Advice: The big "talk"
Find a Conversation
Advice: The big "talk"
| Sun, 02-18-2007 - 7:28am |
Okay, I need advice on when people started or will start to have the big "talk" with their kids.
My oldest is going to be 9 next week. I have some friends telling me they already had this talk with their children at this age. She just seems so young to me. She still plays house, school and dolls with her little sister. IMO, telling her about sex is going to take some innocence away from her. But, am I sheltering her too much?
She knows about periods and body hair development. She already has little breats "bumps" (as she likes to call "em).
Agghhh..I really thought I had until she was 12 to have this talk like my mother did.
What is everyone's opinion?

Pages
<>
Sometimes there really isn't a giant gap. I find attitudes rise and fall according to the day to day details. If a 14yo wants to spend her own cash on fuchsia moccasins, I might sniff and say, "Hey, it's your allowance". But if my 9yo jumps up and down over them, I might say, "You need fuchsia moccasins like a hole in the head, so you're getting a pair of sneakers - which pair do you want?"
Sorry to reply again.. thought of something else.
>>Sometimes there really isn't a giant gap. I find attitudes rise and fall according to the day to day details.<<
This implies that my post referred to the attitude of the child. The "giant gap" refers to the attitude of the parent. If the gap is small, then you are saying that letting a preteen wear something that doesn't make them blend in is virtually the same thing as encouraging over involvement in one's appearance?
<>
Same difference, as far as I'm concerned. If the shoes were more practical and less silly, then they might be necessary. But since they aren't, then they aren't.
<>
It's a question of playing down the importance of physical appearance as long as possible. I really don't see too many little boys during the preteen years being choosy about their footwear or their sweatshirts in an effort to stand out from the crowd. On the contrary, they're basically interested at that age in blending in with the crowd. If they weren't, I'd wonder why they don't have enough of a life, to be so involved with their appearance. Ditto for the girls. They have the rest of their lives to get involved with seeing themselves as objects to be admired or judged by others. Ime, this comes in soon enough, as in middle school, and there's not a lot you can do about it.
You're welcome to respond as often as you like. I'll always read your posts - one reason is I find you're an excellent speller, which sounds trivial, but I like that ;-)
<>
Little kids, ime, don't really understand broad philosophical points like "encouraging over involvement in one's appearance". They pick up your attitudes more in the way you make decisions on these matters and the kind of feedback you give them about their decisions. So, one way of putting it is that one's attitude as an adult has to translate into daily choices and comments, or else it's probably not translating at all.
In the broad scheme of things, there's probably less harm in allowing the odd pair of fuchsia shoes than in making a federal case over them in the interest of propaganda to win them over to your POV. But over the years, there's a difference between going shopping with them every other week, oohing and aahing over fuchsia shoes, getting mother-and-daughter fuchsia shoes, and so on, versus saying, "Okay, you got some cool fuchsia shoes. Great. Now, how are you fixed for soccer cleats?"
>>Same difference, as far as I'm concerned. If the shoes were more practical and less silly, then they might be necessary. But since they aren't, then they aren't.<<
It's different, because you would likely say the same thing about an impractical or unnecessary pair of shoes if they were not silly, or did not have the potential of being a "stand out" item.
>>It's a question of playing down the importance of physical appearance as long as possible. I really don't see too many little boys during the preteen years being choosy about their footwear or their sweatshirts in an effort to stand out from the crowd. On the contrary, they're basically interested at that age in blending in with the crowd. If they weren't, I'd wonder why they don't have enough of a life, to be so involved with their appearance. Ditto for the girls. They have the rest of their lives to get involved with seeing themselves as objects to be admired or judged by others. Ime, this comes in soon enough, as in middle school, and there's not a lot you can do about it.<<
This whole thing presupposes that wanting to stand out a little = being involved, or overly so, in one's appearance. I don't agree with that premise. So, obviously, not the conclusion. Perhaps it's because you have never felt any desire to wear something different, or maybe it's because you are ultra conservative when it comes to clothing. For some reason, you strike me as someone who believes that one shouldn't try to stand out, one should dress conservatively, and one should blend in, even as an adult. In which case, this issue really has nothing to do with the person in question being a preteen.
>>But over the years, there's a difference between going shopping with them every other week, oohing and aahing over fuchsia shoes, getting mother-and-daughter fuchsia shoes, and so on, versus saying, "Okay, you got some cool fuchsia shoes. Great. Now, how are you fixed for soccer cleats?"<<
Ok, now I get it. The former never occurred to me, since my mother was like the latter example, and so am I. I enjoy me a hot pair of shoes once in a while, but you aren't going to catch me at the shoe store more than once or twice a year. :)
ONe of the key distinctions in this odd little subthread here between you and sabina is the motivation behind the "stand-out" shoes. Is the teen in question buying the fuschia shoes because they want to stand out? If so, why do they want to stand out? Or is the teen wanting to buy the fuschia shoes because they really really like the fuschia shoes and the fact that they make her stand out is completely a non-motivating byproduct?
For the former, there is potential for the "over-involvedness" that Sabina is referring to. i.e. a kid that wears things deliberately to stand out could easily be putting way too much emphasis on appearance. But, if that kid is a shy kid that wants to start being more noticed, then shoes may be an easy, non-intimidating way of gaining some confidence and social ability.
For the latter, it isn't then about standing out, but just about buying what one likes. And I rarely see the harm in that.
Pages