Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the elephant in the room is that you think by censoring these books the child isn’t exposed to the problem subjects. Naïveté on a pretty startling scale.

I read Flowers in the Attic at age 9. If I had not, I would not have been exposed to child abuse of that nature or incest until I was older.

Ultimately, I was fine, but parents restricting content isn't always naive. There are shades of grey here.

Really? You don't...read the news?

At age 9? I sure hope not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the elephant in the room is that you think by censoring these books the child isn’t exposed to the problem subjects. Naïveté on a pretty startling scale.

I read Flowers in the Attic at age 9. If I had not, I would not have been exposed to child abuse of that nature or incest until I was older.

Ultimately, I was fine, but parents restricting content isn't always naive. There are shades of grey here.

Really? You don't...read the news?

no karen my 9 year old doesnt

Some of the YA “fantasy” books are wildly inappropriate. Seriously bizarre stuff that surely contributes to mental problems in kids and teens if they take to those and read many of them

Anonymous wrote:May be it was a shitty book. The amount of junk written for kids is just insane. I can totally relate to curating the flow. I can't do much about whatever my child picks from the school library, but at least I have some control over public library check outs to introduce books that I would consider a must.

It’s only going to get worse now with AI authoring books

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the elephant in the room is that you think by censoring these books the child isn’t exposed to the problem subjects. Naïveté on a pretty startling scale.

I read Flowers in the Attic at age 9. If I had not, I would not have been exposed to child abuse of that nature or incest until I was older.

Ultimately, I was fine, but parents restricting content isn't always naive. There are shades of grey here.

Really? You don't...read the news?

You think 9 year olds are reading graphic descriptions of child sexual abuse and incest in the news?

Anonymous wrote:Someone gave mine the Hunger Games books when she was in second grade. I knew if she read them she'd have nightmares - she wasn't yet mature enough for them. I put them on a high shelf and told her when she was older and they wouldn't give her nightmares she could read them. I gave them to her in 5th grade, I think.

🍪?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the elephant in the room is that you think by censoring these books the child isn’t exposed to the problem subjects. Naïveté on a pretty startling scale.

I read Flowers in the Attic at age 9. If I had not, I would not have been exposed to child abuse of that nature or incest until I was older.

Ultimately, I was fine, but parents restricting content isn't always naive. There are shades of grey here.

Really? You don't...read the news?

NP. My kids certainly were not reading about incest in the news at age 9. Or even now as teenagers, really. What news are your kids reading?

Anonymous wrote:So I was at the library the other day and a girl who looked about 11 years old came in with a woman who was presumably her mom. She picked out a book for school her and brought it to her mom and her mom kept insisting the book is inappropriate and wouldn't let her check out the book. Just why. What the fuсk was she afraid of her kid reading? It's not like she was checking out a porn magazine.

I don’t know, Karen. Why didn’t you intervene and demand to know?

Jesus.

With my tween, who wants a little boy-girl stuff in books, I've been making sure the relationships are age appropriate. She's not ready for 50 Shades or A Court of Thorns and Roses. Absolutely not

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the elephant in the room is that you think by censoring these books the child isn’t exposed to the problem subjects. Naïveté on a pretty startling scale.

I read Flowers in the Attic at age 9. If I had not, I would not have been exposed to child abuse of that nature or incest until I was older.

Ultimately, I was fine, but parents restricting content isn't always naive. There are shades of grey here.

Really? You don't...read the news?

May be it was a shitty book. The amount of junk written for kids is just insane. I can totally relate to curating the flow. I can't do much about whatever my child picks from the school library, but at least I have some control over public library check outs to introduce books that I would consider a must.

Another perspective,OP. DC didn’t watch much TV except Sat AM cartoons. As they got older they naturally switched from Disney Jr and PBS shows to Disney shows. After watching 1 or 2 I canceled the subscription and went out and bought DVDs of old comedy shows from the 7080s. There was nothing explicit in the Disney shows I just hated the writing and context in most of them. Kids were brats and materialistic, parents were dumb, etc. it was not what I wanted at those ages.

Why do we have a rating system for movies? There is a difference between G rated movies and R-rated movies.

Anonymous wrote:Don’t censor your kids. I can see the point of a PP saying my kid is 7 or 8 and will have nightmares. But by 11, let it go. Let them read. They’ll be fine.

Absolutely disagree. All 11 y.o.s are not alike.

Anonymous wrote:But the elephant in the room is that you think by censoring these books the child isn’t exposed to the problem subjects. Naïveté on a pretty startling scale.

I read Flowers in the Attic at age 9. If I had not, I would not have been exposed to child abuse of that nature or incest until I was older.

Ultimately, I was fine, but parents restricting content isn't always naive. There are shades of grey here.