Books you'd never let your kids read....

[Wabbit]

There should be no censorship for anything. Ever.

RE: TV
It also makes you passive. You wait for it to paint it's flacid world on your screen. You wait for programs that ACTUALLY really interest you and while you wait you watch crap. Not good really.

One of the most HORRIBLE realities of our times happens everyday. The converstion goes something like this...

Person one: Oh yeah, there was nothing good on tv last night. It was total rubbish.
Person two: Yeah, there was nothing on at all.

WHY? Why are you WATCHING it? Go read a book! Go paint pictures with your mind! Go paint with your fingers! Go listen music! Go lean something! Go have a converstion! Go run bare foot in the grass! Go with a friend to have a meal! Go call a freind and have a good chat!

Horrible

Regards
SillyWabbit

 

[VTChEwbecca]

There should be no censorship for anything. Ever.

RE: TV
It also makes you passive. You wait for it to paint it's flacid world on your screen. You wait for programs that ACTUALLY really interest you and while you wait you watch crap. Not good really.

One of the most HORRIBLE realities of our times happens everyday. The converstion goes something like this...

Person one: Oh yeah, there was nothing good on tv last night. It was total rubbish.
Person two: Yeah, there was nothing on at all.

WHY? Why are you WATCHING it? Go read a book! Go paint pictures with your mind! Go paint with your fingers! Go listen music! Go lean something! Go have a converstion! Go run bare foot in the grass! Go with a friend to have a meal! Go call a freind and have a good chat!

Horrible

Regards
SillyWabbit

Oh, that reminds me of the recent tv miniseries 10.5, about a horrid earthquake (that isn't possible). I didn't watch, obviously, but I saw so many people who watched the first half complain about how horrid it was, and yet they still watched the second part! TV isn't going to change if people complain and still watch...its only going to change if we stop watching. Don't watch the crappy shows, and they go away.

You're right about becoming passive. In addition, TV is addictive. It causes your mind to have to fill in blanks (the easiest way to describe the phenomenon) and causes an addiction. I stopped watching a long while back, after noticing that I was spending more time than I wished in front of the tv. After not watching for about two weeks, I had no desire to watch anything. I even skipped on Shark Week, which is something I used to watch faithfully. I had it on for maybe five minutes and got bored. The only way I can watch now, is if I have someone there watching with me and I usually end up just chatting with that person rather than watching whatever is on tv. Of course, this is much to my husband's dismay, when I continually talk over programs he's watching. I usually just go off and read a book when I start to annoy him.

 

[Ashlea]

I gave up TV accidentally (the TV was too far away from the cable plug, and I never got around to getting a long enough cord) and didn't miss it a lick.

Nothing annoys me more than inviting a friend out to do something and have them say, "But _________ is on!" Learn to program your VCR people, and get a life.

 

[SPEEDY_PARKER]

I would never let my kids (I haven't yet) read the book
Master Of Lies by Graham Masterton. Especially the first pages which there is maximum violence. If you have read it you should understand what i mean.

 

[member 737]

There are lots of books I wouldn't let my children, even teenagers, read. I think that there are certain kinds of books which need some maturity and a knowledge of the world before you can read them. Otherwise, reading them could cause emotional and psychological disturbances. To my mind, parents should definitely be aware of what their children are going to read and censor their choices.

 

[VTChEwbecca]

There are lots of books I wouldn't let my children, even teenagers, read. I think that there are certain kinds of books which need some maturity and a knowledge of the world before you can read them. Otherwise, reading them could cause emotional and psychological disturbances. To my mind, parents should definitely be aware of what their children are going to read and censor their choices.

I think it does in part depend upon the child, but I'd rather encourage other types of books, so they're not even interested in others. However, banning teenagers from reading something just wouldn't work...I'd rather know what they're reading and discuss it with them rather than ban them outright.
And I think children are far more resilient than they are given credit for.
Of course, my mother had me read Les Miserables when I was 12, so my view might be a bit skewed. We read it at the same time, which I think is a wonderful idea.

 

[Wabbit]

Oh, that reminds me of the recent tv miniseries 10.5, about a horrid earthquake (that isn't possible). I didn't watch, obviously, but I saw so many people who watched the first half complain about how horrid it was, and yet they still watched the second part! TV isn't going to change if people complain and still watch...its only going to change if we stop watching. Don't watch the crappy shows, and they go away.

You're right about becoming passive. In addition, TV is addictive. It causes your mind to have to fill in blanks (the easiest way to describe the phenomenon) and causes an addiction. I stopped watching a long while back, after noticing that I was spending more time than I wished in front of the tv. After not watching for about two weeks, I had no desire to watch anything. I even skipped on Shark Week, which is something I used to watch faithfully. I had it on for maybe five minutes and got bored. The only way I can watch now, is if I have someone there watching with me and I usually end up just chatting with that person rather than watching whatever is on tv. Of course, this is much to my husband's dismay, when I continually talk over programs he's watching. I usually just go off and read a book when I start to annoy him.

You are right about the addiction part

There have been studies done. I'm sorry, don't have the links so people will just have to believe me or go googling!

Studies done into the way the brain works. TV is addicting because of an evolutionary trait we humans have. We needed to stay alert in times back. Our brains are hard wired to be very attentive and calm when there is something moving. TV is always moving. It bascially puts you into like a mild trance. You get additcted to that state. Study that was done found that this area in the brain was being stimulated. They also found that when they just stopped people from watching the T.V they showed all the signs of classic addiction withdrawal. They became irritated very easy and so on.

It's really sad to go into a room and nobody is talking. Everybody is sitting around a glowing box in total silence. It's horrible that people at work have nothing to talk about but what they saw in TV last night and how boring it was

Regards
SillyWabbit

 

[RaVeN]

No doubt about it. Let them read what they will.

It's not exactly children's lit but I remember the first time I found my teenage son with a porn mag. He couldn't believe I wasn't mad and didn't take it from him.


I was just overjoyed that it was pictures of women instead of men.


RaVeN

 

[Ashlea]

When I was working at the bookstore, we had a kid that lived in the neighborhood, maybe 12 when the store opened, who was there constantly, surreptitiously reading the porn mags. By the time he was 15, he was stealing the stripped mags (covers of unsold mags removed for credit, remainder "stripped" and thrown out) from the dumpster. When he turned 16, he got a job across the street and attempted to purchase the mags, but was denied (18+ only.) All of these instances led to a good talking to, but it never seemed to have much effect. When he turned 18, he was finally able to purchase the mag, and the entire staff had to turn out for this momentous event. We all felt like proud parents.

 

[RaVeN]

Great little story Ashlea. You handled the occasion very nicely.


RaVeN

 

[member 737]

However, banning teenagers from reading something just wouldn't work...I'd rather know what they're reading and discuss it with them rather than ban them outright.

Why do you say it wouldn't work? Certainly some teenagers would feel only more encouraged to get to a "forbidden fruit", but some would obey. I think that parents, who are responsible for their child moral and psychological developement, should make clear, unbreakable rules what is allowed, and what is not. I can't see any reason books should be an exception. Some books are just inappropriate for young people and discussing their content is not enough. I think children should be protected from certain stuff before they are able to judge it by themselves and have their system of values strong enough not to be influenced by some views. Not to mention books containing brutal scenes.

 

[Wolf]

My family was so happy that I read, that they never checked on what I was reading. On the other hand, buying books was discouraged. That left you with reading what was in the house already or going to the library.

I got my sex education from Piers Anthony. LOL.

 

[RaVeN]

IMO you have every right to execute your parental duties as you see fit Idun BUT that's not the way I've raised mine. I'm not saying to shove it in their face but if they are thirsty, give them a drink. Maybe a few sips at a time and certainly don't drown them in it but I think it's a healty and natural thing for them to be inquisitive. Just do your homework first and have the right answers for their questions.

It's up to you to lay the groundwork between right and wrong but don't hide what's going on out there. It'll come back to bite you on the ass.
(and if it doesn't, my number's in the book)


RaVeN

 

[Ell]

I don't believe in censorship and never banned books from my children. However, I was aware of what they were reading and was available for discussion. Of course I tried to steer them to age-appropriate material, but if they were reading books I thought might be too mature for them or over their heads, I'd make it a point to talk about it.

It seems people who feel the need to ban books have no faith in their children or conversely their own parenting ability. If you're concerned your kids will get wrong ideas from a book, then talk to them about it! Discussion does amazing things with kids: it helps you impart your own sense of values and morals; it shows that it's ok to have dissenting opinions; it helps them become more critical of what they read; and it shows them you're open to their ideas and opinions.

Originally posted by Idun:
Why do you say it wouldn't work? Certainly some teenagers would feel only more encouraged to get to a "forbidden fruit", but some would obey. I think that parents, who are responsible for their child moral and psychological developement, should make clear, unbreakable rules what is allowed, and what is not. I can't see any reason books should be an exception. Some books are just inappropriate for young people and discussing their content is not enough. I think children should be protected from certain stuff before they are able to judge it by themselves and have their system of values strong enough not to be influenced by some views. Not to mention books containing brutal scenes.

From my perspective and goals as a parent your approach wouldn't work. Firstly, my sons were (and are) very strongly independent individuals who will debate to their last breath about something they believe in. They would never obey a rule without reason. Yes, rules and guidelines are necessary for children, but I think they need to know there's a 'why' behind them. Secondly, I didn't want my children to obey me blindly - I always wanted them to grow up and be able to think for themselves. Part of that involves giving them opportunities to see what's out there.

You know your teenager best, but don't discount his ability to understand a lot more than you think - particularly if you're willing to discuss the difficult issues.

Ell

 

[member 737]

I think it's a healty and natural thing for them to be inquisitive. Just do your homework first and have the right answers for their questions.

I agree with you that it's good when children are curious of the world, but there are questions without answers. For some conversations, children are not ready, and that's why keeping them away from material which can raise certain questions, is a wise thing to do.

 

[member 737]

It seems people who feel the need to ban books have no faith in their children or conversely their own parenting ability.

To my mind, banning children from certain books, is an inherent part of responsible parenting. Children must know there are books which they sholudn't read, so that later they will be able to resign from reading inappriopriate book by themselves.

From my perspective and goals as a parent your approach wouldn't work. Firstly, my sons were (and are) very strongly independent individuals who will debate to their last breath about something they believe in. They would never obey a rule without reason. Yes, rules and guidelines are necessary for children, but I think they need to know there's a 'why' behind them.

I don't recommend banning a book "because, I, the parent, know better, and say so." Saying why the book is inappriopriate, in a mild way, is necessary! Child must understand it's for his/her own good.

Secondly, I didn't want my children to obey me blindly

Of course. I also don't. That's why you need to say them why they can't read a book.

You know your teenager best, but don't discount his ability to understand a lot more than you think - particularly if you're willing to discuss the difficult issues.

For some difficult issues, you must be mature enough to deal with.

 

[Ell]

I guess, we'll have to agree to disagree, Idun.

Each child and family situation is different. I agree with what you say about clear rules and guidelines for children and teens - just not how I'd implement them. My children are now young men (21 and 24) - and we still have great long discussions about all kinds of things, including books.

Ell

 

[Litany]

Children must know there are books which they sholudn't read, so that later they will be able to resign from reading inappriopriate book by themselves.

This is the bit I don't understand. What is inappropriate, and who decides?

Most children would only want to read at their level. You aren't going to have a three year old wanting to read Stephen King books or anything. And I would think that by the time a child is old enough to read a more complicated book they should be old enough that you would have already imparted a moral code. The most important thing you can do is to give them a moral compass and teach them how to follow it.

I was about 13 or 14 when I read A Clockwork Orange. My mum has never read it and has probably never even heard of it. It was given to me by my brother who's 10 years my senior. It's filled from beginning to end with violence and hateful people doing hateful things. But I'd been raised to know that what was happening in the book was not reality. But I was also educated enough to know that terrible things like that do happen in the world. I read the rape scenes with a sense of horror, but I wasn't damaged by them. I could understand what was going on in the book, I could understand that it was wrong, I could understand that it wasn't real. At the end of the book I was left feeling shaken, but at 27 years of age I'm still shaken by it.

Now, I'm not saying that it should be bedtime reading for 7 year olds, but I also don't think that a 7 year old would be interested in reading it. At 7 I was reading Roald Dahl books and there's a lot of people in the world that would claim that Roald Dahl is inappropriate. There's a lot of cruelty and violence in his books, but again I could recognise that it wasn't real.

I think children have a lot more sense than people often give them credit for, and I think they also respond a lot better to gentle nudges than outright bans.

Maybe it's just because that's the way I was brought up, but demystifying things always seems to be the best option. If we were curious about alcohol our parents gave us some. Rather than be banned from having sex as a teenager, I was given advice and told that while my mother would prefer it if I didn't she would also prefer it if I was safe and at home with 'whoever' and not off doing stupid things in dangerous places.

Even my school, when it came to drug education, didn't give us the 'just say no' lecture. They invited a load of ex and current drug users to our school, and left the room. We were then told by a bunch of junkies how nasty it was to be addicted to drugs and how thoroughly crap their lives were, but also, if we were determined to do it, how to do it as safely as possible.

So, I was always told the downside to things, and how things could mess up your life, or why things were wrong, but I was never outright banned from doing anything. That decision was always left up to me.

 

[member 737]

I guess, we'll have to agree to disagree, Idun.

O.K.
It was very educating and interesting to know such opinions about raising children, with which I've never met before. At least not in a praising form.

 

[member 737]

Litany,
inappropriety has no clear definition, it depends on a book. It may include such example as the one you have given (graphic violence, rape scenes), sex scenes (Wharton), tortures and sloughter (books about concentration camps and gulags), unacceptable ideas on life (Life of Pi, Mein Kampf).
I agree that there is a small likelihood that a little child is willing to read an inapprioprate book, that's why I included younger teenagers to a group which needs banning. They are able to read any book, to stay concentrated throughout and so on, but they are not ready for meaning of some books.
I would like also to say, that the aim of banning is not raising a child who will not be able to decide by himself and only obey blindly authorities. Discussions are very important, but not discussions about everything.