[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by griffonwing

If you're asking "Would I like to see a time where decency and respect and morality began to rise again? Damn straight.

Ridiculous. Our age is far more 'decent' than any that has come before, and especially in the western world. Slavery abolished, women's rights, civil rights, excellent advances in science and medicine.

As for the the last comment, about the discussions. Yes. I do plan on discussing the tenants of my belief, as well as "the birds and the bees" speech. However, this has nothing at all to do with 'being afraid of some sex in a book" (and I actually resent this implication), however I also firmly believe that kids should not grow up when they are 13-14 years old.


This is why we have teenage pregnancy. This is why we have teenage drug use. Kids grow up WAY too fast nowadays, they do not have time to be kids. They get thrown into sex temptations too young, and they are not wise enough to understand how to deal with it. Allowing free reign on a child is the worst thing you can do, and a faster way to destroy them.

What you believe and what actually happens in the real world are seperate entities. Puberty and the ability to procreate actually lead to procreation, biological fact of life. Education in safe, and lets not forget enjoyable sex helps along way to negate teenage pregnancy, along with STD's. Openness and the stripping of religious dogma also go a long way to producing children who turn into thoughtful, fun-loving adults. All of this has a lot to do with openness from an early age, from the transferrence of knowledge without silly boundaries, such as your earlier proposed 'coded message' of warning on the back of books. In countries where this openness, religious-free sex and drug education is practised we have less teenage pregnancy and less drug abuse overall. Holland is a shining example of freedom + information = healthy people.

What is the adage? "Spare the rod, spoil the child"? Have you seen children who run rampant in the stores and their mother is in another isle, and does not care? This same 'careless' attitude I equate with letting a child read whatever she wants when her experiences, growth and wisdom are not at a level to handle it.

Biblical quotes mean very little to me, as do the religions they are attached to. Racist, homophobic, sexist tomes that advocate all kinds of nonsense, very little of which should be taken seriously by any modern person. I've seen plenty of children running free in supermarkets, seen it happen in churches when I was a kid too. I don't see what his has to do with back-door censorship, only that you've taken the argument to some new level where neglecting a child equates to not having a silly warning on the back of a book.

That's like letting a 1o-year old shoot a 12-guage. Sure, he may know all the safety regulations, seen all the hunting videos, know how to call the ducks, what to wear, how to do, but he pulls the trigger and he will get thrown back on his ass and possibly break an arm or worse. He is not physically ready.

Wise enough does not mean smart enough. Wisdom comes with age, with experiences, not by reading about sex in a book. Also, reading induces thinking, and when a child thinks about something, they will want to do it.

No idea how you got onto shotguns, maybe its related to your branching the argument out into the neglect of children. Couple of things; I'm English and European, guns to me (as to many of us) are stupid things that we have no need for, with training or without. Also you're making my argument for me. Being physically ready isn't enough, you're correct, the mental capacity to deal with sex comes with practice, with experience, with knowledge, and none of that comes from a book. It comes from experience. A hell of a lot of it. It took me five years of 'stupid' sex before I was ever in a 'proper' relationship, all of it safe mind you, although my Catholic school wouldn't have wanted it to be that way.

You say that if a child wants to read something, they will. However, if you allow that child to read it, you are saying to the child "I am letting you read this because I feel you are old enough to", and when they read it, they will also assume they are old enough to act it out. You are telling them that they can have sex at their age.

Very silly, and not at all the reality of the world. Once a child reaches puberty and wants to have sex, there's very little you can do, bar physical restraint, to stop them. It's a natural biological urge. Your consent means nothing to that teenager, they are their own person and will make decisions accordingly, with, or without you. No, you don't have to 'let go' completely, but you have to also understand that holding them too close might cause exactly the opposite of the reaction you desire. Sheltering a child from 'sex' is as pointless as telling them there are no oceans. Soon enough they're going to discover that ocean for themselves.

If that is your belief, then fine. But it is not mine. And I would like to be able to have the opportunity to glance at the back of the book, see the info box, and put the book back on the shelf.

This is the most specious reasoning out of all you've argued. Do you honestly think that you will be the arbiter of your children's reading decisions when they can get a library card and read whatever they like? I don't know what's more disheartening; that you believe you can somehow keep the material away from your child, or that you think keeping it away will somehow be positive. All the while, we, adults and children alike, would have to put up with your silly warnings on the backs of our books.