We are currently reading Hamlet in my 12th grade classes and I developed a few journal topics surrounding the themes in the play. One of the topics: "To what extent do parents have the right to "spy" or check up on their children?"
As you might have guessed, this generated a very good classroom discussion. Immediate response from most seniors: "Our parents have the right to 'spy' but they shouldn't."
I asked them if their parents should be able to go into their room at anytime? Or if their parents should be able to check their email? Or if their parents should be able to read their text messages?
Answers: No, No, No.
I then asked them how many of them had computers in their room. 95% of the class raised their hand. I asked them if they thought there was danger there? They looked at me with furrowed brows and questioning looks. (Obviously they hadn't yet been ingrained with the "dangers of pornography" from Mormon Church leaders).
So I asked them flat out: "If you were a parent, would you be concerned that your teenagers were looking at pornography on the internet?"
(I was thinking of posting a picture here but that probably wouldn't be very appropriate).
Student 1: Why not?
Student 2: What's the harm?
Student 3: At least they are exposed to it.
After getting over my initial shock....I then asked, "Wouldn't you fear them becoming addicted?"
Their replies: Nope. By making it not forbidden, they won't become obsessed.
I know this is a crazy take...but on some level, I almost agree with them. I know what you are thinking and I know you are immediately coming up with arguments to combat their point but sometimes, (in our culture) do we try and shelter so much that it becomes counter-productive? Do we make something so bad that all of a sudden, it becomes the "forbidden fruit" that MUST taste so good?
Example: My parents "forbade" me to watch Three's Company. That was the one show I couldn't watch. So, whenever my parents were gone, what did I do?
Turned on Three's Company. (Wasn't Janet hot?)
Pedestrian example, maybe. But I think you get the point.
Should parents "spy" on their kids? Maybe, maybe not. But as most of my seniors said, "When a parent is open with their child and exposes them to the dangers that are out there, most of the time, the child will make the right decision and there will be no reason to spy."
Today, the teacher became the student.
ps Yes, I was talking about "porn" with high school seniors....hopefully, I'm still around next year.
pps Sorry Chad. My class is full.
5 comments:
very interesting post! I am shocked to hear that 95% had computers in their rooms...stupid parents what are they thinking..but this definitely got me thinking about how I need to be with my own children. The teenage years are right around the corner for me... yikes!!
R u sure there isn't a desk open dro? I'll even sit on the floor.
When Grant turns 12 the computer is going to be locked in a steel chamber.
I doth protest to your take on this topic. Allowing our children to be exposed and making it open to them has gotten society to where it is at today. Remember, vote YES on 8.
Of course I disagree. Comparing Threes Company to porn is like comparing milk to whisky. One is terribly addictive one is not. Scietific studies that have been presented to Congress on the topic also indicate that exposure to even a very limited amount of pornography makes the viewer much less sensitive to critical problems such as rape spousal abuse. Some fire should never be touched.
Love this post, I like your view point. I am certainly not going to put a computer in their room or get out some magazines and have a look. But open conversation about these problems, pornography, drugs, alcohol, prop 8, etc. are critical to building good relationships with our children. If they don't hear it from you, they will hear it from WHO KNOWS! I know what you were trying to say Jon. Love your posts.
Post a Comment