Well, back then neither was living your entire life in a fishing village in the baltic not knowing how to read or write. It doesn't mean it is useful or a lost and better state of being.
Is Having Sex in Front of your Children Child Abuse?
- Thread starter BvBPL
- Start date
Well, back then neither was living your entire life in a fishing village in the baltic not knowing how to read or write. It doesn't mean it is useful or a lost and better state of being.
H4run
Deity
^Yeah, i thought that >2 centuries would be enough to show you imagine things without any tie to our own reality. (this came up a bit more hostile than i intend it to, but the emphasis is on time, Oda)
Even if one wants to go with Freud (due to the period; his book on dreams was written in 1899 anyway), the historical context is one utterly against the view that children were normally brought into sexuality prior to adolescence. Experimenting with children is very dangerous at the best of times, let alone with obliviousness which i have to suppose is a prerequisite for any parents so as to have sex infront of their kids.
This is exactly what I felt when I read this thread, I feel like reading post of childless adult or an adult who just get a child, who want to give some experimental freedom and transparency to the child without considering the consequences. Pretty much like Adam Sandler movie Big Daddy, nearly identical.
I don't know, do you think that maybe you are creating an exception for yourself smoking just because you want to smoke? Isn't smoking "nearly absent in the pre-puberty child world"? Isn't smoking something that "shouldn't enter their world"? Wouldn't "exposing them earlier" to smoking harm their development? They should busy playing rather than "getting acquainted with, and thinking about" smoking right?
I mean how can a parent smoke in front of their children? What for? What is the benefit? Wouldn't you consider showing kids how to smoke "gross and perverted?" What do you think of parents who teach smoking to their early puberty child by doing it in front of them? Would you call it abusive?
Isn't there a lot of research regarding the harm of early exposure of children to smoking, both physically and psychologically?
Isn't the urge to smoke a strong addictive force for adult? Wouldn't it be even more so for a child? Wouldn't early exposure to smoking make them prone to early smoking themselves? Isn't underage smoking a gateway practice that can lead to other high risk behaviors like alcohol and drug use?
Again, I'm not saying that people should have sex in front of their kids. What I am saying is that I can't see why smoking in front of your kids is any less harmful. So why is smoking in front of your kids OK, but sex in front of them means you get arrested? Why the obsession with sex?
H4run
Deity
Using the same bedroom and bed not vice versa adult having sex infront of their children. There might be some account (which I pretty much oblivious to, I would like to know) that stating parent do made love infront of their children but unless it also state such act is common is not proving anything beside it happen to some specific case.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Two centuries can't show me to "imagine things without any relation to reality" if I'm talking about things that happened more than two centuries ago. That you would even attempt it when I made it clear I referred to pre-industrial society says an unfortunate lot about you.
Nor is my point that "everyone in the same room" is a useful state of being. Just that, contrary to some assertions in this thread, the hard border between children and sexual activities is, in fact, a fairly new development in historical terms (in historical terms meaning on a scale of milleniums).
That doesn't make the existence of the barrier wrong (or right) ; it just means the existence of the barrier is not a fundamental truth of childhood and human existence.
Haroon - and have you made a case study of the matter? Have you looked into the accounts of the time? Or are you just imagining that there can't be that many accounts because it doesn'T fit your worldview and you can't bring yourself to believe that the past was now how you imagine it to be?
Nor is my point that "everyone in the same room" is a useful state of being. Just that, contrary to some assertions in this thread, the hard border between children and sexual activities is, in fact, a fairly new development in historical terms (in historical terms meaning on a scale of milleniums).
That doesn't make the existence of the barrier wrong (or right) ; it just means the existence of the barrier is not a fundamental truth of childhood and human existence.
Haroon - and have you made a case study of the matter? Have you looked into the accounts of the time? Or are you just imagining that there can't be that many accounts because it doesn'T fit your worldview and you can't bring yourself to believe that the past was now how you imagine it to be?
H4run
Deity
Good argument, yes I really get what you mean. I mean the childs do get expose of the things that is not for them, like driving cars for example, but can we use the argument that every movie that involve someone driving should be rated R or at least PG because someone below 17 years is not a permissible age for driving car? But can we say some film that contain an explicit form of sexual activity should be categorized as "R"? The reality that driving a car with sex is a two unequal variable make the answer of the question obvious. The same goes with cigarette.
I don't see sex as inherently bad, however it is a strong stimulant unlike cigarette, how strong sex is in comparison with other variable can be known on how deep it is occupy the adult mind. Can you imagine if a child get an early exposure of sex, the way child precieve it is stronger than that of adult, it is a shock for them, while the adult have a way to cope with the stimulant the child not.
On a scale of milleniums? Oh ok. I thought the thread aspired for a bit less over-generalisation. 2 centuries are a rather long time, although we could always bring the migrations of organisms from the sea into the scope as well instead of settling just for the last few thousands of years?
H4run
Deity
can we say if the things is not mention then it mean the things is not exist? I mean if there is no explicit account that stating the child in whatever age is well expose with their parent sexual activity then it mean such thing is not happen, also it is not my job to prove that the child is not get expose with such activity on that period, in contrary the burden of proving should be carry by those who claim it. I never claim that I defending the prevalent practice of the old, however you claim that the taboo of child exposure to sexuality is actually a new thing that is not the case in the pre-modern European area, so the responsibility of giving reference is in your side.
In my case I strongly believe that child shouldn't get exposes with early sexual exposure not because such practice is taboo according to our society today (relatively) but I always re-iterated that I believe that because sexuality it is not the developmental task for children in their pre-sexual maturity.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Two centuries may be a rather long time, but it'S ridiculous to claim that how humanity has behaved for two centuries is in any way representative of "normal" human behavior, if evidence shows they didn't behave that way for the previous several centuries.
The point, which remains, is this: claiming that "children must be protected from sex" is a universal rule of human societies is blatantly false.
Haroon: If an account of the middle ages doesn't mention people raising pigs, is that evidence people in the middle ages didn't raise pigs?
Of course not. Absence of evidence (in a specific text) is not evidence of absence - especially not when there *is* evidence of sexuality being an open matter in other texts.
The point, which remains, is this: claiming that "children must be protected from sex" is a universal rule of human societies is blatantly false.
Haroon: If an account of the middle ages doesn't mention people raising pigs, is that evidence people in the middle ages didn't raise pigs?
Of course not. Absence of evidence (in a specific text) is not evidence of absence - especially not when there *is* evidence of sexuality being an open matter in other texts.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
I dunno man. I didn't grow up pre-industrial or whatever you guys are going on about, but I knew what the sheep and the dogs did. My reaction to the realization that my parents did this too, granted not by walking in on them, was pretty much "ewew gross! Ignoreignoreignore."
Cigarettes though. Those I couldn't ignore for 12 years. I haven't picked one up for 17 months. I still can't ignore them. I still want them. Even though I guarantee you if I picked one up I would immediately light it on fire and draw hard enough on it to either make myself throw up, have diarrhea, or at the very least want to do both.
I'd rather my son walked in on me with his mom than catch me smoking. I hope he forgets that I did. I hope it stays that I did.
H4run
Deity
I think they do have an account of people eating and raising pigs during medieval Europe, however if say, Hubahuba kingdom that located in some remote Southeast Asia Island, don't have any account that their ancestor raising or eating pigs in the past, posing the question like "do they raise pigs in the past?" force fitting things that is not there, or searching something that is not lost to begin with.
As I say Oda, can we assume that such account if it is exist it only for specific case? or why should we assume such practice is widely acceptable if there is no such thing mentioning it? I'm not well acquittance with European history, so I just digging it from what you had said.
@Farm Boy
That's tough, I don't want to sound like a jerk to you, but if I can guess are you 90s and below generation? Because growing up as a teenager at that time smoking is not only acceptable but also somekind of "cool", we tend to smoke because of that, or to impress girls (I remember many of the girl at that time say they prefer a boy that is smoking than not smoking, something that makes you shake your head today), it is not actually because of our parents but because of that prestige and sense of masculineness, independence, rebellious, mature, and other images. Now the smoker rate among the teenager are dropping, even though their parents who grow at 90s keep on smoking cigarette, because now if you are a smoker people will not treat you as cool but they will treat you like social outcast.
It is not the picture that seeing your father or your friends smoking the one that makes cigarette a strong stimulant, actually no one in their right mind even love the taste of cigarette when the first time they taste it, but it is the addiction that we suffer later on that turn cigarette into a monster.
Yes quit smoking is so so hard, I quit everything even alcohol but not cigarette. You are in good place right now never look back.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Oh you're not a jerk for speculating on age, don't worry about that. I'm 35. I remember Joe Camel before the regulations killed him and I remember the Marlboro Man before smoking killed what, like 4 of them?
Smoking popularity is fading off. But it still has the cache of something you're not really supposed to do, especially out away from the cores of our nattering, meddling, and moralizing arsewads. Country kids still smoke more than their urban peers and they chew. Because screw those guys that's why. It's an identity. More of the 30 year old guys that I know who still smoke had dads that smoked than not. More of the guys that I know who smoked and their dads didn't or had quit, have quit now that they have sons. The impact sticks.
Smoking popularity is fading off. But it still has the cache of something you're not really supposed to do, especially out away from the cores of our nattering, meddling, and moralizing arsewads. Country kids still smoke more than their urban peers and they chew. Because screw those guys that's why. It's an identity. More of the 30 year old guys that I know who still smoke had dads that smoked than not. More of the guys that I know who smoked and their dads didn't or had quit, have quit now that they have sons. The impact sticks.
I agree that smoking is definitely, in a lot of respects, a Country Thing, or at least a Farm Thing. But I don't know that all that many people consciously couch it in terms of differentiating themselves from City People. Some do, clearly, but I think a lot more of it has to do with the second part of the quoted post. Other people - parents, friends - in the country do it. And smokers encounter much less resistance from people in the country (both because they're acculturated to it and because it's easier to avoid a smoker if you don't want to deal with their smoke). I'm not a smoker and I don't dip, but I didn't give people much crap for it because it's open air and I can always, y'know, move - although there's one guy who uses an empty Coke bottle as a spittoon, and he keeps it in his truck's cup holder as if it were a real Coke bottle, and I get on his case about that, because that's disgusting.
Then again, in the country you tend to have more call to do things where smoking is far more dangerous than anywhere else - like, say, handling open cans of fuel - but people smoke anyway. That's probably down to people not caring.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
I dunno. You're probably right. I am getting older and less in touch. I just had a hard time wrapping my head around it myself, I mean Northern Illinois doesn't exactly win the "country cred" contest. For example, the time I was able to attend the National FFA convention I was surprised by how into showing off their skoal a lot of the students were. And hell, I was smoking Swisher Sweets at the time. I think the take the cake moment was when several dozen managed to coordinate a glow-in-the-dark SKOAL fashioned out of wristbands in the stands at the rodeo.
It does have an element of "I'm out here minding my own business, why don't you do the same?" to it I think generally makes for poor conversation. Especially since most non-jerkhole smokers are going to move or put it out if somebody politely requests that they do so. But if you tell them not to, they're still going to sneak around the barn or hide in their truck and come back.
Akka
Moody old mage.
I'd say just looking at the average bridal age from the times is enough to notice that people had very different perspective about children and sex (notice that not only they married much earlier, but puberty also happened later).
I'm shocked to learn I'm actually older than you 0_o
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
edit: I just realized that this is an RD thread, so I have nothing to add. But, let me say, that age sounds about right to me
For your consideration... GIGANTIC... like 100 foot tall Ad in Times Square... I mean... she's butt naked with her hands down his drawers and on his junk... Bear in mind that this is pretty normal... and just one example.
I don't think the kids missed that one... and what they see on network TV, let alone cable, is even more sexytime than this Ad. They see alot more sex than smoking. You can't even smoke in Ads anymore.
For your consideration... GIGANTIC... like 100 foot tall Ad in Times Square... I mean... she's butt naked with her hands down his drawers and on his junk... Bear in mind that this is pretty normal... and just one example.
I don't think the kids missed that one... and what they see on network TV, let alone cable, is even more sexytime than this Ad. They see alot more sex than smoking. You can't even smoke in Ads anymore.
I thought the thread is about pre-adolescents watching their parents having sex, not a photo of mostly naked strangers touching each other.
Similar threads
