ChatRoom Anxiety & Paranoia (CRAP) - Page 3

[laralou]

NM, I know it doesn't always work. That is why I said I would never begrudge a parent the right to limit something that can be harmful. I also agree that your daughter was probably relieved to get caught. My mother was a lot like I imagine you are, and frankly, it took a load off my brother and I to be able to use her as an "excuse" for not doing a lot of stuff we really didn't want to do in the first place, kwim?

I didn't read the original thread, but from what I read here, I would agree with you.

[Dan Frank]

Dagnabbit!
Go away a day, and look how much I have to catch up!

I'm suppressing my urge to respond to every little part of every post, because, well, I'd be here all night. (edit: Since El posted a great deal of information of her own, however, I seem to have ended up doing just that)

Let me first say that this post is about the statistics. I would hope anyone reading this would also read (or read instead) the post that shall soon follow this, because it is, to me, perhaps even more important.


El's, as always, you challenge me to defend my argument, and provide a cohesive argument of your own. For that, I thank you.

I had not intended this thread to somehow be a consolation the families of victims... that is simply not it's purpose. I certainly feel a great deal of sympathy for them... but I fail to see why that sympathy should affect my opinion.

Keep in mind - these stats are nearly 2 years old. Do you suppose the numbers have gone up or down now that so many more are online?

I suppose the solid numbers would have increased slightly. Why do you think I provided significantly more static percentages?

19% reported getting an unwanted sexual solicitation in the past year 1, which the study estimates, equals 4-5 million children. These are 4-5 million REAL PEOPLE. Real, live people. Let's not trivialize this, it is certainly not trivial to the victims.

I disagree with the italicized part of the statement, as that percentage is very misleading.

As I posted, the much more telling statistic is the 5% of distressing solicitations... solicitations which pissed off, scared, or just plain freaked out the victim.

I shall draw analogies to real life... but then, any such analogous situation is by definition more dangerous, because such a situation can not be resolved by a few clicks of a mouse.

The 20%... the 'unwanted sexual solicitation', in effect amounts to a vulgar catcall as one walks by a construction site. Certainly unwanted, undoubtedly annoying and perhaps, depending on the situation, a bit scary.... but likely trivial. Not something to lose sleep over.

The 5%... this is the category in which to place the stalkers, the constant harassers, etc.

But even 5% of the teens on the net being harassed comes to a large number, easily thousands. But then, here are some stats I got from a survey conducted by Louis Harris and Associates for the American Association of University Women.

This poll, unfortunately, only covered 8-11th graders... nonetheless... 85% of girls and 76% of boys reported being sexually harassed.... in person. That's a pretty big step up from 5%, no?

This was way back in '93, but I don't know of anything that's happened since then to drastically increase or decrease the number of teens harassed.

The poll may well have been biased.... much the same way "Safeguarding Our Children" might post a slightly biased poll. I accepted the potential bias against me, because even with it the facts aren't particularly bleak.

25% reported receiving "unwanted exposure to pictorial images of naked people or people having sex," which the study estimates equals 5.4-6.4 million children.

This is extremely misleading.....and here is why.

71% of "unwanted exposures" occurred while the youth was searching or surfing the Internet, and 28% happened when opening e-mail or clicking on links in e-mail.

My math isn't very good, but I do believe 71 and 28 add up to 99... which means 99% of the exposure had nothing to do with chatrooms!

How Youth Was Exposed
• Surfing the Web 72%
• Opening E-mail or Clicking on an E-mail Link 30%

Within surfing the web they have this section:
How Web Site Came Up
• Link Came Up as Result of Search 36%
• Misspelled Web Address 18%
• Clicked on Link When In Other Site 24%
• Other 18%
• Don’t Know 3%

Of course, some kids have been exposed to unwanted material through chatrooms... so why didn't the poll get it?

It did.

The thing is, this poll counted chatroom exposure as a sexual solicitation, because it was a person showing another person a specific picture.

Therefore... all the kids who were traumatized by pictures in chatrooms... are already counted in the above 5%

It seems to me that 5% is extremely important. According to El, the survey lists that as 9 hundred thousand to 1.4 million kids... a lot of kids... of course, it is a small percentage (I think it just might be 5) of the total kids on the net...

Some will say "if it can happen at all, then that's too much! I don't want to put my kid in danger!"

For you (and for everyone else who posted and hasnt gotten a reply), see the below posts. This one is long enough.

[Dan Frank]

LaLa, no one needs an apology

I'm just curious (assuming this topic has any significance to you), if you don't go by stats coupled with a sound argument (yes, I'm arrogant, I think my argument is sound)... what will you go on? Statistics certainly aren't fact, but, imo, they're at least a little more reliable than the personal account of someone you happen to know.

Barbara, it's happening again!
I read your post, and I just go nodding along "yep, mmhm, right on, yeah..." and then suddenly pause, and realize I still have something to disagree about. Don't take it personally... I'm a very disagreeable person

Basically, I agree with everything but that which the following statement disagrees with:
Just because the parent knows the kid better than an onlooker, the kid knows himself better. The parent has the right to help their kid, but is
not justified (imo) in suppressing the child's own opinions just because the parent thinks he or she "knows best".

I think the parent should help their kid to know when the kid is ready for something. The parent should just tell the kid.


Sarahwebb, I don't know any kid who would want their parent oppress them from their needs just because the kid left a box of condoms or a stack of porn on his dresser. Certainly, as NM says, sometimes kids want to use their parents as an excuse, to avoid uncomfortable social situations.... but that is not the same as being forgetful.

(edit:This next bit kinda became a rant. Not aimed directly at you sarah.)

No offense, but it really annoys me to hear people say, in effect, "oh, yeah, your kid wanted you to ground him, that's why he left that bag of weed in his sock drawer... he knew you'd go snooping and knew what he was doing was wrong!"
Or maybe he A) trusts you, or B) was stoned when he hid it.
Instead of excusing yourself for oppressing kids, maybe a better solution would be to talk to your kids and let em make their own darn decisions.

-end rant-

There is a difference between ignoring your kid (likely what happened to the troubled youths you worked with, sarah), and being involved with your kid without being oppressive. it is indeed an incredibly delicate balance... but I think it is good for parents to at least strive for that balance.

Dailylily, I'll keep this brief, because I've already posted too much tonight.

1) you were 10... there is a big difference between 10 and 11, or 12, or 13, or 14, or 15, and so on. Still gonna ban chat during those years? (not that I am for banning 10 year olds... but I've been focusing more on teens)

2)

Also, as I think my experience illustrates, a virtual sexual come on can be traumatic even if the agressor never touches or is even in the same city with the child.

But in your experience, you were in the same city as the person... the same room, even! In person, as a rule, is scarier than online, because it is simply more real.

3)

do what you can to keep the pervs away from your kids. You can't do this 100% of the time, but eliminating chat is one way.

As is locking your kid in a closet.

4)

Also, I don't see why a parent forbidding chat *in their own home* seems so threatening to some. I can guide my children away from books I think are too mature for them, but that's not the same as demanding that those books be removed from libraries. (And before anyone jumps on me, I don't censor my children's reading. But if ds wants to read a book I feel might be distressing for him, I'll just say, "I think you should wait until you're older to read that.") Years ago (again when I was 10) my class read exerpts from "Julie of the Wolves" I enjoyed them and checked the book out of the library so I could read the whole thing. There's a rape scene in that book! (Maybe attempted rape, I can't remember.) What I DO remember is feeling shocked and distressed and a bit betrayed that no adult had warned me about what was in that book.

THis proves my point. What's wrong with censoring what they read? Why is it so much different that censoring what they do online?

As for the book... that is a perfect analogy!
I'm not advocating ignoring what your kid does, as your reading of that book was ignored. I'm in favor of someone telling you "you sure you wanna read that? it's got some stuff you might not like, such as..." etc. I'm not in favor of someone telling you "You can't read that, it's got bad stuff!" and snatching the book from your hand.

[Dan Frank]

Laralou!

Laralou... (no, I didn't ignore you )

Cynthia already told me I couldn't have Princess Post-A-Lot...
But I'm not one to give up. When the time comes (i.e. in about a billion more posts ), I shall wrest the Title from your hands. To draw an analogy to a the loathesome sport called 'professional' wrestling.... I'll take the Belt!!

If I can't usurp your place.... I'll just be Emperor Post-A-Lot

[LaLa]

Originally posted by Dan Frank
LaLa, no one needs an apology

I'm just curious (assuming this topic has any significance to you), if you don't go by stats coupled with a sound argument (yes, I'm arrogant, I think my argument is sound)...
[

Well, you said a mouthful, didn't you

teehee

[Dan Frank]

Last post here tonight, just wanna say...

I wish someone would read and address, instead of just my stats, one of my analogies. The sushi one is my favorite. Either A) do you support a parent's right to ban Sushi for their kids, or B) do you think it isn't similar at all?

How about walking down the street? A or B?



NM... I know you do. I gave up long ago trying to convince you, or those who make this decision in a similar way, because I can't argue with you and don't want to browbeat. THe only reason I still post here is for anyone who's still undecided.... i.e. lurkers.... (sigh) that wasnt meant to offend but it probably will... sorry...

[barbara]

You know Dan, I feel like I'm talking to one of my own kids with you.....I can't disagree with you when you say that Kids should be making thier own decisions. I think kids who have parents that don't allow them to make choices and learn from their mistakes end up having a pretty hard time as adults...if they ever do grow up. Ok, I know that is a generalization, but I have worked with youth and seen some pretty handicaped discission makers.
So...in theory, I agree that teenagers should be making their own decisions, but as a parent I know that in reality they are not always ready to make wise and informed choices. You see I don't think there is a black and white answer here. There are too many variables.....the maturity of the child, the history of the child's past choices, the relationship the parent and child have with one another, the danger of the situation and the consequences of a poor choice on the child's part.
Now for the sushi analogy.....YES I would feel perfectly justified in banning sushi from my house. Now if the child wanted to have sushi elsewhere....well, I would make sure they were well educated about sushi so they could make an informed choice. And btw, my son recently tried some shusi and found it wanting! Such a discerning child