I just saw this movie and found it to be very entertaining and imaginative. But, I also learned there's a lot of controversy because it was written by an athiest and "supposedly" espouses the killing of God. Although I certainly didn't see even a hint of it in the movie, I'm wondering why someone would want to boycott a movie just because it may contain a theme that may not coincide with their own. I certainly don't condone killing but look how many movies out there are rife with murder.
To me, this was a fantasy movie and I viewed it much like the Harry Potter/Lord of the Rings films, even though it takes place in a completely different galaxy. And I didn't understand parents who would not let their kids see the Harry Potter movies/books because of "magic."
> I just saw this movie and found it to be very entertaining and > imaginative. But, I also learned there's a lot of controversy because > it was written by an athiest and "supposedly" espouses the killing of > God. Although I certainly didn't see even a hint of it in the movie, > I'm wondering why someone would want to boycott a movie just because > it may contain a theme that may not coincide with their own. I > certainly don't condone killing but look how many movies out there are > rife with murder.
> To me, this was a fantasy movie and I viewed it much like the Harry > Potter/Lord of the Rings films, even though it takes place in a > completely different galaxy. And I didn't understand parents who > would not let their kids see the Harry Potter movies/books because of > "magic."
> Any thoughts?
> Bonbon
I heard they took out any references to god/atheism, etc. in the movie.
But yeah, I hate when a group tries to speak out or censor something for everyone. You don't want to see it? Fine. Save your money. Maybe I don't mind spending mine on it.
It is my understanding that even though the movie espouses the killing of God, children will be intrigued with the movie and then want to read his books, much like they did with the other books mentioned therefore exposing them to atheism.
>> I just saw this movie and found it to be very entertaining and >> imaginative. But, I also learned there's a lot of controversy because >> it was written by an athiest and "supposedly" espouses the killing of >> God. Although I certainly didn't see even a hint of it in the movie, >> I'm wondering why someone would want to boycott a movie just because >> it may contain a theme that may not coincide with their own. I >> certainly don't condone killing but look how many movies out there are >> rife with murder.
>> To me, this was a fantasy movie and I viewed it much like the Harry >> Potter/Lord of the Rings films, even though it takes place in a >> completely different galaxy. And I didn't understand parents who >> would not let their kids see the Harry Potter movies/books because of >> "magic."
>> Any thoughts?
>> Bonbon
> I heard they took out any references to god/atheism, etc. in the movie.
> But yeah, I hate when a group tries to speak out or censor something for > everyone. You don't want to see it? Fine. Save your money. Maybe I > don't mind spending mine on it.
> It is my understanding that even though the movie espouses the killing of > God, children will be intrigued with the movie and then want to read his > books, much like they did with the other books mentioned therefore exposing > them to atheism.
Yeah, God forbid we let them see (or read) something contrary to what their parents believe. Sheesh, what is going to happen to this world?
I asked the single Jewish mother next door how she explains all the Christmas and Santa stuff in the stores and on TV to her young daughter. She said simply that she tells her some people believe one way, we believe another. That's pretty simple if you ask me. But I guess athiests are not allowed to have their beliefs or express them. Now we have to have someone else do our thinking for us?
I didn't say that children shouldn't see the movie or read about atheism. I was just explaining what I have head about the controversy regarding the movie. Atheist have the right to their opinions and beliefs. My opinion...they're going to hell. But "God forbid" me having the right to express my beliefs!
> It is my understanding that even though the movie espouses the killing of > God, children will be intrigued with the movie and then want to read his > books, much like they did with the other books mentioned therefore > exposing > them to atheism.
Yeah, God forbid we let them see (or read) something contrary to what their parents believe. Sheesh, what is going to happen to this world?
I asked the single Jewish mother next door how she explains all the Christmas and Santa stuff in the stores and on TV to her young daughter. She said simply that she tells her some people believe one way, we believe another. That's pretty simple if you ask me. But I guess athiests are not allowed to have their beliefs or express them. Now we have to have someone else do our thinking for us?
> Yeah, God forbid we let them see (or read) something contrary to what > their parents believe.
Well, that's what parents are for. They're not their children's friends; they are their children's protectors.
And I'm going to go back to your comment about Harry Potter to try and help clarify the position of some people, like myself, who do not allow their children, nieces, nephews, or themselves, to watch or read Harry Potter. My problem with Harry Potter, as opposed to The Wizard of Oz or The Chronicles of Narnia, is not the magic in and of itself, but the fact that the wizards, and witches and warlocks of the books and movies are presented as "good characters" who just happen to use spells, magic, witchcraft and other Pagan rites and rituals, whereas in films of the past, the bad characters were almost always the ones exclusively using such methods.
If you're a Pagan, Harry Potter is probably an icon or role model for you, because it's showing your beliefs, and your causes in a positive light. But from my point of view, witchcraft, spells, etc....are not anything positive and go against Christianity and it's beliefs.
Where I draw the line is in trying to picket movie theaters, book stores, or other venues, and/or trying to block access to these venues so that other people can't partake. I'm pro-life, but I don't picket abortion clinics or kill abortion doctors. People should have the right to make their own decisions, even if it's the wrong decision.
> But I guess athiests are not allowed to have their beliefs or express > them.
Well, that's the point. They don't have any beliefs to express. They don't believe in anything. And I won't use this post to express any specific theology other than to say that a person who can't look around them and immediately see evidence of creation by a higher, more intelligent being is simply a person who doesn't want to accept that they were created by a God. It's mathmatically and statistically impossible for life on this planet to have merely evolved by happenstance. Hence, someone, or some thing, must have created it.
------------------------------------- Icebreaker "But Jerri, everybody says that you're a- " "I like the pole and the hole, and right now i'm as moist as a snack cake down there."
>> Yeah, God forbid we let them see (or read) something contrary to what >> their parents believe.
> Well, that's what parents are for. They're not their children's friends; > they are their children's protectors.
> And I'm going to go back to your comment about Harry Potter to try and > help clarify the position of some people, like myself, who do not allow > their children, nieces, nephews, or themselves, to watch or read Harry > Potter. My problem with Harry Potter, as opposed to The Wizard of Oz or > The Chronicles of Narnia, is not the magic in and of itself, but the fact > that the wizards, and witches and warlocks of the books and movies are > presented as "good characters" who just happen to use spells, magic, > witchcraft and other Pagan rites and rituals, whereas in films of the > past, the bad characters were almost always the ones exclusively using > such methods.
> If you're a Pagan, Harry Potter is probably an icon or role model for you, > because it's showing your beliefs, and your causes in a positive light. > But from my point of view, witchcraft, spells, etc....are not anything > positive and go against Christianity and it's beliefs.
> Where I draw the line is in trying to picket movie theaters, book stores, > or other venues, and/or trying to block access to these venues so that > other people can't partake. I'm pro-life, but I don't picket abortion > clinics or kill abortion doctors. People should have the right to make > their own decisions, even if it's the wrong decision.
>> But I guess athiests are not allowed to have their beliefs or express >> them.
> Well, that's the point. They don't have any beliefs to express. They don't > believe in anything. And I won't use this post to express any specific > theology other than to say that a person who can't look around them and > immediately see evidence of creation by a higher, more intelligent being > is simply a person who doesn't want to accept that they were created by a > God. It's mathmatically and statistically impossible for life on this > planet to have merely evolved by happenstance. Hence, someone, or some > thing, must have created it.
> ------------------------------------- > Icebreaker > "But Jerri, everybody says that you're a- " > "I like the pole and the hole, and right now i'm as moist as a snack cake > down there."
>> Yeah, God forbid we let them see (or read) something contrary to what >> their parents believe.
> Well, that's what parents are for. They're not their children's friends; > they are their children's protectors.
> And I'm going to go back to your comment about Harry Potter to try and > help clarify the position of some people, like myself, who do not allow > their children, nieces, nephews, or themselves, to watch or read Harry > Potter. My problem with Harry Potter, as opposed to The Wizard of Oz or > The Chronicles of Narnia, is not the magic in and of itself, but the fact > that the wizards, and witches and warlocks of the books and movies are > presented as "good characters" who just happen to use spells, magic, > witchcraft and other Pagan rites and rituals, whereas in films of the > past, the bad characters were almost always the ones exclusively using > such methods.
So how do you feel about the good character of Samantha Stevens from "Bewitched"? I honestly don't believe that any kind of magic or witchcraft or spells exist (not even for Pagans; sure they may recite spells, but I don't believe anything really happens), so therefore I see no problem with children watching or reading Harry Potter, or seeing The Golden Compass, or any other such films or books. I realize that evil exists in the world, but I don't believe that anyone can conjure a spell to hurt someone, make someone fall in love with them, etc. That's all make-believe, imo. Heck, if that kind of magic did exist, I'd be trying very hard to learn to use it to clean my kitchen!! lol
BTW, you mentioned not having a problem with The Chronicles of Narnia because only the bad characters used magic. I believe that Aslan used magic (in the books, anyway; don't recall about the movie), and he was definitely one of the good characters.
> So how do you feel about the good character of Samantha Stevens from > "Bewitched"? I honestly don't believe that any kind of magic or witchcraft > or spells exist (not even for Pagans; sure they may recite spells, but I > don't believe anything really happens), so therefore I see no problem with > children watching or reading Harry Potter, or seeing The Golden Compass, or > any other such films or books. I realize that evil exists in the world, but > I don't believe that anyone can conjure a spell to hurt someone, make > someone fall in love with them, etc. That's all make-believe, imo. Heck, > if that kind of magic did exist, I'd be trying very hard to learn to use it > to clean my kitchen!! lol
> BTW, you mentioned not having a problem with The Chronicles of Narnia > because only the bad characters used magic. I believe that Aslan used magic > (in the books, anyway; don't recall about the movie), and he was definitely > one of the good characters.
> Becky- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
All good points, Becky. But you hit the nail on the head when you said, "it's all make believe." I guess that's the point I was trying to make, it's fiction, fantasy, entertainment. And I found the movie to be very entertaining and imaginative. I loved the way the characters spirit was in their animal daemons, a very creative concept. The animation was excellent.
> So how do you feel about the good character of Samantha Stevens from > "Bewitched"?
I don't have a problem with the show. However, I can understand why some parents wouldn't allow their kids to watch it. But Bewitched is also nowhere near as steeped in the use of spells and magic as Harry Potter is and it's also not a show that really is aimed at children like Harry Potter is. And in comparison to what came after, Bewitched is rather tame. But that's how degradation always works. When something degrades a society's, or individuals, morals and values, it happens over time and it has to have a beginning. So we've gone from Bewitched in the 60's to Charmed/Angel/Buffy/Harry Potter/The Craft/The Covenant in the 90's and 00's. We went from the shocking act of Elvis swinging his hips in the 50's to Akon simulating rape on stage at a concert in '07.
> I honestly don't believe that any kind of magic or witchcraft or spells > exist (not even for Pagans; sure they may recite spells, but I don't > believe anything really happens),
The powers don't exist, granted; but witchcraft as a belief certainly exists, and Paganism is a recognized religion. Our children may not ever be able to raise a wand and make an obect levitate, but anything that could potentially compromise their faith in Christ is certainly something that needs to be avoided if possible.
> so therefore I see no problem with children watching or reading Harry > Potter, or seeing The Golden Compass, or any other such films or books.
Well, my understanding is that in Pullman's trilogy of books, The Golden Compass had the least amount of atheistic overtones to it, and that it wasn't until the second or third books that the over-arching theme became obvious. Furthermore, some atheistic groups are actually mad at the film for what they feel is the producer's attempt at watering down the atheistic message in order to make the film more commercially viable to a larger audience. I'm not Catholic, nor do I agree with them about much, but in this instance they've done a community service by alerting the public to the anti-God, atheistic theme of the books, because parents who do take their children to see this movie may feel that the movie was fine and therefore the books must be fine to, when we know that they really aren't. So even if the movie is sanitized for public consumption, it still works as a vehicle to sell the books.
> I realize that evil exists in the world, but I don't believe that anyone > can conjure a spell to hurt someone, make someone fall in love with them, > etc.
That's never been a point of contention for anyone. That's not a debatable point since we all agree that can't happen.
> BTW, you mentioned not having a problem with The Chronicles of Narnia > because only the bad characters used magic. I believe that Aslan used > magic (in the books, anyway; don't recall about the movie), and he was > definitely one of the good characters.
It's all about the context that the magic is used in. If I took a literal, down-the-line interpretation of the word "magic" then I couldn't listen to Steve Miller Band's "Abracadabra" or Olivia Newton-John's "Magic" or watch Xanadu. It's about context. Is the magic just a small part of the show/movie, or is it the whole message?
My life has been fine before Harry Potter and it will be fine without Harry Potter. I've never been interested or tempted, not even once, to read Harry Potter or see the movies.
------------------------------------- Icebreaker "But Jerri, everybody says that you're a- " "I like the pole and the hole, and right now i'm as moist as a snack cake down there."
> All good points, Becky. But you hit the nail on the head when you > said, "it's all make believe." I guess that's the point I was trying > to make, it's fiction, fantasy, entertainment. And I found the movie > to be very entertaining and imaginative. I loved the way the > characters spirit was in their animal daemons, a very creative > concept. The animation was excellent.
Completely immaterial to the argument at hand. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City is "all make belive"....with 'excellent animation', but would you honestly defend allowing a 10 year old to play such a game? What's at stake in that scenario is a child's social development. With The Golden Compass what is at stake is a child's spiritual development, and if a person finds that Phillip Pullman's books or movies might improperly influence their children to become atheists or even entertain the thought that there is no God, then a parent has every right to object to letting their child view such material and SHOULD ban it from their homes.
Bonbon's arguments are always that it's "fun...imaginiative...entertaining...lighthearted..." but I've got to tell you...I've strolled through the horror sections of Circuit City and Best Buy and Walmart and I'm appalled at what passes as "entertaining and imaginative". Some of product out there degrades not only the individuals social and moral development, but also their spiritual and religious development.
------------------------------------- Icebreaker "But Jerri, everybody says that you're a- " "I like the pole and the hole, and right now i'm as moist as a snack cake down there."
Balls of Ice wrote: > Bonbon wrote: >> All good points, Becky. But you hit the nail on the head when you >> said, "it's all make believe." I guess that's the point I was >> trying to make, it's fiction, fantasy, entertainment. And I found >> the movie to be very entertaining and imaginative. I loved the >> way the characters spirit was in their animal daemons, a very >> creative concept. The animation was excellent.
> Completely immaterial to the argument at hand.
No. It really is part and parcel of the argument at hand.
> Grand Theft Auto: Vice City is "all make belive"....with 'excellent > animation', but would you honestly defend allowing a 10 year old to > play such a game? What's at stake in that scenario is a child's > social development.
I would defend it, because I know for a fact that the child's social development is not harmed by it. No video game has ever turned someone into a criminal, just as no movie has, no book, no role-playing game, etc. Similarly, no one's "spiritual development" has ever been harmed by similar things. Why? Because they're make believe. To fear such things is no different than fearing a black cat.
> I would defend it, because I know for a fact that the child's social > development is not harmed by it. No video game has ever turned someone > into a criminal, just as no movie has, no book, no role-playing game, > etc. Similarly, no one's "spiritual development" has ever been harmed > by similar things. Why? Because they're make believe. To fear such > things is no different than fearing a black cat.
You "know" nothing. Clearly the rest of the world doesn't even agree with you because if it did we wouldn't have a ratings system that helped parents identify the content of both movies and video games. That's why pornography isn't available to anyone under 18 years of age. It's why to be an adult porn star you have to be at least 18 years of age. It's why the military requires that you be 18 years of age to join. The development of an adult exposed to such product is not the same as a child being exposed to the same product. A child can't handle violent video games or explicit sex. They don't have the maturity to know how to deal with such an issue.
Why is it that when we rifle through the remains of people like Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, and the Virginia Tech and Omaha Mall shooter that we consistently find almost exclusively young, white, males fascinated by violent video games, violent movies, guns, dark colored clothes, dark colored appearances, etc....? We never hear of these spree killers being addicted to repeated viewings of Pride and Prejudice or Anne of Avonlea or Anne of Green Gables.
And no one has said that video games in and of themselves turn people into criminals....the video game attraction is the symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself, but it's absurd to deny that first-person shooter games like Grand Theft Auto don't contribute and aggravate an already existing problem.
------------------------------------- Icebreaker "But Jerri, everybody says that you're a- " "I like the pole and the hole, and right now i'm as moist as a snack cake down there."
How sad that the US has become a nation of people wanting to tell other people how to live and raise their children. If you don't like something, DON'T WATCH IT, however don't try and shove your society's babysitter fanatics down the throat of sane rational people who teach their children the difference between fantasy and make believe.
It is even sadder that you consider the US to be "the rest of the world" You might not know it but some of the stuff you posted below only reflects American society / ideology and not "the rest of the world".
>> I would defend it, because I know for a fact that the child's social >> development is not harmed by it. No video game has ever turned someone >> into a criminal, just as no movie has, no book, no role-playing game, >> etc. Similarly, no one's "spiritual development" has ever been harmed >> by similar things. Why? Because they're make believe. To fear such >> things is no different than fearing a black cat.
> You "know" nothing. Clearly the rest of the world doesn't even agree with > you because if it did we wouldn't have a ratings system that helped parents > identify the content of both movies and video games. That's why pornography > isn't available to anyone under 18 years of age. It's why to be an adult > porn star you have to be at least 18 years of age. It's why the military > requires that you be 18 years of age to join. The development of an adult > exposed to such product is not the same as a child being exposed to the same > product. A child can't handle violent video games or explicit sex. They > don't have the maturity to know how to deal with such an issue.
> Why is it that when we rifle through the remains of people like Eric Harris, > Dylan Klebold, and the Virginia Tech and Omaha Mall shooter that we > consistently find almost exclusively young, white, males fascinated by > violent video games, violent movies, guns, dark colored clothes, dark > colored appearances, etc....? We never hear of these spree killers being > addicted to repeated viewings of Pride and Prejudice or Anne of Avonlea or > Anne of Green Gables.
> And no one has said that video games in and of themselves turn people into > criminals....the video game attraction is the symptom of the problem rather > than the problem itself, but it's absurd to deny that first-person shooter > games like Grand Theft Auto don't contribute and aggravate an already > existing problem.
> ------------------------------------- > Icebreaker > "But Jerri, everybody says that you're a- " > "I like the pole and the hole, and right now i'm as moist as a snack cake > down there."
> How sad that the US has become a nation of people wanting to tell other > people how to live and raise their children. If you don't like something, > DON'T WATCH IT, however don't try and shove your society's babysitter > fanatics down the throat of sane rational people who teach their children > the difference between fantasy and make believe.
> It is even sadder that you consider the US to be "the rest of the world" > You might not know it but some of the stuff you posted below only reflects > American society / ideology and not "the rest of the world".
Who gives a crap about "The rest of the world"? The rest of the world is a third world toilet.
------------------------------------- Icebreaker "But Jerri, everybody says that you're a- " "I like the pole and the hole, and right now i'm as moist as a snack cake down there."
Balls of Ice wrote: > FantasyNexus wrote: > > I would defend it, because I know for a fact that the child's > > social development is not harmed by it. No video game has ever > > turned someone into a criminal, just as no movie has, no book, no > > role-playing game, etc. Similarly, no one's "spiritual > > development" has ever been harmed by similar things. Why? Because > > they're make believe. To fear such things is no different than > > fearing a black cat.
> You "know" nothing. Clearly the rest of the world doesn't even > agree with you because if it did we wouldn't have a ratings system > that helped parents identify the content of both movies and video > games.
I know quite a bit actually. The only reason we have ratings systems is because many people are paranoid, and paranoia tends to get worse when paranoid people congregate with other paranoid people. And newsflash: the rest of the world does not feel contrary to me. Most parents are ignoring ratings systems. Most children are too.
> That's why pornography isn't available to anyone under 18 years of > age. It's why to be an adult porn star you have to be at least 18 > years of age. It's why the military requires that you be 18 years > of age to join.
These are completely different issues, actually.
> The development of an adult exposed to such product is not the same > as a child being exposed to the same product. A child can't handle > violent video games or explicit sex. They don't have the maturity > to know how to deal with such an issue.
Enough studies have shown the opposite, actually. All but very small children are much more capable of discerning the difference between what is real and what isn't than adults give them credit for, and there's no causal link between violent video games and developmental problems.
> Why is it that when we rifle through the remains of people like > Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, and the Virginia Tech and Omaha Mall > shooter that we consistently find almost exclusively young, white, > males fascinated by violent video games, violent movies, guns, dark > colored clothes, dark colored appearances, etc....? We never hear > of these spree killers being addicted to repeated viewings of Pride > and Prejudice or Anne of Avonlea or Anne of Green Gables.
That shows that people with developmental problems like violent video games. NOT that people who like violent video games have developmental problems. For every Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold, there are millions that simply shut the game off and have happy lives.
In other words: no causal link.
> And no one has said that video games in and of themselves turn > people into criminals... the video game attraction is the symptom > of the problem rather than the problem itself, but it's absurd to > deny that first-person shooter games like Grand Theft Auto don't > contribute and aggravate an already existing problem.
It's no more a symptom than breathing is a symptom. Millions of people are buying these very same violent video games. Only a few of these people pick up a real gun and start mowing down innocents.
All of this said, I do agree with you that parents can and should do whatever they feel is right in raising their children (within reason, of course). I just don't think, as a parent, it's worthwhile to impose restrictions based on some unsubstantiated fear.
On Dec 8, 6:08 pm, "Julia Dream" <pinkw...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> BTW, you mentioned not having a problem with The Chronicles of Narnia > because only the bad characters used magic. I believe that Aslan used magic > (in the books, anyway; don't recall about the movie), and he was definitely > one of the good characters.
Okay... I'll come out for this one :)
Aslan didn't 'use' magic... Aslan 'was' magic...
I guess it comes down as 'God can do supernatural things, because God's supernatural'... and Aslan was clearly meant to symbolize God.
As for the Golden Compass/Harry Potter/etc... One of the things I've learned over the years, and as a parent, is that to give something a label is to give it power. Here's an example:
My son is 10 now, and he read Harry Potter in school... He's been a Star Wars fan a long time, and has seen 'The Force' in action... He's even got a World of Warcraft character now... Net result? He sees all this as fantasy... It's no big deal to him.
On the other hand, we've gone out-of-our-way to not have guns of any kind in the house... No Nerf guns... No dart guns... nothing... Net result? He's fascinated by them, and looks for any opportunity to play with them at friends or parents.
So, we labeled guns as forbidden, and that gave them a special status in his mind...
In the long run, I don't think Harry Potter is the danger... I think it's the labeling of the subject matter of Harry Potter as 'dangerous' that makes it dangerous, if you believe such things are.
I know this probably comes as a surprise for those who have known me for years, but 10 years of parenting gives a little perspective on some things :)
TrekNoid wrote: > On Dec 8, 6:08 pm, "Julia Dream" <pinkw...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> BTW, you mentioned not having a problem with The Chronicles of Narnia >> because only the bad characters used magic. I believe that Aslan used magic >> (in the books, anyway; don't recall about the movie), and he was definitely >> one of the good characters.
> Okay... I'll come out for this one :)
> Aslan didn't 'use' magic... Aslan 'was' magic...
> I guess it comes down as 'God can do supernatural things, because > God's supernatural'... and Aslan was clearly meant to symbolize God.
> As for the Golden Compass/Harry Potter/etc... One of the things I've > learned over the years, and as a parent, is that to give something a > label is to give it power. Here's an example:
> My son is 10 now, and he read Harry Potter in school... He's been a > Star Wars fan a long time, and has seen 'The Force' in action... He's > even got a World of Warcraft character now... Net result? He sees all > this as fantasy... It's no big deal to him.
> On the other hand, we've gone out-of-our-way to not have guns of any > kind in the house... No Nerf guns... No dart guns... nothing... Net > result? He's fascinated by them, and looks for any opportunity to > play with them at friends or parents.
> So, we labeled guns as forbidden, and that gave them a special status > in his mind...
> In the long run, I don't think Harry Potter is the danger... I think > it's the labeling of the subject matter of Harry Potter as 'dangerous' > that makes it dangerous, if you believe such things are.
> I know this probably comes as a surprise for those who have known me > for years, but 10 years of parenting gives a little perspective on > some things :)
No you've got the right idea. Making anything `forbidden', whether for children or adults, tends to make it more appealing. Out of curiosity if nothing else.
"suzee" <suz...@imbris.com> wrote in message news:fjnlo8$djc$2@aioe.org... > No you've got the right idea. Making anything `forbidden', whether for > children or adults, tends to make it more appealing. Out of curiosity if > nothing else.
Okay. And? I mean, what are the options? Allow the child to eat all the sweets that they want and no vegetables for dinner? Let the kids smoke marijuana whenever they want to? Have sex whenever, wherever?
Labelling something as wrong or dangerous may make it seem "forbidden" and tempting, but most kids raised right won't have that problem. I never once was tempted to smoke a cigarette, and when offered them in high school I thought it was extremely uncool to smoke them and refused to do so. I've never done drugs either. So it CAN be done. Just because something is off-limits doesn't always mean that the child is going to want it that much more. If you explain to them why you are taking the position you are, many will understand it and respect it, even if too young to completely agree with it. ------------------------------------- Icebreaker "But Jerri, everybody says that you're a- " "I like the pole and the hole, and right now i'm as moist as a snack cake down there."
On Dec 12, 7:44 pm, "Balls of Ice" <icebrea...@hillary2008.org> wrote:
> Okay. And? I mean, what are the options? Allow the child to eat all the > sweets that they want and no vegetables for dinner? Let the kids smoke > marijuana whenever they want to? Have sex whenever, wherever?
> Labelling something as wrong or dangerous may make it seem "forbidden" and > tempting, but most kids raised right won't have that problem. I never once > was tempted to smoke a cigarette, and when offered them in high school I > thought it was extremely uncool to smoke them and refused to do so. I've > never done drugs either. So it CAN be done. Just because something is > off-limits doesn't always mean that the child is going to want it that much > more. If you explain to them why you are taking the position you are, many > will understand it and respect it, even if too young to completely agree > with it. > ------------------------------------- > Icebreaker
Get back to us again after you've raised a kid yourself.
Balls of Ice wrote: > suzee wrote: > > No you've got the right idea. Making anything `forbidden', > > whether for children or adults, tends to make it more appealing. > > Out of curiosity if nothing else.
> Okay. And? I mean, what are the options? Allow the child to eat all > the sweets that they want and no vegetables for dinner? Let the > kids smoke marijuana whenever they want to? Have sex whenever, > wherever?
I wouldn't outright forbid any of those things. Inform the child that there are down sides to these physical acts.
>> No you've got the right idea. Making anything `forbidden', whether for >> children or adults, tends to make it more appealing. Out of curiosity if >> nothing else.
> Okay. And? I mean, what are the options? Allow the child to eat all the > sweets that they want and no vegetables for dinner? Let the kids smoke > marijuana whenever they want to? Have sex whenever, wherever?
No you need some boundaries - allow a few treats instead of forbidding all sugar (we weren't allowed dessert unless we ate a little of everything for dinner), explain the drawbacks of alcohol and drugs and sex. Unfortunately, many parents aren't prepared to speak that frankly with their children.
> Labelling something as wrong or dangerous may make it seem "forbidden" and > tempting, but most kids raised right won't have that problem. I never once > was tempted to smoke a cigarette, and when offered them in high school I > thought it was extremely uncool to smoke them and refused to do so. I've > never done drugs either. So it CAN be done. Just because something is > off-limits doesn't always mean that the child is going to want it that much > more. If you explain to them why you are taking the position you are, many > will understand it and respect it, even if too young to completely agree > with it.
True, up to a point, but it's not a matter of raising kids `right' or `wrong'. Children are curious by nature and that doesn't change when they're teenagers. So they're still going to want to find out things for themselves. I never wanted to smoke in HS either, mostly because my parents didn't though a lot of their brothers and sisters did. I remember visiting their homes and thinking how stinky and awful it was.
"suzee" <suz...@imbris.com> wrote in message news:fjrber$4i1$1@aioe.org... > I never wanted to smoke in HS either, mostly because my parents didn't > though a lot of their brothers and sisters did. I remember visiting their > homes and thinking how stinky and awful it was.
Well, that's kind of how I relate premarital sex to my nieces and nephews. I explain to them how smelly, filthy, and degrading sex is in hopes that they'll never, ever want to have it....even after they're married.
------------------------------------- Icebreaker "But Jerri, everybody says that you're a- " "I like the pole and the hole, and right now i'm as moist as a snack cake down there."
> Get back to us again after you've raised a kid yourself.
You won't win any Mother Of the Year awards for comments such as "I hope you die of cancer".
------------------------------------- Icebreaker "But Jerri, everybody says that you're a- " "I like the pole and the hole, and right now i'm as moist as a snack cake down there."
|
