *g*.
Am planning, one day, having a Star Trek room, with one of those TNG 
sofas, and my book collection displayed, and having my own Trek 
uniform, but I'm getting off-topic here.


> > 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.


Laura:
*growls* But then your argument is against NC-17 fics and not slash 
at all!


Me:
Of course. Did you think I was against slash? I love slash...


Laura:
Slash does NOT EQUAL SEX.


Me:
I know that. I've read many slashy fics that didn't have the 
slightest bit of sex in them.


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


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


Me:
AARRGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH.....
(sorry)
OR is *not* the same thing as AND.

 
 
> 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.
 
Laura:
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.

Me:
I respect that there are many people who don't like me, or even hate 
me in this world (I'm Jew, I'm Israeli, both of those reasons are 
more than enough for people to hate me, methinks;)). That doesn't 
mean that I accept *violence*, genocide, murdering others, or 
enslaving them, or just being nasty to them because they are 
different or that I accept what the Nazis did to the jews in the 
Holocaust. 

John should really decide who's opinion matter to him.

Like a very wise person once said, "if you are holding out for 
universal popularity, I'm afraid you will be in this cabin for a very 
long time" ;-). (and I'm sure you all know where *that* quote came 
from ^-^).

Meira.

"I hear, I admit, but I have a voice too, and for good or evil mine 
is the speech that cannot be silenced."
~Heart of Darkness / Joseph Conrad~