pennypitstop wrote:Ooo errr!

Thats what I said

My daughter's done this to me too. Except it was in the days when she was not really differentiating between male and female genitalia, so she declared that her penis felt nice.

I'm with Paula on that one. I'll accept calling things by anatomical names only when kids refer to shins as "tibias" or heads as "craniums." We continue to make genitalia "special" because we use the correct names for only those body parts. I don't have a pain in my sacro-iliac joint, I have a bloody back-ache. So what's wrong with saying "foo?" Or maybe I am just a "precious old lady."

I was going to chime in but I see we've gone all technical. But I'll chime in anyway.

I'm a much older sister and me and my older brother were going to unversity when my youngest sibling was very small and just learning to make her mouth do what it should when pronouncing words. While my family overwhelming uses ordinary sentence structure and words when discussing with small people-- not militantly, just as a matter of course-- we still allowed some of my little sister's words to enter the family lexicon. Including the word "Wursty", which was the best my littlest sister could do on the grand word "university" when she was two.

It's okay, in my opinion, to stretch the rules for fun. I generally agree with the concept-- babytalk is a waste of time in terms of your child learning to speak, especially when you are misusing grammar and then wondering why your child struggles with work-level grammar later in life.

Not that talking normally has to be a hard or militant thing. I would never drill a child in correct grammar, simply use the correct grammar to reflect the question back in a more commonly used grammatical form:

"Wants a juice, please" becomes, "You want a drink of juice?" for example.

Little kids go back to school after the summer break. Teacher says, "now children, can anybody tell me what they read over the summer, and please try not to use any babyish language". Little Jonny puts his hand up, says "Winnie the Shit."

twistor59 wrote:Little kids go back to school after the summer break. Teacher says, "now children, can anybody tell me what they read over the summer, and please try not to use any babyish language". Little Jonny puts his hand up, says "Winnie the Shit."

Talking about babyish language, what do you guys think of the "mums" organisation in the UK wanting to stop the "sexualisation" of children? I think there is a link between the two, they do run into each other so I thought it would be OK to ask the question here.

I was 11 when my last brother was born. So I participated a lot in changing the diapers, making him sleep and all that stuff. Lots of his baby expressions came to the langage family, like the way he used to count to 3 to do something ; he counted 1,2,3....8, 9 !!
We use this one still today.
I had some misunderstanding a few months ago with my goddaugther she's 7 now). I was speaking with her mother and she was sitting near us. She asked me if I wanted to eat mozzarella for lunch, I answered her that the last time I had mozzarella in an italian restaurant, I had to evacuate it quickly after the end of the lunch. My goddaughter looked at me, and pretended to throw up to show me she understod what I said. I smiled, and told her "no, on the other side". Then she turned her head to look back, and pucked again

I've allways wondered if the babblings we can observe have a meaning. I know there's been studies on that, but couldn't find any result.
Like in this video we all saw, could we one day translate what they're saying ?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lih0Z2IbIUQ[/youtube]

I think they're making themselves perfectly understood to each other.

A little like when babies cry. My mum used to say that different cries mean different things and that her mother said it was nonsense when she was young. Since then it seems she was right and that they do have different cries for different communication.

I was a little interested in that item that was in the news yesterday because maybe it stems from this. I'm not saying that we should "da da da da" when we're talking to kids but do we not perhaps encourage them to "grow up" when they should still be babies and then when they show independence and want to try things on their own, try to drag them back to babyhood?

I don't know. I think the whole business of raising children is more confusing today then when my kids were little.

Agrippina wrote:Talking about babyish language, what do you guys think of the "mums" organisation in the UK wanting to stop the "sexualisation" of children? I think there is a link between the two, they do run into each other so I thought it would be OK to ask the question here.

They had this conversation on LBC radio when I was driving from work. The radio speaker made some good points about sexualisation. That most of the arguements stem straight down to it seemed with every caller that they fear it will encourage an act of phaedophilia. When in most cases phaedophilia come from a family member or someone close to the family the clothes don't seem to matter.

Caller 1 - Called in saying that when her daughter went shopping and came back with a top saying '' I am a virgin, Mind this is a old t-shit!'' (she was 12 years old, on a group girl shopping outing). The Mom goes we are going back to the shop you aren't weaing that, its completely inappropiate, then asked her daughter can she see why. The daughter said I can't see a problem because its a funny a joke. So the daughter was buying the item of clothing not to look sexy just because of the joke.

When other callers spoke about 9 - 13 year olds are using the term sexy in relation to clothes, that actually mean it by it looks good. Alittle like saying this is Bad man (actually meaning good).

It seems it the parents that assert the sexualisation on children but the children themselves aren't actually seeing it in the same terms in language or concept.

To note at the end the radio speaker made a good point that its the adults in society that have been sexualising children but we have aloud sex to become a popular form and concept in the public sphere - fashion, tv, music etc....

I happened to agree with the radio speaker /presenter on this one.

I tend to agree too. If we want to 'desexualise' them then we have to go back to a time when storks brought babies, and kids behaved like babies until they were teenagers. Most mammals' young live with sexual activity within their society without even noticing it and they play games of pretend sex (I know apes and monkeys do) and their parents don't reprimand them. I think that kids, if they are taught to be circumspect about partners will be self-respecting and not promiscuous and even if kids are kept as "babies" until they are older, it doesn't deter paedophiles. If people want to exploit kids they will, whatever the kid is wearing. I think kids should set their own pace, people should set their own pace. Do things when they feel comfortable doing them.

I make a distinction between children knowing about sex, talking about it and engaging in play that takes it into account and the wearing of a shirt or other clothes that implied the child is "sexually active" (that is, engaging in real sexual activity).

Children may think it's a joke. Children think lots and lots of things are jokes-- when they aren't, or they are perceived differently by adult communities. That's why adults are constantly telling them things. For example, many kids haven't got racism figured out yet either: they don't know how their comments are perceived by adults, so we guide them towards understanding that.

But then, I don't think the major problem is pedophilia. What wearing "sexy" or "virgin" shirts, or clothes designed to highlight immature (or non-existant!) breasts etc. says to me is that the child is obsessed with how she (seems to be always be a girl; boys don't wear sexualized clothing as children, it seems) looks and the sex she will someday have, as if that's all there is to the world. She is being encouraged to view herself as not just a sexual being-- which is healthy--, but someone whose appearance and clothing choices, and possibly their entire being, are linked to sexuality and only sexuality. Which, as you say, they are absolutely not.

I don't think anyone wants their daughters, child or adult, to think like that. By all means, develop relationships, have meaningless or meaningful sex-- whatever suits you, provided it's safe-- but I don't think people should dress or perceive themselves as something to be "done"-- and nothing more. I apply this to all people, not just children, but think it's particularly saddening in children. Us adults at least are available.

To me, it's closely related to the babyish language-- but the opposite reason. We don't want our children to use "horsie" instead of "horse" because, to adults, it makes them seem less intelligent, although there's no reason why, for communication reasons, we shouldn't simply all use the word "horsie", or allow children to use different words from adults.

A lot of things we encourage children to do are not becuase they are necessarily better in a direct way, but because they set a symbolic standard that we hope they will continue when they are adults. For example, I work at a school where uniform is important and children are encouraged to hold open doors for each other and write with good handwriting. The point of such policies is to try to get the kids to think about how they look, present themselves and relate to others in the wider world. We are trying to change the way they THINK by changing what they DO.

Teshi wrote:I make a distinction between children knowing about sex, talking about it and engaging in play that takes it into account and the wearing of a shirt or other clothes that implied the child is "sexually active" (that is, engaging in real sexual activity).

Children may think it's a joke. Children think lots and lots of things are jokes-- when they aren't, or they are perceived differently by adult communities. That's why adults are constantly telling them things. For example, many kids haven't got racism figured out yet either: they don't know how their comments are perceived by adults, so we guide them towards understanding that.

I agree. There are some things that are tasteless even when obviously sexually-active adults do them.

But then, I don't think the major problem is pedophilia. What wearing "sexy" or "virgin" shirts, or clothes designed to highlight immature (or non-existant!) breasts etc. says to me is that the child is obsessed with how she (seems to be always be a girl; boys don't wear sexualized clothing as children, it seems) looks and the sex she will someday have, as if that's all there is to the world. She is being encouraged to view herself as not just a sexual being-- which is healthy--, but someone whose appearance and clothing choices, and possibly their entire being, are linked to sexuality and only sexuality. Which, as you say, they are absolutely not.

Which goes against what I believe about how girls should be raised. So yes, I agree.
While I don't see a problem with a child wearing a short skirt because it makes her feel good to wear it, I don't think that teaching girls how to apply make-up should be the most important thing they are taught. At the same time, taking care of their bodies, from a hygiene and health point of view should be taught to both genders. It's just as important for boys to keep their hands and heels from becoming dry and cracked as it is for girls.

I don't think anyone wants their daughters, child or adult, to think like that. By all means, develop relationships, have meaningless or meaningful sex-- whatever suits you, provided it's safe-- but I don't think people should dress or perceive themselves as something to be "done"-- and nothing more. I apply this to all people, not just children, but think it's particularly saddening in children. Us adults at least are available.

I agree.
But I also don't think that quality goods need to be advertised. So I don't approve of even adult women (or men) advertising that they are "available" for casual sex.

To me, it's closely related to the babyish language-- but the opposite reason. We don't want our children to use "horsie" instead of "horse" because, to adults, it makes them seem less intelligent, although there's no reason why, for communication reasons, we shouldn't simply all use the word "horsie", or allow children to use different words from adults.

To a degree I think that acknowledging that you understand what a child means when the use their own terms for things, gives them a bit of confidence, I don't advocate that if a child says as mine did "nin" for elephant, that the parents should use that term. But I don't see anything wrong with using "doggie" "horsie" etc when you're playing the "sound" game with a very young child: "the kitty says me-ow; the doggie says woof-woof" I think it's important to play games like incy-wincy spider, (itsy bitsy) and when a little child sees a spider and says "look incy-wincy spider" it shouldn't be told "we don't say incy-wincy."

[quote}A lot of things we encourage children to do are not becuase they are necessarily better in a direct way, but because they set a symbolic standard that we hope they will continue when they are adults. For example, I work at a school where uniform is important and children are encouraged to hold open doors for each other and write with good handwriting. The point of such policies is to try to get the kids to think about how they look, present themselves and relate to others in the wider world. We are trying to change the way they THINK by changing what they DO.[/quote]
I have a problem with school uniforms, which are compulsory in our country. We don't have schools where children are allowed to wear their own clothes. My teacher son argues that he approves of them and most teachers in schools where they are worn also tend to agree. I don't and I never have. I hate conformity because of the militaristic and religious mindset behind it. But I don't want to enter into a school uniform debate here, I've lived with it forever and I still don't understand why a dress code, which sets limits on what is and what isn't allowed isn't better. But I'll leave that for now. I don't see anything wrong with teaching children common courtesy. Holding a door for someone or helping your companion carry their parcels, or any of the little things we do every day that are "polite" simply make sense and make us liked and more socially acceptable.

I fully agree with children being taught about appropriateness, for instance, we don't pee in the garden at school in full view of the rest of the school, use the places designated for it, Or, why being promiscuous is dangerous and demeaning, rather that empowering, being assertive and being able to say "no" is not only going to make you into a more discerning adult when it comes to sex partners, and earn you respect, it will also help you when people seek to impose on you to do other things you don't want to do like taking care of other people's children, or driving out of your way to do their shopping for them when they're too lazy to do it for themselves. When kids are taught to say 'no' to important things like sex, it becomes easy to say 'no' to less important 'favours' that people ask for.