Hull mum disgusted as 11-year-old set 'hardcore porn' homework

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Cheap point scoring their Quill....move along to the ego thread to see where you are going wrong.

Just because I told it like it is to a friend of yours??  No doubt, if I had said that to Wolf, you would have cheered.  I'm not concerned about petty politics.  The fact is, you think porn is a hot stove and kids should be taught it is taboo just to mention it.  If we approached everything as taboo, we would have never discovered the uses of fire.

Someone needs to approach all issues intelligently, and rationally.  They used to say that those with leprosy should not be studied, but be put away and never touched.  Well and good.  But to then say that we should not include leprosy in a book of infectious diseases is insanity.

But what you are doing here is assuring the teenager gets the infectious disease.

Here, you are putting pornography in a class of taboo, as if that is going to protect teens.  The mere fact that you make it taboo, without discussing anything about it with the teenager, is going to pique his or her curiosity all the more.  Ultimately, it's an abdication of a parent's responsibility.

But here, in this issue, pornography is not even a focus.  The exercise in question is using pornography as an object--a place-holder--in order to ask a question about freedom of expression.  To go into a panic just because pornography is mentioned, is to push the teen in the direction of getting into porn.  Teenagers don't see the taboo, they see the intense focus of the parent.  In their developing minds, they see a parent keeping candy away, and they want to share it.

I’ve always shared information with my daughters.  They are partners, not wards in a prison.  That's the philosophy that I raised my daughters with, and they just shrugged and learned…and were better for it.  I suggest that the reason didge's teens--or anyone's teenager, similarly--didn't respond the same, is because the actions of the parent put it out there as candy.  One has to be smarter with teenagers.

Syl wrote:I dont tend to cheer at cheap personal shots no matter who they are aimed at.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:I dont tend to cheer at cheap personal shots no matter who they are aimed at.

Sorry, but yes you do.

Syl wrote:I dont think I have implied porn should never be addressed if kids ask questions. Reply and explain, or steer them in the direction of age appropriate material.
This exercise however was asking kids to explain how very adult material differs, define hardcore v soft porn, revenge porn, trafficing....how would a youngster know how to answer those questions?

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Gobbledegook, you simple invented that claim to this exercise. Even more so if you had bothered to read the actual links

Again fourth time asking


It asks 11 year old's to define pornography, soft pornography, hardcore pornography and transsexual pornography etc

So explain how an 11 year old is going to understand mentally how to define this, let alone even understand the above? How to differentiate between them and understand the difference?

Thorin wrote:

Why am I not surprised Quill cannot answer

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Sorry, but yes you do.

I'm not perfect, who is? but believe me, when I see cheap shots thrown out regarding someone's personal life, I do not..
I have no intention of 'cheering' at the one Maddog threw back at you either....it's not my way.

eddie wrote:Has anyone considered that teachers are following a curriculum that is set out by government policies on schools?

So we are all in favour of following something set out for us if we agree, but not if we don’t?

Interesting. Not saying I disagree, but still, interesting.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:Has anyone considered that teachers are following a curriculum that is set out by government policies on schools?

So we are all in favour of following something set out for us if we agree, but not if we don’t?

Interesting. Not saying I disagree, but still, interesting.

I did consider that and i mentioned it also. 

It's an academy not a school, turns out they are not following any national curriculum.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:Has anyone considered that teachers are following a curriculum that is set out by government policies on schools?

So we are all in favour of following something set out for us if we agree, but not if we don’t?

Interesting. Not saying I disagree, but still, interesting.

I did consider that and i mentioned it also. 

It's an academy not a school, turns out they are not following any national curriculum.

eddie wrote:Hardcore porn is hardcore to some but not to others.

Work it out. You’re smart.
Or google it.

Original Quill wrote:

@lex wrote:

Err - the mother whose 11 yr old girl still loves ‘My Little Pony’, for one? As she’s pointed out, her priority is quite rightly to safeguard her young child and to ensure her daughter knows how to stay safe online.

The original question was about 11 to 14 year-old's.  Age is just a detail.  An 11-year-old is equivocal.  I think a 14-year-old can handle it, but if not, try 16-years-old.

The real point of this story is helicopter parents who fear they haven't raised their children right.  If at age 14, you can't depend on what you have taught your child, moral, you need to have your license revoked.

@lex wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The original question was about 11 to 14 year-old's.  Age is just a detail.  An 11-year-old is equivocal.  I think a 14-year-old can handle it, but if not, try 16-years-old.

The real point of this story is helicopter parents who fear they haven't raised their children right.  If at age 14, you can't depend on what you have taught your child, moral, you need to have your license revoked.

Age is quite obviously not just a detail for kids in the formative years of their lives - hence the general consensus 11 - 14 yr olds are too young to bear the consequences of any number of adult decisions (voting, driving etc).

@lex wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The original question was about 11 to 14 year-old's.  Age is just a detail.  An 11-year-old is equivocal.  I think a 14-year-old can handle it, but if not, try 16-years-old.

The real point of this story is helicopter parents who fear they haven't raised their children right.  If at age 14, you can't depend on what you have taught your child, moral, you need to have your license revoked.

As for your conviction Mums and Dads who try to protect their kids in a way you dislike should have their parenting “license revoked”...  So much for your belief in “freedom of expression”!

Original Quill wrote:

@lex wrote:

As for your conviction Mums and Dads who try to protect their kids in a way you dislike should have their parenting “license revoked”...  So much for your belief in “freedom of expression”!

Are you suggesting that freedom of expression encompasses its opposite, censorship?  That's a weird, rather Hegelian interpretation.

I'm saying that authoritarianism is not a good parenting technique with a teen.  A teenager is in awe about the wide, mysterious world, and to say don't look is only going to alienate them.  By that age in a teen, a parent should move from teaching to coaching.

By coaching, I mean sharing with the teen the 'why', beyond simply the 'do not'!  You are no longer whisking a child out of the path of a car; you are sharing with a young adult not only what, but how best to feel about the complexities and dangers in the world.  When you approach a teen as a friend and comrade (rather than an authority figure), you are imparting to him or her how to be rational.  Rational thought is simply a higher level of being.  If you fail to deliver that, you are doing a disservice to your own off-spring.

Original Quill wrote:

The real point of this story is helicopter parents who fear they haven't raised their children right.  If at age 14, you can't depend on what you have taught your child, morally, you need to have your license revoked.

@lex wrote:
You said “helicopter parents” ought to have their parenting “license revoked”. That seems pretty authoritarian. Here’s what you said again:

Original Quill wrote:

The real point of this story is helicopter parents who fear they haven't raised their children right.  If at age 14, you can't depend on what you have taught your child, morally, you need to have your license revoked.

Maddog wrote:These teens should probably do some research at the X rated movie theater, while driving around with a handgun after a couple drinks. And lower the age of consent to 14 too.  

Too much damn helicoptering going on.  

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:Hardcore porn is hardcore to some but not to others.

Work it out. You’re smart.
Or google it.

That's a your answer?

Give a non answer and then tell some one to work it out?

What's the difference between beer and wine?


"Beer is beer to some but not to others."
"Work it out".

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

That's a your answer?

Give a non answer and then tell some one to work it out?

What's the difference between beer and wine?


"Beer is beer to some but not to others."
"Work it out".

Alcohol isn’t subjective, it’s not an opinion.