They may come out racist anyway, although I think it is always good to try to establish a dialogue to weed out bigotry. It may or may not work, but you can't win unless you try.

Now, what S*S wrote is not bullshit in many places - including the school I was in. As kids race was not an issue (though minority members were very few. I think one black kid and two Gypsies. Or something like that), and as race issues were not singled out it was not a big deal. We were taught about tolerance, though, which was good, considering the geek/sports divide. THAT conflict was sometimes quite violent, and I think some sports guys may have got traumas by being beaten by geeks. Race issues however did not come up anywhere else but tv, and we kept talking about those silly Americans and their fixation of race.

My point is, tolerance is something that should be taught. You can do it in many ways, and if some particular issue (race, religion, parents' sexuality) is not on the map, raising that as point of contest is counter productive. Just use those issues that ARE on the map and teach tolerance that way. And do not forget to mention it applies pretty much universally.

Not at all true.  It would not be surprising at all for one of 30 kids to raise the question in terms with which they are comfortable which more than likely would beg the question of "kissing boys."  It is also not unlikely that some heated parental discussion overheard by the kiddies would take it further.

The Clinton/Lewinksy thing had tons of kids asking about Oral sex given they would overhear on the news or in the general discussions of their parents discussing the scandal.  Kids find the porn stash.  Hell, kids bring the porn stash into school occasionally.    The school bus is a hot bed of such discussions.  Yes, the younger ones are put near the front and separated if the school has a lot of grades under one roof, but this kind of stuff does get interjected every once in a while and has to be addressed, primarily at home.


Declaring victory does not make it so, sport.  You use the seeping absolute that no sexual discussion will take place.  I reject that notion by stating it only takes one kid or one addled parent to get the ball rolling in that regard.  At that level the sexual discussions, if raised by NORMAL kids will revolve around the notion of kissing and hugging and would be something that MIGHT be rised.  Might does mean absolutely -- one way or the other.

Therein lies the point you choose to miss or ignore by remaining steadfast behind your absolute statements.

Bullshit.  If you have been around kids, PTAs and all the other stuff involved with raising children, you do not have to be terribly engaged to see these things developed.

You are arguing for the book in a vacuum.  That may be all well and good if it is Antero reading the story to Antero, Jr, but interject it into a wider population environment whereby you have as many as a couple hundred people touched by the action, to argue such causality cannot or will not occur is rather ridiculous.

Said missing causality alredy occured in one specific instance. Two sets of parents in Lexington went so far as to organize a complaint about it.  Two stepping forward logically assumes more than two sets were riled by it.  It logically assumes discussions beyond the reading of the story took place.  It means further discussions as the complaint moves forward takes place.  It means viewers of the nightly news also discussed it within their homes.

And on and on and on.

And the point of that second sentence is useful how exactly?  I have rephrased and clarified way more should be necessary, frankly.


Potential ways it can enter are:

1) A child or two who may or may not ask the questions.  This will more than likely be discussed in terms of kissing.  This you have earlier mocked as ridiculous, yet with kids that is the way the discuss sex as they know little about it other than people who love each other kiss each other.  (Now we can argue about all the types of people who kiss in order to keep batting it back and forth, right?  But the fact of the matter is that is their frame or reference.  Older siblings have boyfriends or girlfriends, the tease is about kissing.  There's the old song about kissing in a tree.)

2) Parents get riled.  Kids over hear it and bring it back to school.

3) Parents get riled and go public.  It gets drawn out.  A teacher gets drilled for it.  Kids ask why.  The book gets mentioned, yadda yadda.

Now you can argue the number of angels on the head of a pin by saying it is not public.  That's a specious argument.  It gets a number of questions asked.  It forces the hand of parents who may choose to defer until a later age to address the stuff, as in adolescence.

Those are the three things I have mentioned over and over again.  I also gave you an example in MA of this at the lower grade level with respect to Item 3.  I have given you what are first hand examples of how the discussions will evolve in item 1 from my own personal dealings on that one.  I have given you an example of items 2 and 3 at higher level grades based on what took place in a couple towns over from me in NH.  Item 1 may also have taken place, but I have no knowledge of that.  If it hits at higher level grades as being inappropriate, it is not a huge leap of logic to suggest the resistence would have been greater at a younger grade level.

The whole point of it all is to spur debate.  That debate could be public or private, but it is designed to get them asking question.  That's all well and good.  I just happen to disagree with bringing it to that young an age.

Pretty simple.  Pretty self explanatory.  No strawmen.  No dodging of questions given the repeated attempts to clarify.  Lack of concurrence of opinion does not mean lack of presentation of data from which the conclusions are drawn. 

(This gets a bit rambling. Sorry)

A Tale Of Two Princes is not, in itself, any more sexual than A Tale Of A Prince And A Princess.

However, when and if children ask questions about the relationship of an hetero couple, Most People(tm) feel comfortable enough to give them some sort of answer. The answer and the question will most likely not be particularly sexual, but if it is Most People (tm) will be able to cope.

If and when, on the other hand, children ask questions about the relationship of an homosexual couple, many people will be made uncomfortable. Many people have difficulty de-sexualising, in their own brains, homosexual love. If a child asks a question about Gary and Jeremy, who ride off into the sunset together on their matched chargers, many people will be unable to give that child an answer which is not somehow sexually charged.

Those people then feel angry because they have been forced to think about something which they see as terrible and frightening, in connection with their child. Because they are angry, they will need someone to attack. The logical person to attack is the person who exposed them (through their child's question) to something which frightens, alarms or disgusts them.

So they make a Big Noise.

Perhaps the teacher is sacked. Perhaps there's a school assembly where a talk about sexual tolerance happens. Perhaps a whole lot of things, but most of those things will make converations about homosexuality happen, whether it be in the staff-room, between the students or in the student's homes.

Personally, I am happy for my children to be involved in conversations about homosexuality as well as other types of love. In fact, my 11 year old and My Mate Dan, and My Mate Dan's 10 year old, and my mother and I have been discussing this thread, particularly Crystal's very important post.

But I am not Gwoo (who I see as being less liberal than I but more liberal than many). Nor am I someone who becomes enraged or afraid at the thought of homosexuality.

How I raise my children is my choice. And, if I want that to be the case, I have to accept that how Gwoo raises his, or the Scary People raise their children are their choices.

I want my children to be adults in a world where what shaped body the person they fall in love has with doesn't matter. That isn't going to happen.

The Scary People want their children to be adults in a world where only men love only women who love only men. That isn't going to happen, either.

Each of us needs to live with that.


Last year, or maybe the year before, Play School (an Australian TV show for preschoolers) had a small secion (a live action segment called "Through the Windows" which can be about going to the dentist, or collecting eggs, or building a billycart, or...you get the idea. The segment is narrated by a child who tells the audience what's happening in the film.) where a little girl says "My mums are taking me and my friend Meryn to an amusement park,"  The film followed the family around the park, saw the little girls have rides, saw the family have an ice cream and go home. I think the parents of the little girl did not so much as hold hands, but I can;t swear to it. Certainly there was no more "sexual" behavior than that.

There were no complaints to the ABC on the first showing of the episode. When it was repeated, however, there was a complaint made very publicly, and many many people started turning purple, saying the the national broadcaster was Pushing The Lesbian Agenda.

No doubt some parents stopped their children watching Play School, andthe children asked why. No doubt their parents gave them reasons, some of which probably vilified women who love each other. No doubt these children carried away messages that women who love other woemn are bad.

And no doubt some of the children in the classrooms where A Tale Of Two Princes is read get the message that men who love other men are bad in a similar way.

*sad*

And that's why I mock: because that is not a discussion of sex.  That does not impart sexual knowledge to the child, does not interfere with the parent's ability to teach them about sex when they decide it's proper, etc. - it creates an analogy that lets people talk to children about sex without the sex. 

If you actually think that that's sexual in nature, I assume you avoided all references to kissing in your household before your children were of a proper age, much less - god help us all - kissed your wife in front of them!  Such potent sexual analogies would surely be too much for the young'uns to deal with.