I guess I'm just thick.

Post #162,388 by mmoffitt 6/30/04 11:32:06 PM 6/30/04 11:48:58 PM Reply	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 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 that the keeping the "myth" of the little girl's Mommy and Daddy remaining together such an awful proposition? I think not. bcnu, Mikem If you can read this, you are not the President. Edited by mmoffitt June 30, 2004, 11:48:58 PM EDT Expand All History \| Collapse All History
Post #162,393 by drewk 6/30/04 11:42:21 PM Reply	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 by mmoffitt 6/30/04 11:47:31 PM Reply	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 by broomberg 7/1/04 12:22:05 AM Reply	No argument there My daughter is 12. And passes for 16 without trying. 18 if she wants to.
Post #162,410 by ben_tilly 7/1/04 12:49:10 AM Reply	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 by mmoffitt 7/1/04 12:53:07 AM Reply	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 by ben_tilly 7/1/04 12:53:14 AM Reply	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 by Ashton 7/1/04 4:39:32 AM 7/1/04 5:02:44 AM Reply	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 Expand All History

Welcome to IWETHEY!