Teaching kids about homosexuality

LadyRhian

New member
May 13, 2010
1,246
0
0
Depending on the age of the kid, I'd tell them, basically, "Many boys like girls and many girls like boys, but there are also boys who like boys and girls who like girls. It doesn't make them bad, wrong or unnatural for liking who they like, its just how they are."

And then I'd explain the difference between liking as a friend and liking as something more than just friends.
 

Housebroken Lunatic

New member
Sep 12, 2009
2,544
0
0
TiloXofXTanto said:
Actually, sex is only caused by the biological urgings of the Id wishing to procreate (yes, even in homosexuals where the effort is pointless, sex is still caused by a subconscious urge for procreation being spread by the Id), the pleasure obtained from sex and the seemingly present want for sex is simply a buy-in used by the subconscious human mind to get you to do something you wouldn't have wanted to do otherwise (by this I mean, if you weren't attracted to anyone or anything, then the concept of having sex would be foreign and unwanted and an entire species would go extinct).

So the actual sensation of "being horny", as you put it, is the human subconscious telling itself that it is the time for children.

HOWEVER, Let it be known that even though this feeling applies all the way across the board, that the little voice in the back of your head making you do sex related things never specifies who to aim for. That's a decision for the Ego to make behind your back without ever telling you. Basically, the human urge of "being horny" is caused by the Id's need for procreation and a mate, but the unnoticed and static side of the Ego turns you toward whoever you want to direct that feeling towards without thinking of the end goal or purpose.
ACTUALLY "The Id" is a term from the theory of psychodynamics as posed by Sigmund Freud. The thing is, psychodynamics is just a theory and not an actual science, and a lot of the aspects of psychodynamics is considered to be flawed and outdated by most of modern psychology.

Heck even psychology is more of an amalgam of pretty arbitrary theories than scientific facts, so saying that "The Id" is responsible for sexual arousal or that an "Id" even exists is just an unproven theoretical statement/interpretation of the human mind and not a scientific fact.

Nothing wrong with postulating theoretical statements of course, but if one does that one should also make it clear that it is theoretical and not a "fact of life". ;)

(yes, I have studied several branches of psychology extensively, both out of personal interest and as a part of my education, so I know what im talking about)
 
Jun 16, 2010
1,153
0
0
101flyboy said:
If heterosexuality isn't a major issue in their kid's life, why make it one?

Also, why do you think this situation is about sex, sex, sex? Is that all being gay is about to you, sex? Says a lot.
I was referring to the OP's friend, who is a heterosexual parent teaching her child about sex.
Pay attention.


It's hilariously hypocritical how the homosexual community demands to be accepted by prying into other people's lives and/or attempting to change other people's beliefs through forceful accusations of intolerance. If you're actively being attacked for being gay, you're well within your rights to get up in arms. But what a parent teaches their child is their business.

Edit:
Housebroken Lunatic said:
TiloXofXTanto said:
Actually, sex is only caused by the biological urgings of the Id wishing to procreate (yes, even in homosexuals where the effort is pointless, sex is still caused by a subconscious urge for procreation being spread by the Id)
ACTUALLY "The Id" is a term from the theory of psychodynamics as posed by Sigmund Freud. The thing is, psychodynamics is just a theory and not an actual science, and a lot of the aspects of psychodynamics is considered to be flawed and outdated by most of modern psychology.
That is very true. In fact, if you actually started talking about the 'id' in front of real psychologists, they would laugh your ass out of the building. It's like talking about creationism around biologists. Nobody takes Freud seriously any more. Psychoanalysis in general is considered totally obsolete. The stuff that worked was incidental, like using leeches to remove "excess humours" once a week.
 

CrazyDave DC

New member
Apr 14, 2010
85
0
0
I don't think it would be a good idea to tell her about homosexuality straight away purely due to the idea that it might be confusing. I mean, it is incredibly important to learn about homosexuality eventually, so perhaps the best policy might be to inform her about it once she has a firm grasp on heterosexuality first. Just imagine you learning what sex is for the first time, only to be confused by this other version of sex taught alongside the former. I don't know, it seems better this way.
 

Azrael the Cat

New member
Dec 13, 2008
370
0
0
The Hairminator said:
lettucethesallad said:
The Hairminator said:
No, I do not. I don't think homosexuality should be encouraged, unless it actually comes from the child itself, with as little as external influence as possible.
...or the kid might catch the gay?
You would be amazed how many people think they have a sexuality they indeed have not (at least that's what I firmly believe). I feel sorry for people under 18 who claim to be homosexual, as it's more often than not insecurity.
I hope you're not male, otherwise YOU FAIL BIOLOGY FOREVER!!

I mean, if you ARE male...please don't tell me that you didn't get erections until 18? Because if you did, I hate to break it to you but there IS something wrong with you. Most of us get erections when aroused from about 11-12 at latest.

Isn't that a pretty good guide for sexual attraction? Obviously you can get an erection without being interested in someone, but as a general principle you get an erection through sexual attraction. How the hell can you get confused about who you get erections around? I mean, it's pretty clear when it happens...
 

Red Rum

New member
Feb 25, 2008
579
0
0
She's gonna find out eventually, she can't keep her sheltered forever. The number one thing that should be enforced is that homosexuality is something one is born with, not a choice, and that people who refuse to accept their sexuality are more miserable than people who don't. It's should also be explained that what they talk about in private should stay private, because you never know who is against homosexuality, even though they're wrong.
 

Valksy

New member
Nov 5, 2009
1,279
0
0
Housebroken Lunatic said:
"Love can occur between a man and a woman, but also between a man and another man or a woman and another women. Only men and women can have children through sex, though but that doesn't mean that the feelings of homosexual are any less real or strange than the ones between heterosexual men and women. People are different, and it's okay to be different because we are all a bit different from eachother in some way or another. So I want you to bear this in mind if you meet a boy who loves other boys instead of loving girls, because even if you might not love boys like he does, he's not any less of a person than you are, just different from you. The same way you are different from him when you like blue shirts more than green shirts.

You want others to accept that you like blue shirts and not get teased or made fun of because you do, right? Then it's not hard to understand that a boy who likes boys more than he likes girls would want to be able to like what he likes without getting teased because of it, don't you agree?"

Pretty simple and clear cut explanation and one that a kid at a young age would eat up pretty easily.

So exactly what is it that you fear would "complicate" matters so much?
That is a truly excellent post. Thank you for illustrating so effectively.
 

BringBackBuck

New member
Apr 1, 2009
491
0
0
Wow, just got through reading 14 pages of this (I commented yesterday at about page 3 and just had to catch up on some pretty interesting posts).

My thoughts:

Many people arguing from cross purposes. The OP states the child in question is learning about birds and the bees and that it would be 'inappropriate' to tell her about homosexuality. Some people have assumed that a talk about "the birds and the bees" means a discussion about reproduction which, by definition, is a heterosexual act. Others have assumed that it is a discussion about sexual relationships, which should include homosexuality, as that is clearly a type of sexual relationship.

Maybe a better title to the thread would have been "should you teach kids about reproduction without including the context of sexual relationships?".

Also we seem to have gotten sidetracked by homosexuality is/is not a choice. Personally I don't see what this has to do with anything, and why it would make being gay any better or worse if it was one or the other? Someone had a pretty good post about this (I'll see if I can find it and quote it). Basically it was that everyone is born with a disposition (be it gay/straight 80/20, 70/30, 50/50, 99,1) and they do with that what they will. I guess that means it is a choice, but for some people who are 99.9/0.01 it isn't much of a choice, and if society forces them to go with the 0.01 than it's a pretty crappy choice and society needs to sort it's shit out.

For the record, when the time comes to explain "the birds and the bees" to my kids, I think it is important to explain not just reproduction, but provide the context of sexual relationships. I imagine this will take place over many separate conversations over many days.
 

orangecharger

New member
Nov 13, 2009
200
0
0
lettucethesallad said:
The Hairminator said:
No, I do not. I don't think homosexuality should be encouraged, unless it actually comes from the child itself, with as little as external influence as possible.
...or the kid might catch the gay?
lol. I can understand that given that mommy is preggos through a heterosexual relationship and this is also how the 7 year old I assume came to be. So it makes to sense to frame it inside what was likely questions from the 7 year old of their world as they have experienced it. At 7 I would be tempted to just give basic details to satisfy the question. I would not suggest it was the only way to have a relationship or create a family with someone(adoption, etc.) regardless of the genders of the parents. It's not that I would preach one way over the other I would talk to them about their life and how they came to be and be careful to use language that does not exclude other options. It's more about them being too young to overload with too many options. I would prepare for the longer however you feel about sex, gender, etc. I support you conversation when they are somewhere closer to 12 or start showing interest in either gender as more than friends.

Also, if the parents (step or otherwise) thing this is the right choice for their child you sort of have to let that be the course they take. They do know the child better than anyone else.
 

Illesdan

New member
Sep 15, 2008
387
0
0
lettucethesallad said:
My pregnant sister has a 7 year old step-daughter who's in the process of learning about the birds and the bees. I was a little rattled to learn that my sister is only teaching her about hetrosexual relations, saying that it would be 'inappropriate' to tell her about homosexuality at such an early age as the step-daughter might discuss it at school and awkward phone calls from the teachers might follow. Since my sister is in a hetrosexual marriage she argued that it's what her step-daughter encounters on a daily basis, and thus is what she should be taught as the 'norm'.

Do you escapists think that children should be told about homosexuality and homosexual relationships at the same time as they're learning about straight relationships?
Your sister is living with her head in the sand. Homosexuals and transgendered people are all around us on a daily basis. 'Normal' people choose to live with blinders on and just shun or ignore them.

When I was three years old, my grandparents and I moved to a small community. The first people to greet us to the neighborhood was a very nice gay couple. My first friend there was a boy who asked me to call him 'Danielle' ('Morel Orel's' Coach Stopframe reminds me of my childhood every time I see him). Hell, I was FOUR and knew then this kid wasn't straight.

I work with a lesbian woman who happens to be one of our crew leads. I could go on, but I think I've made my point. Here's the thing; my grandparents were awesome in the fact they not only accepted people as they were, but also explained they came across people who weren't the norm. They didn't make a big deal out of it, they just pointed out they happened to be a little different from the rest of us, that's all.

Telling children about gays isn't going to turn your child gay. If that were true, I'd be living in San Francisco right now....
 

Housebroken Lunatic

New member
Sep 12, 2009
2,544
0
0
James Joseph Emerald said:
That is very true. In fact, if you actually started talking about the 'id' in front of real psychologists, they would laugh your ass out of the building. It's like talking about creationism around biologists. Nobody takes Freud seriously any more. Psychoanalysis in general is considered totally obsolete. The stuff that worked was incidental, like using leeches to remove "excess humours" once a week.
Well I wouldn't go as far saying that it's like talking about creationism around biologists. After all, as a psychology student you have to learn about Psychodynamics, Sigmund Freud as well as a plethora of other psychological perspectives. It's just something everyone has to go through. But it's not really intended to educate the student that psychodynamics is considered an applicable science today, it's more about learning about the history of psychology as a subject (sort of like reading about Pythagoras and René Descartes in mathematics), it's mandatory in order to understand the development of the subject and why certain theories have grown to becoem obsolete while others are still used.

Still I should mention that modern psychology as well is FAR FROM being above criticism. In fact, im highly critical if it myself and have even gone so far as declaring it to be a pseudo-science in many aspects and that a lot of supposedly "modern" psychologists aren't much better than Sigmund Freud because they practice equally flawed and nonsensical science as he did, and make similarly nonsensical and illogical claims about how the human mind works.

A lot of psychologists are also incredibly bad at admiting the importance of the biological brain in relation to the human psyche. I mean one of the most scientific facts is the one that the brain is EVERYTHING. Yet some psychologists still insist on that cute "tabula rasa" bullshit (the idea that everyone is a blank sheet of paper in the beginning and that enviroment and heritage determines how your psychological profile will look like).

If you are like me however, and try to separate ideological bullshit from science it's pretty clear that tabula rasa is far from everything. The biological brain obviously holds PLENTY of influence on our psychological profiles and even the most imperceptible and minute changes to the brain chemistry can have dramatic effects on behaviour and thought patterns in individuals.

The problem is, we know way too little of how the human brain works to determine why certain things happen. Our understanding of the anatomy of the brain is limited and pretty ham fisted when you think about it. We might have a rough outline about what large portions of the brain govern, but does any scientist really know EXACTLY what a particular axon and synapse govern? Of course they don't. The brain and nervous system is like an incredibly complicated central processing unit in a computer, but made up of vastly more complicated parts than miniature transistors.

We know how a central processing unit works because we designed it (i.e we can calculate what a particular "1" or "0" of machine code does to the computer because someone originally built the thing, and if you have the necessary skills in mathematics you can even determine it on your own without asking the original designer). But we didn't design the human brain, and where transistors are so clear cut that they work with only 1's or 0's (i.e either there IS current, or there ISN't any current) the smallest components of a human nervous system and brain seems to work with a lot more numbers than that, since the passing of a bioelectrical current is determined by exact amounts of hormones/signalsubstances which cancel eachother out.

So even after having spent more than a century examining and poking the brain with all manner of ham fisted approaches, we've only learned very basic principles of it so far. It's a complicated piece of biology, and it will take a shitload of time before we can even begin to make accurate claims about how it works on both micro and macro levels.

Which is why the field of Psychology is something I consider to be an EXTREMELY iffy field of study that makes far too many arrogant claims about the human mind and nature. Often they have only the most rudimentary understanding of the biological brain, yet they think that they can tell us something substantial about the human perception.

Would you trust a guy who can only view a room through a keyhole to be able to tell you exactly where a rat on the floor in that room is going to run across? Because that's pretty much what psychology (arhcaic as well as modern) has always been about. Skepticism is therefore extremely warranted when it comes to any psychological theory. :)
 

TilMorrow

Diabolical Party Member
Jul 7, 2010
3,246
0
0
Not until their older. My little brother had the awkward moment of asking what does gay mean after hearing it from another kid in his class. My dad had to go for the actual old english meaning not for the slang its used as these days.
 

Gordon_4_v1legacy

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,577
0
0
7 years old seems a bit young to be having any kind of sexual education occurring and truthfully, I think the OP's sister is being a bit irresponsible in talking about it now. Though I give kudos to a parent who gives a shit to actually sit and discuss this with their child, she might be jumping the gun a little.

Let her grow up a bit first, usually sexual education formally starts at around 12/13 years. I got a talk from my mother at about that age about the emotional part of sex, and she let school handle the science.
 

Metazare

New member
Nov 1, 2010
17
0
0
No it's not the right thing to do to teach very young children about homosexuality because then we're forced to have more stupid conversations like this. Then we forget the fact what we try to instill in our children is our own business and nobody else.
 

TheAceTheOne

New member
Jul 27, 2010
1,106
0
0
CheesusCrust said:
The Hairminator said:
No, I do not. I don't think homosexuality should be encouraged, unless it actually comes from the child itself, with as little as external influence as possible.

The same goes for the opposite- The kid will learn soon enough, and probably ask her parents about it- then they should tell her, naturally, as unbiased as they can. If she later finds out she is indeed actually queer, it would be better if she does not have any subconscious issues with it inherited from her parents.
I'm going to have to agree with you.
I second that agreement.
 

Rinshan Kaihou

New member
Dec 3, 2009
233
0
0
Piss off, you have no idea what you are talking about. Most gay/bisexuals know from a very young age what they are.
 

The Hairminator

How about no?
Mar 17, 2009
3,231
0
41
TheAceTheOne said:
CheesusCrust said:
The Hairminator said:
No, I do not. I don't think homosexuality should be encouraged, unless it actually comes from the child itself, with as little as external influence as possible.

The same goes for the opposite- The kid will learn soon enough, and probably ask her parents about it- then they should tell her, naturally, as unbiased as they can. If she later finds out she is indeed actually queer, it would be better if she does not have any subconscious issues with it inherited from her parents.
I'm going to have to agree with you.
I second that agreement.
Thank you guys. There's so many people replying positively to my post (or replying to replies to my post) that I can't help but think I got at least something right- despite the large bulk of people in this thread telling me what a moron I am.
 

The Hairminator

How about no?
Mar 17, 2009
3,231
0
41
TheAceTheOne said:
I hope you're not male, otherwise YOU FAIL BIOLOGY FOREVER!!

I mean, if you ARE male...please don't tell me that you didn't get erections until 18? Because if you did, I hate to break it to you but there IS something wrong with you. Most of us get erections when aroused from about 11-12 at latest.

Isn't that a pretty good guide for sexual attraction? Obviously you can get an erection without being interested in someone, but as a general principle you get an erection through sexual attraction. How the hell can you get confused about who you get erections around? I mean, it's pretty clear when it happens...
Actually, I know my biology. In truth a man can get erection for both anything and nothing at all without feeling any sexual arousal (it happens on an every day-basis as well). Your argument is null.