A Game of Thrones discussion

So it seems to me that there is a double standard possibly when it comes to what age a person should be to read certain books. A lot of people on here have quite explicitly stated that no one under sixteen should touch these books, but I see no such complaints about to other books with similar content. I would never consider The Mists of Avalon as a book for young children but if a teenager has already read it what more is in Game of Thrones that they haven't already seen? Or Mary Stewart's Merlin books. They both contain violence, incest and sexual violence. All things found in GoT. What I am asking I guess is why does no one complain about a teen reading these books but not GoT? Is it really that much worse?

Hey there, Hannah,

I have a comparable answer to this question as the one about the child actors being able to watch their own show.

I don't think sixteen should be a hard and fast rule. Honestly, I'd read more provocative stuff when I was 13-14. I probably read it on the sly, but I was more than ready, even seeking out such material well before it was probably "acceptable" for me to do so.

GRRM's books aren't really any more shocking than any number of things out there, and kids are just a few taps away from that material. So, if Game of Thrones is a problem, we need to deal with MTV first....

Whether they have the reading skills to deal with it is another matter. The content is "adult" but so is some of the language, grammar and vocabulary. There are a lot of characters and the story is a broad, disconnected narrative. Someone under, say, 15 might start having trouble following something as complex as these books. But if that's not a problem, I don't think the content should be.

Agreed. It seems like lots of books have similar content that these books do. I don't see how they're any worse.

Maybe people complain more about the graphic nature of George R.R. Martin's books because they are vastly more popular at the moment; people are constantly being prompted to read them and there is probably a greater likelihood that A Game of Thrones will fall into the hands of someone considered inappropriately aged.
Also, there is obviously a TV adaptation of Martin's series, and so the stories, characters and themes are much more widely known.

I believe that, sometimes, parents forget where the inappropriate content may be found. For the anecdote: I was a total bookworm as a child. My parents tended to recommend me to avoid certain books and I did as they recommended. When I was around 9 years old, I found a few Shakespeare books. I am assuming that my parents disregarded the violence contained in some of the books or they just forgot about it. Hamlet was ok, but then, after a few pages of "King Lear" (particularly the eye thing), I felt sick and had nightmares.

Nicer one: I was between 7 and 8 years old when I decided to read the whole Bible (I was in a Catholic School and I was bored). Then I got to the Kings books and I read about this guy who buries a dagger in someone's fat belly, in a way that the whole thing goes in and the fat closes on top of the handle and so on. That was it for me. Sick to the stomach, nightmares again. But can you think of a parent who can consider the Bible inappropriate for children?

Jonathan wrote: "Maybe people complain more about the graphic nature of George R.R. Martin's books because they are vastly more popular at the moment; people are constantly being prompted to read them and there is ..."

I was thinking this might have something to do with it.

Laura wrote: "I believe that, sometimes, parents forget where the inappropriate content may be found. For the anecdote: I was a total bookworm as a child. My parents tended to recommend me to avoid certain books..."

Yeah people can be total hypocrites. Obviously the graphic content in the bible is far worse than anything you'll find in GoT

Hannah wrote: Obviously the graphic content in the bible is far worse than anything you'll find in GoT

Well, some of the things that disgusted me were not particularly descriptive, but in concept. Like how the "pious hero" of one of the stories is considered a holy man because he prefers to offer his own children and women for the others to sexually abuse, as long as they would respect perfect strangers. There are no vivid descriptions of the violence, but it was revolting to me all the same. And of course, we read this story as kids, in Catholic school, which I find even more revolting.

Viserys Targaryen, offering his 13 year/old sister to Kahl Drogo (and threatening to give her to her thousands of warriors) doesn't seem so different. BUT the IMPORTANT difference is that the text makes you see what Viserys does as wrong. The text illustrates him as a cruel jerk, not a holy man.

I don't mean to say that, just because the Bible has inappropriate content for children, they should just read GoT. I don't recommend either of them for kids.

I agree. I am not saying that either. I just agree that it is not any worse than that. And as you pointed out its clear Viserys is a terrible person. I love how Martin even though he shows awful thing that happen NEVER portrays them as right.

As a teen in the 1980's, I read every Stephen King novel in print at the time, and the Bachmann books as well. There's some content in King, some might say a lot of it, that parents would disapprove of for my age at that time. There was a big flap over Harry Potter content, too. As a parent of teens and pre teens now, I'd be likely to veto Thrones books for them. The unceasing violence against women is a valid plot point, but it's demoralizing for a teen or younger than teen to slog through that material.

I think it's just a very subjective question. And whoever you're asking is going to have an opinion based mostly on the maturity of the various teenagers they know.

For me, it boils down to how disturbing I felt when I read it. It's a feeling, not a fact. And it's not just the sex, incest, and violence. But also the cruelty of the characters and how it all comes together. There's so much in these books that are not just violent, but hold something else to it that just feels very, very, wrong. Even when there's no violence, and we're merely reading the peaceful reflections of the POV character, some of those characters still make my skin crawl.

Consider, for example, the violence of losing a hand:
If you lose it in an accident, that's pretty bad.
If you lose it in a battle, that's worse.
But then there's losing it as punishment for committing a crime, which I consider even more violent due to the intent.
And worse than all of the above is losing a hand as a deliberate act by somebody who simply enjoys hearing you scream. I can't even describe how that very idea disturbs me.

I think what effected me most while reading GOT wasn't just seeing horrible people do horrible things but understanding exactly why they were doing them. I didn't even have the defense of writing them off as monsters, when I already knew they were undeniably human.

There's also the emotional effect of connecting so deeply with a character before something really bad happens to them.

I've read many books with the same factual elements that people refer to when deciding how old somebody should be before reading them. None left me feeling so disturbed or violated as the Game of Thrones series. Seriously, I read books 1-5 back-to-back. I had to follow it with the whole Harry Potter series to get back to my happy place, and then read mostly YA fiction for about 6 months.

I wouldn't recommend this to anybody that doesn't already read fantasy or medieval fiction. And of those, only people over 16. It's an arbitrary age, but to me it feels like many 16-year-olds have already seen enough evil, or experienced enough loss, to handle it.

All teenagers think "they're ready" for whatever is considered adult. Being ready for a book doesn't mean being able to stomach violence or having seen people naked. Being ready doesn't mean to eagerly look for "challenging" material that adults don't want me to read.

Being ready is to have the maturity to see the profound messages behind what they're reading, and I'm not sure most teens are there. Even the ones who aren't shocked by the violence miss the point very often. I see it in numerous discussions, both here and in other forum/blog places.

To be fair, I have to say that some adults also may miss the point, but not because they lack maturity or brains, but because it's hard to get philosophical when you're too busy feeling revolted or shocked. Not everyone has the same degree of sensitivity, regardless of age.

Back when I was in high school (long ago) we had to bring home permission slips to allow us to read Schindler's Ark. The parent/teacher board kicked up a massive stick about the whole thing the general agreement being that the horrors of the holocaust would be to much for a fragile child minds.
A couple of months later a permission slips was sent home to allow us to go to a free screening of Schindler list....this time no fuss at all with maybe a couple of exceptions (parents complaining about nudity in the shower scenes).
So we have the same source material portrayed in two different forms of media, one made a parents fear for our souls and the other seen was a trip out to the pictures with popcorn....there's a valuable lesson there somewhere.

When I was growing up I was always allowed to select my own reading material without supervision from my parents. I will do the same with my own daughter, she can choose which books she wants to read when she is ready for them.

The news recently has been full of stories of beheadings, child murders, etc. Nothing in GOT is more barbaric than the world we currently live in, so I don't think the violence is anything new.

As for nudity (as a visual) it can go both ways. If a person sees only physically attractive people unclothed it creates a different effect than seeing less than perfect physical specimens in an unclothed state. If a young person sees certain types of nudity, it may repulse them into lifelong celibacy.

Holly wrote: "she can choose which books she wants to read when she is ready for them"

Whilst I totally agree with you and take the same attitude with my daughter my problem is always that you only find out your weren't really ready for something when you expose yourself to it and it manages to get inside your head.

Laura wrote: "Being ready is to have the maturity to see the profound messages behind what they're reading, and I'm not sure most teens are there. Even the ones who aren't shocked by the violence miss the point very often."

I'm quoting myself because I believe this to be important, but nobody seems to agree. Being ready for a text goes beyond being able to stomach gore, nudity or whatever it is everyone is focusing, instead of the actual issue that asks for maturity. Nudity can be entirely unimportant, depending on the context.

I liked Marc's example of parents commenting about the nudity in Schindler's list. Maturity is not only avoiding giggles on that scene because "LOL naked people"; it's goes beyond not blushing because people are naked. Maturity is to understand the message that this nudity is transmitting, the image of vulnerability and humiliation, etc.

That's where it becomes the responsibility of the parents to know if their kid "is ready", because their kid may not know. In fact, as I also said before, all teenagers think they're ready for anything adult. That's why I think it's not logical to say "Oh, they see worse things in the news". Because it's not just about violence and sexual content, or it should not be all that concern us when we classify something as not appropriate.

What's been read/seen, cannot be unread/unseen. The same applies to Game of Thrones. There are messages behind the violence and sexual content. Some teens are able to get them, think about these issues, analyze their own reality in light of them. Others... less so.

"I liked Marc's example of parents commenting about the nudity in Schindler's list. Maturity is not only avoiding giggles on that scene because "LOL naked people"; it's goes beyond not blushing because people are naked. Maturity is to understand the message that this nudity is transmitting, the image of vulnerability and humiliation, etc."

I always remember two things my little sister told me about the time her year watched the movie in school.
Firstly a teacher stood in front of the screen during any instance of nudity.....So the seeing the systematic extermination of an entire race is Okay but Boobs are ALWAYS bad.
Secondly that a girl was sent out for crying during the film. The teacher told her grow up and control herself and that was history and that she was there to learn. So having a basic knowledge of world events is good but emotional to them attachment is bad.

Hannah wrote: "So it seems to me that there is a double standard possibly when it comes to what age a person should be to read certain books. A lot of people on here have quite explicitly stated that no one under..."

I agree. Reading promotes discussion.

Seeing a movie about a book is different and I can understand people's issues with that, especially in the class room, even if I might not always agree based on content and context.

Marc wrote: ""I liked Marc's example of parents commenting about the nudity in Schindler's list. Maturity is not only avoiding giggles on that scene because "LOL naked people"; it's goes beyond not blushing bec..."

Yes, good point: the reactions of adults to adult content can be, in many cases, more immature than those of the non-adults.

If someone seeks out material, that's a pretty good indication that they are ready for such material. It's not a lock, of course. It's just one factor. Others include their reading level, their personal experience, etc.

However, at a certain point one has to be self-guided on this kind of thing. That is, if someone were of an age deemed too young for the GoT books then they'd still be able to get their hands on them pretty easily. Keeping them away from GRRM would be like trying to keep them from seeing porn or eating sugar. It's not really a parental decision so much as parental guidance that's at issue. If a kid "wasn't ready" for something like the Game of Thrones books, then they'd really have to learn that for themselves on some level.

It's a very different thing from, say, TV or the Internet. It's not really a matter of someone thrusting the books into their hands and making them sit down and read several thousand pages of text before they decide something is too adult for them.

Gary wrote: "If someone seeks out material, that's a pretty good indication that they are ready for such material. It's not a lock, of course. It's just one factor. Others include their reading level, their ..."

I think a valid point should by why your seeking out the material in the first place.
If your reason for picking up a book is "i was told there loads of sex, fights and its the sickest thing ever" then maybe your not really ready.

Marc wrote: "I think a valid point should by why your seeking out the material in the first place.
If your reason for picking up a book is "i was told there loads of sex, fights and its the sickest thing ever" then maybe your not really ready."

Yes, exactly, that's why I posted the joke up there "ladies are getting mad sexed, dragons". Seeking out for something doesn't mean you're ready. Thinking you're ready doesn't mean you're ready.

Sexual example: an adult watching porn is more likely to understand that porn depicts a fantasy, not reality (note that I said "more likely", because some adults still don't get it). A teenage watching porn is more likely to imagine that's adult sex as a reality. Oh, and... being able to find something also doesn't make you ready for it.

That said if you come for the boobs and blood and actually find yourself reading for plot and characters in the end then surely that's a good thing.
Cant really think of a sexual example......maybe if you watch enough porn eventually you may pick up on the point that people who are having sex actually clean their rooms, pick there clothes up of the floor and make the bed.....maybe

Marc wrote: "I think a valid point should by why your seeking out the material in the first place.
If your reason for picking up a book is "i was told there loads of sex, fights and its the sickest thing ever" then maybe your not really ready."

That sounds like someone who is ready to me.... It may not be nice, but that's a person really seeking out a particular kind of reading material. That's a pretty good indication that they are able to deal with it.

Laura wrote: "Oh, and... being able to find something also doesn't make you ready for it."

Yes, but that's not what I said. We have to differentiate between seeking out something, having access to it, and even having something forced upon someone. Those are three very distinct things. We all have access to things all the time that aren't good for us, we may not be ready for, or that might be harmful to others. That's not at all the same thing as seeking out one of those things.

Gary wrote: "It may not be nice, but that's a person really seeking out a particular kind of reading material. That's a pretty good indication that they are able to deal with it. "

And you also said "If someone seeks out material, that's a pretty good indication that they are ready for such material."

Hell no. That is simply, totally wrong. Being curious is not the same thing as being ready for whatever it is you're curious about, especially with pre-teens and teens. You personally may not be able to control what they find, but if you believe that "if they are interested, they must be ready", you are very wrong.

That doesn't mean that EVERY single teen or pre-teen who looks for anything adult is NOT ready, but the reality is that most are not, yet they THINK they are, which is why they seek for it in the first place.

Between the ages of 14 and 17 I sought out a lot of adult things; I was ready for some and not so ready for others. Looking back I have no regrets about anything. That stage of human development is, by nature, very exploratory.

Certainly nothing I read in a book at that age had any lasting negative effects.

Laura wrote: "Being curious is not the same thing as being ready for whatever it is you're curious about, especially with pre-teens and teens. You personally may not be able to control what they find, but if you believe that "if they are interested, they must be ready", you are very wrong."

I think you're describing a very different thing from what I'm describing. "Being curious" or "interested" is not "seeking out" such material. I'll grant you that the difference is not often distinct in a lot of folks minds, and we live in a world where something as casual as curiosity is more easily satisfied, but what you're describing is a casual, abstract idea, and what I'm describing is an overt act. It's one thing to have an idle curiosity or interest, and another to go out and actively try to satisfy that curiosity or interest.

Furthermore, I have to back up Holly's comments in that I think your concerns are more than a little over-stated. There are very few things in books that are going to actually damage a reader. I'm sure any number of folks out there have read Mein Kampf, The Anarchists's Cookbook, The Bible, The Story of O and Harry Potter without becoming nazis, terrorists, Christians, or sadists/masochists any more than they became wizards. Reading something educates, but the argument that many people make--that it will be somehow deterministic of a person's behavior or damage them psychologically--is really very dubious.

I have to side with Gary on this one, but though he's been eloquent in presenting his point, I think that there's one crucial argument that is fairly conspicuous in its absence on this thread, and that is to question whether there's any validity in discouraging a young person from reading anything. From my perspective, there really aren't enough young people interested in reading anything, and to tell someone that they're too young or immature to read ASOIAF or even to insinuate that they're reading it for the wrong reasons is fairly short-sighted. I mean, the figure for the U.S. is something like 80% of Americans read fewer than 5 books per year, and my guess is that for the majority of those in that group the number is actually 0 books per year. If a young person wants to pick up an 800 page novel because there's sex and violence in it, well then, let them read about sex and violence! If that's what it takes to get young people reading, then so be it. At least they'll be reading. There are other, more readily accessible media for them to consume such content - media which lacks the edifying effects of reading.

Bryan wrote: "I mean, the figure for the U.S. is something like 80% of Americans read fewer than 5 books per year, and my guess is that for the majority of those in that group the number is actually 0 books per year."

The numbers I read were that the average American man reads four books per year and the average American woman six....

So, yeah, if the concern is the corrupting influence of entertainment, books are somewhere between board games and stamp collecting.

I never thought of a book in terms of ages - i mean, if it´s not graphic, i think anyone can read it, despite the age: if a 12 year old can plow through an 800 plus page novel, he can surely try and be amaized at how he can like it...or not.
Martin´s books are not very graphic, in my understanding of them - i have read a lot worse in my teen years, like Harold Robbins or Sidney Sheldon. And i turned out fine, i guess.

What i think, as a mother, is that it should be supervised, for one to explain the concepts that the teen cannot grasp at the time, just so he or she can understand them better. If my son askes me to read them at 12, i will gladly pass them on to him - he will get way worse things on tv.

Bryan wrote: "I have to side with Gary on this one, but though he's been eloquent in presenting his point, I think that there's one crucial argument that is fairly conspicuous in its absence on this thread, and..."

I don't think this should be part of anyone's argument. So, as long as they're reading something, it doesn't matter what? Aren't there TONS of wonderful books, fit for TONS of different tastes out there, aren't there equally thought-provocative books out there, more fit for younger ages?

Yes, teens seek out or are curious about -or however you want to phrase it- many different things, and the common mentality always goes to two arguments that I will never find valid:

1) They see worse things on TV/Internet/etc.
2) I did it when I was that age and I'm normal.

You, as an individual person, may have turned out all right, but others may have not. You may have had an unusually mature view of life as a teen, but most might not. As a society, there is NOT a positive impact in letting children read/watch/play whatever they want (and here I want to rescue something important that Maria said), most of the times without any sort of guide or support from an adult.

I will go back to the porn example, just because it's one of the things that most parents try to keep away from teens and teens try to get their hands on as if it were the "my precious" ring.

How many teens actually get their hands on porn? And from all of those, how many parents think "it's fine, I did it at his age and I'm all right"? But from all of those, how many parents actually sit with the teen to explain the implications of porn, the concept of fantasy versus reality, the role of men and women in a real relationship, etc.? And, even if an individual teen may get the point without guidance, how many actually do? Finally, as a society, what are our views about sexuality, the roles of men and women in sexuality, etc.?

We have a responsibility over the next generation, as a whole, starting with our children/teens, while their personalities are in formation. If they were ready for anything, why is it that most countries prevent them from smoking, drinking alcohol and voting? I will point out the voting! Some teenagers are very politically versed and could vote, even if they are under voting age. But as a whole, most are not. Same with reading, in my opinion.

I just read a study recently that indicated that parental guidance is, apparently, what drives many young people to porn. The inability of adults to discuss sexuality frankly and intelligently means its much easier for young people to use Google than ask Mom. And--despite the predictions--those who do their own research have no ill effects.

Access to things like pornography is much more broad these days than ever before, but despite the concerns of any number of commenters, the research shows that if anything, teens are more realistic, adjusted and even less sexually active than they were in previous generations. Information, it seems, means less need for experimentation.... They are more likely to use condoms when they do have sex, and have no difficulty differentiating between real world sex and that depicted in pornography.

So, despite the moralizing and hand-wringing, it's just not a real world problem, and results in nothing like the dire concerns and social breakdown that is so often predicted. At this point, it looks like little more than a soapbox issue.

You would be surprised to see how many teens come into sexual health clinic we run at the hospital to ask basic questions that they could easily ask parents or teachers.
You would also be surprised at how many parents I end up getting angry phone calls from accusing doctors of ruining their children s life by explaining that sex is something that can be enjoyed and isn't a social taboo that should be avoided at all costs.

Gary, The research you mentioned is nothing I could find in peer reviewed scientific sources. But the results you mention are not plausible. Have you ever searched anything in Google? Isn't it true that you may find serious sources mixed together with total bullshit? Do you think a teen who is searching because he/she doesn't know, will know how to differentiate? There are adults who keep sharing dubious articles like "5 poisons you eat every day", with no scientific basis whatsoever; why would you expect a teen to know better?

How do you know there weren't "ill effects"? What do you call "ill effects", not getting an STD or a teen pregnancy? Because there are other things, that aren't a healthy sexual behavior, other than those. Our society as a whole still suffers from quite unhealthy sexual attitudes, even if teens are using condoms more. I would mention rape culture and victim blaming, but you'd roll your eyes so hard, they may fall off their sockets. Not all teens are as leveled or mature as you probably were.

I'm not surprised about what Marc says, misinformation is the main issue and that's why I insist on parental responsibility. That's why I rhetorically asked, from my "soap-box", how many parents actually guided their teens, discussing porn or anything else they read/watch/play. If you think our current society is sexually healthy because kids can see porn more easily, you're extremely optimistic about it, to say the least (and if you think they're having less sex, you're just wrong).

The point is: porn is not (and it's not meant to be) sexual education and it's the last place where kids should get informed. Entertained, sure (it IS fun to watch), but not educated. They should already be educated about sex before getting to porn. Same goes with certain books, movies, games, etc., no matter if the issue is sex, violence, politics, whatever. That is -call me preachy if you want- parental responsibility: to educate and to know when the teen is ready (or educated enough) to watch/read/play anything in particular. My mantra, again: Most teens are NOT, but they THINK they are.

Gary wrote: "So, despite the moralizing and hand-wringing, it's just not a real world problem, and results in nothing like the dire concerns and social breakdown that is so often predicted. At this point, it looks like little more than a soapbox issue."

I don't know where you see moralizing. I never spoke against porn, which I enjoy. I also never predicted the end of civilization or social breakdown. But if you think we're just perfect like this, you need a reality check. This IS a real world issue.

Children and teens don't need to be protected in a crystal bubble, but they need to be guided and educated by us, the adults, not just let on their own to be driven by their own immature impulses and curiosities.

Laura wrote: "The point is: porn is not (and it's not meant to be) sexual education and it's the last place where kids should get informed. Entertained, sure (it IS fun to watch), but not educated. They should already be educated about sex before getting to porn. Same goes with certain books, movies, games, etc., no matter if the issue is sex, violence, politics, whatever. That is -call me preachy if you want- parental responsibility: to educate and to know when the teen is ready (or educated enough) to watch/read/play anything in particular. My mantra, again: Most teens are NOT, but they THINK they are"

I think that's a generally reasonable for the majority of western civilization to take but there's plenty of exceptions to the rule.
We can only approach parental responsibility from a position of neutrality, anything other simply runs the risk of a parent either willingly or unwillingly forcing there own few's on a child.
My attitude to homosexuality, gender identity, politics and religion are going to differ from yours and differ widely from say someone from an Islamic background.

Laura wrote: "Gary, The research you mentioned is nothing I could find in peer reviewed scientific sources. But the results you mention are not plausible."

It was about a week ago, and I didn't make a particular note of it, but it was IIRC in Psychology Today if you want to look for it. It may have been a back issue, so I'm sorry I can't cite month/year or page number.

That said, if you poke around using Google yourself I'm sure you can find any number of studies that'll support my contention. My comments are general, but based on fairly widely reported results. I don't know what you're basing your concerns about STDs and teen pregnancy on, for instance, but all the research I've read indicates that pornography has no influence on the rates at which those things occur in teens. In fact, as I noted before, condom use goes up with education (EDIT: Actually, I think it was a Swedish study I read--again a week or two ago--that indicated condom use went up with viewing pornography), teen pregnancy rates go down, and viewing pornography appears to have no influence whatever on those situations.

Frankly, Laura, I'm just not seeing a lot of consistency in your concerns here, and though you're clearly offended at my use of terms like "moralizing" and "hand-wringing" your comments do smack of that kind of language. You're posts in this thread are, at best, alarmist. Though that will, no doubt, only offend you further, I assure you that where you see the sky falling, there is only sky.

@Gary, I've been trying to explain why I believe it's important that we should educate our kids or teens, as opposed to let them do that themselves with whatever they can find online. I re-read my comments and cannot find the sky falling. If the best reply you have is to make me look like Reverend Tim Lovejoy's wife, wringing hands in despair and preaching about the collapse of society, I find it funny (giggles and all), but I have nothing further to say to you regarding the topic we discuss.

@Marc, you raised a very important point. I still think it's our duty to guide them, each parent/teacher according to their own ideas and attitudes, because it's the best we can do. The kids will form and develop ideas and attitudes of their own.

I think this comes linked to your previous comment: parents who, themselves, have a negative attitude toward certain issues (like the ones who bitched at you for talking about sexuality with their kids, yet refused to educate them themselves). That's kind of my point. Those are irresponsible parents, who force their children to learn from Google, which is better than nothing, but far from optimal.

I think the energy that is put into monitoring teen's exposure is probably better served in educating them. I have a friend who wouldn't allow her daughter to watch "Game of Thrones" on TV, (...she even went to the extent of blocking access to it at home via parental controls) but was completely unaware that her daughter had read the books and had been watching the show on her cell phone via her friend's HBO GO password. She took away the cell phone and her friend just gave her one of her old ones. Her mother took that one away too and the daughter bought a cheap one off clearance from WalMart.

Obviously, there are some other problems going on there beyond watching "Game of Thrones", but the point, imo, is that you can control your house, but you can't control the rest of the world. All of the energy that my friend was putting into sheltering her daughter didn't work. All it did was create a situation where the child hides things from her rather than come to her. I think she would have been better off letting her daughter watch the show and talking to her about it. She would have had a much better idea of where her daughter's head was at regarding these things whereas now, she has a sullen child that hides things from her.

Mochaspresso wrote: " I think she would have been better off letting her daughter watch the show and talking to her about it. She would have had a much better idea of where her daughter's head was at regarding these things whereas now, she has a sullen child that hides things from her. ."

I know a woman at work who bought alcohol for her 15 year old. Her dumbass logic was that by controlling his bad habit, buying it for him and allowing him to drink in the house it was preventing him from going out and getting into trouble.
It didn't end well, turns out her son was in turn selling the drink to kids at school, after getting caught at school the police got involved. Son told the police that mommy bought the drink, Mommy admitted buying the drink for her underage son, mommy managed to escape with a caution.
The point is NONE of this was the sons idea, he never really cared about drinking, hated the taste, it was all his mum amazing idea to teach her kid responsibility.

Marc wrote: "I know a woman at work who bought alcohol for her 15 year old. Her dumbass logic was that by controlling his bad habit, buying it for him and allowing him to drink in the house it was preventing him from going out and getting into trouble.
It didn't end well, turns out her son was in turn selling the drink to kids at school, after getting caught at school the police got involved. Son told the police that mommy bought the drink, Mommy admitted buying the drink for her underage son, mommy managed to escape with a caution.
The point is NONE of this was the sons idea, he never really cared about drinking, hated the taste, it was all his mum amazing idea to teach her kid responsibility.



That is a crazy extreme. With alcohol, wouldn't it better to lead by example? My parents drank wine with dinner occasionally and served alcohol to adult guests. As a teen, every once in a while, I was allowed to have a little sip of wine during a toast or whatever. I think I probably learned more about responsible drinking from my parents. You don't have to buy your kid a keg and give it to them....but you don't have to completely shelter them, either. You can TEACH them things and imo, that is better and preferable than driving yourself crazy trying to shelter them.

Her logic was get in early and control it for peace of mind (and likely cool mum points).....his logic was i dont like the taste of beer but i know who do.
She did a few dumbass things during her time with us....buying him various adult video games then complaining about them, taking him to watch inglorious bastards and bringinghim into the sexual health team in hope we would tell him a bunch of horror stories to keep him on the straight and narrow.
On the flipside she threatened to disown him if he ever smoked.

Marc wrote: "Her logic was get in early and control it for peace of mind (and likely cool mum points).....his logic was i dont like the taste of beer but i know who do.
She did a few dumbass things during her t..."

That is one crazed mom... so, her logic is - i will disown you fi you draw a smoke, which in comparison to all the other things, might be the most inocent vice, but i will buy you booze and adult videogames and then bitch about it? Seriously, that is one alucinated woman.

I would never dream to do that, to teach my son responsability. Children learn by example - mothers and fathers want so desperatly to become friends with their children, that they forget the parenting part, which is the most important.

As for the porn question, it´s not the best way for teens to learn what they can expect from a relatioship or sex. And i see a lot of teen pregnancy to beilive those numbers on that study....maybe in Sweden they will fit - here, not so much. I believe very much in monitoring and discussing things when them as they go along, as they progress - it´s more sound and secure.

Laura, I feel you've somewhat misunderstood my point. Nowhere did I suggest letting a child read whatever they want without supervision or guidance. What I said was that I oppose a prohibitive approach - namely, telling a child/teen that they shouldn't or aren't able to read a given work. Firstly, in my experience this almost never works and leads to, as Mochaspresso said, mistrust and deceit between parent and child (and at that point, the parent generally loses what input they previously had with their kid). Secondly, by letting your child direct their own reading, THEY'RE MORE LIKELY TO ACTUALLY READ. I've heard many people say that they got turned off of reading by being forced to read books they didn't like in school, but I don't doubt that parental encouragement, or lack thereof, plays a huge part as well (note that I say "encouragement" and not "discouragement"). Yes, there are many fine books for young people out there...but if they really want to read this one (or any other book), why on earth would you tell them no? Not only are you being fairly draconic, you're also robbing yourself of the chance to discuss some important topics with your child.

And that's the crux of the issue - discussion. What you seem to be most concerned about is that people are too uncomfortable or lazy to have frank discussions with their kids, and I agree that's a huge problem. The thing is, if you don't let you children have some agency, you're going to prevent those discussions from taking place. Your kids will simply not be interested in listening to anything you have to say because they feel that they have no control over anything else. I feel like you and I are actually in agreement in some respects here, but we've been talking around each other to a certain extent.

Now, the part where you start to compare reading to porn is where you've completely lost me. Porn, and indeed, other visual media, are quite substantially different from reading, and really not comparable. Erotica might be the only type of reading that could be fairly compared to porn, and even they are seperated by several orders of magnitude. Yes, limiting a child's access to porn is important. Also, limiting any sort of screen time is important, especially with smaller children. Reading (I shouldn't have to point out) lacks the addictive qualities of screens, and is an active hobby (as in, something you actually have to DO), as opposed to a passive hobby (watching a screen doesn't actually require any sort of engagement). Suggesting that reading a book and watching visual media are analogous is simply ridiculous. In my house, my children have a two hour per day limit on the total amount of screen time they're allowed. There's no limit to the amount of books I will read them.

Laura wrote: "I re-read my comments and cannot find the sky falling."

Your connecting up access to reading material to pornography right through to the spread of STDs, teenage pregnancy, the continuation of rape culture is a Chicken Little response. Connecting books up to those social problems is alarmist. It just doesn't jibe with reality, the personal experience of apparently several other posters in this thread, nor any of the legitimate research I've happened across.

Do those things exist? Of course they do. Do they have any meaningful connection to access to reading materials or even to pornography with which you've conflated them? That's an extremely dubious assertion. Even mentioning them in this context smacks of a real lack of proportionality.

Bryan wrote: "Laura, I feel you've somewhat misunderstood my point. Nowhere did I suggest letting a child read whatever they want without supervision or guidance. What I said was that I oppose a prohibitive ap..."

Maybe I misunderstood you, yes. I thought your point was "my 12 year-old wants to read Game of Thrones and if I say no, he/she may never want to read at all, so I will just let him/her". And I strongly disagree.

My point is, as you, Mochaspresso and Maria also mentioned, education, discussion, guidance. If that parent educated the kid, they clearly have several options, given that the kid wants to read/watch/play something "adult":

*The parent could, first, ask why, and if the answer is something like "all my friends are doing it" (my 12 y/o nephew's favorite line), the kid should really come up with something better. Why are all your friends doing it? What appeals you from that book/movie/game?
*The parent will know whether that 12 year-old is unusually mature or not and that reading will be appropriate for them.
*The parent will know the kid's other literary tastes and be able to recommend something else, in a similar spirit but, to the judgment of the parent, more appropriate (because saying "no, not that one, here, read this boring book I love instead" is definitely not going to do it).
*The parent will already be comfortable enough to talk about certain issues. If there are doubts, they will know they can always go to the parent to discuss certain parts/topics of the book/movie/game.

These are only examples, but it's not a total educational heresy to explain a teen why they should wait for a couple of years, as long as you're able to sit with your kid and explain your reasons, discuss it together and come to an agreement, rather than just saying no "because I say so" or just let them go at it unattended. Even Maisie Williams (allegedly) waited a couple of years, and she plays a major character in the series.

I put together books, games, movies in the example and I included porn because it's another mature/adult form of entertainment, just like some movies or books can be. I know the conversation with the kid can be a lot more uncomfortable when it's about porn instead of Game of Thrones, but it should still be discussed together, if the situation arises (no pun intended lol).

@Gary: If you read my comment again, you'll see how I mentioned those things and in which context. You obviously missed the point.

I think the bottom line appears to be that there are NO age restrictions on reading material but it not few as something that could put minors at risk.
Think about it, you can give an 8 years old some cash, send her into a book store and she can buy anything from Harry Potter and Spot the Dog to Mein Kampf and 50 shades of Grey.
For fun in nipped into the central library on my way to work (its across the road).
According to the staff ANYONE can read ANYTHING they like. Certain books (50 shades, Girl with the dragon tattoo, Trainspotting were the examples stated) cause a message to be flagged on the screen at the checkout point which they are obligated to read to someone who looks pre teen which basically states "this book contains adult situations BLAH BLAH BLAH" but they have no obligation Morale or Legal to not allow you to leave with the book.
So I guess if were get to decide what little John or Jane is ready to read or not we could be considered to be violating their rights in some small way.
Then again I line in the UK, so It may be different country to country, state to state.

Marc, I live in the U.S. I serve on the Board of Directors at our local library. We have no policy about age appropriate reading materials, everyone is free to check out whatever materials they wish. Only valuable antique books and historic documents must stay in the library, but everyone can access them

Holly wrote: "Marc, I live in the U.S. I serve on the Board of Directors at our local library. We have no policy about age appropriate reading materials, everyone is free to check out whatever materials they w..."

Cause I have nothing better to do in work today I decided to phone a friend who is a manager at a big UK book chain (Waterstones....not sure if its a global thing or not) to check what their official policy is.
According to Her they have NO policy what so ever on age restrictions on books with ONE recent exception.
Staff were informed NOT to sell books in the 50 shades of grey series to anyone who looked "to young".
However this was largely a PR move and if anyone actually challenged staff on the issue they were to make the sale anyway.
Most staff helpfully decided to suggest better written porn in most cases.