View Full Version : Do children have a right to privacy?
I say no.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/6277749.htm
A parent is responsible for the medical, financial, moral and legal lives of their children until they reach the legal age of adulthood, 18. There is an epidemic in this country of parents not taking responsibility for the upbringing of their children. This only serves to undermine that relaitonship further.
In a public school, the nurse cannot even give a teenager an aspirin for a headache with parental consent. At least that was true when I was in High School 10 years ago. But here very young girls can undergo surgery without parental consent or even KNOWLEDGE.
I think the idea that parents across the country will beat their daughters to death if they become pregnant is waaaayy overblown. I've heard this arguement used by rabid pro-abortion advocates when argueing for the "privacy" of 12 year olds. They may get yelled at, or even be told that they were irresponsible or that their parents are disappointed in them, but these things are not the end of the world.
Abortion is a potentially fatal, life altering medical procedure that virtually no child is mentally equipped to make a decsion about.
Persephone
07-14-2003, 09:30 PM
I don't think teenagers should have abortions without the parents' knowledge...for the medical reasons you cited. I am, however, in favor of access to birth control for teenagers being kept private. I think it should come with a good deal of education, but I think it has at least a chance of preventing pregnancy and the spread of STDs.
I don't think teenagers should have abortions without the parents' knowledge...for the medical reasons you cited. I am, however, in favor of access to birth control for teenagers being kept private. I think it should come with a good deal of education, but I think it has at least a chance of preventing pregnancy and the spread of STDs.
Some birth control methods carry the same sort of medical consequences as abortion for some women. Other forms of birth control do not protect adequately or at all against some sexually transmittd diseases. Diseases that can be fatal, permanant and can render a woman unable to bear children in her adult years. The idea that teenagers will take the education that may or may not come with it to heart is not encouraging to me as a mother of a girl at all. The idea that 13-16 years olds will even consider the risks, even if told to them via a school nurse or pamphlet is laughable to me. Teenagers are notorious for feeling invincible.
guido
07-14-2003, 09:36 PM
I don't think teenagers should have abortions without the parents' knowledge...for the medical reasons you cited. I am, however, in favor of access to birth control for teenagers being kept private. I think it should come with a good deal of education, but I think it has at least a chance of preventing pregnancy and the spread of STDs.
Given that birth control isn't 100% effective in preventing the spread of STDs, I would respectfully disagree, and add that more harm would come to the person that supplied my daughters with birth control than what would come to my daughters.
Persephone
07-14-2003, 09:37 PM
Some birth control methods carry the same sort of medical consequences as abortion for some women. Other forms of birth control do not protect adequately or at all against some sexually transmittd diseases. Diseases that can be fatal, permanant and can render a woman unable to bear children in her adult years. The idea that teenagers will take the education that may or may not come with it to heart is not encouraging to me as a mother of a girl at all. The idea that 13-16 years olds will even consider the risks, even if told to them via a school nurse or pamphlet is laughable to me. Teenagers are notorious for feeling invincible.
Not a perfect solution by any means, but so many teenagers are sexually active with or without birth control that I would still be in favor of it.
It is still the parents' responsibility to be involved enough to know what is going on in their kids' lives.
Not a perfect solution by any means, but so many teenagers are sexually active with or without birth control that I would still be in favor of it.
It is still the parents' responsibility to be involved enough to know what is going on in their kids' lives.
But allowing the government to undermine the parent/child relationship is NOT the anwser. It IS the parent's responsiblity, not the government's, to be involved in their kid's lives.
guido
07-14-2003, 09:45 PM
But allowing the government to undermine the parent/child relationship is NOT the anwser. It IS the parent's responsiblity, not the government's, to be involved in their kid's lives.
Exactly, and allowing the government to choose sides is not only counter productive, it's destructive.
Persephone
07-14-2003, 09:50 PM
If you have a teenage daughter, whether you want to believe it or not, there is every chance she is sexually active. The greater your denial, the greater the chance. You will not prevent her from having sex just because you say so.
I just happen to think girls who are sexually active are better off with access to birth control.
tileman
07-14-2003, 09:51 PM
I think that when the state steps in and says your parents don't need to know, it could reinforce any thoughts of the child that it's none of the parents business as well. It (the state) should stay the hell out of it...
As in overturning the will of the people in the marjuana thread, they impose their rule with impunity these days on many fronts, hardly even giving lip service to what we actually want...
Persephone
07-14-2003, 09:51 PM
But on the bright side, you will more than likley adore the baby she has at 16. :)
If you have a teenage daughter, whether you want to believe it or not, there is every chance she is sexually active. The greater your denial, the greater the chance. You will not prevent her from having sex just because you say so.
I don;t see what this has to do with government intrusion. If a parent stupidly ignores the reality of hormones and sexuality in their teenagers, it is STILL not the government's place to step in and act as the parent.
I just happen to think girls who are sexually active are better off with access to birth control.
YOU may think that, and I tend to agree, but that does not mean "we" or the government, or any outside influence, has the right to intrude into the parent/child relationship.
If you have a teenage daughter, whether you want to believe it or not, there is every chance she is sexually active. The greater your denial, the greater the chance. You will not prevent her from having sex just because you say so.
I just happen to think girls who are sexually active are better off with access to birth control.
Yes, yes I agree with that but would it be okay to kill the male involved?
Persephone
07-14-2003, 09:54 PM
I think that when the state steps in and says your parents don't need to know, it could reinforce any thoughts of the child that it's none of the parents business as well. It (the state) should stay the hell out of it...
Since when have teenagers thought anything they did was their parents' business?
guido
07-14-2003, 09:55 PM
If you have a teenage daughter, whether you want to believe it or not, there is every chance she is sexually active. The greater your denial, the greater the chance. You will not prevent her from having sex just because you say so.
I just happen to think girls who are sexually active are better off with access to birth control.
If I ever get to the point where I have to give up on the notion that my daughters are not going to be sexually active, then it will be me and their mothers ONLY that will allow her to take necessary precautions........THAT is what is called a parent child relationship.
kathleen
07-14-2003, 09:55 PM
But allowing the government to undermine the parent/child relationship is NOT the anwser. It IS the parent's responsiblity, not the government's, to be involved in their kid's lives.
Works both ways, Jeny. Do you agree that in some cases, the gov't should be involved in the parent-child relationship?
Suppose parents want their 14 year old son to go to work and help support the family? Don't they have the right to decide that? What if a 11 year old and his mother decide it's OK for him to get drunk on beer, within her presence and with her supervision. Does the gov't have the right to say otherwise, storm the home, take her children away? What if a 16 year old daughter wants to go to college but the parents decide she should get married and produce grandchildren instead? Are the parents always right?
Just questions to ponder. :)
But on the bright side, you will more than likley adore the baby she has at 16. :)
I would, of course, if I couldn;t convince her to give it up for adoption. That's not the point, of course. I feel very strongly about the health consequences of hormonal birth control, and I question the effectiveness of other methods of birth control, especially when used by immature, impulsive young kids. That is not the point however, if that situation arises, it is clearly a break down somewhere in the relationship between parent and child and I place blame on the nanny state for the errosion of this relationship.
tileman
07-14-2003, 09:56 PM
But on the bright side, you will more than likley adore the baby she has at 16. :)
Has there been a significant drop in the teenage pregnancy rate since the implementation of the "no tell" type laws?
Don't know.....just asking.....
guido
07-14-2003, 10:00 PM
Works both ways, Jeny. Do you agree that in some cases, the gov't should be involved in the parent-child relationship?
Suppose parents want their 14 year old son to go to work and help support the family? Don't they have the right to decide that? What if a 11 year old and his mother decide it's OK for him to get drunk on beer, within her presence and with her supervision. Does the gov't have the right to say otherwise, storm the home, take her children away? What if a 16 year old daughter wants to go to college but the parents decide she should get married and produce grandchildren instead? Are the parents always right?
Just questions to ponder. :)
Kathleen, the point is, that the government is acting as a stealth parent to the child.........witholding information from the parents that could have medical consequences. None of the examples you've cited compare.
If the government wants to INFORM me that they are supplying birth control for my daughters, I'll be more than glad to buy it from them if I think it's necessary.
Has there been a significant drop in the teenage pregnancy rate since the implementation of the "no tell" type laws?
Don't know.....just asking.....
no tell is not a problem, no show is. ;)
Works both ways, Jeny. Do you agree that in some cases, the gov't should be involved in the parent-child relationship?
In some cases, yes. Not in the decisions regarding the moral upbringing of their children.
Suppose parents want their 14 year old son to go to work and help support the family? Don't they have the right to decide that?
In what way? Helping out on the family farm? Or allowing corporations to exploit children? Allowing government to dispense birth control without medical histories is the government exploiting children, and allowing them to play russian roulette with children's lives.
What if a 11 year old and his mother decide it's OK for him to get drunk on beer, within her presence and with her supervision.
Should it be illegal for parents to allow children to have a small glass of wine with dinner?
Does the gov't have the right to say otherwise, storm the home, take her children away? What if a 16 year old daughter wants to go to college but the parents decide she should get married and produce grandchildren instead? Are the parents always right?
No, the parents are not alway right, nor is the government. Is it up to the government to decide that parents are "foolish" to not let their daughters screw around?
How much control do we really want to let the government have on our lives and in the lives of our children?
Persephone
07-14-2003, 10:12 PM
Is it up to the government to decide that parents are "foolish" to not let their daughters screw around?
Realistically, it isn't a matter of what parents let their daughters do. Teenagers are not children, and parents cannot control their every move. Most teenage pregnancies and STDs occur in kids whose parents do not let them screw around.
Realistically, it isn't a matter of what parents let their daughters do. Teenagers are not children, and parents cannot control their every move. Most teenage pregnancies and STDs occur in kids whose parents do not let them screw around.
Teenagers ARE childrem I think the idea that they are NOT is the problem. How many of these kids were taught at school, or elsewhere, that sex was ok, as long as they were "safe"? In reality, there is no such thing as "safe sex"
The thing I don't understand is if teenagers are not adults then why is the level of hormones going through the roof? Wouldn't it make more sence if the sex drive didn't start until age 30? It would take a very powerful reason for a teenager NOT to have sex because the pressures going against them are huge.
The thing I don't understand is if teenagers are not adults then why is the level of hormones going through the roof? Wouldn't it make more sence if the sex drive didn't start until age 30? It would take a very powerful reason for a teenager NOT to have sex because the pressures going against them are huge.
People had families much younger in our history, but the culture was vastly different. These days, we shelter our children well into their teen years and they are not "adults" as early as they used to be.
Persephone
07-14-2003, 10:24 PM
Teenagers ARE childrem I think the idea that they are NOT is the problem. How many of these kids were taught at school, or elsewhere, that sex was ok, as long as they were "safe"? In reality, there is no such thing as "safe sex"
The forbidden fruit is a pretty strong draw. They need the details of what is "unsafe" about it to believe it, especially given the reality of the fact that they are expected to live by standards that are not imposed on the adult world. And mostly they are only told "because you are too young," which is the last thing they will listen to.
As I said, I think teenagers should be fully educated on the dangers of sexual activity. I think they should have the living shit scared out of them.
But the reality is too many of our kids are getting pregnant and getting diseases. If access to proper health care without having to face a screaming match with their parents can bring this number down, I'm all for it.
Teenagers are not children, and parents cannot control their every move.
Of course, but I think what we're after is parents being respectable enough that when they tell the kid not to screw around, the kid knows inside that the parent is saying it out of love rather than just pulling rank. I'm betting Jeny had that kind of parenting, which is why she didn't screw around - and I'm also betting that Jeny will give that kind of parenting, which is why Alexa won't either.
Persephone
07-14-2003, 10:25 PM
The thing I don't understand is if teenagers are not adults then why is the level of hormones going through the roof? Wouldn't it make more sence if the sex drive didn't start until age 30? It would take a very powerful reason for a teenager NOT to have sex because the pressures going against them are huge.
Biologically, they are adults.
Biologically, they are adults.
Yes indeed except in their thinking. It's just out of whack, all that energy and hormone jumping around and like I said it would take a very powerful reason for them not to engage in sex ... some kids are better than others in doing what their parents say but even the best of kids don't always listen.
The forbidden fruit is a pretty strong draw. They need the details of what is "unsafe" about it to believe it, especially given the reality of the fact that they are expected to live by standards that are not imposed on the adult world. And mostly they are only told "because you are too young," which is the last thing they will listen to.
As I said, I think teenagers should be fully educated on the dangers of sexual activity. I think they should have the living shit scared out of them.
But the reality is too many of our kids are getting pregnant and getting diseases. If access to proper health care without having to face a screaming match with their parents can bring this number down, I'm all for it.
I agree with you in theory Suth, but the fact is that we cannot allow the government to intefere with the parent/child relationship when it suits US. I think refusing to talk about sex, talking about it as if it's evil and "forbidding" your teenagers to do it is just asking and begging for trouble. However, that does not mean we should (to steal guido's word) go in stealth and give children a false sense of security with condoms and birth control.
My parents DID scare me....but not in the fire and brimstone kind of way... I think I need to ask my parents exactly what they did. They managed to raise two kids into adulthood without either of us having sex until we were mature adults, married in my case. Marriage isn't even my goal for everyone, just over the age of 18 is all I'm looking for.
Biologically, they are adults.
Swell. They could probably be driving at 12 too. We don't let them because the potential for disaster is obvious. How come the potential for disaster in a sexual escapade at 12 isn't obvious?
Yes indeed except in their thinking. It's just out of whack, all that energy and hormone jumping around and like I said it would take a very powerful reason for them not to engage in sex ... some kids are better than others in doing what their parents say but even the best of kids don't always listen.
I think the parents need to give them the knowledge and the power to say no. It's not even about doing what they;re parents say, it's about having the know how to make the right decision. I'll make a venture out into unrelaity and say it's hardly ever the "right" decision for a teenager to have sex.
My parents DID acre me....
Slow down, knucklehead. :D
Swell. They could probably be driving at 12 too. We don't let them because the potential for disaster is obvious. How come the potential for disaster in a sexual escapade at 12 isn't obvious?
I think this is my sticking point. You can give a 12 year old (or 13, 14, 15, 16) a condom, a package of birth control pills, you can give them the information, you can do all that, but you cannot make them use them and use them correctly. If the parents are aware of it, they can be prepared for the consequences, if they're totally not ALLOWED to be involved in the equation, they have no hope of teaching any of their values and passing on any of their knowledge and experience. It's the ASSUMPTION that ALL parents will be irresponsible with their children;s sexuality that really sticks for me.
Slow down, knucklehead. :D
Sheesh, I'm TIRED. Give me a break. :P
CaptainKirk
07-14-2003, 10:38 PM
Only to the degree that elements in their lives which they wish to remain private dont endanger the health of the family financially or otherwise......
If the parents of the lads responsible for Columbine had been nosier, lives may have been spared.....
harboring dangerous, illegal or contraband materials in a home, or taking actions which might cause personal or property damage to others, resulting in litigation, which might render that family's dwelling subject to confiscation as evidence, or tender for damages..is certainly IMO justification for lots of parental vigilance and/or snooping.
This vigilance should stop when nothing the kids do can financially ruin the family or potentialy render them homeless.
In time, I realized why dad was so upset when I tossed a rock at Johnny B, and struck him square in the back of the head at 40 ft after hed sped by on his bike, grabbed my expensive baseball glove, sped off and threatened to dump it in the stream as he crossed the bridge.....
something about unequal compensation....
I think this is my sticking point. You can give a 12 year old (or 13, 14, 15, 16) a condom, a package of birth control pills, you can give them the information, you can do all that, but you cannot make them use them and use them correctly. If the parents are aware of it, they can be prepared for the consequences, if they're totally not ALLOWED to be involved in the equation, they have no hope of teaching any of their values and passing on any of their knowledge and experience. It's the ASSUMPTION that ALL parents will be irresponsible with their children;s sexuality that really sticks for me.
Exactly and the powerful reason not to have sex as a teenager comes out of the home with parents that really care about their children and teach them a very good reason why they should wait in such a way the young person understands and excepts the reasoning. Government can't do it, friends can't do it, school can't do it but good parents in a good home can.
Only to the degree that elements in their lives which they wish to remain private dont endanger the health of the family financially or otherwise......
If the parents of the lads responsible for Columbine had been nosier, lives may have been spared.....
harboring dangerous, illegal or contraband materials in a home, or taking actions which might cause personal or property damage to others, resulting in litigation, which might render that family's dwelling subject to confiscation as evidence, or tender for damages..is certainly IMO justification for lots of parental vigilance and/or snooping.
This vigilance should stop when nothing the kids do can financially ruin the family or potentialy render them homeless.
In time, I realized why dad was so upset when I tossed a rock at Johnny B, and struck him square in the back of the head at 40 ft after hed sped by on his bike, grabbed my expensive baseball glove, sped off and threatened to dump it in the stream as he crossed the bridge.....
something about unequal compensation....
That reminds me, my parents always tried to give us a little privacy. But my mom read my diary and searched my room when I was 17 because I was "acting like a zombie" She thought I might be on drugs. But the real problem was that I was a junior in high school, applying for colleges, school work, gymnastic practice at my gym and for the high school team and I had other activities like student coucil and all that other nerd stuff that us losers did in high school....
They did make me quit a few activites and get more sleep. I would have probably been mad at the intrusion but I was too damn tired. LOL. My mom loves to tell this story, I don't know why, she tells it all the time. ;D
Exactly and the powerful reason not to have sex as a teenager comes out of the home with parents that really care about their children and teach them a very good reason why they should wait in such a way the young person understands and excepts the reasoning. Government can't do it, friends can't do it, school can't do it but good parents in a good home can.
EXACTLY, tha parents are the ONLY ones that can do it. Whether or not they WILL do it remains to be seen in each individual family, but the idea that they should be summarliy dismissed out of the equation is absurd. If the kid DID turn up pregnant or with a disease, the parents would sure as hell be held responsible then. <shrug>> More reason to send Alexa to private school I guess, since it appears as if so many people will be handing her condoms and birth control pills.
CaptainKirk
07-14-2003, 10:52 PM
They did make me quit a few activites and get more sleep. I would have probably been mad at the intrusion but I was too damn tired. LOL. My mom loves to tell this story, I don't know why, she tells it all the time. ;D
sounds like good parenting was there and the INTENT was honorable,
IME, not many teen spill out the minutia of their lives to parents as regulalry as to peers...who naturally have ALL the answers......and eons of experience..........
Ill bet a 50 yr old on decent shape, but hidden in a teens bod, could make a fortune as a peer counselor, fees being based on good n bad advice.....and its efficacy
sounds like good parenting was there and the INTENT was honorable,
IME, not many teen spill out the minutia of their lives to parents as regulalry as to peers...who naturally have ALL the answers......and eons of experience..........
Ill bet a 50 yr old on decent shape, but hidden in a teens bod, could make a fortune as a peer counselor, fees being based on good n bad advice.....and its efficacy
That is so true. It's kind of funny, looking back, how much I resented my parents, but these days I have nothing but respect. In my 17 months of experience as a parent so far, I think there has not been a week that's gone by when I haven't called for advice.
CaptainKirk
07-14-2003, 10:57 PM
I was a junior in high school, applying for colleges, school work, gymnastic practice at my gym and for the high school team and I had other activities like student coucil and all that other nerd stuff that us losers did in high school....
why the loser tag? sounds rather focused and forward looking to me....I did much the same cept for student council which I felt was for all the politco-weenies....who were focused on "POPULARITY" as if it was the Holy Grail
CaptainKirk
07-14-2003, 11:07 PM
That is so true. It's kind of funny, looking back, how much I resented my parents, but these days I have nothing but respect.
funny how lots water under the bridge does that for folks....
unlike my lovely spouse, who started doin the nasty far earlier than I, mocked the achievers, smoked in the girls room and was suspended, and wouldnt be caught dead at a prom, I was pretty focused as a teen between sports, academics, music, and my steady and never really caused any trouble.. There were rules, I had to be in by midnite as my dad felt that anything Ruthie and I were gonna do, we could acomplish by then and the car didnt need to be out later.......
My spouse, on the other had, spent yrs in her 20's in and out of relationships, and jobs, before she realized shed need a professional education and at 27, finally entered college, then professional schooling, and it was onward & upwrad for her careerwise ever since.....
2 different approaches to the teen years, both eventually successful........eventually
I think her parents , although quite RC religious, didnt have the stones to make the tough calls nor any intention of assisting her financially in obtaining an education, via various moralizing and mainly a primal fear of conflict of any kind....
why the loser tag? sounds rather focused and forward looking to me....I did much the same cept for student council which I felt was for all the politco-weenies....who were focused on "POPULARITY" as if it was the Holy Grail
I wear the tag proudly, I was somewhat of a nerd in high school. ;D Honor society and all that.
My spouse, on the other had, spent yrs in her 20's in and out of relationships, and jobs, before she realized shed need a professional education and at 27, finally entered college, then professional schooling, and it was onward & upwrad for her careerwise ever since.....
Funny, at 27 I am also going back to school. My first try at college netted me a useless degree. Well, useless to me as I have no intention of re-entering the business world. ;D Who the hell knows what they want to do at 18? ;D
CaptainKirk
07-14-2003, 11:21 PM
I wear the tag proudly, I was somewhat of a nerd in high school. ;D Honor society and all that.
I graduated 6th among 100 or so guys and 20th out of 225 and despite academic, athletic, and musical achievement, I was never considered for the NHS....
Never even began to kiss the right teachers asses...a badge of honor I wear to this day.... 8)
CaptainKirk
07-14-2003, 11:26 PM
Who the hell knows what they want to do at 18? ;D
Few do....all I knew then in 1967 was that I wanted a degree, that there was a war on, and that I wanted to be a soldier and an officer. My dad , ever the Vet, talked me out of applying to West Point, but I wanted a top school where they had ROTC and went to one.......
the rest just kind of unfolded after that.....
Few do....all I knew then in 1967 was that I wanted a degree, that there was a war on, and that I wanted to be a soldier and an officer. My dad , ever the Vet, talked me out of applying to West Point, but I wanted a top school where they had ROTC and went to one.......
the rest just kind of unfolded after that.....
So, that makes you 53 or 54 years old? I'd say you were born in 1950, January. Just a guess.
kathleen
07-15-2003, 08:21 AM
I'm betting Jeny had that kind of parenting, which is why she didn't screw around - and I'm also betting that Jeny will give that kind of parenting, which is why Alexa won't either.
I guess the rest of us sluts came from dysfunctional families. ;)
CaptainKirk
07-15-2003, 08:21 AM
So, that makes you 53 or 54 years old? I'd say you were born in 1950, January. Just a guess.
Jan 49 to be exact, some entertainment biggie and I were born at nearly the same hour...
1949..it was a very good yr...
If I recall correctly Estes Kefauver had his trou down around his ankles boinking some erstwhile intern in a Senate washroom, while Lyndon Johnson, then a young pup, was about to simultaneoulsy stretch Kefauvers colon....
John Foster Dulles snuck in unseen and was about to take pictures...Ike grinned...while Harry the hat was making inquiries into retailing opportunites in Osage, Mo
no wonder the beginnings of our problems occurred at that moment..
it was a very good year (in my best Sinatraesque voice)
kathleen
07-15-2003, 08:26 AM
How much control do we really want to let the government have on our lives and in the lives of our children?
I think very much like you on this subject. I do want to see less state control in every aspect of our lives. The question I see is where do we draw that line.
Crickets. I don't think I'd eat a cricket. I find them sort of gross. I don't even like using them as bait because they're so squirmy.
Oh, shit. I just noticed this wasn't the food section, so I guess you'll just have to deal with this post and try to figure out what it means if you aren't following the other one.
CaptainKirk
07-15-2003, 08:35 AM
I guess the rest of us sluts came from dysfunctional families. ;
nah , you were just more adventurous whcih is reflected in your adult outlook, esp concerning the "finer things"..
I figure most of us emerged from families that were dysfunctional, from marginally to major....
mine was horrific at times, transparent at others. Wifey came froma very religious RC family who shielded all 5 kids from most of the 1950's & 60's culture as best they could...
I often joke that they never knew Kennedy had been shot till they learned about it from the priest 2 days later at mass.
I regard it as dysfunctional as they strove never to approach conflict-open or otherwise-in a constructive manner, but studiously avoided it. When #1 son beacme a discipline problem, he was shipped off to live with grandman across town, as if she was supposed to kick his ass...and all the while the weekly swirl of churchy meetings, confirmations, confessionals, et al continued unabated the kids were housed n fed and somehow, for the most part turned out well, although several of them are divorced and have difficulty in forming relationships that last.
go figure
CaptainKirk
07-15-2003, 08:38 AM
Crickets. I don't think I'd eat a cricket. I find them sort of gross. I don't even like using them as bait because they're so squirmy.
ya gotta be shittin me! theyre excellent sauteed...little garlic
ya gotta be shittin me! theyre excellent sauteed...little garlic
Too ugly, to me, to eat. Musta had an "event" with 'em as a child.
CaptainKirk
07-15-2003, 08:48 AM
Musta had an "event" with 'em as a child.
was that you? rang my recollective bell........
1952 Attack of the Crickets.......I recall a scene with a young lad in a Calif house which was swarmed.....
there were only 2 arms n 2 legs pokin up from under a mass of crickets on top of a bed......
there was also a copy of Playboy and a flashlight flyin thru the air
http://nature.org/aboutus/travel/almanac/images/prairiemole228x141.jpg
<case closed>
I'd rather eat a booger.
I guess the rest of us sluts came from dysfunctional families. ;)
I don't think that's the point he was trying to make. It is rarely ever a good idea for a teenager to have sex, regardless of how "progressive" it is to hand out condoms and birth control pills. I think it serves families well if the parents do everything in their power to try and prevent it.
It's really not a matter of "slut" or not. It is a matter of getting your kids to an age and a level of maturity where they make responsible decisions.
kathleen
07-15-2003, 08:52 AM
I'd rather eat a booger.
I'd bet you have.
I think very much like you on this subject. I do want to see less state control in every aspect of our lives. The question I see is where do we draw that line.
I think we should draw the line at the place where the government completely cuts the parents out of thier children's lives. Sex has many, many consequences, not all of which are merely physical or medical. By saying that children should be allowed to obtain birth control without the consent or knowledge of ther parents is essentially saying, "I don't agree with the way you want to raise your children, or with your old fashoned values, so screw you" But, it is "politically correct" to assume that teenagers WILL have sex, no matter what we do, so I can see where this gets so much support. I do think it's sometimes true that teenagers will have sex if they want to, it's not always true. When I was in high school, not that long ago, I knew A LOT of girls who were not having sex.
I'd bet you have.
It is unnecessary that you contribute to this hijacking, but thank you for your efforts anyways.
It is unnecessary that you contribute to this hijacking, but thank you for your efforts anyways.
Yeah, quit trying to hijack my thread badnews, you asshole. You just cannot stand it when people talk about real stuff.
I know the reason you REALLY don't want to talk about this is because your daughter is a teenager. :-*
kathleen
07-15-2003, 09:05 AM
It is unnecessary that you contribute to this hijacking, but thank you for your efforts anyways.
My purpose was not to help you in your hijack.
So, have you?
I don't think children who are living at home have the right to any privacy. Everything they do under your roof, you are responsible for.
The same goes for adults. If they are dependent upon we as tax payers, everything and anything about them should be subject to public knowledge.
My purpose was not to help you in your hijack.
So, have you?
Shamefully, no. I like to roll them between my thumb and index finger, though.
When does a cricket start to have sex? Is it during 'teenage days' or later as an adult cricket?
CaptainKirk
07-15-2003, 09:08 AM
When I was in high school, not that long ago, I knew A LOT of girls who were not having sex.
one word..POPULARITY.......
if that concept were shunned as a mantra and some form of life focus substituted the rats nest of peer pressure which exists in most HS would almost shrink to indsignificance....
dont ask me how....never gave a damn about popularity anyway either with students or with faculty...........
once you graduate, you might see 1 or 2 of these people in the next 40 yrs, if that
BFD
Did you know that cricket chirps can be used to measure the temperature?
count the number of chirps in 14 seconds
add 40
your answer should be the temperature in °F
And do crickets have a right to privacy?
CaptainKirk
07-15-2003, 09:12 AM
I know the reason you REALLY don't want to talk about this is because your daughter is a teenager. :-*
bingo,
news is paranoid that his daughter will engage in a meaningful relationship before he does!
apples dont fall far from......and that cricket swarm in the 50's
when combined form a rather damning indictment ;D
bingo,
news is paranoid that his daughter will engage in a meaningful relationship before he does!
With any luck, my daughter and I should be able to have a tandem wedding (or two) one of these years.
CaptainKirk
07-15-2003, 09:16 AM
And do crickets have a right to privacy?
when placed on a hook, it then becomes constitutionally unsupportable.......but rather racademic in a practical sense as they do draw a crowd underwater...
except for gar, who despise them....hey news despises them?
so is news a.......
kathleen
07-15-2003, 09:18 AM
It's really not a matter of "slut" or not. It is a matter of getting your kids to an age and a level of maturity where they make responsible decisions.
Which includes having sex, many times out of wedlock.
CaptainKirk
07-15-2003, 09:18 AM
With any luck, my daughter and I should be able to have a tandem wedding (or two) one of these years.
a camcorder moment for the ages ....but
who gives away who?
Did you know crickets can fly? I had no idea until the other day one got in the house and it was flying.
kathleen
07-15-2003, 09:21 AM
With any luck, my daughter and I should be able to have a tandem wedding (or two) one of these years.
Yuck, a father/daughter double wedding.
I can't think of an idea more hideous. ;D
CaptainKirk
07-15-2003, 09:21 AM
Which includes having sex, many times out of wedlock.
youve NEVER done that ,,,have you??
I sure as hell have...far more often than I should have
Which includes having sex, many times out of wedlock.
It may, and it may not. As I said earlier in this thread, my goal is not "marriage" for everyone. Nor did I ever say that parents should not be allowed to give their kids birth control if they see fit. My problem is the government taking control from the parents because it's not politically correct to expect your kids to wait until they are adults.
Further, while I would personally like my children to wait until marriage, all my GOAL is is to get them to adulthod. Hopefully at that point they will understand the pragmatic reasons for making very discriminating choices about who they sleep with.
kathleen
07-15-2003, 09:22 AM
youve NEVER done that ,,,have you??
I sure as hell have...far more often than I should have
Don't you know, it's OK if the boys do it. ::)
Don't you know, it's OK if the boys do it. ::)
I hope you're not attributing that attitude to me. ;)
youve NEVER done that ,,,have you??
I sure as hell have...far more often than I should have
If we could only harness all that energy that goes into having sex, 24/7 in the world each day we could have enough energy to supply the entire USA with electricity for a full year.
kathleen
07-15-2003, 09:25 AM
Further, while I would personally like my children to wait until marriage, all my GOAL is is to get them to adulthod. Hopefully at that point they will understand the pragmatic reasons for making very discriminating choices about who they sleep with.
And that is a very noble cause. I'm sure many parents feel the same way. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work. Those damn kids seem to have a mind of their own sometimes. ;)
kathleen
07-15-2003, 09:26 AM
If we could only harness all that energy that goes into having sex, 24/7 in the world each day we could have enough energy to supply the entire USA with electricity for a full year.
You made that up, didn't you? ;)
Don't you know, it's OK if the boys do it. ::)
that used to mean an equal number of girls were involved too but with the increase in boy queers it now means boys do it more than girls.
kathleen
07-15-2003, 09:28 AM
I hope you're not attributing that attitude to me. ;)
No, should I? ;)
And that is a very noble cause. I'm sure many parents feel the same way. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work. Those damn kids seem to have a mind of their own sometimes. ;)
And I Do not think the solution is to hand out birth control like candy behind the backs of parents. It only serves to make their job more difficult and makes the kids expect to be taken care of by big brother.
You made that up, didn't you? ;)
No I didn't. There are smart people who are trying to figure out how to wire butts up to capture all that energy.
I believe in making the world safe for our children, but not our children's children, because I don't think children should be having sex.
No, should I? ;)
Certainly not, the consequences for boys, although sometimes less obvious, can be just as devastating to their young lives.
kathleen
07-15-2003, 09:31 AM
that used to mean an equal number of girls were involved too but with the increase in boy queers it now means boys do it more than girls.
Not at all. It was always a few sluts doing all the horny boys while the good girls stayed in the library and snickered. Have things changed since I've been in school? ;D
CaptainKirk
07-15-2003, 09:32 AM
Don't you know, it's OK if the boys do it. ::)
A true hypocrisy for the ages....but you're a live wire, as Ive often said and I compliment you for that, as if more women had your attitude, there'd be fewer divorces...
My reflection's based on the fact that Im a tad older and in my youth most girls in my area could've cared less about doin it and guarded themselves like Fort Knox....
that all changed in the blink of an eye...
kathleen
07-15-2003, 09:34 AM
Certainly not, the consequences for boys, although sometimes less obvious, can be just as devastating to their young lives.
Just for curiosity sake, do you know of any men who went to their wedding bed a virgin?
It's becoming less and less common for a woman to do it, but there are still plenty of women who wait. I have never met a man who did.
CaptainKirk
07-15-2003, 09:35 AM
No I didn't. There are smart people who are trying to figure out how to wire butts up to capture all that energy.
is that a segue into another methane thread......
if so,...its YOUR turn to initiate the festivites........
I did the last one, and if news could only overcome his madonna syndrome with regard to methane production, he could probably have us in stitiches... :D :D
Just for curiosity sake, do you know of any men who went to their wedding bed a virgin?
It's becoming less and less common for a woman to do it, but there are still plenty of women who wait. I have never met a man who did.
I did with my first marriage ... I married the first time at age 21 and I was a 'virgin'.
Just for curiosity sake, do you know of any men who went to their wedding bed a virgin?
It's becoming less and less common for a woman to do it, but there are still plenty of women who wait. I have never met a man who did.
I've known only one man that did that and he was a fundamentalist. His ex was horrified with his views on sex during the marriage, was only there to please himself...the old poke and run...and has nad no sex since she left him...with the exception of little boys no doubt.
kathleen
07-15-2003, 09:38 AM
I did with my first marriage ... I married the first time at age 21 and I was a 'virgin'.
Married the first time?
That doesn't count because you obviously divorced and that makes you a sinner.
Next! ;D
Just for curiosity sake, do you know of any men who went to their wedding bed a virgin?
It's becoming less and less common for a woman to do it, but there are still plenty of women who wait. I have never met a man who did.
I know just a few, and I don't know that many women who did either. And I don't think that makes them sluts.
Married the first time?
That doesn't count because you obviously divorced and that makes you a sinner.
Next! ;D
Don't I get credit for going to 21? ;D
kathleen
07-15-2003, 09:40 AM
I've known only one man that did that and he was a fundamentalist. His ex was horrified with his views on sex during the marriage, was only there to please himself...the old poke and run...and has nad no sex since she left him...with the exception of little boys no doubt.
That's one fucked up dude. :)
Married the first time?
That doesn't count because you obviously divorced and that makes you a sinner.
Next! ;D
There's no such thing as divorce, therefore, that makes his present wife an adulteress and he a whore monger.
No offense, of course.
I didn't write the friggin rules, bud. ;D
There's no such thing as divorce, therefore, that makes his present wife an adulteress and he a whore monger.
No offense, of course.
I didn't write the friggin rules, bud. ;D
No offense taken, after my first divorce I was a whore monger. ;D
That's one fucked up dude. :)
He still wears his wedding ring after FIVE years. He says he is "still married in the eyes of God."
Do you think a bitch slapping would help?
kathleen
07-15-2003, 09:44 AM
And I don't think that makes them sluts.
I'm not implying that you do, Jen.
Some people do consider me a slut for having sex outside of marriage. I didn't think you were one of them, Jen.
Of course, they are also the type of people to use the word "slut" behind shut doors. I say let's bring the word out in the open.
They are the ones I'm funnin' with. :)
I've never met a slut I didn't want to bump uglies with.
I'm not implying that you do, Jen.
Some people do consider me a slut for having sex outside of marriage. I didn't think you were one of them, Jen.
Of course, they are also the type of people to use the word "slut" behind shut doors. I say let's bring the word out in the open.
They are the ones I'm funnin' with. :)
I'd still be married to my first wife if only she were a slut.
I'd still be married to my first wife if only she were a slut.
Preach it, brother!! ;D
kathleen
07-15-2003, 09:47 AM
Do you think a bitch slapping would help?
What's the point? He's the one wasting his life away. I would imagine that at the end, when he realizes it, that would be punishment enough.
Can be kind of fun laughing at him though. ;D
I'm not implying that you do, Jen.
Some people do consider me a slut for having sex outside of marriage. I didn't think you were one of them, Jen.
Of course, they are also the type of people to use the word "slut" behind shut doors. I say let's bring the word out in the open.
They are the ones I'm funnin' with. :)
My problem is that this discussion tends to seperate people in to two camps, the "progressives" and the "prudes" There is a lot of in between. All I want is the chance to teach my children my values without the government going behind my back and telling them that what I say does not matter. People may not agree with my goals, they may think me naive, old fashioned or even stupid for wanting my kids to wait. But, my primary concern is their health and mental well-being, it is not my intention to brow beat my kids with scary stories about fire and brimstone.
On the other hand, sex is not somthing to be taken lightly. There is nothing that would make me happier than for my children to grow up healthy and happy and without life long consequences for making poor choices at the age of 14 or 15.
kathleen
07-15-2003, 09:49 AM
No offense taken, after my first divorce I was a whore monger. ;D
Your first divorce? You had more than one? :o
You are even more sinful than I thought. Probably close to being pure evil. ;D
Your first divorce? You had more than one? :o
You are even more sinful than I thought. Probably close to being pure evil. ;D
See? I'm not the ONLY fickle male in this joint.
Your first divorce? You had more than one? :o
You are even more sinful than I thought. Probably close to being pure evil. ;D
I'm on my third (and last ...I hope). Didn't plan it that way it's just the way things turned out. :)
I'm on my third (and last ...I hope). Didn't plan it that way it's just the way things turned out. :)
Dude!! You're just one divorce away from being tied to my single status!!
Get crackin'. There's bitches to hose out there!!
Edit: You're not counting my Ryukian whore, though, are you?
Dude!! You're just one divorce away from being tied to my single status!!
Get crackin'. There's bitches to hose out there!!
I thought I was close. Problem is I got a good one now, a real slut. ;D
kathleen
07-15-2003, 10:05 AM
My problem is that this discussion tends to seperate people in to two camps, the "progressives" and the "prudes" There is a lot of in between.
There is also a lot in between fucking everything in sight and no sex until marriage. Love is a funny thing. It doesn't always hit on our schedule. Alexa may fall madly in love for the first time when she is 17 or when she is 30. No matter how many values you have taught her, she may not wait for marriage. Perhaps that will be a mistake, perhaps not. But it's her mistake to make. And whether she learns from it or not is also up to her.
Hopefully the background you give her will take her to the point where she can make these rational decisions (and able to live with the consequences of same).
All I want is the chance to teach my children my values without the government going behind my back and telling them that what I say does not matter.
Absolutely!
People may not agree with my goals, they may think me naive, old fashioned or even stupid for wanting my kids to wait. But, my primary concern is their health and mental well-being, it is not my intention to brow beat my kids with scary stories about fire and brimstone.
Great.
That's the mistake my mother made.
On the other hand, sex is not somthing to be taken lightly. There is nothing that would make me happier than for my children to grow up healthy and happy and without life long consequences for making poor choices at the age of 14 or 15.
Neither is it to be treated like "the devil's work". It isn't evil, it is a natural biological function.
kathleen
07-15-2003, 10:07 AM
Problem is I got a good one now, a real slut. ;D
I hear the word of God is suppose to cure that problem. ;)
I thought I was close. Problem is I got a good one now, a real slut. ;D
This may be an inappropriate question...but...
Have you ever been "unfaithful" to any of your wives?
I haven't.
kathleen
07-15-2003, 10:10 AM
See? I'm not the ONLY fickle male in this joint.
Since you are the only common denominator that I can see in all your marital breakups............it must be your fault. :)
Since you are the only common denominator that I can see in all your marital breakups............it must be your fault. :)
That's something I've never denied nor taken credit for. If it was my fault, so be it. I'll take the rap.
I'm not a finger-pointer and if someone wants to blame me...that's fine.
Addendum: My first wife has been married 6 times since me.
There is also a lot in between fucking everything in sight and no sex until marriage. Love is a funny thing. It doesn't always hit on our schedule. Alexa may fall madly in love for the first time when she is 17 or when she is 30. No matter how many values you have taught her, she may not wait for marriage. Perhaps that will be a mistake, perhaps not. But it's her mistake to make. And whether she learns from it or not is also up to her.
The problem is that these kinds of mistakes are the kind that can leave a person without any choices in life. If one of my children were to become pregnant, or get someone pregnant, I would be disappointed, but I certainly wouldn;t throw them out in the street, but I know my heart would be broken because their life would be forever changed, and not necessarily for the better. I know people can fall in love young, but it's rare. My brother married his high school sweetheart. I don't agree with the fundamentalist views, but they ppear to have a happy, loving marriage and who am I to judge it anyway? I just want the best for my kids.
Hopefully the background you give her will take her to the point where she can make these rational decisions (and able to live with the consequences of same).
I think the government handing out birth control without parental knwledge undermines a parents ability to instill the values to be able to make those choices.
Neither is it to be treated like "the devil's work". It isn't evil, it is a natural biological function.
That is a different issue I think. You and I agree that treating sex in that manner is counter productive and harmful, but we should not have the right to tell parents which values about sex they want to teach their kids. And the government doesn't have the right to tell the kids that their parents are wrong about it either, even if we do think so.
Works both ways, Jeny. Do you agree that in some cases, the gov't should be involved in the parent-child relationship?
Suppose parents want their 14 year old son to go to work and help support the family? Don't they have the right to decide that? What if a 11 year old and his mother decide it's OK for him to get drunk on beer, within her presence and with her supervision. Does the gov't have the right to say otherwise, storm the home, take her children away? What if a 16 year old daughter wants to go to college but the parents decide she should get married and produce grandchildren instead? Are the parents always right?
Just questions to ponder. :)
I don't see where the government has the right or authority to involve themselves in any of those decisions. It's not theirs to make.
FWIW, This attitude of "they're going to do it anyway" is insulting, demeaning, and I can't wait to thank whoever has that attitude for the vote of confidence.
And that is a very noble cause. I'm sure many parents feel the same way. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work. Those damn kids seem to have a mind of their own sometimes. ;)
If they had minds of their own, they wouldn't copulate like rabbits.
Larry_Oldtimer
07-15-2003, 11:26 AM
My answer is no. But then, I am a responsible adult, and when my kids were young I knew what they were up to and my wife and I provided a good deal of counseling. We didn't need a government to look out for the well being of our kids. The real problem is what I refer to as "The IQ thingy". That is, the average IQ of the population is 100. Which means that 1/2 of the folks out there have an IQ less than 100, and a person with an IQ of 100 is hardly a mental genius. The fact is, there are a whole lot of folks in the world that don't have the brains God gave to a flea, and will either entirely neglect their children, or do to their kids whatever some mad cultist tells them to do. Either way, their kids suffer tremendously. So either their kids suffer, or others step in. Unfortunately, when the state steps in, the kids are frequentlly just as likely to suffer terribly, and sometimes more so. It is a real dilemma, and one that is not about to get a good answer soon.
Descartes
07-15-2003, 11:26 AM
I might be a little confused here, but it seems that many here are arguing that the government shouldn't be involved in the birth control decision, and that parents should have the sole responsibility for allowing access. The government shouldn't provid birth control. Here's my question. . . let's say the government doesn't provide access to birth control. . . the pharmacy down the street however takes up the slack . . . now without any 'discussion' on how or what to do with it. Do you want the government to step in and prevent access to birth control? That seems to me a more intrusive action by the government. One that says parents don't have control of the kids so the government will take the necessary steps to insure their 'safety'. Which way would you prefer it?
Personally, I think a good parent can maintain an open discussion with their child about this issue whether or not the government is dispensing birth control or not. (a good parent IMO will istill in their child from early on the understanding that just because the Government says so don't necessarily make it so) And the bad parent isn't going to have any discussions at all, so the government dispension of birth control and any info. to kids of these parents is probably best. Seems to me to be the best of both worlds. but what do I know.
Descartes, I think if the government wants to dispense birth control, fine, although it's OUR tax money that's doing it, but whatever, we waste money on a lot of things. My issue is that parents are not required to give consent and kids can get it without the knowledge. It's the stealth that bothers me so much. If the parents want to give consent fine, but don't hand my teenager birth control without my permission or my knowledge. It's not in the best intrerest of ANYone for the government to tell kid that their parents values have no meaning and that they don't have to listen to their parents stupid old fashioned ideas.
The government has about as much right to instruct our children about birth control as do those assholes with the dead baby signs...and that right is...
absolutely none.
The government has about as much right to instruct our children about birth control as do those assholes with the dead baby signs...and that right is...
absolutely none.
Exactly, I could not agree more. Intrusion from either camp is totally inappropriate and downright criminal.
CaptainKirk
07-15-2003, 11:50 AM
I've never met a slut I didn't want to bump uglies with.
I have, esp the height weight aspects, but hey Ive nevr been that desperate
Descartes
07-15-2003, 11:55 AM
Descartes, I think if the government wants to dispense birth control, fine, although it's OUR tax money that's doing it, but whatever, we waste money on a lot of things. [b]My issue is that parents are not required to give consent and kids can get it without the knowledge.[\b] It's the stealth that bothers me so much. If the parents want to give consent fine, but don't hand my teenager birth control without my permission or my knowledge. It's not in the best intrerest of ANYone for the government to tell kid that their parents values have no meaning and that they don't have to listen to their parents stupid old fashioned ideas.
So, you are asking the government to step in and prevent birth control from being sold or given to children without parental consent. Is that correct?
Without the government stepping in, the kid could get it at the pharmacy down the street without parental consent or any instruction whatsoever.
Just trying to clear up what you're calling for.
CaptainKirk
07-15-2003, 11:56 AM
Have you ever been "unfaithful" to any of your wives?
I haven't.
I believe you, but lets face it (like my wife once said) all that paraphenalia, the saran wrap, rubber toys and baby snake didnt help your case one bit... ;D
So, you are asking the government to step in and prevent birth control from being sold or given to children without parental consent. Is that correct?
Children under the age of 18 are the legal responsibility of the parents and the parents only.
Without the government stepping in, the kid could get it at the pharmacy down the street without parental consent or any instruction whatsoever.
I think seeling birth control should be like selling alcohol or tobacco, to of age only. Ig the parents want to provide birth control, fine, if the parents want to give consent for their children to recieve free birth control, fine, but don't go handing it out like it nothing without the parents consent or knowledge, because it's not nothing.
Just trying to clear up what you're calling for.
I'm calling for the nanny state to stop trying to take control away from parents. I know it's progressive and PC to assume all kids will have sex, but in my mind, it's BS and I'd appreciate if the government would mind their own damn business.
Descartes
07-15-2003, 12:04 PM
The government has about as much right to instruct our children about birth control as do those assholes with the dead baby signs...and that right is...
absolutely none.
This brings up a good question. Does the government have a right to free speech?
Personally, the government can go ahead and say whatever they want, I will teach my child that the government has the right to be wrong too. I also don't see teaching children how and what to do with birth control is in any way advocating their use or advocating kids going out and having sex. As long as what the govnernment is teaching isn't completely a lie (like saying it's 100% effective, perfectly safe, etc. . .) I don't have a problem with my kids getting the facts as long as they get all the facts (and of that I'll be making sure). I would love to see the government out completely, but I realize that may be worse in this case . . . cause then kids whose parents are negligent are going to go out to walgreens . . . without any knowedge as to risks or proper use etc. . . . That could very well be a burden on me (taxpayer).
This brings up a good question. Does the government have a right to free speech?
Personally, the government can go ahead and say whatever they want, I will teach my child that the government has the right to be wrong too. I also don't see teaching children how and what to do with birth control is in any way advocating their use or advocating kids going out and having sex. As long as what the govnernment is teaching isn't completely a lie (like saying it's 100% effective, perfectly safe, etc. . .) I don't have a problem with my kids getting the facts as long as they get all the facts (and of that I'll be making sure). I would love to see the government out completely, but I realize that may be worse in this case . . . cause then kids whose parents are negligent are going to go out to walgreens . . . without any knowedge as to risks or proper use etc. . . . That could very well be a burden on me (taxpayer).
I think you miss my point entirely. I don't care if the government has programs to dispense birth control, I care that they would try to do it behind the backs of the parents. I know Alexa will likely get sex education is school, even in prvate school, and that is ok with me, I have no problem with that. My problem is the secrecy, as if the government is telling your children that what you say does not matter because big brother will give them what they "need" even if their stupid old fashioned parents won't. It totally undermines the parent/child relationship and it's total crap.
Descartes
07-15-2003, 12:22 PM
Well, I think I understand your point now. Just want to clarify that you are calling for the government to step in. It takes the government to institute a law to make parental consent necessary for purchase of birth control (much like cigarettes etc.).
It may be that this is the best solution. I can't really say. I just don't think it's a secret that kids are going to get birth control and education from the government. I know it happens and know it will continue to. It's up to the parents then to further educate the child as to the parents 'take' on the situation. I think it's easier for a parent to convince a child not to use it even though it was given to them than it would be for a sexually active child to convince a 'Fundie' parent that no matter what the parent says or does they're going to have sex anyways and give consent or "I'll hold you responsible for my inability to protect myself".
Descartes
07-15-2003, 12:28 PM
I think you miss my point entirely. I don't care if the government has programs to dispense birth control, I care that they would try to do it behind the backs of the parents. I know Alexa will likely get sex education is school, even in prvate school, and that is ok with me, I have no problem with that. My problem is the secrecy, as if the government is telling your children that what you say does not matter because big brother will give them what they "need" even if their stupid old fashioned parents won't. It totally undermines the parent/child relationship and it's total crap.
I don't think it undermines the parent/child relationship. I think it makes it more important and places more responsibility in the parents hands (as it should be). It's not big brother saying that what the parent says doesn't matter, it's just not going to help the parent enforce what it the parent is saying. It's not the government's job. That's the parent's job.
CaptainKirk
07-15-2003, 12:32 PM
I think you miss my point entirely.
He does and both of you are circling the crux of the matter.
His concern for free speech and the QUALITY of information alone is insufficient in dealing with your concern which, if I read you correctly is INTENT, on the part of gubmint to supercede the parent child bond......which IS crap....
laws can be passed requiring CORRECT info, but you as the parent have the INTERVENING and PRIMAL right to ensure which information and in what quantity your progeny will receive and WHO will furnish it........and within what context....
case closed
Descartes
07-15-2003, 12:42 PM
He does and both of you are circling the crux of the matter.
His concern for free speech and the QUALITY of information alone is insufficient in dealing with your concern which, if I read you correctly is INTENT, on the part of gubmint to supercede the parent child bond......which IS crap....
laws can be passed requiring CORRECT info, but you as the parent have the INTERVENING and PRIMAL right to ensure which information and in what quantity your progeny will receive and WHO will furnish it........and within what context....
case closed
I don't think so. . . take the government out of it. Say we do make a law that parental consent is needed (government intervention). What's to prevent the kid getting the birth control from a 'friend' . . . . etc. . . etc. . . etc. . . . The burden of supplying information still lies with the parent. Just 'cause we let the government step in and try to help the parent control what their kids see and hear and come into contact with doesn't mean it will work. Cigarettes are a good example. . . that whole 18 and over thing works great doesn't it . . . no underage smoking at all now that we've got that law. ::)
I just don't like allowing the government to step in with a law that's going to be toothless and give parents a false sense of security that . . . . 'whew, we don't have to talk to our kids about this 'cause they can't buy it so they won't use it so they just won't have sex . . . ain't it great having the government help us raise our kids'
I don't think you see my side quite right.
All this talk and government interference reminds me of two parents who work against one another. Momma says "no", and as soon as she turns her back, poppa is saying, "Oh go ahead and do it anyway."
Not a healthy situation.
CaptainKirk
07-15-2003, 01:04 PM
I don't think so. . . take the government out of it. Say we do make a law that parental consent is needed (government intervention). What's to prevent the kid getting the birth control from a 'friend' . . . . etc. . . etc. . . etc. . . .
nothing, but id rather it be from a friend, whose parents could be engaged in dialog about the impropriety of such transactions, perhaps a phone call or a 15 minute ride...than fightting with an impersonal, abstract bureaucracy, whose facelss nature insures anonymity and futility in dealing with it...and even if we located the suit who authored such intervention, their reply could be "fuck U"....
The burden of supplying information still lies with the parent. . . that whole 18 and over thing works great doesn't it . . . no underage smoking at all now that we've got that law.
agreed, unfortunately no government or parental intervention can force a teen to stop putting crap in their body ...usually in response to peer pressure and the everpresent quest for POPULARITY......some kids just inherit the fuck up gene and must lose it on their own and in time,,,can be done...
I just don't like allowing the government to step in with a law that's going to be toothless and give parents a false sense of security that . . . .
me neither
'whew, we don't have to talk to our kids about this 'cause they can't buy it so they won't use it so they just won't have sex . . . ain't it great having the government help us raise our kids
No one can force parents to discuss sex with their kids, but gubmint doesnt have the obligation to force its way in en loco parentis.......gubmint has a nasty prediliction to perceive voids and fill them in ways unique to its own perpetuation.
I don't think you see my side quite right.
I do....do you grasp the notion of INTENT to usurp parental authority? Thats what Jeny is referring to....... the rest is subsidiary...secondary .....whatever
Children have a "right" to food, shelter, and clothing; period.
What I love about all this is that the gov't is telling the children they have more rights and authority over their bodies than do the parents.....until it comes time to pay the piper.
Children have a "right" to food, shelter, and clothing; period.
That's the way I was raised. And see what happened to me? I'm normal.
That's the way I was raised. And see what happened to me? I'm normal.
I think they forgot the shelter. ;D
I think they forgot the shelter. ;D
I am not "allowed" to discipline my children the way I was disciplined. I think of parents would kick ass a lot more than they are doing these days a lot of these social issues would disappear.
Kids should be scared shitless to do something wrong.
How come everyone today is too much of a pussy to smack their kids around? That's what I want to know: why are parents afraid to beat their kids? When I was a kid and I screwed up, my parents beat my ass. We didn't have a conversation about it. I didn't have a "time out." In fact, I've never even once been grounded in my life. What's the point? Send your kid to his room and make him play video games and read comic books all day? Great idea, why don't you take him to a psychiatrist while you're at it so she can pull some disorder out of her ass to hide the fact that you're a bad parent?
Kids today need a good beating every now and then. If you don't beat your kids when they fall out of line, the next thing you know your son will go off and bang some dude in the ass just out of spite. You tell them to clean their room, they say "no," you smack them. It's simple; it works. Don't listen to these assholes on TV with their bullshit hippy psycho babble; if they had it their way, every child would be raised in a pastel colored room with Philip Glass pumped through the speakers 24 hours a day. Then again, it might not be all that bad because it will make your kids complacent, so it won't be as hard for them to swallow when they realize that they'll be spending the rest of their lives chained to a desk in a cubicle writing reports to make someone else rich.
The problem is that kids today think their opinions matter. By not beating your kids, they get a skewed perspective of reality where they start thinking that they have it rough and that they can get away with dying their hair and listening to Insane Clown Posse. That's where you need to come in and put the law down. To help you, the negligent parent, I've put together a guide to smacking your kids for your convenience (hint: you may want to even print this guide up and hang it on your fridge as a reminder to both you and your kids). Here are some useful techniques:
Five across the eyes. This is a very basic maneuver and usually enough to cover most situations when your child is out of line. Simply put four fingers tightly together and either leave the thumb off to the side or fold it behind the other four fingers. Then smack your kid across the face with the back of your hand. Now this is the tricky part: make sure to snap your wrist just before contact otherwise you won't get a stinging effect. Very important because you don't want to risk letting your kid think you're a pussy.
The sucker punch. Just ask the question "hey, what's that on your shirt?" and when they look down, bust their lip. You need to do this every now and then to keep them guessing. Don't ever let them off the hook. Just because they're not doing anything wrong doesn't mean that they didn't do something wrong earlier that you weren't aware of.
The yard stick. Or for those of you who don't use the arbitrary American system, this is also known as "the meter stick." This is a good general purpose beating because the stick usually doesn't last beyond three or four good whacks--usually enough to send the message.
The one-two shut-the-hell-up. This is priceless when you're shopping and your kid won't shut the hell up: "I'm hungry, I want toys, I need my Insulin..." etc. First smack your kid (the 5 across the eyes technique works). Wait a few seconds for your kid to start crying, then smack your kid again to let him know that you mean business. This usually shuts them up because they see that the amount of crying is proportional to the amount of beatings.
The 2 x 4 / PVC pipe. If you do your job as a parent, this should never have to be administered. This is for heavy duty jobs only (ie. any time your kid comes home and begins a sentence with "she might be pregnant..." or "I can _____ if I want to..." where the blank can be any of the following: smoke, have sex, experiment with drugs, watch Oprah, etc). Usually the threat of this beating is enough to keep your kid from screwing up.
The Dragon Kick. If you're interested in a permanent solution to your child giving you lip about washing the dishes, cleaning his or her room or filing your tax return, then the Dragon kick might be the technique for you. I guarantee that you will only have to ask once after the Dragon kick has been administered.
The skull thump. A quick blow usually dealt to the side or back of the head. Simply flick them in the head with your finger. An alternative is to smack your child up side the head with your palm. Very useful for teaching your child to read when he or she makes a mistake. Hitting your child when he or she is learning builds confidence, or undermines confidence--I can't remember which.
The one-handed chauffeur reach around. A quick reach around while you're driving to smack your kid and his friends too if they disrespect. Swerve the car back and forth for the full effect.
The cane intercept. If you're too old to chase your kid around the house, use the handle of your cane to trip him if he tries to get away. When he gets up, poke him in the head a few times to let him know who's boss.
There you have it. Use these basic techniques to discipline your child if you want him or her to turn out to be a success story like me. Here's how to tell if you've fulfilled your obligations as a parent:
http://maddox.xmission.com/beat.html
http://maddox.xmission.com/beatkid4.jpg
Suicide isn't so bad, give it a chance.
Thinking about suicide but you're not sure if it's the right thing to do? Here are some tips to help you decide whether or not killing yourself is a good choice:
1. Do you live at home but your parents are always making you clean your room and do your homework? It's a sure sign that they don't love you and that they want you to kill yourself. Why else would they make you clean your room? What are they going to do next, ground you? Make you wear braces? Don't kid yourself, the message is clear.
2. If you just got out of a bad relationship and you feel like things are never going to get better; you're right. Everyone knows that suicide is the only option, stop procrastinating. Look on the bright side, at least your ex will feel guilty for a couple of minutes--but don't count on it.
3. Depressed? Don't have any friends? I guess nobody told you, but being depressed and feeling lonely isn't normal. Everyone else is happy, and has lots of friends so there must be something wrong with you. Put the prozac away, what you need is rat poison.
4. Spill a drink at a party? Drop a plate of food in a restaurant? Nobody else has to live with that kind of embarrassment; you know what you have to do.
5. Flunked out of college? Don't know algebra? Here's a question you should know the answer to: Flunked out of college + Don't know algebra = Time for _____. Chances are you still don't know the answer, so here's a hint: it starts with an 's' and ends in 'uicide'.
6. Traffic jam? Sometimes bad luck isn't a coincidence. Do you really want to sit in traffic for another half hour? Look on the bright side, if you're a viking you'll be going to Valhalla. Then again, you're probably not, but eternal damnation in hell is probably the next best thing.
7. Telemarketers keep calling? It's easier to hang yourself than to get rid of a telemarketer, am I wrong? If you're lucky, Home Depot might be having a sale on rope. After all, you don't want to die letting people think you weren't frugal.
8. Flu? You realize that there's no cure for the flu, right? Well, no cure that doesn't involve painting the wall with your brains.
9. Flat tire? Do I have to spell it out for you?
10. College application get rejected? Take the hint.
Hope you found this guide helpful, mention it in your suicide note. On second thought, why bother? Nobody will read it.
Update: Check out the hate mail this page has generated.
morons have killed themselves after reading this page.
maddox@xmission.com
bad, shut the fuck up already. ::) This new nonsense of yours is really getting old.
bad, shut the fuck up already. ::) This new nonsense of yours is really getting old.
Ah? Water retentive and crampy, are we? ;D
CaptainKirk
07-15-2003, 01:53 PM
News,
you were rollin until the website.......
a tad excessive? I just use the trademark whack on the ass to get attention or the Vulcan neck pinch....my 8 yr old likes it no better than his 25 yr ol bro did way back then.....
Christ if you did this website schtick as a parent now, theyd have your ass in San Quentin...once again with an agreeabl cell mate named Rufus, or was it Tyrone?...no matter ;)
Persephone
07-15-2003, 03:09 PM
I don't think it undermines the parent/child relationship to allow teenagers access to birth control. And you could only call it stealth if there was an attempt to hide the fact that the teenagers could get birth control from the parents. It is still the parents' responsibility to teach the kids what they want them to do.
Parents are well aware that kids can get all kinds of things they don't want them to have. They know it is their job to be involved enough to know what their kids are doing.
Perhaps some are working on the assumption that having no access to birth control discourages kids from having sex. I just don't think that's true.
I don't think it undermines the parent/child relationship to allow teenagers access to birth control. And you could only call it stealth if there was an attempt to hide the fact that the teenagers could get birth control from the parents. It is still the parents' responsibility to teach the kids what they want them to do.
Of COURSE it's stealth, if the government sets up little clinics on the corner and in the schools where the kids can go, behind their prents backs to get birth control even though tha arents have decided that is not what they want their kids to do, that is stealth.
Parents are well aware that kids can get all kinds of things they don't want them to have. They know it is their job to be involved enough to know what their kids are doing.
How is that even possible with the government making a concerted effort to teach the kids to say "up yours!" to their parents?
Perhaps some are working on the assumption that having no access to birth control discourages kids from having sex. I just don't think that's true.
I am certainly not. Others might be under the assumption that giving kids birth control (for free!! and with Info!!) will make the kids use it and use it correctly. I don't think that's true. Nor do I think it's true that all the kids are "going to do it anyway"
I want the government to butt out. It is not up to them to decide where I might screw up, where I'm wrong in the values I want to teach my child and it sure as hell is not up to them to hand out birth control like it's candy and call it stupid things like "protection" and "safe sex" because it's not.
truelies
07-15-2003, 04:37 PM
But allowing the government to undermine the parent/child relationship is NOT the anwser. It IS the parent's responsiblity, not the government's, to be involved in their kid's lives.
I remember well as a 17 year old demanding the Rights of Privacy from my Father. As I picked myself up off the floor he carefully explained that I could have ALL the privacy I wanted just as soon as I started funding my own food, shelter and clothing.
truelies
07-15-2003, 04:45 PM
I don't think it undermines the parent/child relationship to allow teenagers access to birth control. And you could only call it stealth if there was an attempt to hide the fact that the teenagers could get birth control from the parents. It is still the parents' responsibility to teach the kids what they want them to do.
Parents are well aware that kids can get all kinds of things they don't want them to have. They know it is their job to be involved enough to know what their kids are doing.
Perhaps some are working on the assumption that having no access to birth control discourages kids from having sex. I just don't think that's true.
It is CERTAINLY a parent's job to know what their child is up to, BUT it is ALSO NOT the State's job to attempt to subvert those same parent's efforts at moral teaching. There may well be cases in which the best thing is to put a teen daughter on the Pill, but that decision is simply not one to be made by some Public Employee OR by the concerned folks at Planned Parenthood.
Tiger
07-15-2003, 05:13 PM
This is SUCH a tough area. As a mother of a daughter - I told her at 16 that if she got into a sexual relationship before she was ready that she would be sorry later. We had a long talk about birth control and I told her that no matter what happened - I would help her get it if she needed it - but that I hoped it would not be necessary.
She is now 19 and still a virgin. And she intends to stay that way until married - but if she had gotten pregnant at a young age - I - although still being her mother - would then recognize the parent-child relationship that she and her baby would have if she was indeed to carry the baby to term.
I would HOPE that she would tell me - before running off and aborting - because I would help any of my kids if they were in that situation - but I would also respect that it was their decision - BECAUSE - it is their responsibility IF they have the baby.
If they can have sex - they can deal with the responsibilities.
Also - I think it is silly that a nurse cannot give a kid an asprin at school.
truelies
07-15-2003, 05:24 PM
This is SUCH a tough area. As a mother of a daughter - I told her at 16 that if she got into a sexual relationship before she was ready that she would be sorry later. We had a long talk about birth control and I told her that no matter what happened - I would help her get it if she needed it - but that I hoped it would not be necessary.
She is now 19 and still a virgin. And she intends to stay that way until married - but if she had gotten pregnant at a young age - I - although still being her mother - would then recognize the parent-child relationship that she and her baby would have if she was indeed to carry the baby to term.
I would HOPE that she would tell me - before running off and aborting - because I would help any of my kids if they were in that situation - but I would also respect that it was their decision - BECAUSE - it is their responsibility IF they have the baby.
If they can have sex - they can deal with the responsibilities.
Also - I think it is silly that a nurse cannot give a kid an asprin at school.
Suppose now that some person like our dear friend DG were in a position to influence and perhaps even do a bit of subtle mental arm twisitng to push your child in a certain choice direction while using YOUR tax dollars to pay for his activities and asserting a 'right of privacy' in your child's name that would make it illegal for you to know or influence what was going on. Certainly you would be livid just as are many folks on the otherside of this when this sort of interference in their families does take place.
Bottom line her this is the sort of issue that needs to be handled within a family. The Stae needs to not attempt to interfer in favor of either viewpoint.
Tiger
07-15-2003, 05:33 PM
Suppose now that some person like our dear friend DG were in a position to influence and perhaps even do a bit of subtle mental arm twisitng to push your child in a certain choice direction while using YOUR tax dollars to pay for his activities and asserting a 'right of privacy' in your child's name that would make it illegal for you to know or influence what was going on. Certainly you would be livid just as are many folks on the otherside of this when this sort of interference in their families does take place.
Bottom line her this is the sort of issue that needs to be handled within a family. The Stae needs to not attempt to interfer in favor of either viewpoint.
I disagree totally! Many many girls are forced or coerced into abortion BY family members. These girls have NO choice! And you may find it interesting to know that it is usually a FATHER who wants the abortion.
So it becomes a double-edged sword. If we allow parents to stop their daughter from having an abortion - we likewise need to allow them to coerce her into having an abortion. The buck has to stop somewhere. And I say it stops with the girl.
The girl at the moment of conception - becomes a potential parent herself. Her mother-child relationship takes precedence over that of her daughter-parent relationship in that issue.
I said - it is a TOUGH call - but it is also wrong to make folks think that most abortions are young girls without thier parents knowledge.
I sincerely wish for every young girl - that she NEVER needs face that decision - but if she finds herself there - I am going to back her - every step of the way.
Boyfriend and parents be damned - her pregnancy is HER's - not theirs.
And that, dear friend is where the rubber meets the road.
I think any son or daughter who becomes sexually active before 18 should be forced to pay rent and then they can have all the privacy they want. ;)
Tiger
07-15-2003, 05:45 PM
I think any son or daughter who becomes sexually active before 18 should be forced to pay rent and then they can have all the privacy they want. ;)
That is NOT a bad idea. A little dose of reality might fare them well.
Tiger
07-15-2003, 05:48 PM
And I think one of the biggest points that everyone is missing here - is that the parents of the pregnant girl have ALREADY had a chance to influence her life and if she is now pregnant - they might not have done a bang-up job.
But their parent-child relationship does NOT superced her mother-potential child relationship.
Let HER decide.
truelies
07-15-2003, 06:46 PM
I disagree totally! Many many girls are forced or coerced into abortion BY family members. These girls have NO choice! And you may find it interesting to know that it is usually a FATHER who wants the abortion.
So it becomes a double-edged sword. If we allow parents to stop their daughter from having an abortion - we likewise need to allow them to coerce her into having an abortion. The buck has to stop somewhere. And I say it stops with the girl.
The girl at the moment of conception - becomes a potential parent herself. Her mother-child relationship takes precedence over that of her daughter-parent relationship in that issue.
I said - it is a TOUGH call - but it is also wrong to make folks think that most abortions are young girls without thier parents knowledge.
I sincerely wish for every young girl - that she NEVER needs face that decision - but if she finds herself there - I am going to back her - every step of the way.
Boyfriend and parents be damned - her pregnancy is HER's - not theirs.
And that, dear friend is where the rubber meets the road.
I think you are somewhat misunderstanding my point here. I am not talking about parents being free to beat a child senseless to enforce their will in EITHER direction. What I am referring to is an opposition to the idea that some outside the family be allowed to use State money to manipulate these little girls into making the 'choice' that is on their agenda.
I think any son or daughter who becomes sexually active before 18 should be forced to pay rent and then they can have all the privacy they want. ;)
I hope you mean paying rent down the road somewhere, because I'll be darned if any teenager - paying rent or not - is going to disrespect me in my home in that manner.
Descartes
07-16-2003, 05:52 AM
Suppose now that some person like our dear friend DG were in a position to influence and perhaps even do a bit of subtle mental arm twisitng to push your child in a certain choice direction while using YOUR tax dollars to pay for his activities and asserting a 'right of privacy' in your child's name that would make it illegal for you to know or influence what was going on. Certainly you would be livid just as are many folks on the otherside of this when this sort of interference in their families does take place.
Bottom line her this is the sort of issue that needs to be handled within a family. The Stae needs to not attempt to interfer in favor of either viewpoint.
If you want this handled in the family, why do you keep asking for the government to step in and interfere on your part to make it illegal for any child to get birth control without parental consent? Seems you do want the state to step in, just on your side.
Descartes
07-16-2003, 06:02 AM
Of COURSE it's stealth, if the government sets up little clinics on the corner and in the schools where the kids can go, behind their prents backs to get birth control even though tha arents have decided that is not what they want their kids to do, that is stealth.How is that even possible with the government making a concerted effort to teach the kids to say "up yours!" to their parents?I am certainly not. Others might be under the assumption that giving kids birth control (for free!! and with Info!!) will make the kids use it and use it correctly. I don't think that's true. Nor do I think it's true that all the kids are "going to do it anyway"
I want the government to butt out. It is not up to them to decide where I might screw up, where I'm wrong in the values I want to teach my child and it sure as hell is not up to them to hand out birth control like it's candy and call it stupid things like "protection" and "safe sex" because it's not.
You keep asking the State to butt out, but then immediately ask them back in.
It also seems like you think the government is out there in sex ed classes saying "don't listen to your parents. sex is 100% safe if you use this stuff. sex is good for you . . . especially if your parents are against it. . . so go do it right now in the bathroom"
If that were the case . . . then yeah I'd have a problem with it too, but I really don't think that's the case. It's the parents responsibility to find out if that's what their kids are being told, and if it is to act on it. In this case I would think litigation might be an option.
It seems you are under the assumption that since kids are being given birth control that they then can't help but to have sex. No matter their upbringing. I'm living proof that just ain't true.
Descartes
07-16-2003, 06:18 AM
If you just want the State to step out completely, no sex ed classes, no free birth control, etc . . . I could probably go along with that. It then truly leaves it up to the parents to control. Fine. But as soon as you then ask for the force of government to step in and make laws to help you prevent your child from getting birth control without your consent, I will have to disagree. It's not the government's job. That's the parents' job.
I hope you mean paying rent down the road somewhere, because I'll be darned if any teenager - paying rent or not - is going to disrespect me in my home in that manner.
Then the other option is to toss the 16 year old out on their butts ... or come to terms with the fact your teenager is promiscuous.
It seems you are under the assumption that since kids are being given birth control that they then can't help but to have sex. No matter their upbringing. I'm living proof that just ain't true.
I think I've been quite clear that I do not think this is the case at all.
If you just want the State to step out completely, no sex ed classes, no free birth control, etc . . .
I believe, if you go back and read what I've written that I have stated clearly that I do not care whether the government gives out birth control, or conducts sex education control, just do not do it without parental knowledge or consent.
You seem to be under the impression that the government has your child's best interests at heart.
Descartes
07-16-2003, 11:51 AM
I believe, if you go back and read what I've written that I have stated clearly that I do not care whether the government gives out birth control, or conducts sex education control, just do not do it without parental knowledge or consent.
You seem to be under the impression that the government has your child's best interests at heart.
No. . . I just think the parent should have the ability to counter whatever 'wrong' info. the government may supply. Just like with anything the government says. My child will know that more often than not the government is usually wrong on most things. This wouldn't be any different.
And I don't think you can possibly say that the government is giving out birth control or sex ed without parental knowledge. I think it is common knowledge that the government does so and as such isn't a secret. If it were a se