Where do Babies Come From? A Scientific Explanation for Curious Kids

[Pythagorean]

Actually psychologists aren't taught anything that have to do with Freud except the history of him as a founding father of psychology as a science. It stopped like 50 years ago, modern theories are much more sane and accurate.

Yeah, neuroscience is becoming more and more integrated with it. But to be fair to Chi Meson, there's still a lot of philosophy in it. I'm only in it as part of a neuroscience degree, myself (particularly, I'm interested in studying brain region functionality by studying cases that have a known neurological component).

Here's an example of where I think they're a little fast on their feet though:
One of our assignments is to do community service somewhere in mental health and keep a journal and basically psycholanalyze the people we're helping. It seems kind of weird to me, since none of us are licensed clinicians.

I'm really not interested in clinical psychology at all. I keep on pushing on doing my community service project in neuro and I wanted to give my presentation on synesthesia, but my prof wants me to go more for clinical-based disorders.

I think this is why I hate psychology, actually. I secretly wanted to be psychoanalyzed when I was a pre-teen, and now I am disgusted by people trying to read more into a situation than is actually there.

it sounds like somebody's overcompensating ;P

 

[edpell]

Actually psychologists aren't taught anything that have to do with Freud

Psychologists have a fear of emotions (and maybe ignorance?) and so are limited as therapists. They are great for cognitive issues.

 

[Char. Limit]

@Georgina: Why would girls and women lie about being sexually assaulted? Well, see the Duke lacrosse rape case. Great example.

I agree that sexual abuse is bad. But I don't think that if a father is sexually abusing his daughter, he's going to go out in public with her and call it a date.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why is it scarier and/or creepier for a pre-teen girl to go out for a night with a known loved one than with a teenaged virtual stranger that she or her parents know nothing about except that he's likely raging with hormones?

If we're talking sexual assault (or mere sexual corruption), which is, in reality, more likely?

 

[GeorginaS]

Why is it scarier and/or creepier for a pre-teen girl to go out for a night with a known loved one than with a teenaged virtual stranger that she or her parents know nothing about except that he's likely raging with hormones?

If we're talking sexual assault (or mere sexual corruption), which is, in reality, more likely?

Age 4 to 10 is not "pre-teen", although technically it is, but not in the sense that I think you're referring to. And I think it's creepy/squicky because it's sexualising the parent/child relationship.

 

[Evo]

Age 4 to 10 is not "pre-teen", although technically it is, but not in the sense that I think you're referring to. And I think it's creepy/squicky because it's sexualising the parent/child relationship.

I agree.
I really don't know how people can't see that the way that event was described contains inappropriate sexual inuendo in the language. I'm not saying that they were *acting* inappropriately, I'm saying the choice of wording was stupid.

It is not appropriate to describe an outing with a father/father figure as a "couple on a date". You can't pretend that "a couple on a date", in our society, doesn't mean a romantic relationship. Even adult friends would not describe going out together as "a couple on a date".

 

[DaveC426913]

It is not appropriate to describe an outing with a father/father figure as a "couple on a date". You can't pretend that "a couple on a date", in our society, doesn't mean a romantic relationship. Even adult friends would not describe going out together as "a couple on a date".

OK but still, parents are supposed to walk their children through rights of passage. Isn't it better that a young girl learn under controlled circumstances what going out in public with a boy is all about?

It seems to me you are approaching it from the idea that it is a romantic date, as opposed to a learning opportunity.

I'm not saying this is a great way to do it, I'm saying I'd give it the benefit of the doubt.


'course, I did ont realize the age limits 4-10.

 

[ideasrule]

I don't think anybody needs guidance on what going out with a boy is all about: that's plainly obvious to anybody smarter than a frying pan. What teenagers do need guidance on is how to ask for a date, where to get good porn (as opposed to virus-infested or psychologically damaging porn), and how to have a good sex life. I don't think many parents or teenagers have the bravery to discuss these things with their parents/children.

 

[Char. Limit]

Bravery? You'd need a tower of Babel full of bravery to get me to ask my dad where I can find good porn. Also, afterwards, you'd have to find me a new place to live.

Sometimes, it's not cowardice that prevents teenagers from asking these questions. It's intelligence.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't think anybody needs guidance on what going out with a boy is all about: that's plainly obvious to anybody smarter than a frying pan.

This is naive.

How do you think it becomes plainly obvious? Some people are not content with leaving their child's sexual education to the schoolyard and the TV.

 

[ideasrule]

How do you think it becomes plainly obvious?

Magic? No, I'm kidding; it becomes plainly obvious by observation, just like how nobody needs to teach a grade 8 student what it's like to be in grade 8: it's obvious by observation.

Some people are not content with leaving their child's sexual education to the schoolyard and the TV.

The schoolyard and the TV are much better teachers when it comes to sexual education. Parents, like the Chinese parents I was talking about earlier, may have little idea what modern culture is like or what's considered sexually appropriate/inappropriate by society. What better way to learn about romance than to see it in action?

 

[Evo]

This is naive.

How do you think it becomes plainly obvious? Some people are not content with leaving their child's sexual education to the schoolyard and the TV.

Most children learn from peers. Schools have sex edcuation, so even if a parent can't bring themselves to having "talks" with their kids, they will have a pretty good idea of what is acceptable, unless they are home schooled and isolated.

 

[ideasrule]

Bravery? You'd need a tower of Babel full of bravery to get me to ask my dad where I can find good porn. Also, afterwards, you'd have to find me a new place to live.

Sometimes, it's not cowardice that prevents teenagers from asking these questions. It's intelligence.

Exactly what I meant.

 

[Proton Soup]

This is naive.

How do you think it becomes plainly obvious? Some people are not content with leaving their child's sexual education to the schoolyard and the TV.

i have to agree. if anything, the expectations can be quite different for each

 

[DaveC426913]

...it becomes plainly obvious by observation, just like how nobody needs to teach a grade 8 student what it's like to be in grade 8: it's obvious by observation.

You've got to be kidding.

We're talking about going on dates here. What are they going to do? Shadow a couple and record their conversations? Their dancing skills? Watch how they order their food and eat it? Keep a checklist for ensuring they powder their nose instead of picking it?

Look, I'm not saying it cannot be done by observation, what I'm saying is: clearly this website appeals to a group of people who are not satisfied with what happens when kids learn their dating behaviour by observing their peers.

The schoolyard and the TV are much better teachers when it comes to sexual education. Parents, like the Chinese parents I was talking about earlier, may have little idea what modern culture is like or what's considered sexually appropriate/inappropriate by society. What better way to learn about romance than to see it in action?

I've got to be clear here. You and I may feel that this is a good way for our children to get their sexual education. But once you grant that there are people who - justifiably - have decided that society at-large is not the best teacher, then the responsibility rightfully falls to the parents.

Most children learn from peers. Schools have sex edcuation, so even if a parent can't bring themselves to having "talks" with their kids, they will have a pretty good idea of what is acceptable, unless they are home schooled and isolated.

Because some or even most parents find that acceptable does not mean they all must.

Again, it is not our place to decide for them that society should educate their kids.

 

[Evo]

You've got to be kidding.
Look, I'm not saying it cannot be done by observation, what I'm saying is: clearly this website appeals to a group of people who are not satisfied with what happens when kids learn their dating behaviour by observing their peers.

These are babies, aged 4-10. How much dating do they do?

I don't think interacting with a father figure at this point (father figure being a source of authority) would have anything to do with romantic dating. I can see it being harmful. A toddler being thrown into a situation that is related to stirring feelings of sex being associated with their father? EEEWWWWWW

 

[DaveC426913]

These are babies, aged 4-10. How much dating do they do?

Well, clearly it is a pre-cursor. How much algebra do they use at that age, yet they still learn it in school.

And if you wait till >10, it's likely too late. Because of the whole peer thing.

 

[MotoH]

You have to teach the kids things before it becomes awkward to do so. Getting the sex talk at 8 years old was a lot easier then at 14.

 

[GeorginaS]

OK but still, parents are supposed to walk their children through rights of passage. Isn't it better that a young girl learn under controlled circumstances what going out in public with a boy is all about?

It seems to me you are approaching it from the idea that it is a romantic date, as opposed to a learning opportunity.

I'm not saying this is a great way to do it, I'm saying I'd give it the benefit of the doubt.


'course, I did ont realize the age limits 4-10.

Huh. Okay then. I'll go with believing that 4 is a little bit young to be indoctrinating a girl into the the subtleties of dating. I'll even go so far as saying that 10 is too young.

I'm with Evo in that, Dave, it's not us who is approaching it from the idea of it being a romantic date, it's the wording associated with the event. We didn't write the ad copy. The ad/article presents it as a romantic date.

One last. I can teach kids about sex and love and responsibility and respect and how those things are all tied together without walking them through it personally before they get involved with some relative stranger with raging hormones. I don't have to do it with a child to give them an outline and understanding of how it should go.

 

[DaveC426913]

Getting the sex talk at 8 years old was a lot easier then at 14.

You got it twice? What? Like a refresher?

 

[DaveC426913]

I can teach kids about sex and love and responsibility and respect and how those things are all tied together without walking them through it personally

No, you can instruct. That's intellectual. What about the actual guidance / hand-holding part of learning?

 

[GeorginaS]

You have to teach the kids things before it becomes awkward to do so. Getting the sex talk at 8 years old was a lot easier then at 14.

Okay, granted, I don't have children of my own, so maybe it's more difficult to have those conversations with your own kids because -- perhaps -- you're not comfortable perceiving them as sexual beings. Which, I totally understand that. For me, though, I don't have the least bit of problem discussing the mechanics of sex or relationships in age-appropriate ways with kids. I'd have no more problem with an 8 year-old than 14. And those are two different discussions, anyway, and you'd likely need to have both.

 

[MotoH]

You got it twice? What? Like a refresher?

The 14 one was more of a "don't get a girl pregnant or you'll end up paying for it" and the all important "if she is needy and you dump her, she will say you either raped her, or her child is yours."

Which are words to live by in my opinion.

 

[GeorginaS]

No, you can instruct. That's intellectual. What about the actual guidance / hand-holding part of learning?

So, are you then suggesting that parents should hand-hold children through dates and dating? That means waiting until they're an appropriate age to date. Because, you know, they already know how to behave around their parents in public places, so you'd have to be role-playing for it to have any use at all and then you've wandered squarely back in squick territory.

 

[GeorginaS]

The 14 one was more of a "don't get a girl pregnant or you'll end up paying for it" and the all important "if she is needy and you dump her, she will say you either raped her, or her child is yours."

Which are words to live by in my opinion.

Good thing they invented paternity testing, huh? That way all you guys won't get stuck with all of those needy girls out there who blame the wrong fellow for her circumstances.

 

[DaveC426913]

I should state for the record that I am playing Devil's Advocate.

I do not presonally ascribe to this (especially since I have boys), but I do grant that these people have a valid case to doing this, and I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Mostly because - if and when I decide to take responsbility for my life (or my family's lives) in some fashion - it would sicken me if peers of mine beat me with 'it works for us, it should work for everyone!'

 

[DaveC426913]

...I don't have the least bit of problem discussing the mechanics of sex or relationships in age-appropriate ways with kids...

By whose accounting? Yours? Or the parents of the kids?

 

[MotoH]

You may not have a problem talking about sex, but the people you are talking to most likely will, especially if they are a young teenager.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

My daughter and I never went out on a date, and I turned out all right.

 

[DaveC426913]

So, are you then suggesting that parents should hand-hold children through dates and dating? That means waiting until they're an appropriate age to date.

If the parents want their child to be safely able to ride around the block once they're old enough to do so, they have every right to be holding the sissy bar until the kid can ride on his own. Waiting until the kid is old enough to go around block and then trying to teach him is a little late, don't you think?

Because, you know, they already know how to behave around their parents in public places...

Ah, but do they know how to behave when they are not with their parents (or at least practicing as if they weren't)?

Different set of rules.

"Little Annie, do you think it might be time to call it an evening?"
is very different from:
"We are going home now."

 

[Evo]

Again, it's the wording that is a really bad idea. That a father figure and small female child should have a "couple on a date" night is just sick. We're not talking about what went on, it's the image this discription brings about. It's wrong. What's wrong with calling it "father/daughter night"? "Daddy Daughter Date Night" with emphasis on being a "couple"?? At the age of 4-10? What is this telling this child?
It's ok to think of daddy as a romantic partner?

 

[DaveC426913]

You may not have a problem talking about sex, but the people you are talking to most likely will, especially if they are a young teenager.

I'm more concerned about whether that 8-year-old child's parents thought it was OK for her to be talking with her about sex.

 

[GeorginaS]

If the parents want their child to be safely able to ride around the block once they're old enough to do so, they have every right to be holding the sissy bar until the kid can ride on his own. Waiting until the kid is old enough to go around block and then trying to teach him is a little late, don't you think?

That's an inane comparison to dating. You aren't riding on the bike on the same seat with the child, are you? Further, you don't sit a four-year-old on a ten speed (do they even make those any more?) when she should still be on a little kid's bike, maybe even with training wheels on it.

Ah, but do they know how to behave when they are not with their parents (or at least practicing as if they weren't)?

Did you just corner yourself, here? They know full well they are out with their parents, so they are going to behave as they know they should. If they're pretending that their parent is in fact a "date" -- as in a romantic pairing -- then we're right back at squickhood.

And again, I go back to what Evo reiterated about the wording of the ad for the function, which you aren't addressing at all, Dave.

And I'll add, yet again, that 4 - 10 is a wee bit young to be thinking about/addressing how to behave in public with a member of the opposite sex, even for hands-on/teaching opportunity purposes.

 

[GeorginaS]

I'm more concerned about whether that 8-year-old child's parents thought it was OK for her to be talking with her about sex.

Have you never had someone else's kid corner you with questions about life and stuff? Weirdly, people trust me with their kids -- they even will them to me -- so I spend time with other people's children in my care. Kids talk; they ask questions about stuff. I've had some fascinating discussions about ethics with kids. And yes, sometimes the answer is, "I think you should talk to your mom about that."

 

[DaveC426913]

That's an inane comparison to dating. You aren't riding on the bike on the same seat with the child, are you? Further, you don't sit a four-year-old on a ten speed (do they even make those any more?) when she should still be on a little kid's bike, maybe even with training wheels on it.

I just can't believe how judgemental this all is.

Surely the default applies. Responsible people have the right to act how they think best.

Unless you think this site is actually promoting pedophilia, surely you're knee-jerking here.

Did you just corner yourself, here? They know full well they are out with their parents, so they are going to behave as they know they should.

It's not an exam. They're not adversaries! You teach your child to make her bed by doing it with her. You don't assume that the moment you turn you back they'll rebel.

And I'll add, yet again, that 4 - 10 is a wee bit young to be thinking about/addressing how to behave in public with a member of the opposite sex, even for hands-on/teaching opportunity purposes.

I grant that. I also grant that people believe in God even though I don't - and that's OK..

 

[DaveC426913]

Have you never had someone else's kid corner you with questions about life and stuff? Weirdly, people trust me with their kids -- they even will them to me -- so I spend time with other people's children in my care. Kids talk they ask questions about stuff. I've had some fascinating discussions about ethics with kids. And yes, sometimes the answer is, "I think you should talk to your mom about that."

OK, well I did say I would be concerned, not that I actually am concerned.

 

[GeorginaS]

Unless you think this site is actually promoting pedophilia, surely you're knee-jerking here.

I didn't suggest that either. I said -- and Evo said -- their wording is squicky because that what it sounds like they're promoting. Not that we believe it or think that, but they have terrible copy writers, because that's what it sounds like.

P.S. 4 - 10 is still too young to think/talk/play-act dating. Have a tea party, yes. Date, no.

It's not an exam. They're not adversaries! You teach your child to make her bed by doing it with her. You don't assume that the moment you turn you back they'll rebel.

The range of options available in behaviour choices not related to dating your parents in public places is not limited to rebelling.

 

[Zantra]

That's a big "if". Have you asked your daughter whether she would ever go to the "date night" discussed in this thread? I don't know anything about your family or where you live, but I feel 99% certain the answer will be "no".

That's a big "it depends" If we're talking about now, you're probably right. My daughter at 8 or 9.. might not be such a big deal It's all about context. If I'm at a wedding and I dance with my daughter, it's perfectly acceptable. If her and I go out to a movie or to eat no one calls me a child molester, but if I go to a daddy daughter dance I'm raping my child. I think if they just removed the word "date" from the Ad, this thread wouldn't even exist. If the organizers of this even are a bit dense, we can't go on the assumption that this event is a get together for pedophiles, and I think that's the inferred assumption here.

And let's face it, a lot of little girls do go through that competition phase with mommy around this age, so I could see where a girl around 5-10 who was close with her dad wouldn't have too big of a problem with this, especially if she was competing with mommy or say, a sibling for her dad's attention.

Is that always the case? No it depends on the relationship the dad and daughter have, it depends on how close the family as a whole is. It depends on how old the daughter is, and it depends on how well adjusted she is psychologically.

But I think it's safe to assume the intent here was purely innocent, in any case.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I didn't suggest that either. I said -- and Evo said -- their wording is squicky because that what it sounds like they're promoting. Not that we believe it or think that, but they have terrible copy writers, because that's what it sounds like.

P.S. 4 - 10 is still too young to think/talk/play-act dating. Have a tea party, yes. Date, no.

I think that the wording is just an easy focal point. It brings to the fore the uncomfortable undertones that some of us perceive in 'dressing up pretty to go out dancing with daddy' which may be more easily ignored if it weren't being referred to as a 'couple' on a 'date'.


And I do not think that the point of the exercise has much to do with 'date training' as Dave suggests. I think it is only meant to promote closer father and daughter relationships. Calling it a 'date' and the two a 'couple' I believe is just meant to be cute.

 

[DaveC426913]

And I do not think that the point of the exercise has much to do with 'date training' as Dave suggests. I think it is only meant to promote closer father and daughter relationships. Calling it a 'date' and the two a 'couple' I believe is just meant to be cute.

This is sort of more where I was going. I don't think its primary function is date-training.

 

[DaveC426913]

I didn't suggest that either.

I know. That's why I raised the point. I'm suggesting that your repulsion is really only appropriate if that was what you were thinking.

I said -- and Evo said -- their wording is squicky because that what it sounds like they're promoting. Not that we believe it or think that, but they have terrible copy writers, because that's what it sounds like.

What wording exactly? Where do you think they're misrepresenting anything?

P.S. 4 - 10 is still too young to think/talk/play-act dating. Have a tea party, yes. Date, no.

Well ... OK, some kids like to tea party, some like to dance.

The range of options available in behaviour choices not related to dating your parents in public places is not limited to rebelling.

They would be rebelling if they knew how their parents wished them to behave and they didn't behave that way.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Again, it's the wording that is a really bad idea. That a father figure and small female child should have a "couple on a date" night is just sick. We're not talking about what went on, it's the image this discription brings about. It's wrong. What's wrong with calling it "father/daughter night"? "Daddy Daughter Date Night" with emphasis on being a "couple"?? At the age of 4-10? What is this telling this child?
It's ok to think of daddy as a romantic partner?

Even as a kid, I thought that "going on a date" with my mom, or my sister "going on a date" with my dad was just a facetious way of saying they're going out and spending some time together.
I'd be more afraid of what it's telling the dad, if the guy is a sicko.

 

[parkland]

I don't see the harm unless he tries to take home someone else's date.

LOL...!

 

[Proton Soup]

LOL...!

this is where date training becomes important, learning to "dance with the one who brung ya"

 

[alysdexia]

I just can't believe how judgemental this all is.

Surely the default applies. Responsible people have the right to act how they think best.

Unless you think this site is actually promoting pedophilia, surely you're knee-jerking here.

Paidofilia is Hellènic for kid-friendship, which it is. Ye mean paiderastia.

I grant that. I also grant that people believe in God even though I don't - and that's OK..

Hah, I fand a http://thepostsearchlight.com/news/2010/feb/16/kiss-and-dance/ after refutare some Georgian's gossip about Peter's testimony of Christ

 

[Newai]

P.S. 4 - 10 is still too young to think/talk/play-act dating. Have a tea party, yes. Date, no.

Eh, at what age is it appropriate?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Could be I've seen Chinatown too many times, but I think the advertizement for this dance has "CREEPY" written all over it, festooned with a forest of fluttering red flags.

 

[Char. Limit]

Actually, pedophilia (paedophilia? I've seen it both ways, not sure which one is right) comes from the ancient Greek for child-love. It isn't sexual, really, but current connotations make it so.

 

[Galteeth]

Definetely a bit icky.


Perhaps this would make a better ad copy:



http://www.pedobearpics.com/pedobear/pedobear-halloween-costume.jpg


As far as telling kids about sex, it doesn't have to be that big a deal. Just explain it in a matter of fact, biological way, as you would any other biology related question.

 

[Char. Limit]

Oh, great, someone brought in Pedobear...

Did you ever, as a kid, ask your parents "where do babies come from?" You didn't get a real answer. I wonder why?

Because they(parents) don't want them(children) to know!