Watch your girls!!!! Please! - Page 3

[irinam]

Originally Posted by caitlinsmom

I think "watching our girls" needs to start at birth by teaching/showing them it is possible to be a strong, feeling, emotional, lovable and sexual person without being destructive.

Well said

[moondiapers]

Originally Posted by kama'aina mama

I would assume that the bracelets in question are those rubber bracelets a la the Lance Armstrong one? Am I wrong? If so they have really only been around a bit over a year, I think.

No, the ones that they use for the sex meanings are the old style jelly bracelets. The boy is the break it off of the girl's wrist to get the favor he wants.


-Heather
who's 19yo sister has gone to one of these parties

[julie128]

Why is this always on the girl? Who do you think girls have sex with? Houseplants? Why does no one teach their sons to have a little respect for girls?

A little O.T. I remember seeing a film in sex ed in high school on date rape. The film showed a scenario in which a boy lured a girl into a situation where he could rape her. After the film, the teacher asked the class, "What mistakes did the girl make?" Years later, I wondered why he hadn't asked, "What mistake did the boy make?"

I wonder if boys feel equally pressured into having sex. Maybe they do.

This is not about watching our daughters. This is about watching our children. Not spying, just keeping tabs, making sure that parties are supervised, that we know their friends and their friends' parents. Teaching them right from wrong, so that they know what decision to make when in the situation. And, if they decide "wrong" to tell them we love them anyway.

[Dov]

We "plan" to watch our son and our daughter equally and work through our own issues without plastering those issues onto them in the process. I hope our plan works out...

Sounds to me like the bracelet party thing is 9 parts media (all corporate media is entertainment—i.e. titillation, teaser—driven) hyperbole and 1 part anecdotal reality. Frankly I was drawn in by the O.P. but the more I read the thread the less I could get worked up about it. I remember doing lots of really dumb-ass things when I was in adolescence. My parents spied and pried and shamed and accused my behavior and lifestyle constantly. What did I get for all their "watching me"? A decade in therapy and the expense that came with it.

What I learned was that as much as Puritanical America wants children (pre-teen and teen) to be sexless, the truth is they're just human first and icons not at all. I would rather have had my parents spend more time teaching me about self-control and wisdom, how relationships really work and don't work, all the while being flooded with hormones--- you can teach someone to surf on land but until they get into the surf itself they'll never actually learn to surf well at all.

ITA with the posters asking about the boys. Being an older boy myself, and one who was adored by every date's mom I ever met, leaving them out of the accountability mix is just plain dumb. Having said that, giving boys the "respect" drill is meaningless. We have to teach boys and girls alike how relationships work and don't work, and then we have to have the guts to give them the space and developmentally appropriate supervision to mess up without binding them to mandatory minimum sentences (like compulsory pregnancy, etc.) and other irreversible consequences. Personally I am more concerned with learning what I'll need as a Dad to make that happen in a good way in a culture with no healthy or sufficient models for how that would look. What scares me is that the looney Puritan cult will inflict zero tolerance and other hyperbolic abuse on my kids so much that they'll just give up and give in... do we ever consider what our parental pressure does to our kids? We always blame it on peer pressure but my own experience tingles like spidey-senses... the microscope of my own parents combined with the lack of real tools I could use, it was a guarantee of failure.

In the meantime, supervise the party activities sure, but not from a panicked hyper-Puritanical microscoping urge brought on by titillation-obsessed corporate media hyperbole. Can we supervise from a place of love and awareness of our kids' developmental needs instead?

[caitlinsmom]

Originally Posted by julie128

I wonder if boys feel equally pressured into having sex. Maybe they do.

Definatly! My 15 yo bros feel really pressured. One already had sex and the other struggles with if he should or shouldnt everyday. All their friends have so they want to fit in. I think that is crappy.

ITA about the boy thing. I think society has made so many forget about boys since they are supposed to be "strong and manly" while girls are to be weak and submissive, which is why I think we focus on girls more in these topics. We cant expect children to develop the skills to have healthy relationships if we continue to pin the responsiblity solely on one sex.

[Marsupialmom]

Originally Posted by julie128

Why is this always on the girl? Who do you think girls have sex with? Houseplants? Why does no one teach their sons to have a little respect for girls?

A little O.T. I remember seeing a film in sex ed in high school on date rape. The film showed a scenario in which a boy lured a girl into a situation where he could rape her. After the film, the teacher asked the class, "What mistakes did the girl make?" Years later, I wondered why he hadn't asked, "What mistake did the boy make?"

I wonder if boys feel equally pressured into having sex. Maybe they do.

This is not about watching our daughters. This is about watching our children. Not spying, just keeping tabs, making sure that parties are supervised, that we know their friends and their friends' parents. Teaching them right from wrong, so that they know what decision to make when in the situation. And, if they decide "wrong" to tell them we love them anyway.

I think it is not only teaching boys to have respect for girls. I think the boys need to be taught respect for themselves.

I agree with who ever said we are putting this in stereo type scenarios boys=strong girls=weak.

My nephew at 12 use to get condoms from girls. No pressure to have sex there (sarcasm). Also this bracelet thing it is not just something boy are doing to girls. It is a game that both parties are making victims of each other. Both parties have to follow the rules to this game.

Our attitudes are also say women get nothing out of sex, just males. I think things holds our (female) sexual enjoyments views skewed. Encouraging the ideas that sex is just something that happens to woman instead of something you can initiate, enjoy, and desire. Societals current views promote the mentality that it is OK for men to be horn dogs but not women. If a guy wants sex all the time it is normal but not for women, and IMO that is wrong.

[Fishygirlsmom]

Originally Posted by UUMom

'giggling like it was no big deal"? Giggling from embarassment, maybe.

Now we are supposed to beleive this girl is a slut on top of it all? There is so much more going on for teens than this.

Most people who are in social services or human services know, or should know, that inappropriate reactions/emotions when faced with someone tramatic is a real red flag. It means there is more here than meets the eye.

I have also heard of this and believe itto be an urban legend. Has anyone personally known a teen who goes to these parties and hasn't heard about it from a third or fourthhand source?

[Fishygirlsmom]

I think all who are involved with boys should read "Raising Cain". Then you would see just how vulnerable boys really are.

[UUMom]

Boys get a raw raw deal in our cutlure.

The pressures on boys are often different, but no less dramatic.

[pfamilygal]

The reason I said that we should watch our girls is because girls seem to bear more of the physical consequences of sexual activities. Boys don't contract STD's as easily and do not get pregnant. Boys do not have near the risk of developing permanent life-changing infertility.

Yes, we will be watching our son too. And teaching him about how real men act - with self-control. Yes, hormones are real, but we are not animals who must obey them without thinking.

[KnitterMama]

Originally Posted by Fishygirlsmom

Most people who are in social services or human services know, or should know, that inappropriate reactions/emotions when faced with someone tramatic is a real red flag. It means there is more here than meets the eye.

That's just what I was thinking ... I learned that on Day 3 of nursing school.

Not only that, but the care providers really should be digging deeper to find-out what exactly is going on here, regardless of if she had giggled or not. I hope the OP has a good poker face, otherwise the girl's suspicions about how much she can trust adults and talk about sex were probably confirmed (like if she felt she was being judged).

[applejuice]

What would you define as an inappropriate response?

Is there a list of appropriate responses somewhere?

I have heard of this when suspects are arrested, and I do not know what exactly they mean. I have up to this time been cooperative with law enforcement, but not anymore.

I have been a door mat too many times.

[CaraboosMama]

Originally Posted by pfamilygal

The reason I said that we should watch our girls is because girls seem to bear more of the physical consequences of sexual activities. Boys don't contract STD's as easily and do not get pregnant. Boys do not have near the risk of developing permanent life-changing infertility.

Actually - that is totally false. Not only are boys equally (if not more at risk)for STD's including HIV, but certain STD's (gonorrhea and chlymidia (sp?) spring to mind) will cause sterility in men if not treated properly. And , generally speaking, the syptoms of many STD's are less symptomatic in men, and men are less likely to seek treatement due to social stigma and believing myths like "boys are less likely to get STD"s!" And of course, AIDS will permanently change a man's life - by ending it.


just an aside....No one want to see children and teens of either sex get STD's or face the adult decsions surrounding an unplanned pregnancy. Education - teaching the facts & teaching self-respect - is necessary. Getting worked up everytime you see a kid wearing a jelly bracelet isn't.

[CookieMonsterMommy]

Originally Posted by pfamilygal

Yes, we will be watching our son too. And teaching him about how real men act - with self-control. Yes, hormones are real, but we are not animals who must obey them without thinking.

1st of all, we ARE animals. And no one said we must obey them without thinking. I know (and hope you do too) that many teenagers and adults actually like (and choose) to follow their hormones on this, because it feels good to do so. That doesn't make them more or less irresponsible than those who choose not to act on these impulses.

Real men act with self control?!? So having sex means you lack self control? Or is it just having sex out side of marriage? The issue with "sex parties" is respect--for ones self and for others, not self control. I think I'm pretty much done with this thread..... :

Caraboo, I agree totally with your 2nd paragraph, but the 1st one is incorrect--well, the part about males contracting STDs. They are generally less likely to catch STDs like HIV and gonorrhea/chlamydia, mostly due to the nature of those diseases and the was sex works. Those diseases are most easily transmitted from one mucous membrane to another. A male's exposed mucous membrane is just the meatus (pee hole, if you will), whereas a females entire genital area is composed of mucous membranes. Also if a man ejaculates into the female, that bacteria or virus is basically sitting inside her vagina, cervix and uterus (and peritoneal cavity possibly), which are all basically mucous membranes. Sucks, but thems the breaks I guess.

Of course that does NOT mean that men can't get them, nor should men/boys be given that impression.

Kelly

[CaraboosMama]

Originally Posted by CookieMonsterMommy

Caraboo, I agree totally with your 2nd paragraph, but the 1st one is incorrect--well, the part about males contracting STDs. They are generally less likely to catch STDs like HIV and gonorrhea/chlamydia, mostly due to the nature of those diseases and the was sex works. Those diseases are most easily transmitted from one mucous membrane to another. A male's exposed mucous membrane is just the meatus (pee hole, if you will), whereas a females entire genital area is composed of mucous membranes. Also if a man ejaculates into the female, that bacteria or virus is basically sitting inside her vagina, cervix and uterus (and peritoneal cavity possibly), which are all basically mucous membranes. Sucks, but thems the breaks I guess.

Of course that does NOT mean that men can't get them, nor should men/boys be given that impression.

Kelly

Kelly - I get your point about the biological diff. in the spread of STD's. I was concerned by the attitude of the OP which seemed to be that "boys don't face as many risks when having sex."
I guess my main point is that too many people downplay or don't discuss that boys/men CAN and DO get STDs and they have serious consequences if untreated (i.e. epidydimitis (sp?) that can lead to types of arthritis, infertility issues, etc.)

[Storm Bride]

Very true. I've got a male friend who's now infertile because of untreated...chlamydia, I think it was. He was an absolute mess when he found out. He said he didn't know if he'd have ever had kids, anyway - but that's not how he wanted the decision to be made.

[Ellien C]

Is anyone else uncomfortable with the details provided by the OP. Aren't there privacy rules that you shouldn't talk about patients, even if you don't give names? I'd hate to find my Physician or nurse or doula discussing my birth on some board somewhere. I know you're trying to help and share information, but I feel little weird hearing about cases of 12 and 16 yo girls through the Internet.

[Curious Me]

Originally Posted by Ellien C

Is anyone else uncomfortable with the details provided by the OP. Aren't there privacy rules that you shouldn't talk about patients, even if you don't give names? I'd hate to find my Physician or nurse or doula discussing my birth on some board somewhere. I know you're trying to help and share information, but I feel little weird hearing about cases of 12 and 16 yo girls through the Internet.

I absolutely am not uncomfortable with the details and the lack thereof. She provided nothing which would identify the real 12 year-old girl among millions of other 12 year-old girls.

At least some of ALL of our physicians, dentists, doulas, chiropractors, massage therapists, podiatrists, nurses, cosmetologists, etc., etc. UNDOUBTEDLY discuss their cases, clients and patients on a DAILY basis with others -- on the Internet, in e-mail, over the phone, on message/discussion boards and in person. As long as they are not giving information to reveal the person's identity, and therefore, breaching their privacy, they are exhibiting nothing but ordinary human behavior.

[Storm Bride]

The ob-gyn.net forums can be read by anybody, and they discuss specific cases there all the time. I think privacy rules must be limited to information that can actually identify the client/patient.

[CookieMonsterMommy]

Originally Posted by Storm Bride

I think privacy rules must be limited to information that can actually identify the client/patient.

Yep. Now if she had said "I was at a clinic in Topeka, the one on Main St, and an overweight 12 year old brunette from Cleaver High came in with " then that would present a ethical/legal issue.

Well, actually, this may have been unethical....you're supposed to use discression, really only discuss the case with other professionals or for the "greater good" of society (again, with no identifying factors). But I guess it could be said that the OP was trying to help...although I'm not sure that goal was met.

I know in my childbirth classes, I'll ask my clients "Is it okay if I mention this situation in future classes?" and explain that I won't give out their name or any identifying information.


Kelly