>>80611311I always read old books for children, stuff printed in the Edwardian period or so when I was a child because my parents had boxes of them they bought from church fetes. They were full of people getting killed, murdered in various ways, etc, agents involved in intrigue, politics, etc. Children's media used to be pretty interesting back in the day. I also grew up in the countryside so I was involved in hunting, slaughtering chickens and such, seeing how animals treat each other (which quite frankly should put paid to any utopian back-to-nature ideologies), and so forth. Hell, I think it wasn't until I was in my teens that people started trying to be sensitive about the media I was given to enjoy or learn from.
Anyway, I've never seen the value in restraining certain content from children's media. Context is important to give, sure, but quite honestly violence, death, sex etc is a normal part of life's tapestry and the idea that children are innocent babes who cannot be 'spoiled' by the knowledge of what is in this world is out of step with most of human history and probably harmful to their development than helpful. I'm not saying make three year olds MD Geist and Robocop (although I did see Robocop at a young age and was perfectly aware that 1. It was fake and thus not real and 2. It was bloody awesome), but you can have dark stories, show death and the reality of death, and so forth.