you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No - it's a minor comment in a minor section of a book that's taken way out of context by the pedophiles at breitbart.com

[–]ReeferMadness[S] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Please tell me the proper context so I can understand how having adults observe children at play, looking for things to suggest that the literal todlers are motivated by sexual desires, is appropriate.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's not suggested as regular paranting process; it's an approach to understanding human behaviour, of which there are many. It's also not new. Sociiopathology is also studied among children in their first years, but this is not something recommended for all parents. It's part of a clinical consideration, of which there are many for examining behaviour. There is a field of psychology devoted to this that everyone in that field understands rather well, and that includes the study of children. All of the data is examined together, and one or two data points are not significant in that kind of study. So a criminally corrupt asshat at brietbart thought it would be fun to take a clinical study out of the classroom context (hence the textbook) and state that all parents are supposed to focus on one data point (approaches to sexual organs at a young age) about their children and apply their own ideas to their observations. This is exactly NOT what to do with that information (which is for clinical assessment, and is considered alongside many other data points). Fuck brietbart.