[cranky ol' geezer]

[bunrab]

There's an article in this week's Time about parents who let their kids play poker for money. Much of the article is spent on people who are sure that this will lead kids to become problem gamblers, addicted gamblers, and, of course, quite possibly, sinners. There's a quote from an "addiction counselor" who says that exposing kids to gambling before they are supposedly developmentally ready for it (how do you determine when someone is developmentally "ready" to play cards for money?) will lead them astray because "Younger children lack abstract thinking, so they believe that if they win, it's because they're special or because God loves them." Excuse me, but don't people give prizes and throw awards banquets for competitive sports winners in school to teach them exactly that? If playing poker for pennies in one's own back yard with parents supervising nearby is dangerous because it gives kids that impression, then shouldn't we be taking a cold, hard look at school football? No, of course not, that's different.

When I was a kid, we played gin rummy, rather than poker. In my memory, it's often associated with holidays - we gambled for Easter jelly beans and chocolate eggs, Halloween candy, Chanukah gelt (the gold-foil-wrapped chocolate "coins"), and the whole walnuts and almonds that were in our Christmas stockings. Oddly enough, when we played dreidel, the spinning top game associated with Chanukah, it wasn't for Chanukah gelt, it was either for pennies or for, of all things, cowrie shells. Why did my cousins and friends and I have so many cowrie shells? Anyway, it's an indication that I've always been an "autumn" person that I can remember usually losing all my jelly beans, but winning lots of Halloween candy. (Did I ever mention that I had an eclectic upbringing?) And as far as I know, none of us ever became addicted to gin rummy, or gambling on cards - or tops - in general, although some of us did become addicted to chocolate candy.

I think it's just another case of the abstinence-only, Harry-Potter-is-evil, let's-not-teach-kids-too-much-math-or-science-or-they-might-learn-to-think-for-themselves, folks who are against anything that's fun and secular, myself. [/cranky geezer]

Comments

[fadethecat.livejournal.com]

The only real objection I'd have to kids playing poker for money is that it's far too easy for an older kid to bilk the younger ones, through cheating or just by being old enough to play the game better. Much like the reason my mother wouldn't let me trade toys with my little sister; I always ended up on the better end of the deal, and my little sister crying once she realized she'd made a bad trade.

But that's when you're talking eight-year-olds or the like, and some reasonably significant (to the child) sums being exchanged. I'd assume that the article's referring to older kids than that, and with parental supervision, there's less likely to be a problem.

[avanta7.livejournal.com]

We're in the new Victorian era, complete with public piety and private hypocrisy.

I never learned many card games. My folks didn't play cards. But I'm sure they corrupted me in other ways by letting me read anything my little heart desired. Wuthering Heights at age 10, oh good heavens!

[o-jenny.livejournal.com]

I think it's just another case of the abstinence-only, Harry-Potter-is-evil, let's-not-teach-kids-too-much-math-or-science-or-they-might-learn-to-think-for-themselves, folks who are against anything that's fun and secular, myself.

I think you're absolutely right. Does that make me a cranky old geezer too? :)

[miz-geek.livejournal.com]

I swear the first time I read this I thought they meant letting kids play poker online or enter one of those tournements they seem to be showing constantly on ESPN. You know, playing for REAL money - thousands of dollars. How is playing for pennies (or cowrie shells) different from playing marbles or pokeman cards or baseball cards?

Pardon me, I've got to go buy a lotto ticket now.