I think that in this argument we have different dipictions of sex, in regards to this innuendo.
I find that there is a very real difference between:
- sex between people who respect and love each other. Also for pleasure, which, come to think of it, isn't really tabboo, is it?
- just plain 'ol screwing (no better way to put that, sorry) for the purposes of business, money, voyeurism, etc.
Its a big difference. The first would be 'making love' and the second would be 'pornography.'
I obviously don't know about you guys, but I cannot in any way shape or form understand why the concept of making love would be bad. Hell, if you're worried how young young kids would interpret that, just say that the nice commander lady loves you for being so good and wants to give you a big kiss. Or something like that
Even if you don't believe it yourself, you can get your kids to believe that.
What I especially can't understand is that why, when the very concept of sex comes up, every parent anywhere automatically assumes that its all about pornography and the degradation of society.
All the lady said is that she'd reward you. Which, we all know, means that you and she will consummate (sp?) later.
It doesn't necessarily mean that she'll tape it live and put it on Kazaa for the whole world to see, and it doesn't mean she'll invite Jenna Jameson over for a threesome, either.
And no, saying "I'll reward you" isn't exactly going to topple the free world, either.
My view is that as parents, our responsibility is not to shelter our kids from all negative influences out there, it is quite impossible in the world today. Our responsibility is to help our kids make good decisions when they confront these things. Loose morals lead to a degredation of society as a whole and individually. We find that from history, such as in Rome.
2 things I want to say about this:
1) Lets face it, sexuality was not the cause of the fall of the Roman empire. It had a lot more problems than that.
Sure, there were some blatantly gross sexual practices, but that was more of a symptom of incompetant and screwed up rulers. If you want an example, read Tacitus' history on Emperor Nero. It was more in the upper class than anything else, as I understand it.
2) "Our responsibility is to help our kids make good decisions when they confront these things." You know, I couldn't have put it better myself.
They confront an innuendo. So, explain it to them, its meaning, and help them make a rational/moral assessment of it.
...and at least Romanss were not introducing all those crazy laws about protecting rights of homosexuals and stuff.
Actually, you know what? The Romans didn't give a damn about homosexuality. They practiced it all the time. Marcus Crassus was bisexual. So was Julius Caesar.
Suetonius, an ancient Roman writer, said of Caesar:
''He's every woman's man and every man's woman.''
In fact, many societies in the past haven't given a damn about homosexuality. This of course become less and less prevalent with the almost puritanical advent of Christianity. Homophobia as we know it today didn't really exist until the past 100 years.
Ofcourse, kids should be sheltered from the adult world, but if you're going to make an effort to do so, then focus on what's important first.
straight, man. I can think of a million worse things pertaining to sexuality that can be found on the computer. Most of them are iterations of porn
Of course, I'm not a parent, but I was once a kid. I'm 19, so I can say outright that I've grown up in what society is now. And to an extent, I still am growing up.
Yes, these things can be bad for really young kids - 11 and under, lets say. When I was 13, I wouldn't have given this innuendo a second thought.
You don't want it so that your kids retain their innocence into their young adulthood. Of course, losing all their innocence would make them a cynic. Two bad extremes, so go for the middle.
Evil's easiest prey is the innocent man who doesn't understand evil or the world it exists in.
And don't ask why I'm putting so much effort into this argument. I just am