Protective Parents Need Educating.

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Scuse me, indentured servant coming through. Don't mind me, I'm not part of the current debate.

<elbows through, launches random fireball, runs across room and hugs doormouse>

Okay, back to your debate.

 

[doormouse]

Scuse me, indentured servant coming through. Don't mind me, I'm not part of the current debate.

<elbows through, launches random fireball, runs across room and hugs doormouse>

Okay, back to your debate.

Fropes and then behaves

 

[Weird Harold]

But really, why teach kids things they don't need to know

I'm confused.

I can't recall anyone in this thread suggesting that children should be taught things they don't need to know. In fact, the whole premise of the thread to begin with is that many children aren't being taught what they DO need to know.

The only real debate has been how they should be taught, with just a touch of "when" it's appropriate to address the subject.

 

[cantdog]

Actually, doormouse, the first page is very sensible. Weird makes good points, TV does, and Pops is a fount of wisdom.

I recommend the first page.

 

[doormouse]

I'm confused.

I can't recall anyone in this thread suggesting that children should be taught things they don't need to know. In fact, the whole premise of the thread to begin with is that many children aren't being taught what they DO need to know.

The only real debate has been how they should be taught, with just a touch of "when" it's appropriate to address the subject.

I actually covered this in my initial comment.

And thanks cantdog, I don't get into debates.

 

[Weird Harold]

I actually covered this in my initial comment.

And thanks cantdog, I don't get into debates.

Not very well, or I probably wouldn't have been confused by that statement.

 

[doormouse]

I'm not even going to read prior posts after reading this page alone... eww too heated LOL

I totally agree with the topic in 'some' ways. But really, why teach kids things they don't need to know?

The only thing I was pissed at my Mum for, I got my period without knowing what it was, and thought I was sick.

My kids are young, but they already know certain things they should know about their bodies, without compromising their innocence.

Sex, they'll learn about when they're old enough. I'm protective, but for their sake, not to keep them in the dark for any specific purpose.

As a parent, you follow your own instincts, and shouldn't be badgered for choosing to do so.

*shuts up now.

Okay.

I'm not even going to read prior posts after reading this page alone... eww too heated LOL

I don't want to really know what this tread is about after reading page three. period.

 

[Guest]

Yeah, I mean like my parents were really overly protective but I didn't get pregnant or anything. Well once but that doesn't count cause I got aborted. But it's not like I got any diseases or anything.

 

[Teenage Venus]

AMICUS

Thank you for your last interjection. It seems it continues to live up to the expectations so many on here expect of your postings: Rather a lot of claptrap, twisted facts, nasty inuendoes, and the inevitable desire you have to try to provoke, whilst still 'flogging your dead horse' of illogical 'Gospel according to Amicus' postulations.

Unfortunately for you, any attempt to provoke this Chick is wasted effort. Your 'pronouncements' merely amuse me. I appologise for this as it is remiss of me to mock the afflicted. (If you are reading this, Mum, the only excuse I can offer is that you taught me - "Respect your elders - if they repect you." In this instance I feel we have an angry old man slipping in and out of his dotage between shuffling his carpet-slippered feet, and puffs on his pipe.)

Back to you, Amicus:

If you wish for a debate - on this or any other subject - in one of your more lucid moments, I'm happy to oblige. Thing is that you will need to show you are both serious, and temporarily in command of all your faculties. (This you have not demonstrated to me so far on this or any other thread.)

An earlier posting of mine which you may have missed is worth repeating for your benefit:

Ha, ha, ha. I thought a younger slant on his 'questions'!!! may give him chance to - to use his words - 'crank up the level of his vocabulary and the preciseness of his argument to another level.' Wishful thinking, I guess. He appears to have reached his plateau many moons ago. He remains in the same rut, it seems, and when at a loss to answer logically, introduces some other questionably worded 'question', with the either added insult or provocative invitation. It amuses me as a diversion from study. Keeping him happy on here cuts down his time stirring on other threads.

If you can prove me wrong by producing a logical comment without the tunnel-vision view, inuendoes, downright lies, posturing, and prevarications, condemnations, and liberally sprinkled crap, I will be happy to do so on a separate thread We could call it "Beauty And The Beast", and you could chose which character you wished to represent. (After all, beauty is only skin deep, and all of us have a beast within us.)

Apologies to others on the thread for my digression from what is meant to be a serious thread, and has been treated as such by most. I have learned from it, and hope it has given others pause to reflect on attitudes towards educating children of both sexes in various aspects of growing up.

Candida

 

[gothgodess]

AMICUS

Thank you for your last interjection. It seems it continues to live up to the expectations so many on here expect of your postings: Rather a lot of claptrap, twisted facts, nasty inuendoes, and the inevitable desire you have to try to provoke, whilst still 'flogging your dead horse' of illogical 'Gospel according to Amicus' postulations.

Unfortunately for you, any attempt to provoke this Chick is wasted effort. Your 'pronouncements' merely amuse me. I appologise for this as it is remiss of me to mock the afflicted. (If you are reading this, Mum, the only excuse I can offer is that you taught me - "Respect your elders - if they repect you." In this instance I feel we have an angry old man slipping in and out of his dotage between shuffling his carpet-slippered feet, and puffs on his pipe.)

Back to you, Amicus:

If you wish for a debate - on this or any other subject - in one of your more lucid moments, I'm happy to oblige. Thing is that you will need to show you are both serious, and temporarily in command of all your faculties. (This you have not demonstrated to me so far on this or any other thread.)

An earlier posting of mine which you may have missed is worth repeating for your benefit:

If you can prove me wrong by producing a logical comment without the tunnel-vision view, inuendoes, downright lies, posturing, and prevarications, condemnations, and liberally sprinkled crap, I will be happy to do so on a separate thread We could call it "Beauty And The Beast", and you could chose which character you wished to represent. (After all, beauty is only skin deep, and all of us have a beast within us.)

Apologies to others on the thread for my digression from what is meant to be a serious thread, and has been treated as such by most. I have learned from it, and hope it has given others pause to reflect on attitudes towards educating children of both sexes in various aspects of growing up.

Candida

I haven't been on for a few days ( had the flu yuck) and I have to say that while your initial arguments were good and valid you seem to have become a sterio type and are determined that everyone else is wrong. You want proof here goes.
My parents talked to me about sex in a very factual way Insert tab A into slot B and such until I was 14 and decided to start taking the pill ( with my mothers blessing. I had the worst PMT and very nasty symptoms so the GP sugested it may help.)
then my mum started telling me about the emotional implications and the problems that can arrise. If I had a problem I could tell her. at 15 I met my first boyfreind. my mum sat me down and told me that no matter what he said I had to decide if I was ready, she advised against it but told me If i did choose to sleep with him to use precautions. I went ahead and we broke up soon after. She never scolded me but just supported me and tried to give me good advise. I went on to become the girl parents warn their sons about. I was in short a slut. I had a man try and rape me and at 20 I was pregnant with my first child. I have smoked canabis and drunk till I couldn't stand and I did all this despite my parents being open and honest about what happens in the real world. They never tried to sheild me from it they just made sure I had all the facts. smoking kills, drugs are a poison all the things you want parents to talk about and guess what It didn't make any difference my freinds were doing it and I wanted to do it to. I did manage to avaoid vandalism and attacking old ladies however. I know that the only thing my parents did was the best they could and by letting me find out they were telling the truth my derailment only lasted till my son arrived. Then I settled down with his father and we are now married with two more kids. Strangely the only thing my parents explicitly forbade me to do was see him! everything else they just explained why I shouldn't do it.(they now think my hubbie is wonderful)
several freinds of mine fared no better despite understanding parents who descussed everything. I personally think that you should let your child be the guide. some need protecting soem are mature enough to be alowed to descover all you can do Is try methods and see which work.

I do however thin that alot of the problems are made worse by the media and the government. I remember being told by Tv shows and magazines and even school teachers that parents react badly when given bad news. there were artuicals and debates on how teenagers can't talk to their parents and many of my freinds became convinced that their parents would explode if they confided in them. I myself hid my depression from my parents for years as when I broched the subjsct with my college counciler I was told they may not understand so be sure you are strong enough! when I finally told them I was supprised to find they were suportive and understanding. So many people tell us you can't talk to any one you belive it. As for facilitys being vandalised yes it does happen. Our park had a crazy golf course and a play area. both have been recked by older teenagers, the last group caught were all over 18. A charity recently opened an internet cafe for teens, the local kid loved it intimidation of older residants dropped, grafitti dwindled away and no shop fronts were smashed. the council shut it down. They wouldn't renew the lease on the property. you say teens should be taught to respect people, it works both ways you need to give them respect too. Not all teens are thugs not all teens are having sex like rabbits not all teens are on drugs and not all teens drink. In the town where my mother lives they shut the youth club down, not because of vandalism but because they wanted the building for adult eduation, it sends out a great message, kids aren't as important as adults. now all they have to do is hang about, some created a skate park in an unused carpark with wood from the rubbish dump. The police moved them on despite no complaints being made. some of the local kid here play football in our street, it has a quiet col du sac but people complained they were making too much noise so parents now have to keep them in. how is this their fult, I live directly oposite the close and Have my windows open all summer and I couldn't here them! i will leave it their and hope that this makes you see teenagers don't listen because they are told we don't care and only want to yell at them. And society keeps prooving them right.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Blissful ignorance of youth, BS?

Innocence is overrated. So is youth.

Every age has its appeal, and sex is something that is NOT best the first time, but rather gets better and better the more you know.

There's nothing blissful with not knowing what the dirty old man wants when he asks you to come home with him to look at his puppy.
There's nothing blissful with not knowing how to defend yourself against a creep that doesn't understand the word "no".
There's nothing blissful with getting overwhelmed with new and strange emotions that make you lie down with your sweetheart only to suddenly experience pain and bleeding, and 9 months later be a teenage parent.

I say, let young teenagers know about sex, let them know how to enjoy mere cunnilingus and fellatio or hand touching. Teach them to use a condom. Teach them that sex is wonderful and funny and nice and great, but that it also requires tact and carefulness and obeying the rules - a bit like traffic.

 

[Pure]

Amicus said, in two postings,

My contention which has drawn fire from all quarters is basically this, 'that there is a rational, logical and absolute system of ethics and morality than can be derived from the nature of man; that there is a moral 'good' and a moral 'evil' that can be comprehended and used to formulate ones personal morality and code of ethics...."

"Only in my own consciousness will I decide which is which." said the young Venus.

Hear the words of all the tyrants in the history of man. Hear the justification of the pogroms of Stalin, the Ovens of Adolph and the poison gas of Saddam. Hear it and listen well my Lit friends, it is the voice of the future.
-----
-----

Worry not about the Homeland Security Act, fear instead this child and millions like her, who decide that 'her own consciousness' requires your property or your life. She will take it with out a backwards glance or a shred of reluctance for it, 'pleases her.'

-----
===

What a weird upside down world amicus lives in. He wants objective morality, and hates those who want a relativistic or subjective view. He then proposes that somehow this problem is in the thinking/actions of Stalin, Adolph, Saddam, and Ashcroft.

Yet, in all probability each of these *agrees* with Amicus' objectivism, esp. Ashcroft.

Of course, those who believe in an 'objective standard' --like the 'one god' theologians, can never agree among themselves.
Hence the problems they create for the rest of mankind, enforcing their 'objective standard.'

Amicus might respond that he doesn't want his 'objective morality' enforced by an authoritarian government, whereas Stalin and Ashcroft do. As did Calvin.

Well, there's the first point the 'objectivists' can't agree: Assuming ftsoa, there is an objective morality, should it be enforced, authoritiatively by the government? *Perhaps* Ashcroft says 'yes' and Amicus says 'no', BUT there's no resolving that difference, esp. by appealing the the 'nature of man'.

 

[Teenage Venus]

I haven't been on for a few days ( had the flu yuck) and I have to say that while your initial arguments were good and valid you seem to have become a sterio type and are determined that everyone else is wrong. You want proof here goes.

Firstly, I hope you got over your flu, and are feeling better.

I'm not sure if it is me you think has become a stereotype, and is determined that everyone else is wrong. If it is I will let others judge the correctness or otherwise of your statement.

If you read all my postings you should find that I think parents AND children are part of the problem, and part of the solution. I also suggest that sensible education, and a good relationship between parent and child are more likely to have a successful outcome than mollycodling, or over-strictness.

I found your offer of proof confusing, as I could not work out exactly what you were giving me proof of.

One thing your story did indicate to me is that no matter how good some parents are in educating their daughter, ultimately, it is the daughter that decides how to use the knowledge. In your case it seems, it was mostly a waste of time, as you chose to be more influenced by your friends and their habits than your loving parents. Well, shit happens.

Main thing is that you sound happy and settled now.

The rest of your statement is only too typical of many places. Councils and older residents can be selfish at the expense of youth at times.

More often it is a 'Catch 22' situation: Elders don't want to provide facilities for youths that vandalise them. Youths turn to vandalism because facilities are not there. Like most conflicts, it is a small minority - in this case - of older persons and younger persons which control events for the vast majority. The only thing fair about life is that it is unfair to everybody.

 

[Guest]

... I say, let young teenagers know about sex, let them know how to enjoy mere cunnilingus and fellatio or hand touching. Teach them to use a condom. Teach them that sex is wonderful and funny and nice and great, but that it also requires tact and carefulness and obeying the rules - a bit like traffic.

I like this attitude best of all. I'd leave "love", romance and marriage out of it, i.e., tell kids they don't necessarily go with sex and don't get them confused. Also be sure they know sex without love/romance/marriage is just fine, no big deal. The traffic analogy is perfect, could save lives.

Perdita

 

[amicus]

The post above this one included:


"... Also be sure they know sex without love/romance/marriage is just fine, no big deal..."


Sex without love...without romance...without marriage is just fine; yeah, sure it is.

Even Teenage Venus had the grace to compare sex to a sport, recreational.

When I mentioned earlier that the chickens had come home to roost on the moral vacuum of humanism, brown bag ethics and situational morality, I could not have created a better example than the quote above.

The most intimate, personal, deepest relationship between a man and a woman; one that affects the psyche, ego and libido and touches upon the very roots of our deepest emotions and most human ties...and you wonder why the prescription party for mixed up women goes on?

The charade continues...


amicus



Human action without consequence or concern existing in a vacuum without meaning, involvement or even a thought of right and wrong, good and bad...why have a mind at all if you never use it...

 

[amicus]

Gothgoddess (uk)


Thank you for having the courage to lay it all out on a very personal basis and provide a window for many to have their first look at a 'real' situation.

That special age between childhood and maturity has been a concern of every society that ever was.

It has never been easy, perhaps it never will be, perhaps the nature of the transition is such that angst and pain and fear and indecision is the natural 'weeding out' process that determines which genes continue on and which do not.

Gothgoddess survived, most do, one way or another, with more scars or less of that traumatic transition, many do not. Teen and pre teen suicide, cutting, mutilation, disease, prostitution, drug involvement are just a few of the pitfalls of contemporary teens.

Gothgoddess gave a believable recount of parental concern and the attempt to provide information and emotional help and concern. What was missing?

I read back through her post twice, in order to help answer my own question. What was missing in what she related?

Facts and information without a moral foundation might be compared to teaching a child the facts of how to drive an automobile without describing the reality of the consequences. Or, perhaps, teaching a child how to use a firearm, all the information and facts, without describing the consequences of pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger.

Providing a young female with contraceptives is akin to giving her a license for sex. Yes, I know all the 'pro' arguments.

A young female is physically capable of conceiving years before the mind or the body is ready to reproduce.

Why nature is that way, I cannot say, but it is.

Nature also provides the hormonal impetus towards copulation at an age earlier than most will admit.

So you have a neighborhood of young boys and girls, aged ten and up, left alone for a large part as both parents or the single parent work. You provide them with contraception, radio with sexually based music, television with sexually based content, alcohol in the fridge in many cases, grass easily available and you sit back and watch and then wonder why.

Thanks again Goth...perhaps your vivid description will open a few eyes and perhaps, just perhaps, others will see 'what was missing.."

Amicus...

 

[amicus]

Pure wrote...



"What a weird upside down world amicus lives in. He wants objective morality, and hates those who want a relativistic or subjective view. He then proposes that somehow this problem is in the thinking/actions of Stalin, Adolph, Saddam, and Ashcroft.

Yet, in all probability each of these *agrees* with Amicus' objectivism, esp. Ashcroft.

Of course, those who believe in an 'objective standard' --like the 'one god' theologians, can never agree among themselves.
Hence the problems they create for the rest of mankind, enforcing their 'objective standard.'

Amicus might respond that he doesn't want his 'objective morality' enforced by an authoritarian government, whereas Stalin and Ashcroft do. As did Calvin.

Well, there's the first point the 'objectivists' can't agree: Assuming ftsoa, there is an objective morality, should it be enforced, authoritiatively by the government? *Perhaps* Ashcroft says 'yes' and Amicus says 'no', BUT there's no resolving that difference, esp. by appealing the the 'nature of man'."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

First off, Amicus is not an 'Objectivist' or a 'Libertarian', as a matter of fact old Amicus claims no membership in anything other than the human race and many seem to doubt that.

Both of these groups advocate and approve of Abortion, I do not, I hold that as the premeditated taking of innocent human life.

I also hold no 'beliefs' in anything, I do not 'believe' that an objective moral standard exists, I 'know' it.(Knowing is a function of the mind, believing is a function of emotions."

Never have I advocated that 'government' impose a moral standard. Government should function only to 'protect' those ennumerated rights.

The primary means of transmitting this 'objective moral standard' rests with the mature adults in any society. Those who raise a family by those standards and conduct their affairs with others according to those standards.

amicus...

 

[Pure]

While I'm not out of sympathy with certain amicus remarks about sex being linked with feelings and attachments, the followin shows the ridiculousness of the claim to find an 'objective** morality' through examining human nature:

A young female is physically capable of conceiving years before the mind or the body is ready to reproduce.

Why nature is that way, I cannot say, but it is.

Nature also provides the hormonal impetus towards copulation at an age earlier than most will admit.

Exactly. Nature supplies early sexual impulses.


So you have a neighborhood of young boys and girls, aged ten and up, left alone for a large part as both parents or the single parent work. You provide them with contraception, radio with sexually based music, television with sexually based content, alcohol in the fridge in many cases, grass easily available and you sit back and watch and then wonder why.

This is irrelevant. Amicus already stated nature supplies the urges. Teen copulation has been going on for millenia, and in Romeo and Juliet, etc. The TV, liquor, grass availabilty at most adds a little opportunity.

There is an obvious question Amicus can't answer objectively:
Is it moral--if they use some prudence-- for teens to copulate, etc. like bunnies.? He cannot 'know' a valid answer to this.

The impulse is there in nature, and what 'objective' moralists can't answer is: Is it right to 'go with' the impulse, or rein it in a little or a lot, or try to suppress it? 'Objective' thinking gives no answer, and no way to know the answer.

Amicus traditionalist leanings seem to suggest he'd rein things in, (or strongly encourage the teens to do so), but that, I say, is simply a moral-conservative prejudice without 'objective' foundation.

It's not a matter he 'knows', since that would implies some objective truth behind this position. In simple terms, Amicus has no more 'objective' reasons to support reining in [or to know that that's the right approach], than Svenska has for (prudent) universal sucking. Amicus 'knows' no more than Svenska, in this matter.
-----

PS. Please note that like Ashcroft, another person who 'knows' the correct moral standard, Amicus throws up his hands at the libertinism of the age. In fact they simply share a bias without any objective basis.

**PPS. I don't use the word 'objective' or 'objectivist' as linked esp. to characters like Rand. I mean (by objective) factually determinable, capable of being decided among sane humans,
using agreed scientific procedures. The 'objective' moralist thinks that asking 'is teen sex right' is like asking 'does water boil at 100C'. The subjective moralist thinks the question is more like asking "Are the Harry Potter movies fun?"

 

[amicus]

Pure...


"There is an obvious question Amicus can't answer objectively:
Is it moral--if they use some prudence-- for teens to copulate, etc. like bunnies.? He cannot 'know' a valid answer to this."


Geez, Pure...try using a little 'objectivity' yourself, try something new for a change.

How would you answer your own question?

To make it easier for you, replace your word, 'copulate' with some other action that requires choice, such as, 'murder' rape, theft, chopping the tails off of cats or drowning puppies, pick any act you choose and then describe how you determine the 'rightness or 'wrongness' or 'morality' of it.

Even expand that to the positive side, should a teenager mow the lawn without being asked, wash a car, clean the room, give the dog a bath, study beyond what is required, read a book... all of the actions...taken by choice, have a reason, reasoning, behind them...how does a person make such choices and have at least a clue that it was a 'right' choice, a 'good' choice?

Further, by postulating that 'urges' do exist, I do not imply that those urges overwhelm the rational thought process, they need not. They can..if unchecked, uncontrolled, but then, that is what maturation is all about, you can't have everything you want all the time, you have to make decisions. That is the point, decisions made on what? The Non absolute subjective relative way or the objective rational way? You choose.

Or will you just take a vote and get a 'concensus' from like minded Liberals?

Amicus...

 

[amicus]

I may be talking to myself, if so, then so be it...

On the way to the Market (I walk) I had a thought about Victor Hugo and his Novel, Les Miserables...

It is a morality play, where the main character, Jean ValJean, steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving child. It has been many years since I read the story, not sure of all the details, but he is caught or pursued by a police officer for the rest of his life over stealing that loaf of bread.

The moral issue in this world famous work is not whether stealing the bread was wrong,(morally and ethically wrong), even the French (who don't know much) understood that to steal was 'wrong'.

The moral question was whether circumstances can ever justify theft, ( a moral wrong) and secondly just how long should the 'state' pursue a 'criminal' and what should be the extent of his punishment.

Those questions have been debated in high schools and colleges every since...circumstances, conflict of values, pursuit and punishment.

What is not debated, even by high school freshmen, is the acknowledgement that to 'steal' is wrong. Absolutely, objectively, morally and ethically wrong. A universal acceptance of a moral absolute. Even in high school they acknowledge that.

Not here on the Literotica Authors Hangout forum with all the sophisticated worldly authors, oh, no, not at all.

"There are no absolutes!" they sing in three part harmony, stating an absolute all their own.

Well, I am off... as a Tropical Storm, about to become a Hurricane is at my door.

Amicus...

 

[Guest]

... about Victor Hugo and his Novel, Les Miserables...
It is a morality play,
...
The moral issue in this world famous work is not whether stealing the bread was wrong,
...
The moral question was whether circumstances can ever justify theft, ( a moral wrong) and secondly just how long should the 'state' pursue a 'criminal' and what should be the extent of his punishment.

Les Miserables is a novel. A "morality play" is a nonliturgical religious drama, a forerunner to the development of English drama.

You identified one major plot thread is all.

You do not know half of what you write, and it rarely has anything to do with the discussion you intrude upon. Please do not now explain what you really meant to say.

Perdita

 

[rgraham666]

Hey! Leave the pipe smokers out of this!

I smoke a pipe. And I the only thing I have in common with our 'friend' is biochemistry and one of Earth's major language groups.

At least I think it's English. I can read the words fine, but none of the thoughts carried by them quite seem to hang together.

 

[amicus]

No need to explain, everyone but you knows.

 

[gauchecritic]

to'steal' is wrong. Absolutely, objectively, morally and ethically wrong. A universal acceptance of a moral absolute. Even in high school they acknowledge that.

Amicus...

You forgot to mention that absolutes by definition have diametric opposites.

Property is theft.

Debate that.

Gauche

 

[cantdog]

No need to explain, everyone but you knows.

The laws about stealing bread and sleeping under bridges are made by people too rich ever to need to steal bread.

When a rich woman was arrested in my town for stealing, she was referred to a therapist. She was too well placed to be a thief. She was instead a klepto.

She received a summons and did not even spend a night in jail.

Fuck you and your absolute prohibition that prevents a starving child from having bread. I have been waiting days for you to finally come up with any example of a naturally derived absolute moral rule.

Pretty lousy example, a rule that in its majestic objectivity bears so equally upon all men, regardless of condition.


No. It is bait, people. He is only making another swing with the damn bait. Quit biting it. Ignore the ass.