ChatRoom Anxiety & Paranoia (CRAP) - Page 2 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 of 47 Old 04-22-2002, 03:21 AM - Thread Starter
 
Dan Frank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Leftovers
Posts: 143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ages ranged from 10 (only 4%), to 17 (13%). The highest, by a small margin, was 15 (18%)

53% male, 47% female.

The majority, 73%, were white.

The majority of the parents (79%), were married.

the majority, by a bit (38%), lived in 20,000-50,000 income houses. about 50% lived in higher income (I'm squishing several sections together)

As for the type of community... I'll just paste that wholesale.
• Small Town 28%
• Suburb of Large City 21%
• Rural Area 20%
• Large Town (25,000 to 100,000) 15%
• Large City 14%

the majority, 76%, had used the net in the past week.

And now, onto the good stuff!
Dan Frank is offline  
#32 of 47 Old 04-22-2002, 03:42 AM - Thread Starter
 
Dan Frank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Leftovers
Posts: 143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
First I will cover what the paper deems "Exposure to Unwanted Materials"

25% of the teens had come across unwanted material while online.

6% of the total teens (not just 6% of 25%), found the unwanted material to be upsetting/distressing.

There are additional statistics, however, the majority relate to emails and mistyped entries into search engines... and I would prefer to focus on Chat Rooms.

The real significance of this section is that the percentage of kids receiving unwanted pictures via chatrooms or messaging is apparently so small as to not even make up a single percentage point. Granted, even .5% out of the millions of teens who use the net could come up to a surprising total... but certainly no larger than the percentage of teens who come into contact with unwanted material in other forums.

They in fact provide a one-sentence testiomonial from a child whow as shown, in chat, a picture of a man having sex with a dog. This further indicates that the paper is aware of Chat-Related exposure, but that the percentage is indeed negligible.

Now that I have provided statistical support toward refuting the idea that teens are constantly barraged with pornography every time they enter a chat... I shall move on.
Dan Frank is offline  
#33 of 47 Old 04-22-2002, 04:59 AM - Thread Starter
 
Dan Frank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Leftovers
Posts: 143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I will briefly mention close online friendships... specifically, friendships with adults. I will mostly enumerate statistics....

Only 3% of the teenshad close relationships with adults. I will mostly paste wholesale

Age of teen
• 15 18%
• 16 28%
• 17 46%

and gender
of teen:
• Female 59%
• Male 41%
of online friend:
• Female 41%
• Male 59%

And where they met
• Chat Room 56%
• Instant Messages 13%
• Game Room, Message Board, Newsgroup, Other 15%
• E-mail 10%
• Web Page 3%
• Don’t Know 3%

And age
• 18 to 25 Years 85%
• Older than 25 Years 15%

And offline contact
• Sent Youth Regular Mail 51%
• Called Youth on Telephone 36%
• Asked Youth to Meet 21%
• Came to Youth’s Home 10%
• Gave Youth Money or Gifts 10%
• None of Above 31%

74% of parents were aware of the relationship.

Met Online Friend in Person 31%
Parent Knew of Meeting 10%

Again, none of these friendships resulted in anything detrimental.
Dan Frank is offline  
#34 of 47 Old 04-22-2002, 05:00 AM - Thread Starter
 
Dan Frank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Leftovers
Posts: 143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This section covers sexual solicitation, both benign and threatening.

19% (almost 1 in 5) teens received some sexual solicitation last year.

3% received aggressive solicitation
This is not threatening, but rather persistent.

5% received distressing solicitation
This is threatening.

As someone pointed out above, the argument against CRAP does not address moral reservations towards general sexual interaction, since purely moral decisions should be made by the teen without hindrance by the parent.
Therefore, I will focus entirely on the distressing percentage of teens, as the other two were only unsettling if one is against teen sexual encounters completely (and any disturbing sexual solicitations are by default listed in the Distressing section.

While the majority, 75%, of the teens being solicited were female, fully one fourth of them were male.

Again, wile the majority of soliciters were male, 73%, a surprising percentage were female (13%... the other 14% is unknown).

A very important factor... 54% of the soliciters were under the age of 18. 17% were 18 to 15, and only 8% were older (again, unmentioned percentages were Unknown factors)

96% of the distressing solicitations began as purely online relationships.

the location is important enough to paste
o Chat Room 60%
o Using Instant Messages 26%
o Specific Web Page7%
o E-mail 1%
o Game Room, Message Board, Newsgroup,
or Other 2%
o Don’t Know/Refused 1%

20% were asked to meet somewhere
9% sent snail mail
4% called ont he phone
and 1% sent money or other gifts.


81% were upset
53% were frightened

60% exhibited stress symptoms such as staying away from the net, thinking about the solicitation constantly, or becoming jumpy.

These are, of course, unfortunately large statistics.
However...

no percentage is listed for rapes or molestation caused through these situations!

What could this mean? Is the percentage really so small it as to not even be a single person out of 1,501? Apparently.

What percentage does that come to? It means that, assuming the integrity of this survey, ]I]less than .06 percent[/I], most likely a great deal less, of teens are raped or molested due to internet relationships.

Call me crazy, but that seems a very small number.

I have more to say on this, but it is very late. I will continue tomorrow.
Dan Frank is offline  
#35 of 47 Old 04-22-2002, 09:21 AM
 
Els' 3 Ones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: An American Gulag
Posts: 3,790
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I hope that if someone has read this crap this far they see the # of children the report is talking about, I've included that below. While a % is expressed as a 1 or 2 digit #, the extrapolation is quite a different number.

The tone of these two threads seems to be anything but understanding and compassionate for the very real families that are victims of this.

I found this site with less than 10 min of search...........

I did not read all of the pdf file - I felt the #'s on the front page were very telling. I couple them with the repeated warnings that are everywhere; the schools, the websites, the radio - tv, the police, etc. Why would all these warnings and suggestions be there if this was not a potential danger for everyone? I suppose the police have nothing better to do in Chicago than assign officers to surf..........

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?


June 21, 2000
The survey, "Online Victimization: A Report on the Nation's Youth", a survey of 1,501 youths who were regular Internet users, was commissioned by Congress.

Among the findings:

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.

65% of the sexual solicitations occurred while in a chat room; 24% came by instant message.

Of those youth sexually solicited, 20% were "very or extremely upset," which the study estimates equals .9-1.4 million children.

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. By the time I was 12yo, and very sexually aware, I had seen many pictures. Nude pictures, playboy type. Hard core, fetish porn was very underground then........ I hope my children aren't exposed to a man having sex with a dog until they are adult. Somehow I don't think that my children need to be greatly aware of that form of sex.

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.
I would hope that "net nanny" software would lessen this number.

67% of the unwanted exposures happened at home, but 15% happened in schools, and 3% happened in libraries. Based on the estimates supplied by the authors, this would translate into between 814,000 and 970,000 children exposed in schools, and between 162,9000 and 194,100 exposed in public libraries. [Ed. Note: These numbers are drastically different from the findings of the 1997 On-Line Summit in Washington, D.C. which found that 70% of children's exposure to on-line porn had occurred in schools and libraries.]

For the youths who encountered the material while surfing, it came up as a result of searches 47% of the time, misspelled addresses 17%, and links in websites 17%.

Prior to ending I will say (in response to a question asked me) that I do not condem chat. I have repeatedly said I don't find it necessary to my life and I don't feel my children will wither without it. I liken it to not being allowed to talk on the phone for hours, at my whim, when I was a child. It is a time waster, and coupled with the real danger, no-chat is a no-brainer for me.
Els' 3 Ones is offline  
#36 of 47 Old 04-22-2002, 10:13 AM
 
LaLa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: LaLa@Mothering.com
Posts: 5,719
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thank you El for showing that their is another side.

As for statistics in general, I've read the book, How to Lie with Statistics, too many times to buy into the numbers with utter faith.

Sorry kids...I'm a skeptic. Read that book and you will be too.
LaLa is offline  
#37 of 47 Old 04-22-2002, 12:07 PM
 
laralou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: little house in the suburbs
Posts: 4,904
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Slightly OT but related to the first post:

Princess Post-a-Lot is taken, but you can be Prince Post-a-Lot.
To get a name instead of Senior Member, you just email or pm Cynthia and tell her what to change it to. After it is set up, you can change it at will.

Not having a teen, I don't have a strong opinion on the topic. I don't begrudge any parent restricting internet usage or anything else that they deem potentially harmful, but think that teaching a teen to make reasonable decisions for his/herself would probably work better, if that is possible.
laralou is offline  
#38 of 47 Old 04-22-2002, 08:58 PM
 
barbara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 2,044
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Amen Nursing mother!!!
Just like every baby crawls, walks, cuts teeth and talks at a different age....so teens are different as to what ages they are able to deal with different things. Too often young people think they can handle more than they can. I think NM's daughter was a good example of that....she was grateful when her parents took control of a situation she had gotten herself into over her head. My kids have used me as the bad guy more than once to get themselves out of something they knew they weren't ready to handle. Parents need to be a safty net when our fledegings aren't ready to fly solo.
Chat rooms being dangerous or not is really a moot point when we consider the issue of maturity. Stairs aren't dangerous if you know how to walk down them or avoid falling....but for a crawling baby they are dangerous! Only the parent can judge if a baby can handle the stairs. Some parents will lean toward letting them try it a little before they are ready, and some will be overportective and keep them from the stairs long after they may be able to navigate them. But each parent will make the decision about readiness that they feel is in their child's best interest, and in the long run they really do know that child and their readiness better than the casual onlooker.
barbara is offline  
#39 of 47 Old 04-23-2002, 02:19 AM
 
sarahwebb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Alabama
Posts: 695
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Umm, against my better judgement, here I go, wading in to the morass--

Els' 3 Ones writes:
And as for NM's action. If you read the original post again she says that dd seemed relieved to be discovered. And probably relieved to have parent's
irrational act to fall back on as an excuse to not chat. It may have got beyond where she was comfortable and she (at 15yo) needed help getting out.

Dan writes:
And ime, kids rarely 'want to be caught'

I've spent a large portion of my adult life working with teenagers--as a big sister, as a house adult at a boarding school and as a Unitarian Universalist youth advisor. My experience, the experiences of my colleagues and a fairly extensive body of literature all support the idea that children and youth need boundaries to feel safe and will act out, push the limits and try to get caught in order to establish that an adult cares enough to protect them from things that they are not ready for or find unsafe. When a teenager leaves a letter about her sex life open where a parent can see it, or a box of condoms on his dresser, they are asking for a parent to set some boundaries...

It's a constant challenge for parents and adults working with youth to set appropriate boundaries and to know when to allow their children to make their own mistakes. Both are crucial for a child or teenager to develop independence and self reliance. A solution that works for one youth will not work for another.

My experience working with Unitarian Universalist youth was both extremely rewarding and extremely heartwrenching--I served some wonderful, responsible youth but also some very troubled youth. In my opinion, many of the troubled youth that I served (as chaplain of a 300 plus national youth gathering and as youth coordinator for 32 congregations in five states) were struggling because their parents were unwilling to set firm boundaries for them with respect to morality, sex and other activities. They were longing for an adult to step in and help them create some safety in their lives.

Respectfully,
Sarah
sarahwebb is offline  
#40 of 47 Old 04-23-2002, 10:33 AM
 
daylily's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 4,053
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
All right, I'm jumping in late, but I have 2 pre teens,(almost 9 & almost 10) so this subject interests me. I'm surprised that such a lengthy debate is occurring here. Like El said, it's a no-brainer. (IMO) No chat at our house.

I'm wondering if some of you have any idea what it is like to be a child and have an adult hit on you. This happened to me and so I'll tell you what it feels like: horrifying, distressing, terrifying. And nothing terrible happened to me: I was NOT fondled or molested or raped. No. I was in a shoe store when I was 10 and a man approached me and talked in a suggestive manner. Since I was raised to avoid strangers, I walked away and the man didn't follow. But here's the thing: *I was with my father at the time!* My dad was at the counter paying for a pair of shoes and the man who hit on me was one of the shoe salesmen. I was too ashamed to tell my father what happened. I blamed myself: my shorts were too short, I was wearing a tank top, I felt there must have been something wrong with *me* to attract that adult to me. It was years and years later that I realized he was a pedophile. I avoided that shoe store for the rest of the time I lived in that town. It was a deeply distressing experience.

What I'm trying to say is: parents can teach their children to be responsible, but that's only half the equation. You also need to 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. 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.

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.
daylily is offline  
#41 of 47 Old 04-23-2002, 11:23 AM
 
laralou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: little house in the suburbs
Posts: 4,904
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
laralou is offline  
#42 of 47 Old 04-24-2002, 12:42 AM - Thread Starter
 
Dan Frank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Leftovers
Posts: 143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.



Quote:
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.

Quote:
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 is offline  
#43 of 47 Old 04-24-2002, 01:13 AM - Thread Starter
 
Dan Frank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Leftovers
Posts: 143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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)
Quote:
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)
Quote:
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)
Quote:
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 is offline  
#44 of 47 Old 04-24-2002, 01:17 AM - Thread Starter
 
Dan Frank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Leftovers
Posts: 143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
Dan Frank is offline  
#45 of 47 Old 04-24-2002, 01:18 AM
 
LaLa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: LaLa@Mothering.com
Posts: 5,719
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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
LaLa is offline  
#46 of 47 Old 04-24-2002, 01:20 AM - Thread Starter
 
Dan Frank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Leftovers
Posts: 143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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...
Dan Frank is offline  
#47 of 47 Old 04-24-2002, 02:12 AM
 
barbara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 2,044
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
barbara is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off