WHOPPERS FOR JESUS

"As does heterosexual" is/was pretty much the point -- there are plenty of shows that have hetero parents in the background showing more sexuality than these sets of parents (there were at least two different mom-mom pairs) ever did.

0 Replies

Lash is a fun person....

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

"As does heterosexual" is/was pretty much the point -- there are plenty of shows that have hetero parents in the background showing more sexuality than these sets of parents (there were at least two different mom-mom pairs) ever did.

No one seemed to understand the point I tried to make. Time doesn't seem to have changed that.

It wasn't about THAT show, per se, but what issues may be forced with a show of that kind of content, aimed at young children.

Your point about heterosexuals showing affection on a PBS show designed for children is different in that children (most) don't see heterosexual affection as something different--or something to question. It was my contention that seeing something they hadn't seen before--homosexual partners--would raise questions about sexuality earlier than most parents feel comfortable with.

I just wanted someone to at least understand that point----whether they agreed with it or not.

0 Replies

I don't remember the whole thread and don't particularly want to re-read the whole thing, but I think that point was understood -- and refuted.

If you just want it understood (and not agreed with), fine.

If you want me to explain WHY I disagree with it (yet again), I'm happy to... ;-)

0 Replies

(I have the advantage of actually having seen the episode in question, if we want to talk about it again now -- my summary of it was at the end of that thread, I think, after the speculation/ discussion section.)

0 Replies

Being understood is fine.

I would, however, like to know why you disagree with it. I seem to remember that the opposing view was: parents shouldn't be concerned about those questions.

I think we ended up saying the difference between your view and mine was parenting style.

0 Replies

Not at all.

I'll see if I can summarize.

There was nothing overtly or even implicitly sexual about the interaction of the sets of parents. In my summary, I think I said they didn't even touch. They were parents, doing parenty things -- making dinner for the kids, giving them errands, that kind of thing -- but nothing that inherently raised the sexuality question.

While it might be new for some kids to see that (it wasn't for sozlet), kids are constantly seeing and integrating new information. Seeing something new is not in itself particularly noteworthy or much of a catalyst -- they see new stuff all the time. They're kids, they're learning.

And I think learning, on a show that is specifically about exposing kids to various perspectives and lifestyles (Mormon, Orthodox Jew, Kurdish, etc.), that some kids have two moms is a valuable thing.

To bring it into the current discussion, it goes back to that default thing. I think it'd be great if a kid who is (or will grow up to be) a 5 or a 6 sees that show, and has that tiny little message of "familes with two moms exist, and that's OK" embedded alongside the 4,671,812 messages about heterosexuality being OK.

0 Replies

Oh and the parenty stuff was itself very much in the background -- the vast majority of the screen time, and the explicit focus, was on the kids.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Just for the sake of knowing what you think-- can you disagree with this statement?

And, gay is sex. No matter how you want to deflect it. It defines how (with whom) someone has sex. There's no getting around it.

Gay denotes sexuality. As does heterosexual.

That was already dealt with sufficiently in the original thread here and here so no need to rehash it all over again.

OK, back to our regularly scheduled program.

0 Replies

You must have understood.

The basic disagreement between you and I--as reiterated in your explanation--was our parenting styles.

You are happy to give that information when your child is young, and others prefer to let them be children, before discussing things we consider more adult.

It's about when to share that information.

0 Replies

This thread became pretty much an open rant venue quite some time ago . . . no regularly scheduled program any longer . . . unless MOAN comes back again and tries to claim she doesn't lie . . .

0 Replies

Aw phooey.

Not gonna get anywhere, obviously.

Read the last I dunno 50 pages of that topic, I guess... Laughing

(As brief as I can make it -- there is nothing more inherently "adult" about a family with two moms than there is about a family with a mom and a dad. There is nothing that robs a child of being a child to see a family with two moms any more than seeing a family with a mom and a dad -- and they see plenty of those.)

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Lash wrote:
Just for the sake of knowing what you think-- can you disagree with this statement?

And, gay is sex. No matter how you want to deflect it. It defines how (with whom) someone has sex. There's no getting around it.

Gay denotes sexuality. As does heterosexual.

That was already dealt with sufficiently in the original thread here and here so no need to rehash it all over again.

OK, back to our regularly scheduled program.

Can't answer for yourself?

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Aw phooey.

Not gonna get anywhere, obviously.

Read the last I dunno 50 pages of that topic, I guess...

(As brief as I can make it -- there is nothing more inherently "adult" about a family with two moms than there is about a family with a mom and a dad. There is nothing that robs a child of being a child to see a family with two moms any more than seeing a family with a mom and a dad -- and they see plenty of those.)

I'll try again, with your words. The very fact that they see plenty of those is why they don't have questions about them.

A child won't question what is common to them. When they see something uncommon to them, they ask questions--a new world is open to them. I don't think parents should be thrust into that new world with their children, until they think their child is ready. I don't think that choice should be taken from parents.

I wasn't favoring for that show to be pulled. I hadn't seen it. It was what a show like that could include.

And, soz. The "not going to get anywhere"...? I could tell by what you wrote that you'd misunderstood me.

Where did this go wrong?

Quote:

You must have understood.

The basic disagreement between you and I--as reiterated in your explanation--was our parenting styles.

You are happy to give that information when your child is young, and others prefer to let them be children, before discussing things we consider more adult. It's about when to share that information

Clearly nothing is more adult about two moms. I don't think you've read my posts. You're having a completely different conversation.

0 Replies

Oh boy.

0 Replies

Yeah.

Gonna step out of this one.

If I thought I could say anything new, I might have more patience, but this is one subject/ issue that was really pretty exhaustively covered.

I mean, even in this new iteration I'd have to repeat myself. Before you said:

Lash wrote:

The very fact that they see plenty of those is why they don't have questions about them.

A child won't question what is common to them. When they see something uncommon to them, they ask questions--a new world is open to them. I don't think parents should be thrust into that new world with their children, until they think their child is ready. I don't think that choice should be taken from parents.

I'd already said:

sozobe wrote:

Seeing something new is not in itself particularly noteworthy or much of a catalyst -- they see new stuff all the time. They're kids, they're learning.

If you don't think it should have been censored, though, that was probably the main disagreement, (censor vs. not censor -- I agree with not-censor) happy to leave it there.

0 Replies

When my children saw new things, they were full of questions. Many parents want to postpone questions/discussions about sex until a certain age or maturity level.

But, we can leave it there.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

When my children saw new things, they were full of questions. Many parents want to postpone questions/discussions about sex until a certain age or maturity level.

The thing I never understood was: how does a child's potential question about seeing a kid with two mommies in a cartoon equate with the question being about sex?

"Mommy, that girl has two mommies!"
"Yup"
"Why? How? Etc?"
"Well, they love each other, and they take care of the girl together"

Love, yes, that comes into the question - you gotta explain that parents who love each other can be two women too. But sex?

<shrugs>

0 Replies

Oh, I just saw that Mesquite linked in an old post of mine that already said exactly the same.

(Wow, Mesquite, some digging! Very Happy

)

nimh wrote:

Lash wrote:
And, gay is sex. No matter how you want to deflect it. It defines how (with whom) someone has sex. There's no getting around it.

It's about LOVE. A straight man falls in love with women, a gay man falls in love with men. Thats pretty much about it. Sex is no more the fundamental basis of what a gay relationship or being gay is about than it is of what a straight relationship or being straight is about. It is no more a necessary element of explanation either. ("Those two men live together because they love each other. Kinda like your daddy loves your mum." See? No sex involved. I doubt one's five-year old would go, "oh do they have sex like you two do, mommy?")

0 Replies

How old were your children when they asked where babies came from, nimh?

0 Replies

WHOPPERS FOR JESUS

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know