Post #162,195
6/30/04 1:04:54 AM
|
Ditto Ditto
I agree with Broomberg. Hormones flying, girls aren't yucky anymore, female bumps and curves are in various forms of development, a good looking teacher taking interest in me. GIDDY UP!
In addition to not saying anything to keep the happy train moving, I think I'd even have the wherewithal to a) get the teacher to instruct me on some of the finer points so I could potentially though quietly be one of the more popular boys in school with the girls (nudge, nudge, wink, wink, saynomore!) and b) perhaps ask for a high grade in the course (87-92%) for not getting the teacher in trouble. Musn't be too greedy and attract suspicion.
Now I'm not saying that this teacher shouldn't be charged. She should be treated just like a male teacher and a female student scenario. The law is the law and should be applied equally. But my opinion still stands on giving that kid a high five! :-)
I missed out on a few opportunities with chicks in high school that I just didn't immediately connect the dots. Even then I realized "Hey, that girl was talking to me. To me?!?! You dummy!"
lister
|
Post #162,211
6/30/04 5:08:36 AM
|
Invert the sexes
-drl
|
Post #162,215
6/30/04 6:29:20 AM
6/30/04 6:42:04 AM
|
Don't have to
I can only speak from experience (or personal lack thereof). So I CAN speak for guys. Anyone who tells you having sex with a willing, well built, gorgeous, young teacher, for a guy student, at age 14, is harmful, and ALSO should be punished for it (as you said), is a repressed whack job.
On the other hand, since you told ME to, YOU invert the sexes.
The kid is guilty too. He allowed this bitch to ruin her own life. May his weener rot off. 14 is plenty old enough to know wrong and right.
Would you pass this judgement on a 14 year old girl?
Edited by broomberg
June 30, 2004, 06:42:04 AM EDT
|
Post #162,216
6/30/04 6:39:24 AM
|
Re: Don't have to
Well, my nephew down here is in jail for statutory rape. He was 22, she was 15. He didn't know. Her parents let him come over and stay. Then they decided, out of the blue, to prosecute. According to the law, he isn't "lewd and lascivious" - he's a rapist, forced to be on lists, register with police, etc.
I say again - invert the sexes. It's a goddamn double standard and piss on it. Feminism in action.
-drl
|
Post #162,217
6/30/04 6:43:11 AM
|
Reread my change
Going to work, not ignoring you...
|
Post #162,218
6/30/04 6:45:04 AM
|
Yes
-drl
|
Post #162,242
6/30/04 10:47:08 AM
|
Yep, double standard
I fully recognize that. Our society has a double standard when it comes to boys and girls. Parents tend to take different views on sex for their sons and daughters. Boys get more leeway and girls should be locked up until they're 21 and married. *shrug*
lister
|
Post #162,244
6/30/04 10:57:56 AM
|
Slight correction.
s/21 and married/married
At least, that's the attitude I see from a lot of parents.
Tired of lying in the sunshine staying home to watch the rain.
You are young and life is long and there is time to kill today.
And then one day you find ten years have got behind you.
No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun.
|
Post #162,284
6/30/04 2:43:21 PM
|
I'm in that group.
My now 13 year old daughter asked me about pre-marital sex when she was 11.
I asked her if she remembered going to Disney World and seeing the hand blown glass model of the castle. I then told her that her sex life was like that glass castle. When she moves on to high school and college, she's going to meet boys that she thinks she loves and might, consequently, become sexually active with them. But one day she was likely to meet some one whom was above all the others. And that person she would want to marry and spend the rest of her life with. Moreover, that would be the only person she is going to have sex for the rest of her life and the sex she has with that person will mean the most to her. So, all the people she has sex with before that is like breaking a piece of the glass castle. The first time, she breaks off a turret. The castle is still pretty, but not quite as pretty. Then if she has sex again with some one else, well, there goes another turret. And so on until finally all you have left is a pile of broken glass. Now, the pile of broken glass still shimmers, so it is kind of pretty, but when you meet that one person, wouldn't you rather give them the beautiful glass castle in tact instead of just a pile of broken glass?
It seemed to connect. Last Spring I overheard her talking to one of her sexually active classmates (her classmate is 14) and know what I heard? The "broken glass" story. At least she still remembers the story (almost) three years later.
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #162,291
6/30/04 3:07:10 PM
|
You knoiw? I think you're actually good for me...
I reflect occasionally, much less now than before, about some of the weird stuff my parents put me through when I was young. Then I reflect on some of your posts and they just don't seem to be quite so strange.
So you're teaching your daughter that sex is destructive and degrading, hmmm? It's damaging to her to have more than one lover? You really are stranger than a snakes suspenders. My sympathy to your family.
|
Post #162,293
6/30/04 3:10:33 PM
|
ICLRPD (new thread)
Created as new thread #162292 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=162292|ICLRPD]
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #162,298
6/30/04 3:27:12 PM
|
By request:
"Every time you have sex with a boy, it's like he's smashing a piece of your castle with his dong."
DING DONG! Hello, anyone home? Whoops, sorry about the vase...
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #162,323
6/30/04 4:44:02 PM
|
This I deem an unfair reading of the simile
[always depending on.. connotations we can't know about.. in the/his local "family view" -- after all, there IS no MAN perfect-child raising -- especially within the Puritan-based, thus guaranteed sexually utterly-Fucked Up, simultaneousy massively-hypocritical culture: this one demonstrably is.
So, given that the milieu is untenable for any merely 'logical' child raising methods - and often unReasonable as well, for the occasional heavy-thinkers amongst:
I read the metaphor differently; it is trying to address the confusion of quality with quantity; it can even be a mini-intro to the huge concept of Scale. (And without That one - forget any later internal 'philosophizing' at all - no rudder.)
ie if one chooses the EZ-way to evaluate 'sex' [all aspects] as equivalent to candy-eating, roller-coaster rides and all other pleasurable activities -?- there is a large chance that you'll never develop any concept of love or 'Love'.. in your so-called "growing up towards adulthood". You could turn out like a Billy or a Trump or..{shudder} a Cheney. Or My Gramma.
(Is this a risk? Here in the USofA? How many 50 yo adolescents do You Know? Rest case.)
Taking too-literally the artifice of this particular metaphor; equating What? - each 'orgasm' pre-marriage? with a numbered, *counted* broken-turret? would be, I submit: is the kind of digital-logic as got US the present Cabal, instead of a Government.
It's hard to demonstrate a relationship of quantity/qualty with any story, (though the Sufis seem to do that one pretty well.) None will bear a lot of deconstruction; we so love 'analysis', because it's always easier.
So I say: back off. The glass-castle isn't a perfect metaphor because - there are damn few Perfect (as in Idiot-proof) ones extant. But it is a Start, in learning to value *some* experiences [much-] higher than others. And rolling everything remotely related to sex/pleasure into one set of learned-behaviours -- is the epitome of today's simplistic digital-think. Which spawns Late-nite-TeeVee preachers.. an even worse scourge than mere words can describe.
All fucks are Not the same {especially when you add in the Murican propensity for attaching lugubrious sinfulness to a litany of crap-words from antediluvian books. Then marinate with our habit of inculcating these -verbatim- into innocent, malleable wards).
If this 'castle' one helps even a little, the eventual learning of discrimination by the callow: it's still a Winner.
You got a Better one -?- Let's hear it.
Ashton
|
Post #162,324
6/30/04 4:53:00 PM
6/30/04 4:55:15 PM
|
As always ... You Get It. And hnick et. al. don't.
And, quite happily, my daughter's retelling showed me that she understood the point far better than most of the replies here. Which isn't surprising, she now has the intellect of a 13 year old.
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
Edited by mmoffitt
June 30, 2004, 04:55:15 PM EDT
|
Post #162,331
6/30/04 5:32:57 PM
|
And I disagree
Mike is propagating the myth that the only decent way to live your life is in marriage, and marriage is this magical thing that somehow just works out.
Perhaps that is all of reality that he thinks he can explain to her at this point. However having her really believe this myth does her no favours at all. Certainly I would avoid having any child of mine have such a simplistic understanding of the world. At 11 I might simplify. But as she grows, it would be important to not simplify.
As a simple example of what is wrong with Mike's image, suppose that in 2 years she has a really serious crush and she fools around with a guy. It arguably wasn't sex, but it was damned sexual. If she still has the "glass castle" image, two things could go wrong now. The first is that she might feel that she can't talk to her folks about it because she feels that she's let them down, she's blown it. Secondly she's in serious danger of feeling that she's no longer a nice girl, might as well enjoy being bad.
Before you say that this is crap, talk to Barry about why as a kid he liked hanging out near the girl's Catholic school...
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #162,332
6/30/04 5:50:43 PM
|
Re: And I disagree
Analysis paralysis, IMhO.
Of Course - the metaphor fails. On full analysis. D'Oh.
Next year - needs a new one. One matched to any perceived growth, since..
{especially of the class: able to hold n+1 contradictory Ideas in mind, at once? Yet..?}
'Marriage' - I omitted from the mix as, *that* will be inculcated / or not, along with whatever form of theology / or not: came from the parents.
[none of my business; I took this matter to be one of practicality in a a Real family -- and not an exercise in all possible philosophies] Mike's 13 yo's level of grokking.?. is as likely a Mystery to him - as it certainly is To Us.
Even zIWE cannot produce an algorithm with all future forks having [placeholders]. Even in Sanskrit :-\ufffd
Y'know?
Don't need to talk to Barry.
It's genetic, that deliciously mindless Quest.
|
Post #162,337
6/30/04 6:07:49 PM
|
You should not drop marriage from the statement
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=162284|Read it again] and see where he says, But one day she was likely to meet some one whom was above all the others. And that person she would want to marry and spend the rest of her life with. Moreover, that would be the only person she is going to have sex for the rest of her life and the sex she has with that person will mean the most to her. Which is what I'm reacting to. The role of marriage was front and center in the statement.
The image of the glass castle itself is not that bad - the message about sex and marriage is what I find troubling.
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #162,338
6/30/04 6:10:30 PM
|
Are we going to argue the meaning of "likely"?
Here it is again with emphasis.
But one day she was likely to meet some one whom was above all the others.
I put no value on that. You think it's unlikely, given our culture, that she'll end up getting married? That's your problem with it?
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #162,341
6/30/04 6:48:44 PM
|
Read my response to you below
That she'll fall in love I fully expect. That everything progresses from there in a neat and simple way, I don't. And I firmly believe that the myth of "true love" will make it less likely that things will turn out well for her in the long run.
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #162,380
6/30/04 11:07:03 PM
|
Haven't read below, but I think I see the nub.
...the myth of "true love"...
That is the real point of disagreement between us. I do not consider it a myth as I have experienced it myself. 'Tis a true pity you (apparently) have not.
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #162,383
6/30/04 11:18:25 PM
|
There is the reality, there is *also* the myth
The over-romanticized myth of true love is usually viewed as fitting hand-in-hand with the equally mythic "love at first sight". The idea that "from the moment I saw him ... blah blah blah" and that everything magically becomes perfect between them. That, I believe, is the myth Ben is talking about.
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #162,392
6/30/04 11:38:30 PM
|
And the "myth" I actually experienced.
After the first date with my wife, I told my best friend that I'd met the girl I knew I was going to marry. I'd actually never felt anything approximating a similar feeling - and I'd been engaged before to anothere. So, if I am propagating myths to my children, I am doing so unwittingly.
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #162,396
6/30/04 11:48:36 PM
|
Sincere question
Do you believe that a marriage must be based on the sort of feeling you had/have for your wife? I don't believe I love my wife any less for having dated her for a while before I realized I wanted to marry her.
I suspect there are more people who came to be married the way I did than like you did. I'm also absolutely convinced that there are far more people who think they've found "the one" after only one date and turn out to be wrong than there are like you who were right.
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #162,397
6/30/04 11:58:41 PM
|
Must?
No. It had to be that way in my case because I'd decided to never marry before I went on that first date with my wife. Had I not felt that way, I would most likely never have married. I don't believe you love your wife any more or any less than I do. I can't know that, nor is it any of my business. If I try to articulate what I think about marriage it would be that I could not imagine, personally, getting married to anyone whom I did not feel about the way I feel about my wife. And that really did happen to me only once. That doesn't mean a damned thing for anyone else.
Interestingly, my wife doesn't understand this aspect of our relationship at all. She claims she still can't believe how certain I was so quickly. But, hey, it'll be 21 years in September, so I guess my "method" worked - for us. ;-)
It may well be the case that no one came to decide whom to marry the way I did. I don't know - guys usually don't talk about this stuff ;0)
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #162,398
7/1/04 12:02:14 AM
|
Heh, must've seen too much Lifetime with my wife
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #162,400
7/1/04 12:06:01 AM
|
She makes you watch that too? Thought it was only me ;0)
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #162,406
7/1/04 12:38:44 AM
|
There's more to your experience than that
When you tell your marriage as a "happily ever after" story, you're glossing over the fact that maintaining the relationship has taken ongoing effort and work.
Or did you really never get into arguments with your wife? Really?
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #162,408
7/1/04 12:44:41 AM
|
Of course not.
Only a fool (or one who has never been married) thinks that its all wine and roses. It does take "work" if one extends the word "work" to include not taking each other for granted - as you noted somewhere in this horrendous thread. But, do you think an 11 yo would "get" that?
But that does not speak to how I "chose" my wife. If I understand you correctly, you do not believe that it is possible for a person to have the experience I had. But I did have it, so it is very "real" to me. (This reminds me of a conversation we had years ago at IWE concerning religion).
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #162,405
7/1/04 12:35:44 AM
|
Exactly
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #162,778
7/4/04 3:12:28 PM
|
Re: There is the reality, there is *also* the myth
The over-romanticized myth of true love is usually viewed as fitting hand-in-hand with the equally mythic "love at first sight". The idea that "from the moment I saw him ... blah blah blah" and that everything magically becomes perfect between them. That, I believe, is the myth Ben is talking about. Interestingly enough, that is only one side to the myth. Most people don't truly believe that you fall in love, get married and live happily ever after. Most people I've talked to realize that marriage is a lot of work, but the work can reap its rewards if you do it right, and if you handle it in that manner, it can be a "happy ever after" of sorts, just not happy all the time ever after. Love is something that is supposed to sustain you in good and bad times, and you aren't likely to be happy in bad ones. I think if Mmoffitt has given his daughter a more grounded view of the "myth" i.e. "you will maybe fall in love with someone and he will be the one for you, but life does not become a fairy tale hereafter, it takes give and take to make a happy marriage," he's definitely on the right track here. Nightowl >8#
"At last, a moment's peace!"
|
Post #162,334
6/30/04 6:02:31 PM
|
And so, what?
Better to teach "instant gratification" is the goal? That more, more, more and now, now, now is always best? (aside: adopted physician-think already I see).
I learned to draw blood at an abortion hospital in Inglewood. I was only there six months and I saw some of the very same 14-16 year old girls more than once. Think there's no harm in that? (psychologically speaking?)
What's more, and I didn't feel a need to go into the details of her repeating the story -> her classmate had already come to the all too common view that young girls w/multiple partners come to: "this is all I'm good for. And I feel crappy." Perhaps even suicidal.
As I overheard my daughter with her friend, I was pleased to see that in just two years her perspective on what it meant had evolved. That, unlike the pubescent screeds above would lead one to conclude, sex is not the only thing a girl is good for.
Mike is propagating the myth that the only decent way to live your life is in marriage...
Put the crack pipe down here, pal. You obviously can't read as well as my daughter can hear.
You can call me a prude if you choose, I care not. But - in language that I couldn't use with my 11 year old - sex is too important to be used again and again as a meaningless intensive method of instant gratification. The sexual experiences you have as you are growing to adulthood should you meet some one you wish to marry will be trivial by comparison.
Now, I don't know how many hormone overloaded teens would even listen to that - and clearly there are some adults here who don't believe it, which is a pity, for them - but I knew my 11 year old daughter could not even understand what I was trying to say if I had chosen words similar to that.
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #162,340
6/30/04 6:44:15 PM
6/30/04 6:47:02 PM
|
Nice ad hominems
If I don't agree with you, then I must be for having 14-16 year old girls go through multiple pregnancies. What a wonderful piece of black and white thinking. Reminds me of our president.
Now I don't know what you said, I only know what you wrote above. I'm only assuming that you said something similar to what you wrote. And what you wrote above included, But one day she was likely to meet some one whom was above all the others. And that person she would want to marry and spend the rest of her life with. Moreover, that would be the only person she is going to have sex for the rest of her life and the sex she has with that person will mean the most to her. I firmly believe that those statements are myths, and harmful ones on that. You probably disagree with me on that. But the statistics certainly say that marriage doesn't work like that these days. Furthermore my experience strongly suggests to me that women who walk into marriage with the above attitudes are setting themselves up either for an unhappy marriage or a failed one, depending on whether she ever learns better.
Yes, it is certainly possible to meet, fall in love, get married, and stay married for the rest of your lives. It is also possible for that marriage to be a wonderful experience that becomes a bedrock for both of your lives. But that won't happen if you take each other for granted. It is unlikely to happen if you start with unrealistic expectations about how it works. And I firmly believe that knowledge that either of you could leave improves your long-term odds of a good marriage. (It also increases the odds of divorce - a cost that I consider worth the gain.)
I say this as someone who met someone at 19, fell in love, got married at 20, and am still married at 14 years and counting. This gives me a better perspective than most to understand the difficulties and potential rewards of marriage.
Now please put your preconceptions aside and hear my position again.
I am against teenage promiscuity. I am not big on adult promiscuity either, but I accept that there are plenty of adults who feel differently than I do. Ironically what you would like to see for your daughter and what I think is beneficial are very similar.
My criticism of what you said is not because of radically different views of the world. It is because I believe that the way that you are presenting your views to your daughter is has substantial risk of backfiring on you in a really bad way. And I further believe that it will make it less likely that your daughter to have a happy marriage later.
That it has worked so far does not surprise me. I'd actually expect that at age 13 it would result in her parroting lines that you like. The potential problems start after puberty, say around 16, if she has a couple of experiences that you'd rather she didn't have. What happens then? The more distant potential problems come about 4-7 years after she gets married.
Now what should she be told at 11? I don't know, every family is different, and every child differs as well. My gut says to stress the emotional issue, how every time you have sex with someone, you create the potential for damage, pain and compromise. The physical act bears an emotional load that you can fool yourself about, but not avoid. It takes a long time to be ready for that. And the more casually you try to treat it, the more you'll hurt yourself inside.
This is ultimately similar to what you actually said, but with some key differences. And the differences hopefully give you a better chance to be one of the first people she knows she can turn to if she does get into trouble. As opposed to being one of the people she doesn't dare talk to because she knows how much she's let you down.
Regards,
Ben
PS I hope that Barry pipes into this thread with his stories about why he liked Catholic girls so much when he was a kid.
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Edited by ben_tilly
June 30, 2004, 06:47:02 PM EDT
|
Post #162,345
6/30/04 7:32:03 PM
|
FWIW I agree with your statement of The Problem
and largely with your clarifying remarks.
What also needs no argument, I think - and implicit in your remarks - is the necessity of utter Personalization of any such -and, yes, we do call it that- wisdom.
If (say, in this case we perceive only dimly) at "11" - the Crystal model induces a new thoughtfulness - and we have the testimony that, it did! - then the more subtle aspects like [WTF does 'marriage' actually connote, in 2004+ ?] would enter into another chat, with the 13 yo recalling her 11 yo 'advice' received. Later, the 14 yo inevitably saying.. Oh Dad.. you're so Square yada
Don't we call the pondering of such multifacteted Big Questions, Art?
As to the implicit "settling for less" (because, most often of late.. we see around us a crop of "lesser mates" in manic activity) - how does one introduce this let-down Model, one appropriate to increasing experience, and to the certainty of more and more 'choices' to be made sans much wisdom-acquired?
Every family is an oasis amidst the changing chaos, especially amidst the now omnipresent Hucksters selling a "Lifestyle" - actually Marketing [their wares = always More Stuff], and then.. later, selling some Pop-therapy or new pharm-chem.. when things go ugly, despite the toys.
How does One Parent level the cacophony of media hype, now even on TV-One in the classroom! via heartfelt homilies? Maybe only via the irreplaceable quality of those homilies coming from someone who Loves >You< ... and Never sees You, as a consumer of Their Stuff.
I tend to the idea that that Earnestness shall likely transcend any future disappointments, as and when, surely - the older metaphors are seen as being a tad simplistic. Assuming here, a normally-functioning child and not a young-beast already malformed by peer-infection.
Yeah, the Princess seeking the [Sole Prince for Her!] fails on a lot of levels, but the engram behind it is as powerful as ever, because it connotes at least a certain expectation of Possibilities. That's also called 'Hope', but the "setling-for" aspect need not fatally disappoint, if the kid has been prepared for experimenting, while maintaining the salvation of a sense of humour about it all.
Now if you can teach That to your ward - -
Liff, The Meaning LLC
by appointment - $200/hr.
|
Post #162,388
6/30/04 11:32:06 PM
6/30/04 11:48:58 PM
|
I guess I'm just thick.
But one day she was likely to meet some one whom was above all the others. And that person she would want to marry and spend the rest of her life with. Moreover, that would be the only person she is going to have sex for the rest of her life and the sex she has with that person will mean the most to her. I firmly believe that those statements are myths, and harmful ones on that. You probably disagree with me on that. Quite right, I would initially disagree. But, after giving it 20 seconds thought, I would couch my disagreement thusly, "Perhaps for you they are myths. But for me, personally, they are merely facts. For, since I met my wife (some 23 years ago) I can honestly say that I have never wished to have sex with anyone else. Moreover, the sex I have enjoyed - and continue to enjoy - with my wife is the most meaningful, most satisfying I've ever had." Perhaps such is not your personal case, I don't know. I don't mean to offend by that, but the only marriage I am truly familiar with is my own. Maybe my marriage is not "normal", I've really no way to judge. Also, keep in mind that not all myths are bad, especially where children are concerned. At the time of my chat, my daughter still believed in Santa Claus (and Dyed Mopoc), Peter Pan and fairies. The chat was inspired because of a sex-ed class she had in the 5th grade, although she had known where and how babies come into existence long before that. But if I grant that my own marriage is "mythical", I ask, what harm is there in keeping a little 11 yo girl believing in that myth for a short time longer? Is it really all that horrible a thing to keep the "myth" of the little girl's Mommy and Daddy remaining together alive for her at the tender age of 11? I think not. Edit: Whew. Grammar. Edit p.s.: You mentioned puberty. Age of first mensus is 10.8 years the last I checked and my two are consistent with that average. bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
Edited by mmoffitt
June 30, 2004, 11:42:53 PM EDT
Edited by mmoffitt
June 30, 2004, 11:48:58 PM EDT
|
Post #162,393
6/30/04 11:42:21 PM
|
I finally figured out the disconnect
The "myth" that you are teaching your daughter, Ben agrees is a worthy goal. But the language you used could suggest that it is the only acceptable option.
True, you said "likely". But the metaphor you used does suggest that premarital sex is in fact damaging.
The tightrope to walk, and I already find myself doing it with other issues, is how to teach them that it's better to do foo, but it's not necessarily wrong not to.
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #162,395
6/30/04 11:47:31 PM
|
Yes.
But I didn't, and more importantly my daughter didn't, get the "only acceptable option" notion out of our chat.
To be sure (I think) Ben and I agree that teen promiscuity does indeed cause harm. That was a fundamental message ("parts of the castle are broken") and that got through - and was later translated to a friend in her own words, but using the story she'd heard.
I don't think it can be disputed that little girls having sex at 12 or 13 is not a good idea.
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #162,404
7/1/04 12:22:05 AM
|
No argument there
My daughter is 12.
And passes for 16 without trying.
18 if she wants to.
|
Post #162,410
7/1/04 12:49:10 AM
|
You've said nothing indicating that
But I didn't, and more importantly my daughter didn't, get the "only acceptable option" notion out of our chat.
There is nothing in what you said, or how you related what she said, that indicates this.
Furthermore this thread was initiated in a post where you explained why you believed that your daughter shouldn't have sex until marriage, and where you offered how you explained this to her. And indeed, your offered explanation clearly stated that women should never have sex until marrying Mr. Right, and made it clear that women who didn't succeed in this are permanently worse than women who succeeded. Both of which are messages that I believe to be harmful.
If I've drawn incorrect conclusions from this, then please accept that I was really addressing other parents that I've known, and my comments are inapplicable to you.
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #162,411
7/1/04 12:53:07 AM
|
Well, that certainly wasn't my intent.
And typing this up I probably didn't get it quite right, but I can assure you that the message was much better received by my daughter than your interpretation of what I wrote.
The story left her the message that "if I have sex, there are consequences, some of which I won't like". If I had to bet, I'd bet that was all she got out of it at 11. And this notion has only been fortified by her observing some of her classmates.
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #162,412
7/1/04 12:53:14 AM
|
Exactly, that's the tightrope that I have in mind
And I think that it is critical to walk that tightrope rather than potentially cutting lines of communication by simplifying the issue.
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #162,425
7/1/04 4:39:32 AM
7/1/04 5:02:44 AM
|
Loving lovely Love
Orthogonally speaking (an almost mellifluous word, destined for overuse.. though 'cellar door' beats it ;-) --
What this now bridge-cable of a thread is really talking around IMO is - the very Huge word 'love' or 'Love' and all metaphysical as well as pop-psych definitions, myths, Wishes and dissembling: as this culture uses a single word for all the Greek (and most other languages') variants. (Then proceeds to sell Product! by making as much allusion to 'It' as an ad can manage in 10 seconds or 10 minutes).
Escaping the definitions, the ideas of 'filial', Platonic etc. such as most here, I expect are well-enough acquainted with by now -- the 'Highest' usage I've encountered of the concept ~ relates {This Idea} to the entire Universe(s) !! its/their operation and basic energy (forget F=MA, dark, light or medium-rare 'energy' etc. 'Spiritual' has too many mere religio- associations to be useful. So What to *Call* 'It' ??)
Anyway, even re psych ideas, maybe Jung captures as much flavour as common language will sustain. Meanwhile, a mere 'parent' would realize that such nuance is utterly untransmissible from one person to another, let alone to a fledgling. In words.
I suspect that certain individuals have a natural propensity for acquiring the (quite more than verbal) comprehension of "how this or that form 'feels'", while at another end of the Gaussian.. reside the real Troglodytes in any culture. Most of us fall where the curve suggests.
Lastly, I think that the most difficult of communications \ufffdconceivable - involve efforts between polarized outliers of that Gaussian. This may be most evident in the particular vehemence of words chosen re certain 'political' propositions and the responses of the 'jury'. Other outlier examples: serial killers, torturers of animals, visionaries of infinite lakes of burning oil for sinners, etc.
\ufffd So very much more difficult with outlier-people than re animals! And anyone who imagines that 'love' is not a force operative between/among the species is a Puritan throwback or has never Noticed anything but gravity. (Not that mere instinctive reflexes seeking food cannot be misinterpreted, yada. There's always room for dumbth)
Meanwhile.. the example of parents who happen to be among those who Love, is said to be the first and maybe most effective transmitters of that Interest which leads to fruition. You can't talk about 'It' directly; you can't logically 'train' for 'It' and (as with wisdom) you can't properly even claim to 'Have' 'It' == only someone else might see It in Action.
Such an enigma is almost always Proof of a kind of cosmic humour. :-\ufffd
Being quite Certain that it is .. I haven't the slightest intention of laughably embarking upon a Proof. as in
Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle..
(Sounds as if your kids are apt to 'make it', though - just a thoroughly-informed Guess, of course ;-)
I'm not a complete fool. Some parts are missing.
Thanks, Giovanni!
Edit - add animals
Love. It.
Edited by Ashton
July 1, 2004, 05:02:44 AM EDT
|
Post #162,333
6/30/04 5:52:14 PM
|
Still disagree
I've re-read it and I still get the same impression: With each new lover you become a little more broken and a little less valuable. When Prince Charming comes along, all that is to offer is a pile of superficially pretty shards and wouldn't it be better if you hadn't ruined yourself?
He may well be trying to address the quality vs. quantity issue, but I don't see it. I can see discouraging the sybarite lifestyle, especially for a teenager with today's sexually transmitted diseases. That does not appear to be the primary message to this fairy tale.
I can see saying something like you probably shouldn't sleep with somebody you wouldn't want to marry, but nobody in their right mind would marry somebody they hadn't slept with. It's a completely different message.
Most of the women that I have been associated with went by the fairy tale that you have to kiss a lot of toads to get a prince but if you kiss indiscriminately, you get warts...
I generally tend to consider Mikey a miserable man for a number of reasons and this could be clouding my judgement to some degree, but I just can't get behind your evaluation.
Oh well, next time, maybe...
Hugh
|
Post #162,335
6/30/04 6:03:37 PM
|
I am so glad my daughter has greater perspective than you.
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #162,336
6/30/04 6:07:05 PM
|
Your POV understood
But reading this fanciful metaphor as the entire Guide - and the Last One to be proffered - is silly. I expect its half-live might be measured in months, but that still beats Utter Confusion + hearsay from contemporaries {already Living That}. The brighter the kid, the shorter time is it 'sufficient'
Myths I went-by at 10 were quite different from at 10.5, 11.5 - and bloody Way Different from 13+ I think (now) that there IS no Universally Good=Useful myth; not for anyone - that silly idea just spawns How-To books 'fitted for all', but actually for None.
[a Secret, once out - that would doom the self-Help section of a bookstore]
If Mike is pretty ept.. he'll construct the successor - one which introduces the Large Option: of thinking with some fledgling Discrimination; practising thus - for a life within a currently screwy milieu, unlikely to reform any time soon.
NOBODY knows how to do that very well. (ie Introduce that concept in a personalized-Useful way.)
Ashton,
Hmmm.. maybe it takes a village..
[unless the village is high on Theocracy-for-$$, say]
Make a good book title, though..
|
Post #162,342
6/30/04 6:57:20 PM
|
The phrase "wife-whore dichotomy"...
keeps running through my mind as this discussion continues.
Anyone who has read some feminist literature will understand.
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #162,346
6/30/04 7:47:58 PM
|
I "grew upwards"
amidst the writing, then reading, pondering (and locally various practising of) those epistles.
The Anger was justified, if ever there were justification. "Woman as Chattel" [as in Chattel Mortgage\ufffd] said it all, for those able to extrapolate exponentially from that core.
What individuals did with that anger - Ah.. There was/is the litmus.
That battle is far from over; we hear its excesses right Here in River City, from putatively 'enlightened' folk, too.
(And that battle will continue to rage until the word whore is as unwelcome in even flame-'conversation' as, Dick Cheney would be unwelcome at a farmily picnic, except perhaps, stuffed & mounted?)
From the catacombs catechisms -
The Truth shall set you Free
but first it will Piss You Off!
G. Steinem
A man's home is his nursery
Clare Booth Luce, IIRC
If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a Sacrament.
from Zyklon B {named obv. after the cyanide-mix used by Nazis}
cha cha cha
|
Post #162,353
6/30/04 9:09:52 PM
|
Point
What individuals did with that anger - Ah.. There was/is the litmus.
I think that more than a few of us can empathize with that statement...
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #162,399
7/1/04 12:04:57 AM
|
Care to enlighten me?
I generally tend to consider Mikey a miserable man for a number of reasons...
I mean, I am genuinely interested in what it is that makes me a "miserable" character in the eyes of some one whose first post is a personal attack. It must be really bad, man, if I seem offensive to you.
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #162,326
6/30/04 4:56:58 PM
|
Thanks for the sympathy.
Given that my family has to co-exist with the likes of you and your ilk, tremendous sympathy is called for.
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #162,788
7/4/04 7:23:45 PM
|
Throwing kindling onto the fire then running away fast
Can Internet inform teens about sex?
[...]
I certainly don't want to see 10-year-olds or 15-year-olds spending hours a day surfing Internet porn sites. But it would have been awfully helpful to me and my contemporaries when we were growing up if we'd been able to go to the Internet for answers to the questions we had about sex.
Our parents were useless on the subject. They said things like "Your body is your temple" and "Do it and you die." But they were far too squeamish to answer our most basic questions, and we knew enough not to put them on the spot.
There was no sex education in school, and in the occasional discussion groups we had at church, nobody talked about anything we wanted to know about. Such as how, exactly, did people have sex? How did it feel? And what did the other sex's private parts look like?
What information we got came from the boys, who got it from the male sex magazines or from older guys, and it portrayed sex as something that was dirty, shameful and primarily something that boys "did" to girls.
[...]
Meanwhile, under pressure from the Bush administration, many public schools are promoting only sex education programs that stress abstinence. There's nothing wrong with encouraging kids to delay sex until marriage. But it is wrong to keep telling them that this is the norm, when it hasn't been for generations.
It's also wrong to equate teenage sexual activity only with disease, unwanted pregnancy and death, and not also with pleasure and healthy intimacy - and with none of the aforementioned problems if one takes the proper precautions. When we give young people only half the story, we lose whatever credibility we had.
[link|http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2660476|source] Of course, I better take notes, since my daughter will be starting down the "boys aren't so yucky anymore" path soon enough. lincoln
"Windows XP has so many holes in its security that any reasonable user will conclude it was designed by the same German officer who created the prison compound in "Hogan's Heroes." - Andy Ihnatko, Chicago Sun-Times
[link|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net|contact me]
|
Post #162,251
6/30/04 12:42:10 PM
|
No
All kids should have responsible behavior drilled into them by a world that gives a shit. This would raise the stakes of rebellion, and purify it again.
-drl
|
Post #162,325
6/30/04 4:55:26 PM
|
Sure -
And for many generations, it was thought that you Could "DRILL this" via sticks and corporal punishment with some bizarre, one might say sadistic variants -- even teach math..?! via sufficient numbers of RAPS on the knuckles, of incarcerated schoolchildren.
So you propose to 'teach' / DRILL [this adult] discrimination: exactly How?
(There are n-million volumes on this topic, already. I'm guessing that there must be some contradictory 'methods' out there. There's also Truth by T. Pratchett, when all those fail. Too.)
Oh, I've heard, that in 'farmilies' -- Good Examples are known to be pretty effective..
(That needs though, an Adult head-of-family. Doesn't it? Bummer, that.)
{sheesh}
|
Post #162,343
6/30/04 7:18:56 PM
|
Re: Sure -
I think corporal punishment of unruly brats is essential. You then correct the id, not the kid.
Will the little darling smart a bit with his knuckles rapped? Sure. Will he then dismember the clock or camera? Not as likely.
Of course, I hardly need add the disclaimer that spanking is not beating.
-drl
|
Post #162,259
6/30/04 1:09:21 PM
|
Equate the sexes
If this was a male teacher with a male child (or a female teacher with a female child), would the results be different?
|
Post #162,260
6/30/04 1:14:08 PM
6/30/04 1:15:06 PM
|
You're damn right he would be
The male would be called a rapist, child molester, scum of Earth, etc. etc. About this we here Broom wishing he could get some young strange, tittering about the rock video model, etc. etc. what a babe etc. etc.
Any more questions?
-drl
Edited by deSitter
June 30, 2004, 01:15:06 PM EDT
|
Post #162,330
6/30/04 5:30:50 PM
6/30/04 5:34:01 PM
|
Horniness
We have observed across the millennia that: males tend to want wham-bam-thankYoumaam Action, at the drop of a (remembered pix of a naked breast from 6 months ago) Typically, their threshold for mere erectile over-function is rilly LOW.
Females OTOH (as a precious few of us males.. have at last come to vaguely comprehend, and then.. just occasionally) are Different - in their internal imagery and also the physiology of reaching-Horniness. Behaviour-Next: escalates any subsequent metaphor into can-o-worms territory.
Attempting to roll-*both* into some fucking CPA/MBA-Hoary Law of Equivalence, including even! the entire pseudo-'science' of THE LAW cha cha cha
-- is an exercise doomed to utter ridiculousness on its face, even in This fucked-up wannabe-Theocracy.
This dog can't walk; screw any 'hunting'.
I'm with the crowd that deems (and from personal experience + very-close hearsay of a variety of Others's experience) - This Boy Child was in No {likely} Way ""Exploited"" ' Damaged. He was merely too fucking braindead/callow to recognize a most improbable *Pure Gift* -- and years from now, when he has a better functioning mind - IF he doesn't hang with the crowd having no hopes of ever getting one:
He will reaize what a Cosummate Ass he was | regularly and deservingly: flaggelating his sorry ass-personality.. Every Time he reflects on the matter. <<<
And he has Earned that future suffering, in spades.
Peace.. for the unfortunate (and foolishly! altruistic) latest-Puritan-victim of our terminally-Fucked mechano-kultur. She shall be excoriated by the simpering hypocrites spewing their OT-Xian Right-eous-ness. cha cha Cha As always.
(Like the currently!-dabbling-engaged Senators in that sorry-assed Impeachment freak-show by Repos / for Repos / of our Times.)
(Gotta see about how to send a few $$ to her legal defense, lest the insufferable prigs succeed in locking her up til she's as dead, dried-out as Ashcroft was when he was 15. 10? 5..?)
Oh.. ie Pshaw.
Edit typo
Edited by Ashton
June 30, 2004, 05:34:01 PM EDT
|
Post #162,352
6/30/04 9:01:04 PM
|
Ah, "Tea and Sympathy".
Alex
"If I seem unduly clear to you, you must have misunderstood what I said." -- Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve chairman
|
