[Studies That Show Childhood] Censorship Better for Society?

Post Reply New Topic

IMO most censorship based out of a desire to "protect the children" is nothing but a taboo with no objective merit, it is based on the nonsensical notion of "childhood innocence."

That idea seems to be supported by Neill's work.

"Don't let school get in the way of your education." -Mark Twain

"A fools brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry. Hence University education." George Bernard Shaw

Some anecdotal evidence:

My neighbor is gay and has a 10-year-old son. He doesn't buy the idea of "childhood innocence," but rather, "childhood ignorance." He has not shielded his son from anything. This has led to some very frank discussions with questions like, “Why do they do that?” and answers like, “Because it feels good.” He allows him to stay up late on non-school nights and watch whatever he wants to on TV. He does not curb his language around his son, but he has imparted the idea that not everybody wants to hear those words.

The result? This guy is the coolest kid in school. He likes everybody and everybody likes him. He goes to a private school that mainstreams autistics and others, though he and his dad are very NT, very highly social. This is the kid who will come to the defense of anyone being bullied. This is a child who is knowledgeable and sophisticated and well prepared for the world.

Yes but children arent sexually mature beings so I dont think they should be exposed to full on porn. There are times to learn about things. I dont see anything wrong with letting a child be a child.

You can educate a child without showing them graphic stuff.

Interestingly enough, he's not particularly interested in full-on porn, probably due to his age.

When he was 5 he said, "When I grow up I want a boyfriend like Daddy." But he likes to stay up and watch "Blind Date." He likes to look at the girls. He's gonna be straight and we all know it. Dad facetiously claims to be heartbroken.

Im not saying a child cannot be gay, but I wouldnt like a child to see porn. It is not lovemaking, it is just sort of for shock's sake. I dont think it is the way to show children the facts of life. Therefore if I had a child I would not want them to have unsupervised internet access, or TV watching.

It would be fine if they were gay, but I would rather that sex was introduced to them as an affection thing and the media can present other sides to it that I would rather they saw visually when they were older.

Yeah, I think it's up to the parents to provide context.

Now I know another child, a friend of the 10-year-old, who I suspect is HFA. He's a very gentle and sensitive child who would probably cry at the sight of graphic violence. His parents shield him from quite a lot.

Sounds beautiful. I can only hope that I don't screw up with my kid too badly and maybe I can accomplish the same as your neighbor dude. I really like what you said about how he deals with "foul" language, too. I agree fully. I swear freely around my son. Not name-calling or anything like that. But just, you know, words I use to emphasize what I'm saying. He's barely two right now but I plan on teaching him that words themselves are not "dirty" or "vulgar", it's all in your intent. I just want him to know that there is a time and place for everything, and that Grandma's house will not be the proper place to use those words, or screaming them in public where not everyone may want to hear them, etc.

Like MrMark said, it's obviously up to the parents. My whole thing is that when a kid starts asking about things, or asking to see things or have them explained, that is when they have the right to know/see. Everything in moderation in reason, as others have said. I personally wouldn't feel right showing a 5 year old a 1 hour porno after he asks where babies come from, if you get what I'm saying.

I think children can guide a parent to teach them what they need to know, that is, if you let them. Kids let you know when they're ready to know certain things if you'd just listen to them and respect them as their own person.

People are talking about a child's innocence. I think brushing off hard questions with sugar coated "stork" stories are what really ruins a child's innocence. By hiding certain things, I think you teach the child that what they're learning (because they will learn this stuff with or without you) makes them bad in a way. Like they have a dirty little secret. Hope that came out right, trying to articulate it all.

OK, let's get one thing straight... not censoring someone from something and forcing them to see, hear, or watch something are completely different and in some cases, complete opposites. As far as I know, young children would have almost no desire to watch a sex scene in a movie, and even if they did, they'd probably be thinking stuff like "I wonder if the milk in her breasts tastes like mommy's milk" or "Wow, those two people really love each other". If you had an R-rated movie on in a room they were playing in, they would probably ignore almost the entire movie and tend to their toys instead. Maybe a few scenes with lots of bright colors or cartoon-like objects or characters might catch their attention, which is kind of rare in R-rated movie anyway. I really doubt it would hurt children to be exposed to that stuff at a young age. In fact, it might be more damaging to them by hiding real things in life like sex and death, because they will learn about them eventually and it may be harder for them to make good decisions about sex and to cope with death later on in their lives. You may not just be hiding sex and violence from them, you may be hiding knowledge that may be useful in situations in their future lives.

I admit that I might be wrong, so if anyone has any more info about this, I would really really really be interested in it.

There is one group of studies I know of that I think is closely related to this...

I've read of studies in the past that show that caged animals have less developed brains than animals that have large habitats. Basically, the more you are exposed to, the better the brain works.

Makes all the sense in the world.

Thanks for starting this topic, btw. Interesting subject. I too would really like to see some actual studies. Too lazy to Google right now

Read A. S. Neall's "Summerhill."

I'm sorry Neill.

Amazon.com: Summerhill School: A New View of Childhood: Books ..."I know of no educator in the western world who can compare to A.S. Neill. Summerhill is a tiny ray of light in the world of darkness." --Henry Miller ...
www.amazon.com/Summerhill-School-New-Vi ... 0312141378 - 207k - Cached - Similar pages

Be aware that the school has become a source of controversy, but I feel the principles are still sound. I have a background in Elementary Education.