This forum has shown that Mormon children, for the most part, can be very sheltered. Should parents shelter their children? Can it still be done? If so, what ways can it be done?

I tried to shelter my son from some of the uglier, more upsetting aspects of life until he's old enough to process it. Exampe: We watched The Hangover 3 last night after he went to bed. Funny, but he's just not old enough for the material in it, not so much the language but the situations. Hes too literalistic and impressionable.

Thanks, I agree with your example. I think it differs child to child as well.

I don't have children. Once, I went to lunch with a bunch of coworkers and they all had kids. So I asked them, "Which do you limit your children seeing in movies and on TV: sex or violence?"

The religious moms all said "sex."
The non-religious moms all said "violence."

Disclaimer: The plural of anecdote is not data.

I preface with that because I think you have to define "shelter." Should you protect your children from everything, keep them wrapped in bubble wrap, homeschool them? Probably not. You have to be exposed to things in order to understand them. I think protecting your children from everything limits their ability to learn and grow and become able to solve problems as an adult. That said, I wouldn't sit a 4-year-old down to watch The Texas Chainsaw Massacre either.

Me, I would like to think that I would rather limit violence -- I'd just as soon not see children normalized to violence as a solution to one's problems, especially when they are too young to understand what they are seeing. Limiting sex is probably a good idea in the sense that you don't want to sit your children down to watch po rn. But Janet Jackson's boob on the Superbowl should be a non-event. A little nudity. People having sex in the framework of a loving, consentual, committed relationship -- that seems like a healthy example of this is one thing grown ups grow up to do, with age-appropriate Q&A and guidance.