At what age to have "The talk"?

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by somebodynew

I am not sure what models you are talking about that are fantasy or what is replaced. If you are using fantasy, storks and the like, then I would not call that a great idea. Most educational models are simplified and augmented with details over time, not replaced...

One example I already gave was that of how we teach Atomic Theory to children in early school. In my home country for example we start teaching the structure of the atom - specifically what is known as the Bohr model of the atom - to 11ish year olds.

At each iteration of teaching about the atom however we pretty much replace the previous model we taught them about. And my the time someone studies atomic theory at the university level they find that the structure of the atom they were given when they were 11 is comically far from the actual one we work with.

This is common practice in how many things are taught in schools. Giving a very simiplified - sometimes even somewhat false - structure that is then iteratively replaced and augmented over time to help reach the reality.

With sexual education of a young child however - we can do similar. We can give them a massive simplification of certain aspects of it and then build on these later. The zesty user for example is moaning a bit about cell division. With a child of about 5 however it is enough to tell them that the woman is born will all the eggs she needs in place.

That is not a lie but it is a simplification. Later one can go into how the ovaries use a special form of cell division to produce haploid gametes.

The point for zesty is to realise children are more than capable of understanding a lot of this stuff - but we can work with their capability to understand by not hammering them with the full content and full complexity of the entire process from day 1. Areas can be massively simplified and then fleshed out with content and new knowledge iteratively over time.

And for me this is how all education should work - not just sexual education.

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by zesty2

A "normal healthy sex life" is immoral.

Because you say so? Or because you have any actual arguments to offer as to why it is so?

Originally Posted by zesty2

I would disown a kid if they had sex for a non pregnancy reason.

Which - you know - most people do at some point in their lives - usually quite often and repeatedly. Sorry that people having sex for reasons other than the ones _you_ want them to have sex for bothers you so much. Let alone to the point you would happily see your own children homeless for going against your decrees. But reality is what it is.

The rest of us however realise sex is not just "for" reproduction. It is a social and emotional cohesive and our species is not the only one that uses it for more than mere reproduction.

Further biological evolution has not selected for it to be merely reproductive. If it did - then the ratio of sex:conception would be a hell of a lot higher than it is.

Originally Posted by zesty2

Children don't think through a lot of subjects. We're supposed to know better.

I am seeing little to suggest you know much about how children think or what they are capable of understanding. I have seen quite a lot of assertion from you in the thread about what they can and can not comprehend. Assertions that go entirely against my knowledge of the real world. Assertions that you have not yet supported with - well anything but their repetition.

Originally Posted by zesty2

It's called using the bathroom to get changed. Stop being so lazy. I would talk about it and criticize how lazy you are to not just walk in another room.

Nothing to do with being lazy and everything to do with there being no reason on offer why they should need to change in privacy. You seem to be missing the point that your own personal hang ups about nudity are not shared with other human beings. They are your own issues - not ours.

Originally Posted by zesty2

A) You have not offered a single reason why other than it is easier. If that is your explanation for parenting, you're not going to be very successful.

Could you quote where I said my reasoning is that it is "easier"? I never said that I think - and you appear to now be inventing words on by behalf and shoving them in my mouth.

What I _did_ say is that I think education on many subjects - including sexual education - can be an ongoing iterative process starting very early in a child's life. And that there are genuine benefits for doing that. Nothing at all about it being "easy".

I certainly do not think you are in any position to measure the "success" of my parenting techniques however given A) You do not know the children in question _at all_ and B) they have actually been doing quite well emotionally and intellectually and are pretty much so far top of everything they do.

Originally Posted by zesty2

B) No, education changes the story to brainwash the general population because if the people were educated, a superintendent wouldn't get paid $400,000 for a job a 10-year old can do. But if you keep the people stupid, the higher-ups can steal from the people easily.

I am not sure who you are aiming this at as the only one trying to "keep people stupid" are the ones (just you so far?) espousing the position that should keep children ignorant of basic biology. A position you have not backed up in any way but to keep repeating it.

Originally Posted by zesty2

C) The story you give is garbage though. A kid could easily ask how the egg is produced and you have no answer on the 8-year old level. So you would have to say either you do not know, it is a mystery, or it is too complicated for them to understand. So much for removing their doubt!

Hold yer horses there - just because you do not have an answer "on the 8 year old level" for such a question does not mean I do not have such an answer. I have in fact many answers to such a question and I have given them to my 7 year old. My 7 year old has many times used a microscope with me to look at her own cells that she has swabbed from the inside of her mouth.

She is more than capable of understanding what cells are - how they divide and reproduce - and that the female egg is just another form of cell that she was born with which then divides and produces a haploid DNA structure for the purposes of fertilisation.

You do not understand this stuff - then that is fine. Nothing wrong with that. But do not presume that this means my 7 year old does not or - worse - can not understand it. Or that I am somehow incapable of explaining it.

Originally Posted by zesty2

D) A 5-year old is totally incapable of understanding DNA and chromosomes.
There's no way to explain why a sperm is different from an egg without getting into it.

Again your lack of understanding of it does not mean a 5 year old can not. I have found them more than capable of understanding it.

That said however I have told you _many_ times on this thread that sexual education is an ongoing iterative conversation for me that starts early and continues over time. Meaning that I have not - and never intended to - teach them absolutely everything about it at age 5. What I told you was that from that age they begin to learn the basic processes.

You _appear_ to think that because a child can not understand _everything_ about it then they should be told _nothing_ about it. Which is a position so remarkably devoid of content that I am unsurprised you have merely asserted it rather than argued it so far.

Originally Posted by zesty2

E) They should not know a fake story when they are 5. It makes the kid wonder what else the parents have lied about.

I repeat however that children in our education system are given "fake stories" all the time. That is how we teach. I gave you the example of atomic theory in physics. What we teach about the atom and the structure of the atom in early schooling is so very different from the actual structure of the atom that you would laugh if you actually understood it.

But this is how teaching of complex topics often works. We bring a diluted "fake story" to children first and then build on it iteratively. Bringing it closer to the current truth at each iteration.

If you think complex topics of education should be brought to children in full reality from the outset - or not taught at all - then I can do nothing but merely be thankful you are not someone involved in education.

[somebodynew]

Originally Posted by zesty2

A "normal healthy sex life" is immoral.

I want my approach to hinder them at a later time for non pregnancy reasons. So that would be successful.

So let me see if I understand this properly before having an opinion about. I don't think I have ever heard this one before. Sex without intent to conceive is immoral is a statement that you have made more than once. As a child I heard the birth control morality bit in church. Is this about the same? Within marriage one should not use birth control thus opening the door to conception (vs each sexual experience being directly intended to conceive). Is that about it?

I don't agree with this moral postulate. But it seems like rather than face that moral issue for you and your family head on, you seek to control by withholding information. I will grant that I am not going back and reading the thread at 6:00 in the morning. There is a limit to my processing ability before coffee. So if I am misstating your point, I apologize. But assuming I agreed with this postulate, or any, I would think that accurate education on the topic would be more effective than control or lack of information. My daughter refers to little kids she sees about as "small humans". This is a great reminder to me. Kids are humans. Humans HATE to be controlled. Little humans LOVE to learn, particularly in safe and non-judgmental ways. Most of us big humans have been in situations when someone has attempted to control our behavior. If we are honest with ourselves, I think we can recall the feeling of wrongness in our stomachs and our hind brains that made us about a bazillion times more likely to rebel than comply. And a small person who instead responds by compliance will grow to a big human lacking in judgement who seeks a bigger person on whom to rely. Not a fan of this upbringing model since there are way too many BAD influences upon which a compliant person can rely.

I would say that those girls are using highly dangerous drugs to artificially suppress their stupid decisions and that they will pay dearly in the long run for their terrible upbringing.

What about girls and boys who use condoms? Your language is confusing. They don't suppress their stupid decision. They mitigate the undesired consequence of an action. My examination of hormonal birth control has not shown them to be highly dangerous, personally. But there are certainly non-hormonal options. One can increase effectiveness by doubling up...

For ME, a terrible upbringing involves failing to educate and connect the small people in my life with the world in which they live. Sexuality is a very natural part of animal and human existence. For ME, the creation of an unwanted and unloved life is far more immoral than simply having sex on birth control.

My daughter is in her early teens. She is at a biggish school with lots of different people with lots of different family outlooks. Some of these young people are actively seeking the forbidden fruit of sexuality as forms of everything from acceptance and love to active parental rebellion. I am very gratified that my daughter rejects this as not something she is interested in. Having been well acquainted over the years with the physical, emotional and social realities of sexuality, she is all kinds of good waiting until it is good for her in the context of a loving, safe and wonderful ADULT relationship. I will take that as a parenting win.

My son, an older teen, has no interest in girls. So pregnancy is not one of his issues.

[somebodynew]

Originally Posted by monumentus

One example I already gave was that of how we teach Atomic Theory to children in early school. In my home country for example we start teaching the structure of the atom - specifically what is known as the Bohr model of the atom - to 11ish year olds.

At each iteration of teaching about the atom however we pretty much replace the previous model we taught them about. And my the time someone studies atomic theory at the university level they find that the structure of the atom they were given when they were 11 is comically far from the actual one we work with.

This is common practice in how many things are taught in schools. Giving a very simiplified - sometimes even somewhat false - structure that is then iteratively replaced and augmented over time to help reach the reality.

I agree with iterative development though your example falls short in my understanding. Or really my understanding falls short.

With sexual education of a young child however - we can do similar. We can give them a massive simplification of certain aspects of it and then build on these later. The zesty user for example is moaning a bit about cell division. With a child of about 5 however it is enough to tell them that the woman is born will all the eggs she needs in place.

That is not a lie but it is a simplification. Later one can go into how the ovaries use a special form of cell division to produce haploid gametes.

The point for zesty is to realise children are more than capable of understanding a lot of this stuff - but we can work with their capability to understand by not hammering them with the full content and full complexity of the entire process from day 1. Areas can be massively simplified and then fleshed out with content and new knowledge iteratively over time.

And for me this is how all education should work - not just sexual education.

I agree... atom models notwithstanding.

[RageX]

Originally Posted by germaine2626

Unless your 11 year was locked in her bedroom, without a computer, telephone, TV or radio or access to other people, for the last decade she knows a lot more than you can imagine. Hasn't she ever seen a pregnant woman or a new baby? Do you really think that she thinks that a stork brings babies?

I started "the talk" about sex when my children were preschoolers. Of course, it was the very basics then and I added more details as they grew older. I am sure that we gave the "official" penis/vagina/love/baby talk by the time that they were about eight. At that time the schools had their "welcome to puberty" movies/discussions in grade five (age 11). Now most schools, in my area, have those movies in fourth grade (age 10).

BTW, When I was pregnant with my second child my oldest was three turning four. We have a cute picture that he drew of me with a baby inside me in a big circle (womb) and the baby had what appeared to be an umbilical cord attached to it's belly button/tummy area going to the circle. So, yes, children know and understand a lot more than we imagine.

This. It should be an ongoing thing, something gradual that they can get used to hearing from you, so it's not a reverse cold-turkey.

My 6 year old son knows the very basics that the woman belly is like the factory that takes 9 months to make a baby, and that the man gives the ...uh... blueprints to the factory... so far he hasn't said eww or laughed sheepishly yet, so I guess I'm doing ok. Then he asks, "If the mommy cow make the baby cow with the belly, and, the mommy piggy make the baby piggy with the belly, what about the universe when it make the earth?"

...whole different kinda reaction...