• petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I would be extremely uncomfortable having a conversation about why people stay with their abusers with a kid.

    I… you don’t think they could learn from that?
    I mean, if it’s really just that it’s too much work to explain, why would it make you uncomfortable?

    to have to explain things like “the gray areas around coercion and nonconsensual sex” to someone else’s kid in a panel setting.

    Why would the panel people be the one’s doing this?

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      Real question here, you ever worked with any children, or is this idealism? Because the idea that a child could have the relevant background to understand the nuanced motivations of characters in these situations is pretty… well depressing, if we assume that all children are going to have that background.

      As an illustrative example, children’s media. It isn’t simplistic because we’re condescending, it’s simplistic because its both to explain simple, fundemental concepts and becasue that’s what kids enjoy. They can relate to it, because it addresses concepts that they have the intellectual capacity and prerequisite understanding to be able to relate to it. This is childhood education at its heart.

      I don’t want to explain concpets that most actual adults cant understand, or even discuss in a mature way to a child. People use “you’ll understand when your older” all too often as an excuse to brush aside questions they just don’t want to take the time to explain, but sometimes it’s because explaining “I hated myself so much I didn’t care what happened with my body which is why I have all these scars that spell out words you hopefully dont know yet on my chest/legs/back” isn’t something a child can understand. And thank fuck for that.