to object to the idea of "keeping children innocent."

[cailindana]

I have seen on a few threads here and in rl the idea that by not telling children about sex, rape, HIV etc that you are keeping them "innocent."

What is the opposite of innocent?
Was I the opposite of innocent because I knew about rape when I was 6, because I was raped?

IMO the notion of keeping children innocent by keeping them in the dark about sex is a paedophile's dream. How could I tell anyone about what happened to me when I had no words to explain it?

It's not innocence, it's ignorance. There is absolutely nothing wrong or dirty or shameful about sex and there is no reason children shouldn't know about it. They'll know plenty about it from their peers anyway, much of it incorrect. Also, unfortunately, they need to know (IN AN AGE APPROPRIATE WAY - I shout this before I'm asked whether children should watch porn) about the darker side of sex and the ways in which people might hurt them.

A natural normal curiosity about their own bodies and the way they work and will change should not be met with embarrassment and lies, as that will only lead children to seek their information elsewhere, possibly from dangerous sources.

AIBU?

Sarky! Not scary. :o

Molly - I would agree with that if my DCs were with me 24/7. However they're not, they're at school, out with friends, they talk, and they talk about sex. I would far rather they heard it from me first. There's also the possibility that they may never show any curiosity, my eldest still hasn't at 10. However he is quite open to discussing it when I bring it up.

I'm so sorry for your awful experience OP. I agree with you that children should have their questions answered truthfully and at an age appropriate level. Sex is nothing to be ashamed of and should be explained properly, we haven't got quite as far as the mechanics yet but I don't think it will be too long. My DDs are 4 (twins) and I have always told them the real names for body parts, my DD asked what her clitoris was for so I kept it simple and explained it was for 'fun'! We have also covered the privacy and pants rule and they both know not to keep secrets. I protect them from nasty aspects of the news that they don't need to know about but I never lie to them and will continue to address the issues as they come up to make sure they have the confidence to stand up for themselves. So no YANBU OP.

I will of course have 'The Talk' one day, every parent should but my point is that at 7 years old it isn't exactly pressing. Every child is different after all so it's really up to the parents to decide if they (the child) are ready or not.

If DS1 has heard any discussions about sex from his friends it has completely gone over his head, as I said up thread he wouldn't be able to keep that to himself at home otherwise, that's just how he is.

I discovered that DS (age 7, ASD) had been playing GTA and Call of Duty at a friend's house. It didn't come up until I asked a direct question. I'm not sure if he didn't mention it because it genuinely didn't occur to him, or if he knew I would not be happy (we've discussed age certs on games and movies before). All he knew, because I hadn't forbidden either game by name, was that his friend was allowed to play it so it was alright.

My point is, if someone gives an otherwise "innocent" child a plausible explanation for some aspect of existence, they tend to accept it without question if they've no context for it. Babies are brought by the stork? It'll be our little secret? A little knowledge arms your child for the world.

My arsehole of a brother once let DS play COD and it was one of the first thing DS told me when I picked him up.

Cue much fuming from me and much protesting from DB

'I only let him throw some grenades about!'

DS: 'I blew up bins mummy!'

As I said, they are all different. Once DS get's an idea in his head he doesn't stop until he knows all about it.

I'm not saying all of this to be argumentative btw, but it's funny you said that as DS is x box mad the COD thing has been a bugaboo of mine.

I fucking hate those games Have had similar arguments with my DBros.

They drive me bananas.

Killing cows in Minecraft is already too much for me, I'm always telling him to pick mushrooms. :o

Anyone would have to explain exactly what they mean by "keeping children innocent" because it's such a broad term and means different things to different people.

My children who are between 7 and 9 know about keeping body parts private, they know about periods, they know how babies are made and how they come out. They know boys like girls and boys like boys and girls like girls, depending on the individual and that that is OK. They know there is poverty in the world and that sometimes very sad things happen (planes getting shot down, earthquakes etc) that involve innocent people dying.

They don't know about anal sex or rape or threesomes or child prostitution or beheadings or a myriad of other things that I think are inappropriate and to be discussed at a time of my choosing.

I'm afraid I haven't read the whole thread.

Cailin - YANBU. I'm a namechanger and read many of your posts over the years. So sorry for your awful childhood . Brave thread too - well done.

As I'm sure many have said, children should learn about sex, bodies and boundaries from a very early age...but with age appropriateness.

It's common sense to tell them the basics then keep building and answering questions as they get older.

I pretty much answer any questions whether it's 'what a blow job', 'what's a wet dream' or 'do periods hurt'?

They'll ask what they are ready to learn about.

It's a fantastic opportunity when they ask about these slang-y terms to discuss sexism and sexual abuse as they get a bit older.

At the end of the day a parent should do what they think is best, it stops at them. They know how much their child can understand and how much information they want to give at that stage. Information is key, but also not a deluge of information that it can overwhelm a child either. I think that the important thing is that a child knows that they can tell a trusted adult if they are being hurt or asked to do things that hurt them or make them sad or upset.

I echo what However says above. Just the way I am with my 2 (similar ages).

Molly, I would worry about the concept of "The Talk." That implies that sex is an Oh So Serious Subject that you must sit down and inform him about one fateful day. My argument is that you build it up slowly, just with bits of information as you go along, rather than leaving it all to one "Talk," same as you do with all other aspects of life. By making it separate and different you are automatically indicating that it's not a subject that can be brought up easily, as and when it is needed. It indicates that you will talk about it once then never again.

Ive just been giving her bits of information here and there and when shes asked. But the PANTS thing, because of her dev delay and understanding she just wont understand. Its abstract concepts that she cannot see or feel that she cannot grasp. When she does show an awareness, I will tell her.

Sex Ed at 6 should surely just be building on what you have been teaching from birth about bodily autonomy? All the messages about, 'No, you don't have to kiss Granny, if you don't want to' 'No, you don't have to cuddle up, it's up to you' that you give your child teaches that child about the concept of consent. Along with the gentle hands, gentle words, no secrets thing. The whole PANTS idea isn't going to be terribly effective if you've taught your child that they have to negate their consent to being touched in ways they didn't want with people you trust. Most CSA is committed by people, usually men, who are known to and trusted by the child's parents after all.

This has nothing whatever to do with 'stealing innocence' it has to do with raising girls who know that their right to withhold consent should be respected and boy that consent is conditional and not consented must be respected. It teaches both sexes that they are valuable and worthy of being listened to and respected.

I think there is a level of it varies from child to child. My Son needed to know some strangers might take him away and not let him come back to mummy as he would walk off with anyone.

He knows certain things about pregnancy. I taught him that babies come out a special hole when my friend was pregnant but then another friend was pregnant and had C section so we had to talk about that. It turned out about a year later he thought the hole was between my boobs. so he was told where hole was. I base what is factual but a level appropriate to him.

He knows he can walk around naked in front of me but must cover up when other people around as he has private bits. He knows no one is allowed to touch his private parts.

At 7 I don't think he needs to know anymore.

There are people who have experienced awful situations on this thread I haad my own but I still want my son to learn about such things at an age appropriate for him

Oh dear I made dd kiss granny and I was made myself too. But is she really did not want to give relatives a kiss or a hug I dont make her. It border on politeness. DD 7 isent NT which makes things tricky, I have to go by her cue. Though she asked where she came from, I told her daddy planted a seed in mummy, it went in mummies egg and grew into you, then you came out of mummies tummy when you finished growing. Which is true.

What is TAAT, its not in the acronyms

Pre-school, the minimum they should know is actual body part names, and privacy rights, and no secrets. Beyond that, and through most of primary school, my system was, if they asked, to get them to explain why they were asking, the story this far so to speak. Then i corrected the misunderstood stuff and added details as needed. dd1 always seemed to ask these questions in the car, i think the lack of eye contact helped. Dd2 asked me far less, partly because she often heard these conversations, partly because she could ask her sister.

The harder part, and i think this is where many parents hide behind preserving innocence, is moving from the with practical knowledge needed for self-care as a child, to the reapplication of that knowledge to flirting, dating, and sex. Teaching NO is the easy part. Teaching body parts and maintenance like birth control is also relatively straightforward. Teaching YES gets neglected.

Lately, in the US, much has been made of creating a culture of consent, i didnt know to call it that, but it was what i was trying to convey with my DDs, and now my DS. Kids shouldnt arrive at dating age, even the cute earliest stage of holding hands and sitting together at lunch time, without a framework of how to ask for actions, how to accept or refuse, and how to react to being accepted or refused. It may seem that sort of thing would have been covered re: toys, good sportsmanship, plain old manners but it seems to be IME that all that stuff applies to dating and sex needs to be actually taught too. And by the way, be prepared for your partners not to know that and be awkward about sex in all kinds of ways they arent otherwise.

The thing that strikes me, OP, is that you told your mum. As did another poster who talked about experiencing sexual assault as a child. The issue was that your mums couldn't deal with that knowledge / conversation.

So the mechanics of what we tell our children and how, and when, is secondary to how we listen, perhaps? And how ready we are to talk when we perceive them to be 'too young'? I wonder if all this heated debate about what age is appropriate is distracting from the point that all parents need to think about how they react to such topics and ensuring they are always approachable.

Just a thought. I was much older when I experienced sexual assault, so I knew about sex, but I would still never have told my mum. She too would have turned away, not wanted to listen, told me to get over it - I reckon that attitude is much commoner among mums than perhaps any parent wants to admit to themselves.

You make a good point Pomeral. I told my mum when I was 19, partly because I hadn't been able to pinpoint what had happened up until that point and partly because I had known all along she wouldn't be interested. She never said it directly but it was clear that sex was a taboo subject in our house. She did have The Talk with us when we were about 12 but we knew everything by then and it was pointless plus it was so awkward and stilted that all we learned is not to talk to her about these things. If she had created a culture where sexual topics were talked about openly I could have told her a lot sooner, and perhaps she would have been more open about it. As it was, her attitude was that sexual abuse happens to every girl, you just have to put up with it and "not let it ruin your life." So really it was never going to be the case that she helped or listened to me.

It's a bit dismaying the number of people who think that knowing the facts of life (to use that coy little phrase) destroys the innocence if children. I can't get with that at all. Cruelty and abuse are what destroy innocence. Kids can know the facts of life and play sweetly with their tea sets and balloons, ride their bikes, get excited about nice treats and have a carefree time. Knowing how babies are made isn't making them into gritty proto adult drug addicted prostitutes.

My mother was told nothing. At all. So she was an innocent child. When she got her first period she thought her insides were falling out. That's how you terrify and traumatize a child, keeping them ignorant like that. She didn't let me experience that, and when I got mine, I knew exactly what was happening and I wasn't in the least scared or worried.

I agree with the OP, information knowledge doesn't mean loss of innocence.

I agree Apocalypse.

I do agree apocolypse. My mum did the same, the week before I started my periods at 13, I asked my mum about it. She told me that I did not need to know, when I started a week later, I thought yes my insides were falling out and I was heamorraging. I won't do that to dd, I am open and honest with her despite her SN.

bellarations you are a horrible fucking excuse for a human