Your kid's Kindle could be X-rated, child protection charity warns

[GoSharks]

Originally Posted by leanansidhe

I'm babbling today, sorry

But you do it with style!!!!!!

[Difflugia]

Originally Posted by Jessica Lares

That's NOT an issue with Amazon or the Kindle. Those girls just have no morals.

Or it is a book that is being spread around at school like gossip.

Slut-shaming

[orlok]

Originally Posted by HarryT

My parents certainly didn't monitor what I was reading when I was 13. I don't think that made them bad parents. I was an avid reader at that age devoured whatever I could get my hands on. And what 13-year-old doesn't enjoy sex scenes in books?

This .

[Istvan diVega]

Originally Posted by GoSharks

That is an excessive jump from what was stated and somewhat provocative....reading diaries and the like is an invasion of privacy (IMO), where monitoring their access to media is parenting.

It wasn't meant to be provocative, nor for that sake un-provocative, it was simply my immediate reaction to the post in question. As far as I'm concerned, monitoring and restricting what music one can listen to is very much an invasion of privacy. I never kept a diary, but had I done so I would far rather that it was read on regular basis than to have had my music choices decided for me by the same over-protective parent.

[GoSharks]

Originally Posted by Istvan diVega

It wasn't meant to be provocative, nor for that sake un-provocative, it was simply my immediate reaction to the post in question. As far as I'm concerned, monitoring and restricting what music one can listen to is very much an invasion of privacy. I never kept a diary, but had I done so I would far rather that it was read on regular basis than to have had my music choices decided for me by the same over-protective parent.

'Absent parenting' vs 'responsible parenting' vs 'over-protective parenting'... where to draw the line between them is the quandry and what makes each family different and special. But to not be involved enough to decide where to draw that line for your family is poor parenting. I certainly am not a perfect parent, but my most important job is being a parent.

[DiapDealer]

I guess my original statement should have been prefaced with a great big "if".

As in: IF you're concerned about what your child might read, it's still 100% your responsibilty to be the gatekeeper. Nobody else's. Be it physical OR digital media. IF a digital reading device (and the connected online store) makes it too hard, or too time consuming to do the monitoring you WANT to do as a parent... too bad, so sad. Deal with it or don't let them use the technology. There's no reason your child HAS to have a digital reader. People who never used an ereader before still fall in love with reading. Amost every day I'd wager.

[Istvan diVega]

Originally Posted by GoSharks

'Absent parenting' vs 'responsible parenting' vs 'over-protective parenting'... where to draw the line between them is the quandry and what makes each family different and special.

Or dysfunctional. Plenty of those around too and generally they can be found at either extreme of the spectrum.

But to not be involved enough to decide where to draw that line for your family is poor parenting.

I absolutely agree, but in my opinion oppressive monitoring and restrictions are the very worst ways in which to engage and involve oneself. I'm confident they are also, in general, the least effective methods of creating well balanced, harmonious adults. Better by far to talk to your kids about what you'd rather they don't do and explain carefully why, then let them make most of their mistakes early on.

By restricting your kids left, right and centre while you can, all you do is make sure that all the big mistakes are being made after they've left home, at which time the consequences will generally be far greater. Letting them be stupid, curious and experimental while in a safer environment is by far the better option. Of course, some people probably think they can imprint their kids with safe habits and behaviours which will persist when they leave the nest. Sadly they will generally cause the exact opposite to happen.

[Pameliasue]

Until you have children of your own, that you have to be responsible for, all you really have is an opinion based from a child's perspective of what happened to you when growing up and how you now interpret as an adult.
You have no rubber-meets-the-road, real life consequences for screwing your kid up because you're talking about your 'hypothetical' child.
The advice and opinions I gave before being a parent are drastically different than what they are now after being a parent. You can not presume to know what you would do until you have that life in your hands to try to steer towards becoming a productive, moral member of society. There are too many variables. Indeed, you will be a new and changed you.

[GoSharks]

Originally Posted by Istvan diVega

By restricting your kids left, right and centre while you can, all you do is make sure that all the big mistakes are being made after they've left home, at which time the consequences will generally be far greater..

But by setting no restrictions at all you are leaving your kids rudderless at a time when their moral compass has not developed....a prescription for disaster. There must be a balance.

And to bring this full circle back to the original topic, it annoys me when parents are not involved and then blame the internet, music, television, and social media when their children are delinquents. The buck stops with the parents, period.

[Istvan diVega]

Originally Posted by GoSharks

But by setting no restrictions at all

But I never advocated a complete absence of restrictions, I simply said that the post I first replied to set out a far too draconian regime. Exactly the kind of strategy which will not produce a rounded personality.

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by Istvan diVega

As far as I'm concerned, monitoring and restricting what music one can listen to is very much an invasion of privacy.

I disagree.

It is my job as a parent to keep my son away from things that I think are not right for him. That means, monitoring what he watches, listens to, and reads. That doesn't mean I only allow him to watch or listen to what I like. He likes watching a show called Treehouse Masters on Animal Planet. While I think it is a pretty stupid show and would never watch it on my own, I allow him to watch it.

Media that goes against my values and beliefs are not permitted.

[Istvan diVega]

Originally Posted by Pameliasue

Until you have children of your own

I have four. Two of each variety.

So there.

Originally Posted by ucfgrad93

I disagree.

Which is fine. Positively needful in fact, for a forum to work.

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by Istvan diVega

But I never advocated a complete absence of restrictions, I simply said that the post I first replied to set out a far too draconian regime. Exactly the kind of strategy which will not produce a rounded personality.

It is too draconian because I don't let my child have a tv or computer in his room? If I tell you my son, who is 13, doesn't have a cell phone are you going to call child protective services on me?

It is my job as a parent to instill a set of values and beliefs that will help make my son into a good person as an adult. And that means things that go against those values and beliefs (rap music) are not allowed.

[Istvan diVega]

It is too draconian, in my opinion, that you want to monitor "all media they consume". A bit scary, in fact.

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by Istvan diVega

It is too draconian, in my opinion, that you want to monitor "all media they consume". A bit scary, in fact.

No facts in your statement, just an opinion.