Regarding my comments in my previous post

[icarus]

Re: fandom_scruples:

1 - Password protections are simply for the parents' peace of mind and don't work.

2 - Children who 'stumble' on porn hit the back button. Note how quick they are are to get rid that sexy pop-up in LiveJournal. Most kids who read adult content are actively seeking it. And this is nothing new.

3 - Children should either not be allowed to view TV/Access the internet until they're older, or be taught your values and why you feel certain ways about certain materials. They do listen.

4 - It takes a certain hubris to attempt to rewire the world to suit your children yourself. When you force your will on others, for any pallid excuse, you almost always piss people off.

One can either cover the entire surface of the world with leather, or one can wear shoes on ones own feet. ~ Shantideva

The latter is far simpler.

Teach your kids. Because the world will not change to suit you. That isn't how it works.


First, keeping things from kids.

It sounds good in principle, but it doesn't take into account the nature of kids, who are not as innocent or stupid as we'd like to think. We aren't 'protecting the innocent' who might bumble into some porn. We are battling a skilled and determined assault.

These passwords are only there to give adults peace of mind. They don't work, and anyone who thinks they do has forgotten their fake IDs in high school. The strategy of changing the nature of the world around children was impossible when there were only titty magazines.

I always point to those 'child-proof' bottles as evidence as to just how successful that strategy is. Often only the kids can open them. Kids are pretty good at getting around our passwords, etc. When I was a kid there weren't even PCs, and we still got hold of porn magazines (some of them pretty, ugh). The whole concept of innocent children stumbling onto and corrupted by what they see is erroneous.

First, it's rare that a kid 'accidentally' stumbles on internet porn of any kind and keeps reading/looking. If it wasn't what they were looking for, kids - confused, appalled - hit the back button just as fast as everyone else. More often than not, kids actively seek what is 'forbidden' and then it's really hard to keep them out of the gears.

This 'poor little innocent children' theory assumes a couple things:

1 - that kids are blank slates, with no moral compass or intelligence of their own.
2 - that kids are more influenced by these images than they are by their 'real' environment.

I have very clear memories from when I was a kid, and I remember how bright I was. I had my own ideas about my parents' divorce, for example, that was not told to me by others.

It's my opinion that it's best to not let your kids watch any television/media influence until they're older. Let them grow up with less noise.

But that's very difficult to do, mostly because these things act as virtual babysitters. And that's the real problem. Parents don't have time to really keep an eye on and interact with their kids, because people need two incomes these days to survive. I've watched this with all my friends. So they click on the TV or the computer, and then expect these mechanical devices to do as good a job as themselves. That's impossible.

The internet, the library, the television... they're all neutral. They don't have a moral screen really, and you can't automate that.

What's a parent to do? Because kids can and will defeat these flimsy protections, you have to:

1 - do the best you can to supervise. Your kids need as much of your time as you can give them anyway.
2 - teach your kids what is appropriate and what is not. Tell them what your feelings are about that and why. Give them their own moral filter.

You'd be surprised at what kids will self-monitor.

In fact, chances are fandom_scruples is in the 18-22 year old range.

Comments

[rebelpoetus.livejournal.com]

I agree. I'm sixteen years old, and my parents have never monitored my internet use. I believe they have taught me well, though. I don't actively seek porn sites, or read NC-17 fic. It isn't because my parents have told me not to. In fact, my family discusses sex openly, and they impart on me their thoughts. To them, their children seeing a naked body on the computer screen is a lot less worse than them having unprotected sex. They lay down the boundaries that make sense to them. Slightly off topic, but just trying to relate. This comment is really to say thanks for defending "the children". People underestimate my age group, forgetting they were that young once.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

This comment is really to say thanks for defending "the children". People underestimate my age group, forgetting they were that young once.

I always found that attitude vaguely insulting, now and as a kid.

My parents allowed only one TV show per day from age 3 - 10 (the PC didn't exist back then, but they would have included it). Though we could get around that by going to our friends, generally we didn't, because they explained why: it was such a passive 'rot your brain' activity that they preferred we go play outside. I used to watch my friends stare vacantly at the TV and decided I agreed.

After age 10 we were allowed to watch TV. They were never home, but told us what shows they didn't want us to watch and why. Then they trusted us. They allowed nudity, sex, these were natural -- but not violence.

So the 'Dukes of Hazzard,' one of the most popular shows at the time, we never saw. We could have ignored the rule, but their point that watching violence desensitized you to it made sense to us.

And I used to argue that Road Runner, despite the fact it was a cartoon, still fit the bill for gratuitous desensitizing violence. I added that one to my list of my own accord.

Yes, when I was only ten. Don't tell me kids aren't able to judge for themselves.

I think there are three kinds of ignorance here:

- Don't shelter kids to the degree that normal life comes as a shock.
- Don't leave kids at sea to figure out life the hard way through trial and error. That's not fair and it often has embarrassing results for the kids.
- Don't just explain the rules so kids have to blindly follow you (or blindly rebel which is more likely). Explain the reasons behind them, so kids can decide for themselves if they agree.

That said, the only kids I'm ever going to have have four legs and fur. *laughs* But I know from my friends it's hard being a parent. Really, really hard.

Icarus

[rebelpoetus.livejournal.com]

Once again, I agree with you. I wasn't diminishing the responsibility of being a parent, or insulting people who discipline their children differently then my parents do. I was talking about underestimating in a general sense, like when I get suspicious looks when I walk into a store because someone might think that I will shoplift, or that teenagers don't read newspapers or care about what occurs outside their "bubble". I don't know if this is exactly what you were objecting to. I know being a parent is hard, and I'm in no rush to become one. Thanks for replying.