What are your thoughts about anatomically correct baby dolls

[BeccaB-D]

A friend (not very close) just had a baby boy
We bought something of her registry for the baby.
And a present for her 3 year old daughter, a really nice doll from the doll factory, this one (boy, just like her little brother): http://www.dollfactorydirect.com/productDetails.asp?Category=AnatomicallyCorrect&SubCategory=Preemie&CatName=Anatomically%20Cor&Id=312&SubOrder=2

My girls own the same dolls (boys and girls) and I really like them.
Very beautiful made and sturdy.

At first the mother seemed happy with the doll, until the daughter opened the dolls diaper...
The doll is anatomically correct (I knew this never saw a problem with it)
The mother freaked out! The doll has a penis!
She found this to be 'disgusting' and took the doll away from her daughter, who (of course) started to cry.

The mother told us the doll was a very inappropriate gift, she said little girls shouldn't be exposed to 'sex parts'
I thought her reaction was over the top, is she going to hide her sons 'parts' if she changes his diaper of gives him a bath? So her daughter can't see them?

What's your opinion about this, are anatomically correct dolls 'a bad influence' for little girls or do you think there's nothing wrong with it.

[niccig]

We gave DS 2 anatomically correct dolls - a boy and a girl. ILs found it weird, but we don't. DS has known correct names from the very beginning. Some people though are more uptight about that thought. I don't see anything wrong with it at all.

[TwinFoxes]

I'll refrain from saying anything that may inadvertently insult someone on this board, and just say I think your gift was more than fine.

ETA: But I do have to say, I find it incredibly rude that someone would tell a friend that a gift given in kindness is "disgusting".

[m448]

Yikes. She's setting herself (and her daughter) up for quite a bit of hardship. Maybe give her the benefit of the doubt and some time that she'll adjust her views.

[JoyNChrist]

I don't think there's anything wrong with them, and I think your friend was really rude about a nice, thoughtful gift.

[Minnifer]

The mother told us the doll was a very inappropriate gift, she said little girls shouldn't be exposed to 'sex parts' Yikes - um, it's not just a sex part, and who thinks of it that way on a doll or baby anyway??? I guess I could see the mother being surprised, if she wasn't expecting to see the boy bits, but I do think her reaction was over the top - and way more of a "bad influence" to her daughter than the doll!

[gcc2k]

Even though I don't see anything wrong with it, I can respect the mother's wishes to not expose her child to an anatomically correct doll. (My BF has her DD, a 7-year-old, call all parts "fronts"--including her little brother and sister' genitalia, as well as her own. I joke with my BF that one day I'm going to teach her DS all about penises.) However I do think that you friend's reaction was rude. She could have handled the situation much better.

[kijip]

I'll refrain from saying anything that may inadvertently insult someone on this board, and just say I think your gift was more than fine.

ETA: But I do have to say, I find it incredibly rude that someone would tell a friend that a gift given in kindness is "disgusting".

:yeahthat:

What an incredibly rude response to a gift given in good faith and good will. Even if she disagreed with the doll, she should not have done it in front of you.

I think that her problems with it are her own problem, not yours.

[mommylamb]

I think your friend totally overreacted. I don't think there's anything wrong with an anatomically correct doll at all.

[boolady]

I think your friend totally overreacted. I don't think there's anything wrong with an anatomically correct doll at all.

I agree. It's nature, it's life. I'm not sure what is to be gained from holding off on a child learning about human physiology/biology. It certainly doesn't compel her to have a sex talk with her 3 year old, if that's what she's so worried about. I really don't get the idea that accuracy about the human body is in any way prurient or inappropriate.

[MommyofAmaya]

Wow... so sorry that she responded with such a lack of gratitude. It sounds like a very nice gift.... especially since it was for the sibling of a new baby (which is exceptionally generous IMO).

[gatorsmom]

[QUOTE=kijip;2950666]:yeahthat:

What an incredibly rude response to a gift given in good faith and good will. Even if she disagreed with the doll, she should not have done it in front of you.

I think that her problems with it are her own problem, not yours.

These were my responses exactly. Don't feel bad, you were trying to be kind. These are her issues. She was rude and unappreciative.

[elektra]

I think your friend totally overreacted. I don't think there's anything wrong with an anatomically correct doll at all.

:yeahthat:
Well I have an older DD and a younger DS, and there is really no avoiding them seeing each other naked. Not sure how the mom plans to handle that. They know that they have different parts- no biggie because we don't make it a big deal, it's just how things are.
The doll looks really nice and I would not have been upset if my daughter had received that as a gift.

[shawnandangel]

That is a beautiful and thoughtful gift that you gave. Your friend reacted rudely and inappropriately.

[♥ms.pacman♥]

:yeahthat:

What an incredibly rude response to a gift given in good faith and good will. Even if she disagreed with the doll, she should not have done it in front of you.

I think that her problems with it are her own problem, not yours.

:yeahthat:

even if i thought a gift given by a friend was in any way inappropriate for my child, i wouldn't DREAM of telling the gift-giver this! that's just downright rude and there's no point in doing so except to make the gift-giver feel bad.

that doll is beautiful, BTW. if someone got something like that for my son (he likes dolls and stuffed animals) for when my second was born, i'd be *thrilled*..i'd mostly be happy that someone even thought to give him a gift too. it's sad that she could not appreciate such a thoughtful gift from a friend.

[edurnemk]

I think that if the girls get any negative/wrong ideas about the whole thing, it would be from the mom's reaction, not the doll. They're going to be seeing the baby anyway! I saw my brothers' parts during diaper changes and baths and was not traumatized in any way.

BTW I can't believe she reacted like that in front of you, that's just rude. If she thought it was inappropriate she could have sneaked it away after you left. She's entitled to raise her kids as she wants, but the rudeness of her reaction and comments are terrible!

As for us I have no problem with anatomically correct dolls, for girls or boys. The whole taboo thing only makes the issue grow.

[elektra]

I think that if the girls get any negative/wrong ideas about the whole thing, it would be from the mom's reaction, not the doll. They're going to be seeing the baby anyway! I saw my brothers' parts during diaper changes and baths and was not traumatized in any way.

BTW I can't believe she reacted like that in front of you, that's just rude. If she thought it was inappropriate she could have sneaked it away after you left. She's entitled to raise her kids as she wants, but the rudeness of her reaction and comments are terrible!

As for us I have no problem with anatomically correct dolls, for girls or boys. The whole taboo thing only makes the issue grow.


Exactly what I was trying to say too. :)

[twowhat?]

I would've been a bit surprised to find boy parts in a doll (because I've never seen that before!) but apart from the initial "whoa, this doll is accurate!" it would not bother at all, and I would've been thrilled with the opportunity to teach:)

Though I will say that I can think of people that would not think it to be an appropriate gift.

I most CERTAINLY wouldn't have openly commented about the "disgusting" nature of the gift! And how horrible that she just snatched the doll away from her DD, who was probably clearly excited that she also got a gift for becoming a big sister!

Good thing this wasn't a close friend!

[BeccaB-D]

Thanks everybody.

I felt really bad about the situation, We just moved here and haven't made a lot of friends yet, this was the first babyshower I was invited to.

My kids have always seen each other naked, I don't see anything wrong about this. When they were small they took baths together (boys and girls) Sometimes one of the kids (or more) climbed in the bathtub when I or DH were taking a bath or shower.
The kids run naked in the garden and around the house (the little ones of course, our bigger ones and teens prefer clothing)
The kids use the proper names for genitals (I don't like the 'cutsie' names, it is what it is)

We took the doll back to our home BTW, no way I'm letting such a nice gift and up in the trash or on E-bay

DH told me he heard from a co-worker (she also attended the baby shower) everybody thought the mother acted crazy, and my DH's co-worker said she would have loved a present like that. ('Funny' thing is that's she's also expecting a son, and her babyshower is next week :D so her DS(!) will have a great gift)

[twowhat?]

DH told me he heard from a co-worker (she also attended the baby shower) everybody thought the mother acted crazy, and my DH's co-worker said she would have loved a present like that. ('Funny' thing is that's she's also expecting a son, and her babyshower is next week :D so her DS(!) will have a great gift)

LOL!!! This is just awesome!

[boolady]

I felt really bad about the situation, We just moved here and haven't made a lot of friends yet, this was the first babyshower I was invited to.

You have nothing to feel bad about. What a message to send-- the human body is disgusting. Really...all the PPers who said that is the most disturbing part of the story are right.

[BabyBearsMom]

Don't feel bad. She clearly has issues if she is that upset by anatomy and needs to grow up. You seem totally normal to me and your kids will be better off due to your comfort and honesty about human anatomy.

[mommylamb]

I think you should buy her kids "In the Night Kitchen" next.

[swissair81]

I wouldn't buy one for my kids. I don't let undressed dolls around my house, ever, even if there aren't explicit parts. That said, I wouldn't have called it disgusting or even told you about my issues with the doll. I also change my babies' diapers in front of my kids.

[BeccaB-D]

LOL!!! This is just awesome!

yeah, I thought I really messed up at first.
I have a big family, and other people around here 'only' have 1-3 kids.
We homeschool, use cloth diapers, breastfeed (extended and tandem), eat organic, grow some of our own food.

I was afraid I wouldn't fit in, not that the opinion of other people is extremly important to me, but I would like to make some friends here.
And also for my kids to make some friends to play with other than their siblings.

[MommyofAmaya]

LOL!!! This is just awesome!

Even better if the Expecting Mom #1 is there to witness Expecting Mom #2's (more positive) reaction.

[boolady]

I don't let undressed dolls around my house, ever, even if there aren't explicit parts.

I promise I'm not baiting. I am just curious why.

[muskiesusan]

I have that *exact* doll from my childhood!!! Other than being a bit dirty, it is still in great condition for being about 30 years old and having been played with by my boys and I. Really well made.

I have had a lot reactions to the doll over the years, but never like yours. Most people are just surprised.

[maiaann]

Anatomically correct dolls don't bother me, but I could see how they could make others uncomfortable so I don't think I'd give one as a gift.

But, what I really wanted to say (off topic) is that I love your corgi pic!

[swissair81]

I promise I'm not baiting. I am just curious why.

In my religion, there is a big emphasis on modesty. I practice what I preach. I always wear long sleeves, skirt longer than my knees, stockings & something that covers my hair. My children are dressed in age appropriate modest clothing, so I find naked baby dolls just lying around to be discomfiting. That said, my daughter wanted to learn more about the human body recently & I bought her some great age appropriate books & anatomy kits for Hanukkah. I just think private parts are, well, private.

[boolady]

In my religion, there is a big emphasis on modesty. I practice what I preach. I always wear long sleeves, skirt longer than my knees, stockings & something that covers my hair. My children are dressed in age appropriate modest clothing, so I find naked baby dolls just lying around to be discomfiting. That said, my daughter wanted to learn more about the human body recently & I bought her some great age appropriate books & anatomy kits for Hanukkah. I just think private parts are, well, private.

Thanks for responding. It's interesting to get different perspectives on things.

[infomama]

What an incredibly rude response to a gift given in good faith and good will. Even if she disagreed with the doll, she should not have done it in front of you.
I think that her problems with it are her own problem, not yours.
:yeahthat:

[xmasbabycomin]

I have to say, where I live a gift like that might be considered a bit odd. But insulting a gift-any gift-by calling it innappropriate and basically trashing it in front of everyone is just wrong wherever you're from. Anybody can misjudge when choosing a gift, but it takes a special kinda crazy to go off on sex parts when someone has obviously spent their time and money on her family.

Love that anecdote from DHs work! Just love it!

[swissair81]

Thanks for responding. It's interesting to get different perspectives on things.

I have no problem answering respectful questions.

[daisymommy]

I personally would have asked if the mom was comfortable with it, before giving an anotomically correct doll. Not because body parts are "nasty" or anything like that, but every family has their own modesty boundaries, and you just never know where they are. BUT I think it was very kind and generous that you thought of the little girl, and gave her a big sister gift!

I think that the mom who only has been used to her 3 yr. old DD, and just now had a son, is not yet versed in how things change once you have multiple kids, and of opposite genders. She will soon realize that her DD will see her baby brother being changed, and that in order to get everyone bathed at least once a week she may resort to bathing them together, and the questions will start--"Mommy, what IS THAT on baby Johnny?!"

She is probably used to just her and her little girl, and the exposure to boy parts is different maybe. I'm guessing she'll get over it soon. Life changes you the more kids you have!

[citymama]

How rude.

I experienced something similar when we were invited to the home of a friend of my sister's who I've known socially for a while. She has two girls, the younger of whom is around the same age as DD1. The older girl is 8, and had a book of anatomy on her shelf, which I was showing DD1. As we were thumbing through it, I looked at the mom and said, "how strange, there isn't anything in here about reproductive anatomy or genitalia" and she looked at me like I had just sworn in front of her kids or something. She whisked me out of the room and said (apologetically) that she thought that was a very inappropriate comment, and then, feeling embarrassed that she had just corrected a guest, she tried to laugh it off by saying "tsk, tsk, you have a dirty mind!" My jaw was agape.

Um, my 4 yr old DD not only knows the anatomically correct names, but can tell you how a baby is born (not so much detail on how a baby is made, but in scientific terms - egg being fertilized - she can). Then I began to worry what would happen if DD1 said something about her body or another kids, using the correct terms - would a similarly prudish parent be horrified and separate her from their kids or something more harsh? Are we setting our kids to be admonished by a world that is too prudish to deal with reality?

[HIU8]

Wow, I would have loved that gift. In fact, when DD was born, we gave DS an anatomically correct doll. We gave him the Corelle baby Paul doll. both he and DD now play with it (in addition to all the other dolls we have). I think what she did was really rude, and to be honest, rather odd.

[daisymommy]

Well, I haven't had a sex talk with my DS yet, who is 8. He has no clue how babies are made or how they get out either. He knows his sister has different private parts than him, but we don't let them see each other naked anymore. If I bought him an anatomy book, I wouldn't want one that included genitalia--not at his age. Why does an 8 year old boy need to see pictures and descriptions of a female's genitals? I think that is inappropriate. And I don't think that is being prudish, or not dealing with reality. I personally think that kids are exposed to waaaaay too much too fast these days, and it's come back to bite us. Every religion and family is different. It's fine if it's okay for your DD and family, but it wouldn't be for mine.

If I were your friend with the book, I wouldn't have commented or freaked out, just said something like, Hmm. and then changed the subject, very non-confrontational like.

[swissair81]

Well, I haven't had a sex talk with my DS yet, who is 8. He has no clue how babies are made or how they get out either. He knows his sister has different private parts than him, but we don't let them see each other naked anymore. If I bought him an anatomy book, I wouldn't want one that included genitalia--not at his age. Why does an 8 year old boy need to see pictures and descriptions of a female's genitals? I think that is inappropriate. And I don't think that is being prudish, or not dealing with reality. I personally think that kids are exposed to waaaaay too much too fast these days, and it's come back to bite us. Every religion and family is different. It's fine if it's okay for your DD and family, but it wouldn't be for mine.

If I were your friend with the book, I wouldn't have commented or freaked out, just said something like, Hmm. and then changed the subject, very non-confrontational like.

:yeahthat: I wouldn't want my kids to find things out from other kids. If you are going to tell them these things, a gentle reminder about the propriety of discussing such things in public may be in order. JMHO.

[citymama]

:yeahthat: I wouldn't want my kids to find things out from other kids. If you are going to tell them these things, a gentle reminder about the propriety of discussing such things in public may be in order. JMHO.

You wouldn't want your kids to know that boys have penises? Sorry, confused about what you are talking about. My daughter knows this only in scientific, biological terms, not as something whispered or giggled about behind doors, which is what you make it sound like.

[Lolabee]

Well, I haven't had a sex talk with my DS yet, who is 8. He has no clue how babies are made or how they get out either. He knows his sister has different private parts than him, but we don't let them see each other naked anymore. If I bought him an anatomy book, I wouldn't want one that included genitalia--not at his age. Why does an 8 year old boy need to see pictures and descriptions of a female's genitals? I think that is inappropriate. And I don't think that is being prudish, or not dealing with reality. I personally think that kids are exposed to waaaaay too much too fast these days, and it's come back to bite us. Every religion and family is different. It's fine if it's okay for your DD and family, but it wouldn't be for mine.

If I were your friend with the book, I wouldn't have commented or freaked out, just said something like, Hmm. and then changed the subject, very non-confrontational like.

I'm honestly not baiting or flaming here, but I really don't understand the need to shield a child from knowing about basic human reproduction. Especially once they reach school age, and are going to become even more curious about these sorts of things. I much prefer that my kids hear the basics from me, in an age appropriate manner, than to hear goodness knows what kind of nonsense from other kids.

My kids know the proper terminology for their parts (penis, scrotum, etc), that Mommy and other girls are different because they don't have penises but vaginas instead. And, gasp!, they also know that Mommy feeds the baby from her breasts, that the milk comes out of my nipple, and I have in no way bothered to prevent them from seeing me nurse the baby even when it means I may temporarily expose them to the view of a little nip.

Finally, I think you're working with some historically innacurate information about children's exposure to sexuality and reproduction throughout history. Except for the upper classes, who were wealthy enough to afford separate spaces for sleeping, it used to be extremely commonplace for parents and siblings to live in cramped quarters where nudity and sex were unavoidable. It's only been in the last 50 years or so (really post WWII) for families to have separate spaces for sleeping, eating and eliminating. Certainly up until the turn of the previous century families were often living in one or two room houses or apartments and the kids slept right next to the parents and people either used chamber pots or (if they were lucky enough) an outhouse.

My house was built in 1905, and the bathroom was only added onto the house some time in the late 1930s. It had two bedrooms before the addition was put on, even though the family at the time who lived here had something like 6 kids. I'm sure it was well nigh impossible for that family to avoid catching glimpses of the genitals of their opposite sex family members. It's just the way things were back then.

[citymama]

I really don't understand the need to shield a child from knowing about basic human reproduction. Especially once they reach school age, and are going to become even more curious about these sorts of things. I much prefer that my kids hear the basics from me, in an age appropriate manner, than to hear goodness knows what kind of nonsense from other kids.



:yeahthat: I couldn't agree more! But clearly there are different perspectives on this.

[daisymommy]

Well, perhaps it comes from my religious background (Christian). We believe God calls us to live modest chaste lives, and that only spouses are to see your private parts. That also means no low cut tops exposing your breasts, no short skirts, no dressing in such a way to make a man lust with his eyes and heart over you that is not your own husband. No sleeping with someone you are not married to. We don't watch shows involving sex...I think you get the idea. Sex and our genital parts are private. They are for us and our marriage partner. Thats it. Not for interesting discussion, or to look at in a book.

When my children were young, say 3, and they never paid each other any attention, it didn't matter if they bathed in front of each other or changed in front of each other. But at a certain age when they do start staring, it just wasn't proper anymore.

I just don't believe it is okay for young children to be talking about these things. I know my DS will need to learn about it soon, but he is just not emotionally mature enough just not yet.

FWIW...I'm sure things were different back then, in one room houses. But I do believe that modesty was used between the boys and girls, and that children were not shown pictures of peoples naked bodies and explained at a young age how sex works. People didn't just parade around naked because there weren't separate rooms. Have you ever talked to your grandmother or great grand mother? I have. I remember her talking about bath day, when the boys would all go out to the barn while the girls were taking their baths. Or hearing noises in her parents bed area but having no idea what was going on, other than being told that it was "grown up business." Children were still shielding from a great many things, if they grew up in a home with a religious background.

[edurnemk]

:yeahthat: I couldn't agree more! But clearly there are different perspectives on this.

:yeahthat: and I agree 100% that each family should choose their limits.

The real problem with the situation the OP described is how rudely it was handled by the mom. It's OK for her to want to shield her DD, but it's not OK to judge other's choices in the matter as "disgusting, inappropriate".

[edurnemk]

I just don't believe it is okay for young children to be talking about these things. I know my DS will need to learn about it soon, but he is just not emotionally mature enough just not yet.

I wouldn't talk to my DS about the sexual part of it at a young age (but I know by 3rd grade tops we'll have to, because he'll hear it elsewhere as well). But the penis is not only a sexual organ, and if your older kids are around for diaper changes, they'll see it. So I have no problem teaching DS the right name for it, and answering questions naturally. In short, I don't think them seeing a baby's private parts has to be related to the sexual aspect of them.

A few months ago, a friend changed her DD's diaper in front of DS. He asked me "where's her penis?", I just answered "girl's don't have penises, DS, our bodies are a little different". End of conversation, nothing sexual about it.

BTW DH is freaked out about me teaching him the right names, he thinks he'll shock his pre-school teacher or something...

[mamicka]

We don't have one, but I have no issue with them at all. Regardless of her feelings about the doll she was incredibly rude.

I think that there are many different opinions on this topic (children's awareness & knowledge of reproductive anatomy) & many of them are OK. But I think that we (general) need to be careful that we don't automatically assign sexual thoughts/feelings to knowledge about genitalia. Children can learn this information, be exposed (no pun intended) to it in the course of everyday life & still learn to keep private things private.

[Katigre]

Well, perhaps it comes from my religious background (Christian). We believe God calls us to live modest chaste lives, and that only spouses are to see your private parts. That also means no low cut tops exposing your breasts, no short skirts, no dressing in such a way to make a man lust with his eyes and heart over you that is not your own husband. No sleeping with someone you are not married to. We don't watch shows involving sex...I think you get the idea. Sex and our genital parts are private. They are for us and our marriage partner. Thats it. Not for interesting discussion, or to look at in a book.
I don't really see what one (sexual modesty) has to do with the other (teaching our children basic biology - body parts, fertility cycle, etc...) I agree with the Christian values you described above. My DH and I waited until our wedding night for sex (and we didn't even kiss until we'd been dating for a year). I am very modest in my clothing and am deliberate to focus my sexuality on DH alone and to avoid sexual material in movies/books/etc.... My personal lifestyle in this area is far more conservative than the norm.

My DS is 4.5, he knows the difference between girls and boys (including correct names: penis, testicles, scrotum, vulva, vagina), about sperm + egg = baby (he calls it the 'great sperm race" lol), he knows how babies are born (the mommy pushes them out through her vagina and it is hard work), he understands nursing having both done it and seen it with DD, he knows about a period and that mommies 'have blood' when they don't have a baby growing inside them (I change my diva cup privately with just DD there, but he knows what it is and has asked about it and I've answered).

NONE of the above is sexual in nature or immodest - DS and DD are still very innocent. DS doesn't feel embarrassed about being in the bath with his sister or showering with myself or DH. He believes his body is fearfully and wonderfully made and he thinks that it's really neat how mommies have babies and he will get to be a daddy someday. He doesn't know anything about sexual intimacy - he hasn't connected those dots yet. What he knows above sets the stage for our family to teach him our values about bodies, sex, reproduction, etc... before he gets inundated with garbage from our cultuere that i don't agree with.

Everything above has happened as a result of natural conversation in our home. I'm very into women's health so that's probably part of why it gets talked about. Heck, DD learned the word "Vulva" this fall before she even said 'grandpa' and 'grandma' because when she would point to herself during diaper changes I told her what she was touching.


I just don't believe it is okay for young children to be talking about these things. I know my DS will need to learn about it soon, but he is just not emotionally mature enough just not yet.
To know the names of their body parts that GOD MADE AND CALLED GOOD? To understand that our bodies are created for a purpose, have value, and should be honored? To know that there is no shame in who God made them, but that they should protect and honor it? I understand not teaching mechanics of sex until kids are older. But I don't see why the things I listed above would be considered 'immodest'.

[smiles33]

We don't have one, but I have no issue with them at all. Regardless of her feelings about the doll she was incredibly rude.

I think that there are many different opinions on this topic (children's awareness & knowledge of reproductive anatomy) & many of them are OK. But I think that we (general) need to be careful that we don't automatically assign sexual thoughts/feelings to knowledge about genitalia. Children can learn this information, be exposed (no pun intended) to it in the course of everyday life & still learn to keep private things private.

:yeahthat:

For what it's worth, my parents NEVER had mentioned the real anatomical names and I remember learning about them from kids in school. Penis and vagina were like bad words to me. Even now, I haven't taught DD1 (who's 4.5) the correct terms as we just use a general "bottom" for anything down there. I feel like I need to go home tonight and start teaching her the right words so she doesn't think they're bad words either.

[smiles33]

BTW DH is freaked out about me teaching him the right names, he thinks he'll shock his pre-school teacher or something...

OT, but my DD1 asked her preschool teacher if she has hair on her bottom like her mom. She said the teacher said no, and I was MORTIFIED when I heard the story from DD1 as I was afraid the teacher would think I have a hairy butt. FTR, our term for anything down there is bottom so DD1 was referring to public hair. Sigh. I'm sure it won't be the first time I'm embarrassed!

[daisymommy]

I'm sorry, I misspoke.

Yes, I agree with acknowledging people's body parts, to teach correct names, to know that your sister doesn't have a penis like you, she has a vagina. We teach them that God made them wonderfully, but that they are for their own eyes, not others to be looking at. Even in their own family.

I personally do not think the above topics you mentioned are for children. Not because they are dirty, or wrong at all. They are all part of God's great design for us. But they are mature topics. Not ones I feel comfortable with my children learning about at their age. My son doesn't need to know at his age that blood comes out of mommy's vagina every month. That's a mental picture I'm not ready to share with him.

[Katigre]

Ah, ok that makes sense. I thought you meant that knowing their own body parts wasn't ok. I can understand having a different view on birth/egg+sperm depending on your own comfort level and family dynamics. I just wouldn't couch it in biblical terms because if you'd been part of ancient Israel (sheep herders, etc...) as a child you would see lambing and mating as part of your family economy since that knowledge is something you're exposed to much earlier than those of us separated from animal husbandry.

For us, the way pregnancy and birth is handled in our family is more open than in other families so DS thought it was interesting and I wanted him to learn about it at an age when it wouldn't feel awkward for him but just 'always knew it' knowledge (vs. the teenage boys I knew who were totally freaked out about the concept of birth and periods when they learned about it).

[edurnemk]

OT, but my DD1 asked her preschool teacher if she has hair on her bottom like her mom. She said the teacher said no, and I was MORTIFIED when I heard the story from DD1 as I was afraid the teacher would think I have a hairy butt. FTR, our term for anything down there is bottom so DD1 was referring to public hair. Sigh. I'm sure it won't be the first time I'm embarrassed!

Don't worry, I'm sure pre-school teachers hear a LOT of "inappropriate" comments and questions on the matter. That's what I tell DH, that I hardly think hearing the word "penis" will shock a teacher who's around curious little kids all day. We usually use the word bottom, but when DS has pointed and asked directly "what's this?" I give him a natural, straight-forward answer. I just don't see the point in all the "cutesie" names. I feel he'll just get the message that there's something bad about it and cause more unhealthy curiosity.

[swissair81]

You wouldn't want your kids to know that boys have penises? Sorry, confused about what you are talking about. My daughter knows this only in scientific, biological terms, not as something whispered or giggled about behind doors, which is what you make it sound like.

Actually, I have a son & my girls know that boys and girls are different. I just don't believe that they need to know the alternate functions of said body parts at 7 & 3 years of age.

[citymama]

Actually, I have a son & my girls know that boys and girls are different. I just don't believe that they need to know the alternate functions of said body parts at 7 & 3 years of age.

In truth, my DD doesn't know that these body parts have to do with reproduction. I think I might have inadvertently confused things with my anecdote. We're talking about two related but different things. One, is the use of anatomically correct terms for genitals, and many of us preferring that our kids know that boys have penises and girls have vulvas rather than it being a giggle-giggle thing they talk about when parents aren't around. The second is reproduction - which my DD only knows in terms of the fact that mamas of all species have eggs, they get fertilized by papas (but she doesn't yet know how), they grow in mammal mamas uteruses (birds and reptiles lay their eggs), and then she knows the process of human childbirth because she wanted to know how her baby sister was going to come out of her mama. We've kept it on a "need to know" basis, and always in biological terms, not slang.

[swissair81]

My littler kids know the anatomical terms in Yiddish. That way, if it ends up getting discussed in a public forum, it's somewhat less embarrassing. (This came from a not so cute story my mother tells about when I was little. I apparently asked the guy behind us in the supermarket checkout line if he has a penis. I was about 2 or 3 & the guy was pretty cool about it. He told me that he does have peanuts in his cart, but they are for him. If I wanted some too, I should ask my mommy.) My oldest has kind of figured out several parts of human reproduction & I did show her this cool fetal development video I found on FB. I'm not up to telling her how the baby got there though. We did get into slightly more detail about how the baby gets out- I did want to reassure her that it's normal & nothing to be afraid of. She met my doctor & got to listen to several of her younger siblings' heartbeats in utero. The human anatomy books I got her for Hanukkah did talk about human development, DNA & other topics that interest her. I don't hide things. I just keep things on what I consider an age appropriate level.

[Lolabee]

Children were still shielding from a great many things, if they grew up in a home with a religious background.

I'm afraid that's a bit of a Euro/Anglo centric view, and it doesn't reach back much more than 150 years or so into history.

The type of religious background and traditions in play are really a more reliable indicator of how modesty may have been viewed by any given family or population. In addition, the influence of one's cultural background and racial background, and historical time frame is important to how these things were treated by any given family.

Honestly, it's only been up until more recent times that the notion that children needed to be protected and shielded was given any credence at all. It was tremendously common for rural children to labor along side their parents on farms and for more urban children to work in mills and factories. Children were not really considered much more than property and parents were often quite unconcerned with their personal sensibilities or emotions. Don't forget that girls were also often married off at a terribly early age, sometimes as early as ten or eleven. Certainly in bilbical times there was very little concern for protecting or shielding children from anything.

Look, I'm not really trying to argue here. If your religious and/or cultural views lead you to practice a heightened sort of modesty in your home then that really is the bottom line for you. I just think it's important to keep the greater historical and cultural context in mind when it comes to this sort of debate.

[alexsmommy]

I have no problem with it. I also think your friend is allowed to have her opinion and not agree.
I do NOT think it is appropriate that she react so rudely to a gift given to her by a friend, nor do I think it is ok for her to teach her child that this is an acceptable way to demonstrate to her child how to deal with a gift that may not be what a person hopes for. If I were her, I would have said, "Oh wow, wasn't expecting that", laughed it off, distracted my child while I made sure the doll was clothed again, written a very nice thank you and then replaced the doll with an "acceptable" one.

Now, not to hijack - but are they water safe? I need a doll that can go in the shower with DS2. He keeps sneaking the partially cloth Dora in there...

eta I added this w/o reading the other responses, but seeing just one, I have a feeling there was some controversy. My response was only to the OP

[maestramommy]

I have to say that if someone gave my dds' a doll like that, I'd be very startled. Just because I wasn't expecting it, y'know? But I'm pretty sure almost all of my friends would probably ask if it was okay before giving it. I think I'd probably be fine with it. But it would be nice to be asked in advance, just so I wouldn't be so surprised:p

[TwinFoxes]

Kind of a tangent, but I remember when I was a very little kid there was a doll called Baby Tenderlove, and then there was Baby Brother Tenderlove, and it made news because he had a penis. This was the 70s, and made by Mattel, not some crunchy company. So I'm surprised people didn't know anatomically correct dolls existed.

http://www.rubylane.com/item/161834-12060/Vintage-Baby-Brother-Tender-Love

You know you're old when...your childhood dolls are considered antiques!

ETA: I also think people read "anatomically correct" and get a different idea of what the doll looks like, if you look at the site, it's pretty modest.

[bubbaray]

I have to say that if someone gave my dds' a doll like that, I'd be very startled. Just because I wasn't expecting it, y'know? But I'm pretty sure almost all of my friends would probably ask if it was okay before giving it. I think I'd probably be fine with it. But it would be nice to be asked in advance, just so I wouldn't be so surprised:p


:yeahthat:

I actually had no idea that there anatomically correct dolls. Not that its a bad thing, but I can see me being surprised if I saw one. Now, I wouldn't call it disgusting and I would probably make some horribly crass comment (see the other thread about Barbie Loves (a) Woody)), but yeah, it would catch me off guard. For that reason, a heads up (ha ha ha) from the gift giver would be appreciated. I also think that if you are new in an area and don't necessarily have a "feel" for the social context of these issues, it might have been nice to check in with the recipient.

Having said all of that, I think the mom's reaction was rude and inappropriate.

[Green_Tea]

Kind of a tangent, but I remember when I was a very little kid there was a doll called Baby Tenderlove, and then there was Baby Brother Tenderlove, and it made news because he had a penis. This was the 70s, and made by Mattel, not some crunchy company. So I'm surprised people didn't know anatomically correct dolls existed.

http://www.rubylane.com/item/161834-12060/Vintage-Baby-Brother-Tender-Love

You know you're old when...your childhood dolls are considered antiques!

ETA: I also think people read "anatomically correct" and get a different idea of what the doll looks like, if you look at the site, it's pretty modest.

And you can see the penis ON THE BOX. Scandalous! :D

(To answer the OP's question, I have no issue whatsoever with anatomically correct dolls, and it's often struck me as kind of odd that dolls have blank genitalia.)

[citymama]

Kind of a tangent, but I remember when I was a very little kid there was a doll called Baby Tenderlove, and then there was Baby Brother Tenderlove, and it made news because he had a penis. This was the 70s, and made by Mattel, not some crunchy company. So I'm surprised people didn't know anatomically correct dolls existed.

http://www.rubylane.com/item/161834-12060/Vintage-Baby-Brother-Tender-Love

You know you're old when...your childhood dolls are considered antiques!

ETA: I also think people read "anatomically correct" and get a different idea of what the doll looks like, if you look at the site, it's pretty modest.

Hey, I had a baby Tenderlove! I had a baby girl doll and I remember she peed when you gave her water in a bottle. Guess we're of the same vintage!

[Melanie]

My opinion is that woman's response was totally inappropriate, offensive and rude. If she doesn't like it, then she should discreetly make it disappear later.

I got my son an anatomically correct doll when he was little. I think it's good to normalize those parts of our bodies not making them taboo. And OMG, "sex parts?" It's a doll. That's creepy that someone would look at a the form of a BABY and use the term 'sex parts.' No, they are peeing parts lady.

I guess I would have been startled too if I'd never seen a doll like that, and a heads up would have been a nice gesture. But over all she's got the issues, not you. Nice gift, sorry about the response.

[Melanie]

I wouldn't talk to my DS about the sexual part of it at a young age (but I know by 3rd grade tops we'll have to, because he'll hear it elsewhere as well). But the penis is not only a sexual organ, and if your older kids are around for diaper changes, they'll see it. So I have no problem teaching DS the right name for it, and answering questions naturally. In short, I don't think them seeing a baby's private parts has to be related to the sexual aspect of them.


Same here, though Ds is third grade and still hasn't even inquired about 'where babies come from' in any manner. Though I am sure it will come eventually.

He knows boys and girls are different. H'es seen his father, myself and his sister nude at some points in the past. Though now at his age he is beginning to show modesty himself around his sister so we respect that.

Neither Dc know about the reproductive aspects of their parts, but they know boys and girls are different and the names of their parts. Incidentally I grew up in an uber repressed Christian home and NEVER used any names at all. It was like we were all androgenous. LOL. I learned about reproduction from videos/movies at school and older cousins or friends. I didn't even tell my mother when I had my first period. I'm hoping to have a more open relationship with my own children, though I'm sort of moving blindly through it since it's not like I knew one. For some reason I was totally fine with teaching Ds "penis," but girls' parts are complicated and I couldn't decide just what was appropriate. Dh finally told Dd 'vagina' and it's like she knows it bothers me to no end and likes to say it, loudly. *shudder*

[Uno-Mom]

I don't want to dive into the controversy here - but it is interesting to see all the different perspectives. Here's mine: ( :) )

I find dolls with their blank "front areas" terribly creepy. In my opinion, the naked Ken doll is a thing of nightmares (not as bad as Barbie in any form ... but still pretty terrifying).

I respect that some parents would not choose to have their children's dolls having visible genitalia but ... why pretend that they are some strange sexless things? Just give them a permanent pair of undies! I mean, seriously: paint some tighty-whities on poor Ken!

I'm kidding around, of course, but in all seriousness - kids see their own bodies and (hopefully) are completely without shame. Then they see their doll with a strange blank down there. What are they to think? It doesn't just avoid the topic of genitalia, it actively teaches them a weird message about the human body. Ok, now I'm definitely over-thinking this. To answer the original question: I would love for Sprog to have a doll like this when she reaches the doll stage. Especially if there's a DC2.

I work with children who have experienced terrible sexual abuse and know what it means for a child to be truly sexualized. That's oceans away from knowing where babies come from. So I'm kind of sensitive about how we teach our youngsters. All of you who have replied to this thread are thinking about this topic and you're being intentional about giving your children values for their bodies and others' bodies. That's the important thing. Well done, diverse parents!

[BeccaB-D]

Now, not to hijack - but are they water safe? I need a doll that can go in the shower with DS2. He keeps sneaking the partially cloth Dora in there...



My kids take the dolls in the bathtub with them, bath them just like DH and I bath the babies. Recently I had to 'rescue' one of the doll outs of the pool.
A little water ended up iin the body, but she dried up very nicely.
The kids really enjoy playing with their dolls, and when after (very) rough play a leg of arm pops off, it's not that hard to put it back on again (I know some dolls can't be repared if the arm or leg fall of)

And about the 'blank' dolls. I think their weird, We have a doll in our home that can 'drink and pee' and the 'bottom' has a little hole in it for the water to run out. My kids found the doll to be weird and never play with it.

[BeccaB-D]

I don't really see what one (sexual modesty) has to do with the other (teaching our children basic biology - body parts, fertility cycle, etc...) I agree with the Christian values you described above. My DH and I waited until our wedding night for sex (and we didn't even kiss until we'd been dating for a year). I am very modest in my clothing and am deliberate to focus my sexuality on DH alone and to avoid sexual material in movies/books/etc.... My personal lifestyle in this area is far more conservative than the norm.

My DS is 4.5, he knows the difference between girls and boys (including correct names: penis, testicles, scrotum, vulva, vagina), about sperm + egg = baby (he calls it the 'great sperm race" lol), he knows how babies are born (the mommy pushes them out through her vagina and it is hard work), he understands nursing having both done it and seen it with DD, he knows about a period and that mommies 'have blood' when they don't have a baby growing inside them (I change my diva cup privately with just DD there, but he knows what it is and has asked about it and I've answered).

NONE of the above is sexual in nature or immodest - DS and DD are still very innocent. DS doesn't feel embarrassed about being in the bath with his sister or showering with myself or DH. He believes his body is fearfully and wonderfully made and he thinks that it's really neat how mommies have babies and he will get to be a daddy someday. He doesn't know anything about sexual intimacy - he hasn't connected those dots yet. What he knows above sets the stage for our family to teach him our values about bodies, sex, reproduction, etc... before he gets inundated with garbage from our cultuere that i don't agree with.

Everything above has happened as a result of natural conversation in our home. I'm very into women's health so that's probably part of why it gets talked about. Heck, DD learned the word "Vulva" this fall before she even said 'grandpa' and 'grandma' because when she would point to herself during diaper changes I told her what she was touching.


To know the names of their body parts that GOD MADE AND CALLED GOOD? To understand that our bodies are created for a purpose, have value, and should be honored? To know that there is no shame in who God made them, but that they should protect and honor it? I understand not teaching mechanics of sex until kids are older. But I don't see why the things I listed above would be considered 'immodest'.

Wow, I could have writted this.
Except for the diva cup, I own these: http://www.cottonbabies.com/images/medium/sorella-luna-pads-400.jpg
And my kids have seen them around the house and know what there for.
My oldest daughter just turned 13 and I think It won't be very long before she will have her first period, and I'm thinking about buying her this: http://lunapads.com/kits/deluxe-teen-kit.html

My DH and I just moved from a very conservative christian community to a new home (remote farm)
My parents always taught me the proper names of body parts, I grew up in a very small house and saw my parents naked when they walked out of the shower.

Outside we dress modest, my girls don't wear tops that show their belly, or short skirts (short skirts are paired with leggings)

My 3 teens are 13 and 14 and I want them to have a healthy view of how we interact with peers of the opposite sex.
the children sometimes see things on TV, magazines, billboards etc. that are very different from what we teach them (Like those deodorant commercials that would make men 'babemagnets')

We teach them the basic biology of the human body and how babies are made.
I believe that teaching them the 'basics' makes them more aware about their bodies, and knowing the basics about the other sex in my opinion makes them less curious to 'explore on their own'

And my kids know where babies come from, our oldest son even assisted with the birth of our youngest twins (not planned, it just happened so quickly)
He thought it was fantastic and is very proud he 'caught' his little brother.

Breastfeeding is the standard thing in our home, my kids don't even know what formula is (If I would ask them they would say It's a math thing)
I have been breastfeeding them up to 18 months and longer, and tandem feeding is also something we strongly believe in, I'm currently breastfeeding my 12 month old twins, and our 2.5 year old son sometimes still likes a few sips when he hurt himself or is very tired.
My children don't know any better than that's were breast are for: Babyfood.

Sure my 14 year old boy is starting to look at girls, and 'nice boobs' is something I heard him say, but I thinks that's more peer presure. (or maybe it's more like a primal thing and he could be evaluating the possibility of his 'mate' to provide nourishment to his offspring' :wink2: )

[AngelaS]

Slight tangent--Becca, I'd love to hear your twins' birth story. It sounds pretty exciting. :D

[TwinFoxes]

I don't really see what one (sexual modesty) has to do with the other (teaching our children basic biology - body parts, fertility cycle, etc...) I agree with the Christian values you described above. My DH and I waited until our wedding night for sex (and we didn't even kiss until we'd been dating for a year). I am very modest in my clothing and am deliberate to focus my sexuality on DH alone and to avoid sexual material in movies/books/etc.... My personal lifestyle in this area is far more conservative than the norm.

My DS is 4.5, he knows the difference between girls and boys (including correct names: penis, testicles, scrotum, vulva, vagina), about sperm + egg = baby (he calls it the 'great sperm race" lol), he knows how babies are born (the mommy pushes them out through her vagina and it is hard work), he understands nursing having both done it and seen it with DD, he knows about a period and that mommies 'have blood' when they don't have a baby growing inside them (I change my diva cup privately with just DD there, but he knows what it is and has asked about it and I've answered).

NONE of the above is sexual in nature or immodest - DS and DD are still very innocent. DS doesn't feel embarrassed about being in the bath with his sister or showering with myself or DH. He believes his body is fearfully and wonderfully made and he thinks that it's really neat how mommies have babies and he will get to be a daddy someday. He doesn't know anything about sexual intimacy - he hasn't connected those dots yet. What he knows above sets the stage for our family to teach him our values about bodies, sex, reproduction, etc... before he gets inundated with garbage from our cultuere that i don't agree with.

Everything above has happened as a result of natural conversation in our home. I'm very into women's health so that's probably part of why it gets talked about. Heck, DD learned the word "Vulva" this fall before she even said 'grandpa' and 'grandma' because when she would point to herself during diaper changes I told her what she was touching.


To know the names of their body parts that GOD MADE AND CALLED GOOD? To understand that our bodies are created for a purpose, have value, and should be honored? To know that there is no shame in who God made them, but that they should protect and honor it? I understand not teaching mechanics of sex until kids are older. But I don't see why the things I listed above would be considered 'immodest'.

Great post.

[Katigre]

A friend (not very close) just had a baby boy
We bought something of her registry for the baby.
And a present for her 3 year old daughter, a really nice doll from the doll factory, this one (boy, just like her little brother): http://www.dollfactorydirect.com/productDetails.asp?Category=AnatomicallyCorrect&SubCategory=Preemie&CatName=Anatomically%20Cor&Id=312&SubOrder=2
These are the dolls our public library has in their play area - they are really well-made and sturdy and I think it's great they have them for the community to play with (and most of them are naked due to the kids but no one seems to mind. The dolls get most of their play being put in mini high chairs in the play kitchen or in the cradle. I haven't seen anyone fixate on the genitalia which is very small and unobstrusively molded - it's not like it's a baby with an erect penis (which was a surprise to me as a new mom when that happened with DS).

[lizzywednesday]

...

I respect that some parents would not choose to have their children's dolls having visible genitalia but ... why pretend that they are some strange sexless things? Just give them a permanent pair of undies! I mean, seriously: paint some tighty-whities on poor Ken!

...

OT, but I wanted to respond to this particular part of your post.

Ken now has molded tighty-whities on his androgynous bottom half.

The truly creepy part is that they are the same color as the rest of his body.

[misshollygolightly]

OP, I just wanted to add that I'm sorry you had such an uncomfortable experience, and that your "friend" behaved so rudely. Mostly, though, I wanted to say thanks, because the doll you linked to is awesome and I now plan to buy one for my DS once we find out the sex of our new baby! Whether we have a boy or a girl, I think it will be great for DS to have a doll that realistically resembles his new brother or sister (down to the "soft spot" on the head!)--this looks like a great way to help him practice touching/holding the baby gently, etc. So thanks!

[gatorsmom]

Wow, I could have writted this.
Except for the diva cup, I own these: http://www.cottonbabies.com/images/medium/sorella-luna-pads-400.jpg
And my kids have seen them around the house and know what there for.
My oldest daughter just turned 13 and I think It won't be very long before she will have her first period, and I'm thinking about buying her this: http://lunapads.com/kits/deluxe-teen-kit.html

My DH and I just moved from a very conservative christian community to a new home (remote farm)
My parents always taught me the proper names of body parts, I grew up in a very small house and saw my parents naked when they walked out of the shower.

Outside we dress modest, my girls don't wear tops that show their belly, or short skirts (short skirts are paired with leggings)

My 3 teens are 13 and 14 and I want them to have a healthy view of how we interact with peers of the opposite sex.
the children sometimes see things on TV, magazines, billboards etc. that are very different from what we teach them (Like those deodorant commercials that would make men 'babemagnets')

We teach them the basic biology of the human body and how babies are made.
I believe that teaching them the 'basics' makes them more aware about their bodies, and knowing the basics about the other sex in my opinion makes them less curious to 'explore on their own'

And my kids know where babies come from, our oldest son even assisted with the birth of our youngest twins (not planned, it just happened so quickly)
He thought it was fantastic and is very proud he 'caught' his little brother.

Breastfeeding is the standard thing in our home, my kids don't even know what formula is (If I would ask them they would say It's a math thing)
I have been breastfeeding them up to 18 months and longer, and tandem feeding is also something we strongly believe in, I'm currently breastfeeding my 12 month old twins, and our 2.5 year old son sometimes still likes a few sips when he hurt himself or is very tired.
My children don't know any better than that's were breast are for: Babyfood.

Sure my 14 year old boy is starting to look at girls, and 'nice boobs' is something I heard him say, but I thinks that's more peer presure. (or maybe it's more like a primal thing and he could be evaluating the possibility of his 'mate' to provide nourishment to his offspring' :wink2: )


I see you are new and i wanted to say Welcome! You will find a bunch of like-minded moms here. And non-liked minded. It's all good! :D

[BeccaB-D]

Slight tangent--Becca, I'd love to hear your twins' birth story. It sounds pretty exciting. :D

It was a really fast delivery, we were sitting on bed with the whole family that morning (just being lazy, reading books) when I felt a contraction, a few moments later the second one. And before I knew it my husband ran to my fathers house to get his help (very close to our house and he used to be a doctor) and my oldest son was just in time to catch the first baby. The other big kids boiled water, looked for towels, blankets and the first aid kit.
The little ones sat next to us on the bed (At the time a believed sending them away would have scared them more than allowing them to stay, and I was right, they were just fine, our then youngest son just said 'looka! bibi!')
My husband and my father were back in time to help deliver the other twin (DH caught him)
It was very special, the kids loved being part of it (they asked if they can be there when our new addition is born)
And the boys were just fine.

My oldest son really has a special bond with the little brother he helped deliver, he loves to carry him around and read him stories, he's very proud he helped delivering his little brother.

[kijip]

Well, perhaps it comes from my religious background (Christian). We believe God calls us to live modest chaste lives, and that only spouses are to see your private parts. That also means no low cut tops exposing your breasts, no short skirts, no dressing in such a way to make a man lust with his eyes and heart over you that is not your own husband. No sleeping with someone you are not married to. We don't watch shows involving sex...I think you get the idea. Sex and our genital parts are private. They are for us and our marriage partner. Thats it. Not for interesting discussion, or to look at in a book.

When my children were young, say 3, and they never paid each other any attention, it didn't matter if they bathed in front of each other or changed in front of each other. But at a certain age when they do start staring, it just wasn't proper anymore.

I just don't believe it is okay for young children to be talking about these things. I know my DS will need to learn about it soon, but he is just not emotionally mature enough just not yet.

FWIW...I'm sure things were different back then, in one room houses. But I do believe that modesty was used between the boys and girls, and that children were not shown pictures of peoples naked bodies and explained at a young age how sex works. People didn't just parade around naked because there weren't separate rooms. Have you ever talked to your grandmother or great grand mother? I have. I remember her talking about bath day, when the boys would all go out to the barn while the girls were taking their baths. Or hearing noises in her parents bed area but having no idea what was going on, other than being told that it was "grown up business." Children were still shielding from a great many things, if they grew up in a home with a religious background.

I don't see why religious background means restricted access to biology and anatomy knowledge. You know, I grew up in a very religious background. My husband and I have each only been with each other. My parents were profoundly devout in their faith, especially my mother. But we were certainly not unaware of the genitalia of the other sex, nor was that knowledge at a young age in anyway sexual. We were not exposed to sexually explicit or derogatory to sex roles media materials in anyway, but knowledge of basic science is totally different than immodest sexual exposure. T has read all of A Child is Born in addition to numerous books on anatomy. He is not sexualized in the least by that material. The sex stuff, especially at this far before puberty stage, holds not an ounce of interest. What he cares about is how a baby grows, how a heart works, how a brain grows, what skin is made of. I was not as interested at the same age in science as he is but I had about the same level of reproductive knowledge as he did and it did not lead me to anything out of line with my religion in high school. I was not sexually active early (despite having a lot of friends and a number of different boyfriends). If anything my knowledge led me to be more thoughtful, more delayed in my sexual choices. And to be very blunt, the number of very sheltered religious kids I grew up knowing who made really bad choices about sex later on is not insubstantial. The kids I knew like me who waited were mainly from very informed backgrounds, often religious but not always. So I don't buy for a minute that sheltered means modest and chaste later on. It certainly can, but it does not always. Nor does access to extensive information mean an immodest or reckless outcome.

[edurnemk]

:yeahthat: ITA that them knowing we have different parts at that age does not translate into talking about sex. Like a PP said, at that age they're not "sex parts" they're "peeing parts".

My parents were super modest, my mom had the hardest time talking to me about periods and stuff, and when she did I had already heard a LOT from my friends (I was 12). But I was not shielded from seeing my brothers when we were young, we took baths together, I saw them have their diapers changed... so I knew they had penises and to me that part was just for peeing, PERIOD, nothing sexual.

[sste]

Daisymommy and Swissair, I think the most interesting part of both of your contributions is that in your religion/culture genitals are for marriage, not for "play." Although different from my perspective, I think that is interesting and perhaps more the point than what age a child should or shouldn't know about genitals. A doll IS a plaything, even a very young child realizes that. And what I am hearing is that a deeply held value for both of you is that genitals of the opposite gender and sexual intercourse are sacred and for marriage . . . and not for play.

For me, I was raised with alot of shame surrounding genitals and sexuality and it caused me much needless grief and, to be blunt, a lot of missed pleasure! And I don't have any issues with the DC and premarital sex . . . though I do hope it takes place in the context of a positive relationship. So, for me the anatomically correct doll would be great in terms of trying to promote the view that one's genitals and sexuality are something normal and positive both inside and outside of marriage and really in a whole variety of contexts. In fact, I find the, uh, "castration" of male dolls to be somewhat alarming!

But, again, I am coming from a very different frame of reference.

[swissair81]

Daisymommy and Swissair, I think the most interesting part of both of your contributions is that in your religion/culture genitals are for marriage, not for "play."

I'm fairly positive that my posts said nothing about marriage. I was talking about modesty. My kids know what both a penis & vulva look like. We just don't place a major emphasis on them or their names. They are simply a fact of life. Nothing to be ashamed of, but nothing to be emphasized either. There is no 'sex-ed' in my daughter's all girls school. They do, however, bring in a nurse to talk about body changes & that there is nothing to be ashamed of. If we are going to bring marriage into this though, I would have to slightly change your statement. Genitals are always theirs & changes/questions/concerns will always be something I will discuss with my children, but sex is for marriage. Obviously they will know some particulars about sex before marriage, but the actual experience will have to wait.

[maestramommy]

I was raised in a religious background, but I think the reasons behind my not knowing a lot of stuff about sexuality until much later was more cultural. Beyond saying that sex was for marriage only my parents didn't talk about it much. I think they pretty much depended on the school to provide sex ed. In retrospect I think that was not a good idea, and I don't plan to take the same approach with my kids. All the girls have seen me naked numerous times, they are starting to notice that my body doesn't look exactly like theirs. However, they haven't seen Dh and I don't think he plans to enlighten them any time soon. Since we don't have boys, there is no natural way to expose them to the difference between boys and girls, so I guess I will have to be a little more proactive.

At some point we will have to raise the point about why they will no longer be able to run around the house naked after bath, and that does make me a little sad. Or maybe I can just wait until they reach a point where they start to feel like they don't want to do that anymore. This is one thing I'm undecided on. We have already talked to Dora about not letting people other than me and dh (and maybe the ped) touching or looking at her private areas, but we haven't told her why. She hasn't asked either.

For now their only understanding of genitalia is that it is for elimination, and I don't see any reason to go further right now. In fact, they only know vulva and not vagina, because it's still not visible to them.

[brittone2]

I was raised in a religious background, but I think the reasons behind my not knowing a lot of stuff about sexuality until much later was more cultural. Beyond saying that sex was for marriage only my parents didn't talk about it much. I think they pretty much depended on the school to provide sex ed. In retrospect I think that was not a good idea, and I don't plan to take the same approach with my kids. All the girls have seen me naked numerous times, they are starting to notice that my body doesn't look exactly like theirs. However, they haven't seen Dh and I don't think he plans to enlighten them any time soon. Since we don't have boys, there is no natural way to expose them to the difference between boys and girls, so I guess I will have to be a little more proactive.

At some point we will have to raise the point about why they will no longer be able to run around the house naked after bath, and that does make me a little sad. Or maybe I can just wait until they reach a point where they start to feel like they don't want to do that anymore. This is one thing I'm undecided on. We have already talked to Dora about not letting people other than me and dh (and maybe the ped) touching or looking at her private areas, but we haven't told her why. She hasn't asked either.

For now their only understanding of genitalia is that it is for elimination, and I don't see any reason to go further right now. In fact, they only know vulva and not vagina, because it's still not visible to them.

I swear, the day my DS1 turned 5 he suddenly became much more modest. He will still bathe with DD sometimes but primarily no longer wants to do so. He usually dresses in his own room in private, etc. now and has for over a year (eta: actually close to 2 years now).

On the flip side, he was at DS2's birth and was not the least bit scared or weirded out. I think he thinks of it as an amazing miracle and was thrilled to be there...and still talks about it. I would have been totally fine with him not being there, but we did prep both kids while I was still pg since they insisted they wanted to be there. I really didn't think they would want to in the moment, but they totally did, and I know they cherish the experience. I had people there for them as support people if they did not want to be present. I don't think there was anything at all that felt sexual to him about watching me give birth...he was all smiles and loved being there.

[sste]

Genitals are always theirs & changes/questions/concerns will always be something I will discuss with my children, but sex is for marriage. Obviously they will know some particulars about sex before marriage, but the actual experience will have to wait.

Sorry swissair, I was kind of morphing together yours and Daisymom's posts and if I recall you are from two very different religious traditions. I did originally have a question about masturbation and views of one's OWN genitals rather than opposite-gender in both of your traditions/beliefs but I edited that out as I didn't want our friendly thread to go nuclear!!

But, really, my main point is that we should all try to avoid the red herring of "at what age is knowing about X genital appropriate" because that is very culture and family-specific . . .

[gatorsmom]

Well, perhaps it comes from my religious background (Christian). We believe God calls us to live modest chaste lives, and that only spouses are to see your private parts. That also means no low cut tops exposing your breasts, no short skirts, no dressing in such a way to make a man lust with his eyes and heart over you that is not your own husband. No sleeping with someone you are not married to. We don't watch shows involving sex...I think you get the idea. Sex and our genital parts are private. They are for us and our marriage partner. Thats it. Not for interesting discussion, or to look at in a book.

When my children were young, say 3, and they never paid each other any attention, it didn't matter if they bathed in front of each other or changed in front of each other. But at a certain age when they do start staring, it just wasn't proper anymore.

I just don't believe it is okay for young children to be talking about these things. I know my DS will need to learn about it soon, but he is just not emotionally mature enough just not yet.

FWIW...I'm sure things were different back then, in one room houses. But I do believe that modesty was used between the boys and girls, and that children were not shown pictures of peoples naked bodies and explained at a young age how sex works. People didn't just parade around naked because there weren't separate rooms. Have you ever talked to your grandmother or great grand mother? I have. I remember her talking about bath day, when the boys would all go out to the barn while the girls were taking their baths. Or hearing noises in her parents bed area but having no idea what was going on, other than being told that it was "grown up business." Children were still shielding from a great many things, if they grew up in a home with a religious background.

Daisymommy, I just wanted to say thank you for sharing your viewpoint in a very respectful, sharing tone. There have been quite a few posters who don't agree with you and I think they could have been a bit more gentle in expressing their opposition to your opinion (I'm not referring to anyone in particular).

As it turns out, we are not nearly as modest as your family is here, but I do agree with you on the historical perspective. I know from researching our family genealogy and talking to family members that both my mother's and father's families were poor and yet very modest. If they were having bathday, they would hang a large sheet or blanket in the room to divide the room and provide some privacy. or the family would leave the room/house. My dad's family grew up on farms and raised animals for the past 150 years. I've talked to several generations of family members and modesty was of the utmost importance. My dad's aunt is still alive and speaks of her parents (who were born in the late 1800's) frequently. I can guarantee her mother emphasized modesty. And those customs were definitely passed on. I've never seen my dad's penis. Frankly, I think that if I end up caring for him as his cancer progresses, he's very concerned that I might see his privates.

Oh, and if you read the Little House books, her family was very modest. Laura talks about the large sheet that divided her bed from her parents' bed when they moved into the tiny, one-roomed house her dad built on the homestead in South Dakota.

[kijip]

I swear, the day my DS1 turned 5 he suddenly became much more modest. He will still bathe with DD sometimes but primarily no longer wants to do so. He usually dresses in his own room in private, etc. now and has for over a year (eta: actually close to 2 years now).


This is what happened with T as well. It is pretty typical and I think happens (generally) on its own somewhere between 4 and 7 years old. Knowledge has not made him immodest, as far as I can tell.

[maestramommy]

This is what happened with T as well. It is pretty typical and I think happens (generally) on its own somewhere between 4 and 7 years old. Knowledge has not made him immodest, as far as I can tell.

Okay, this is a good range to keep in mind. Dora is just 5. She is still pretty unselfconscious, although we had a running joke for a while. She'd go to the bathroom before bath, then run into the bedroom where we were diapering Arwyn, and we'd say, "why Dora, you have no clothes on!" After a while she'd run in and say the line for us:p and dissolve into giggles.

She also seems to be the only one of the 3 with absolutely no interest in her own body or private parts. Not like the other two:tongue5:

[Uno-Mom]

Ken now has molded tighty-whities on his androgynous bottom half.

The truly creepy part is that they are the same color as the rest of his body.

Um...ick. Sounds like he had one of those startrek transporter accidents where you land fused together with your clothing.

But it's at least less creepy than a total blank.