Censorship and DD3's teacher... AIBU?

[NoNoNora]

Yesterday evening DD3's teacher called to voice her concerns about how appropriate the programmes we let her watch are. DD3 is ten and for all four DDs we haven't paid any attention to ratings, they'll watch what we watch and we won't question what they want to watch during their TV time (unless a fight breaks out between them), none of them are at all traumatised or have nightmares and they always voice their fears and/or leave the room if something is too much for them.
The latest craze at DD3's school is top trump cards and she took DD2's Buffy ones in last week (DD2 is at uni so DD3 has the run of her bedroom and belongings). As a family we all watch Buffy together and have done since it first started, we own the DVDs and the girls have grown up watching it. Of course there are things that the younger ones don't pick up on (i.e. much of the sixth season) but DP and I feel that it is a very positive programme for our girls to watch.
DD3's teacher did not agree with our view. She confiscated the cards for the day on Friday and then called me that evening. Apparently she was concerned that our older girls had been showing 'innapropriate' programmes to the younger ones. I explained that we watched Buffy as a family and I had given her permission to take the cards into school. She then proceeded to explain the importance to ratings and the problems with 'desensitising' children to violence and sex. I was flabbergasted and promised not to let DD3 take the cards into school again but maintained that I was doing nothing wrong in my parenting.

I can't be the only mum who thinks like this? DP is incredibly anti-censorship and wants to send her in with DD2's much more graphic 'Angel' cards on Monday, with a note to the (and I quote) "fascists".

quad DO NOT google Siberian film. I did

Faire Thanks.

I don't think you can compare Buffy to something like Scooby Doo though. The violence and monsters in Buffy aren't cartoonish - Buffy and her friends suffer real, sometimes hospitalising, injuries when they fight, and although Buffy heals fast, it doesn't stop her from being bloodied and sustaining serious injuries. She drowns at the end of the first season, nearly dies when Angel drains her blood, nearly breaks her arm in a fight at the beginning of season 4, has her neck snapped in an alternate universe episode, is shot in season 6 ... She is traumatised by her resurrection experience and after she is first called as the Slayer.

Sympathetic characters are murdered, one by having her neck snapped, one by having her throat slashed and another by being shot. There are a couple of torture scenes. A friend has his eye gouged out, etc. etc.

Now sometimes the violence is played for grim laughs, like when Angelus tortures Giles, but sometimes it is genuinely shocking. There's an episode in a later season where Anya has got her vengeance demon job back and slaughters an entire house full of innocent college students. There's the aforementioned attempted rape, and other misogynistic violence in 6 and 7. Lots of it happens in everyday settings like a school.

I think the thing with Buffy is that because the dialogue is funny, and the monsters are a bit hokey in the first couple of seasons, and it sends up teen/pop culture, you can slip into thinking that it's a lot less emotionally challenging than it actually is. And I'm not saying this to bash the show or single it out for particular criticism - as you can probably tell, I really really love it. But it's a good example of having themes that are really quite adult and best appreciated by older teens and above.

How on earth do people dream up these ideas!

That's what always plays on my mind rather than seeing the violence itself.

Wheresmy - I see where you're coming from now. When DD had to start going to breakfast club 1 term into Reception year I was a bit surprised to discover they were watching Scooby Doo DVD's - mainly because she had always been scared of it at home, and she is one of the oldest in the year!

Watching it with a group of other children soon cured her of that .

"I haven't read the whole thread, but I'm missing the part where OP has said she shows her children torture porn. Did she actually admit that?"

She said she would show them it if they asked. But she admitted to showing them a lot of TV shows that are much more adult than Buffy.

Problem is it's often only hours or days after they've seen something disturbing on TV that they get hit by it, and maybe hit hard. We've had lots of this with Dr. Who: they beg to watch it, they seem only a little nervous while it's on & soon after, but then we'll have several nights of "I can't sleep!!" complaints because they can't get the scary parts out of their minds. Sometimes weeks later the fears come out.

And I have no patience to deal with their issues because I'm just very grumpy at bedtimes.

I get fed up of having to say to DC "I don't care what stupidity other parents get up to, YOU aren't allowed to do/watch that." Would be nice if even just a few parents would get up to less stupidity.

Wow - I think a lot of posters need to revisit the 'Mumsnet's Talk Guidelines' and stop being so aggressive; whatever you're watching is clearly not having a good impact on you.
The suggestion that the OP is abusing or neglecting her children is ignorant and offensive and the idea that her choice of parenting style has caused a complex health disorder is abhorrent (I see that many of these posts were late last night and I hope that in the cold light of day and when the Saturday night vino has worn off you feel ashamed of yourselves). As many of the more rational voices on this thread have expressed there are a myriad of scary things out there from the 'Horror Porn' (which I'm surprised so many are experts in) to shadows in the corner of the nursery. Soap operas are packed with more disturbing and adult themes than Buffy et al deals with; constant story-lines of rape, murder, abuse, et cetra - yet many parents will allow their children to watch these unsupervised. Music videos can be very damaging (IMHO) to girls' self-image and yet we allow their heads to be pumped full of them. Shakespeare is packed with black-magic, rape, murder, sex and debauchery and yet is often taught at primary. SO lets all grow up and realise that we all hold different opinions on how to raise children and just because someone's is different to your's it does not make them a child abuser.
NoNoNora (OP) - keep doing what you're doing and if it's done with love you'll not be going far wrong.

My DD used to go to school with at least two children whose parents had the same distorted thinking as you OP, and intelligence and maturity weren't their defining features.

Saying their behaviour was disturbing would be an understatement.

Sorry I can't find who said it, but I agree it's similar to showing children graphic violence to groom them into being desensitised to their impending abuse (and I'm not talking about Buffy).

You taking what your children see so lightly is sinister, it's as though you're having a teenage strop against the safeguards put there for your children's benefit regardless of the risks to them.

The safeguards are there to protect children from parents like you.

Condemning another parent doesn't make me feel comfortable, but you and your husbands crusade against the big brother state is worryingly misplaced.

Quiet I would agree with your points about all the various images in the media and the potential harm to children exposed to them. However, I think you are missing the point.

OP does not censor her childrens' viewing. She will allow them to watch whatever they like and when (or indeed if) they show signs of distress, she will take measures to protect them.

Posters are pointing out that this is too late. The censoring is important to protect children from those images in the first place.

The fact that her daughter has a mental health issue has only been mentioned because OP herself insisted that it was perfectly harmless and could have no emotional impact on the children. Her dd's eating disorder could be as a result of emotional damage at a young age but OP does not seem to be able to understand this.

OP has said that she would let her 6 and 10 year old watch torture porn. This is abuse and/or neglect. By law.

In view of this, do you still think this is good advice:

NoNoNora (OP) - keep doing what you're doing and if it's done with love you'll not be going far wrong

Calling posters ignorant and offensive for telling the truth is ignorant and offensive Quietvoice.

I've just posted so not a drop of vino in sight, and I can't see any reason for posters to be ashamed of telling the OP she's wrong when she is.

Children being naturally worried about what's under the bed in the dark, Shakespeare and music videos are a world away from saying you'd let children watch the film Saw, and if you'd ever seen any of the series of films, you'd agree.

Have you seen it Quietvoice? Would you show it to your 10 YO child if they asked?

I want to believe the OP hasn't seen it, because that's the only valid reason anyone could have for arguing the toss about letting a child see such revolting images.

You say your children are desensitized like its a good thing OP. Do you honestly not realise the damage you have already done?

Sitting down to "The Human Centepede" as a family. Hmm
"Dad why is he pooing in that Woman's mouth?"
"Ah great I know let's spark a discussion about scat play" I really live how these movies generate debate for our family!

Quietvoice I have said that I think the OP's parenting is dangerous and irresponsible and I haven't posted anything under the influence of alcohol. It is ignorant and insulting of you to suggest that genuinely held opinions are just drunken rants. I think your advice for her to carry on doing what she's doing is very poor advice.

Fairenuff - exposing children to 'torture porn' would be abuse but I think OP's point (which was made after a torrent of abuse and when she had been somewhat backed into a corner) was that, while she hasn't allowed her children to watch this, she believes that, rather than banning them from watching it, they should have a discussion about it and that the children would decide to censor themselves.
Keeping a child wrapped in cotton wool does not stop him hurting himself, allowing him to fall over in a relatively controlled environment, does.

So, yes, I stand by my advice.

Quiet children cannot censor themselves! That's the point. It is the parents' responsibility to keep them safe from harmful images.

How can a 6 year old know what porn is, or torture, or horror, or rape?

How can adults like you not understand this?

Battleship, ZigZag, et al.
I respect and would defend to the hilt your right to have different parenting styles and opinions to my own.
Your attacks on her and those who support her are, however, unnecessary. If you genuinely feel that anyone is acting illegally (be it be abuse, neglect or grooming) then this should be reported to Mumsnet who would, I'm sure, report it to the relevant authorities and remove the thread. If, hover, you are simply saying that you disagree with people then that's great; that's what this forum is for but let's keep accusations of abuse, et cetra off the table.
Thanks all!

Quiet the children cannot censor themselves as they lack the emotional skills at ten and six regardless of intelligence.

Several years ago,when DS2 was about 7 we watched Jurassic Park on video as a family. I thought he would love it as he loved dinosaurs, at the time. A few days later he admitted that it had left him petrified, but he said nothing at the time.
It left him unable to watch the BBC's walking with Dinosaurs whe that was on. He's 12 now. He still can't bring himself to watch Jurassic Park ever again. I feel really bad that I exposed him to something that left him traumatised.

If the OP let a 6 or 10 YO watch a film like Saw, it would be abusive Quietvoice.

Are you saying it would be alright for the OP to do that?

Have you seen the film?

Quiet who is ignorant here? There are child protection laws in place to stop people like OP being able to make stupid and dangerous decisions like discussing torture porn and whether or not they should watch it. FFS! I cannot believe that even requires spelling out!

Why not let your children be children OP? They'll be adults for so long, they can talk about the grown-up issues raised in these sorts of shows when they're 15, 21, and when they're 30, 40. You've got ages and ages for that sort of thing.

I just don't understand the need. The rush.

And if you're going to be patronising at least make sure you're well informed. Like those posters you're disagreeing with!