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
|
