Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

jouso wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Boys and girls are different. Even nudity without a sexual context can be arousing in a boy (National Geographic, anyone?). Nudity without a sexual context can also develop poor self images in women if they are comparing themselves to what they see. Simply put, while exposure may not be intended to be sexual, it can be turned in to it. Think about all the innuendos that people apply to otherwise innocent items these days.

They aren't. We have presumed for a long time that "girls don't do that" but they do. It was just not socially acceptable for girls to acknowledge it.

Boys and girls are different. I just have to watch how my children play to know that. The genetic makeup alone is sufficiently different to direct hormone development which influences personality. There are outliers, don't get me wrong, but those outliers do not define the rest of the group.

The sex's purpose and cycle time in reproduction also has an influence on their approach to the sexual act. That society has tried to gloss it over to make women equal to men doesn't change any of this, especially since there is no point in trying to make them equal in this area. Where equality in society was needed was that women be allowed to choose the timing and partner of the interaction. Western society has made great strides in this area, especially where it comes to women being allowed to choose not to reproduce or engage in long-term partnerships.

jouso wrote:
Attitudes to nudity are very personal, and mostly shaped by how you were brought up, but if someone finds, say, topless bathing arousing then the problem is with him, not the girls who just want to do away with tanlines. If my 4yr old son wants to keep bathing naked on the beach I won't force him to wear a swimsuit just in case there's a pedophile lurking around. It's him who has a problem, not me or my son.

You need to reread what I wrote, then. I was putting the arousal as being a problem with the boy, not with National Geographic. The point was that early exposure CAN cause problems in the child, and one does not always know if or what those problems may be. Engaged parenting is the only way to be aware of how that may affect them, and even that can miss because of the lack of mind-reading.

That your child may want to run around freeball at the beach is between you, them, and the local municipality. However, I would no more want them to do it then I would want them to hang a bleeding steak from the neck and go swimming in the ocean. One should not prepare them to be a target, that is bad parenting.

jouso wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Boys and girls are different. Even nudity without a sexual context can be arousing in a boy (National Geographic, anyone?). Nudity without a sexual context can also develop poor self images in women if they are comparing themselves to what they see. Simply put, while exposure may not be intended to be sexual, it can be turned in to it. Think about all the innuendos that people apply to otherwise innocent items these days.

They aren't. We have presumed for a long time that "girls don't do that" but they do. It was just not socially acceptable for girls to acknowledge it.

What do they do that we presume they don't do? Get sexually aroused by National Geographic?

If my 4yr old son wants to keep bathing naked on the beach I won't force him to wear a swimsuit just in case there's a pedophile lurking around.

Not to question your parenting style, but skin cancer is no laughing matter. At least make him wear a hat.

 Charistoph wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Boys and girls are different. Even nudity without a sexual context can be arousing in a boy (National Geographic, anyone?). Nudity without a sexual context can also develop poor self images in women if they are comparing themselves to what they see. Simply put, while exposure may not be intended to be sexual, it can be turned in to it. Think about all the innuendos that people apply to otherwise innocent items these days.

They aren't. We have presumed for a long time that "girls don't do that" but they do. It was just not socially acceptable for girls to acknowledge it.

Boys and girls are different. I just have to watch how my children play to know that. The genetic makeup alone is sufficiently different to direct hormone development which influences personality. There are outliers, don't get me wrong, but those outliers do not define the rest of the group.

The sex's purpose and cycle time in reproduction also has an influence on their approach to the sexual act. That society has tried to gloss it over to make women equal to men doesn't change any of this, especially since there is no point in trying to make them equal in this area. Where equality in society was needed was that women be allowed to choose the timing and partner of the interaction. Western society has made great strides in this area, especially where it comes to women being allowed to choose not to reproduce or engage in long-term partnerships.

Of course they are different. But when it comes to getting aroused by the opposite sex as soon as hormones kick in, there's no difference at all.

I have several family members in teaching positions for pre-teens, and from what they've told my (after multiple cellphone confiscations) the difference between boys and girls when it comes to sharing pictures of the opposite sex is zero. Girls do get aroused by looking at the opposite sex exactly like boys.

jouso wrote:
Attitudes to nudity are very personal, and mostly shaped by how you were brought up, but if someone finds, say, topless bathing arousing then the problem is with him, not the girls who just want to do away with tanlines. If my 4yr old son wants to keep bathing naked on the beach I won't force him to wear a swimsuit just in case there's a pedophile lurking around. It's him who has a problem, not me or my son.

You need to reread what I wrote, then. I was putting the arousal as being a problem with the boy, not with National Geographic. The point was that early exposure CAN cause problems in the child, and one does not always know if or what those problems may be. Engaged parenting is the only way to be aware of how that may affect them, and even that can miss because of the lack of mind-reading.

That your child may want to run around freeball at the beach is between you, them, and the local municipality. However, I would no more want them to do it then I would want them to hang a bleeding steak from the neck and go swimming in the ocean. One should not prepare them to be a target, that is bad parenting.

Half or more the kids his age wear the same bleeding steak. It makes absolutely no difference.

jouso wrote:
Of course they are different. But when it comes to getting aroused by the opposite sex as soon as hormones kick in, there's no difference at all.

I have several family members in teaching positions for pre-teens, and from what they've told my (after multiple cellphone confiscations) the difference between boys and girls when it comes to sharing pictures of the opposite sex is zero. Girls do get aroused by looking at the opposite sex exactly like boys.

The fact that they get aroused isn't in question, it is the ease and the triggers which are substantially different. As my wife likes to tell me, "boys are so easy", because we generally are. She just has to ask,and I'm there. For me to get her going usually involves a lot of together time. Of course, each individual is different, but the different sexes are different for a lot of good reasons linked to biology.

jouso wrote:
Half or more the kids his age wear the same bleeding steak. It makes absolutely no difference.

Ah, yes, the "everyone else is doing it" excuse. That one's always a winner.

 Charistoph wrote:

The fact that they get aroused isn't in question, it is the ease and the triggers which are substantially different. As my wife likes to tell me, "boys are so easy", because we generally are. She just has to ask,and I'm there. For me to get her going usually involves a lot of together time. Of course, each individual is different, but the different sexes are different for a lot of good reasons linked to biology.

This is getting a BIT off topic, but they did a study with rats and sexual interest. Female rats were largely only interested in sex with male rats when they were healthy. This makes sense because their part in the child bearing is to carry a child to term over a long period of time, during which they must themselves be healthy if the child is to be healthy. Male rats, however, wanted sex all the time - even when they were sick. I think in one case, one of the rats had lost a leg in a fight and it was still trying to copulate with the female rats. Male rats basically just need to deliver their genetic material at the beginning, and thus evolved to do that in the most efficient way possible - even when they are bleeding out from a missing leg. I can imagine a male human going, "sure, call an ambulance. I really need to go to the hospital or I'll die. But, you know, first things first..."

Also, I feel like the conversation really needed to know how long it takes you to get your wife going, so I think I speak for everybody when I thank you for that.

I mean I feel like 100% this topic can be closed now.

 AaronWilson wrote:
I mean I feel like 100% this topic can be closed now.

But it's FINALLY GOING PLACES!

 AaronWilson wrote:
I mean I feel like 100% this topic can be closed now.

Yes please.

 ServiceGames wrote:
I will soon be marrying a wonderful woman who has a son (in his terrible twos) who I also love. I'm looking forward to being a husband and father, so I want to do my best to keep from exposing my son to the wrong things during these impressionable years. Is Warhammer a bad thing? I don't think so at all, but I may keep my Chaos models more-or-less in storage (most haven't been painted) until he's grown more and wouldn't be frightened by some of them. Tzeentch I may be able to keep out as they are very colorful and don't look frightening. Anyway, I think you get my idea. Well, it will probably take A LOT to talk my future wife into letting me spend the money on a new army (especially one that costs so much), but for those parents out there that do play Warhammer, do you think that the Daughters of Khaine models are inappropriate around young children? The more I hear about this army, the more it sounds like it could be very strong and a lot of fun to play (with beautifully sculpted new models being the icing on the cake).

Thanks in advance

SG

From the get go, at least since my first son could talk (I now have two, ages 6 and 2), my gaming stuff was never hidden. Some of it is a bit scary and I don't show it all off, but if I approached it in a very neutral tone and my boys love "daddy's toy soldiers". I also did the Reaper Bones Kickstarter (cheap plastic fantasy figures, mostly), so they even help me paint sometimes - though I don't give them my favorite figures! But I come from a very open-minded background and want to raise my kids with as much candor as we think is possible. We talk about many things, and few things are taboo in our household. Nudity isn't an issue for us at all, but we do tread a bit more lightly with violence. Like, when a figure is "killed" he is often just "knocked down" or "gets an ouchie". They both absolutely love zombies, but I don't think they quite get the "eating your brains" bit, or perhaps not literally. I think you'll need to talk to your wife about this, and between the two of you, come up with what you think is best. Tread lightly, and listen to your wife, and you'll be fine! Good luck and have fun with your new family!

Just on the off chance of going massively on-topic, the least child-friendly part of the Daughters of Khaine is the sharp components and the choking hazard inherent with the size of the parts.
As a father of two, my largest fear with my miniature collection is one of my kids stabbing herself in the eye with a 1980s squat lasgun.

I think the general attitude of 'I have to hide my child form nudity' is far more damaging than seeing the models themselves. My parents have put various restrictions on me over the years in line with their Jewish faith, so thinks like keeping kosher. Guess who eats pork sausages for breakfast at school every morning. The tighter the leash, the more wild you kid's going to be when they're out of your sight. Not really an issue with something harmless like non-medical dietary requirements, but it could be a bit of an issue when to comes to sex. I'm not saying your child will become a sex pest because they didn't get to see a plastic midriff, but the general attitude your request implies could be quite damaging. Far better, I think, to educate the kid about sex when the time comes, rather than hiding it their whole childhood.