why is this a common story?

Post Reply New Topic

Fourteen year olds CANNOT handle it. They are still babies and even if they resent your for it, you, as a parent, need to be a parent and protect them. Do not rationalize your responsibility if you elect to breed.

This is not an option for many parents. I personally do feel that parents have a large responsibility to educate their kids thoroughly on the subject and do everything they can to minimize the risk of their kid becoming a victim (or being the one doing the victimizing). But that is just not enough. I feel that the school systems should be addressing this issue in depth. I think that sex ed should devote a large portion of the class to raising awareness of both the morality and the consequences (legal, phycological, and physical). I also feel that our justice system needs to do a better job from start to finish in a way that is minimally intrusive and minimally abusive. I also think that whenever you encounter someone who thinks that rape is no big deal or tries to shift some or all of the blame to the victim that they should be met with scorn and derision. I think there should be a federally mandated minimum sentencing for all convictions (because to be convicted of rape, the evidence must be overwhelming). I also believe we need to find a way to change our culture to one that doesn't first assume that the woman is lying about it and/or treating her like a social leper for the rest of her life. I think people shouldn't be judgmental of someone who had too much to drink, was wearing skimpy clothing, or was in an unsafe neighborhood and became a victim. I think we can all agree that rape is a terrible thing, but I am a little sick of people downplaying it in one way or another. Rape is rape. Circumstances do not alter that fact or make it anything less than a traumatic violation.

I know you worry about the justice system and people being wrongfully accused, which is something that I am concerned with in the courts as well. But when it comes to rape, if only 6% of reported rapes result in a conviction, something in the system is seriously broken and needs to be addressed.

Saying being a responsible parent is not an option just sounds like excuse making. It really does. That is just a flimsy excuse. It just kinda makes me feel horrible because I know, in other areas, this kind of excuse would NEVER hold water, it would be scoffed at which it should be, but since we are talking about kids, the most important resource we have, suddenly the excuse becomes valid, people just shrug helplessly. You know when my dog runs wild through my neighborhood and I do not make an effort to contain him, the dog pound comes and picks him up, no questions asked. It seems like people are forced to take more responsibility for their pets than their kids, sometimes.

Should that matter? If a 24 year old is making out with a 14 year old, I consider that rape.



You feel that unless overwhelming evidence is presented, then you can't convict. Just what do you consider evidence?



So you don't think that a rapist should be tried without sufficient evidence, but you are more than willing to do this?



You realize this and still think you will be able to control your kids when they are teens?



This is not always the case. There are plenty of "problem children" out there who have behavioral issues completely independently of parenting. Many problem children have perfectly well behaved siblings. Some have neurological disorders. Some have suffered traumatic experiences. Some have difficulty with social interaction. Some just get sick of being picked on, insulted, and/or abused.
I'm not saying that good parenting is not important, because it most definitely is, but it just reduces the odds of your kid turning into a turd; it does not eliminate the chance. I am just asking you not to make instant black and white assumptions about a parent based on the actions of a child.

If a kid is in a single parent home and that parent has to work 2 jobs to pay the bills, what kind of options are there? Let the kid starve so that mom can be there at all times? I am not saying that there are not some truly terrible parents out there, because there most certainly are. I am just saying that even parents who do absolutely everything they can sometimes aren't going to live up to your expectations of parenting.

There's always a way. Sometimes you have to cut back, you have to give something up. When you have kids, you simply cannot save as much money as you can when you elect to not have any. So, you have to keep this in mind. Sacrifices have to be made when you elect to have them. Nobody has to give birth, we are past that point. There are choices. If you want to work all the time, do nothing but save money for later, just don't have kids. It's that simple. No excuses. If you do have kids. be home when they are, even if it means not saving money. It's just part of the responsibility you have. Or, find another responsible adult to help you co parent. There really isn't any excuse for not being responsible. Seek and you shall find . If you do decide to breed, keep in mind you simply cannot save as much as you could being single. It's impossible. Kids always take money to raise. You have to be okay with that concept imo to be a good parent. If that concept causes you to bristle. just don't have any. I find this so frustrating when I see all the ridiculousness when it seems so simple to me. Sheesh.

And when he tells her that he loves her, and that his wife doesn't understand him, and that he'll divorce the wife and marry the 14 year old, she's pretty likely to believe him because she probably still trusts adults. Especially if her parents are trustworthy, unfortunately. She won't realize that she's been taken advantage of until he's strung her along for a couple of years; up to that point, she's going to keep on defending him because she still thinks it's 'true love.'

Holy CRAP we're all in agreement on something. Can somebody check the temperature in hell?

Yeah, I'm definitely not feeling well, because this can't possibly be right... I'm taking a few days off from this thread. I'll see y'all next week. I have to figure out what's going on.

Some parents need to actually work two jobs to support their children, one job is not enough to keep a roof over their heads and they still don't save money after working two jobs because they are that poor and don't make that much money from two jobs. Do you suggest they work one job and go on welfare so they can be home with the child all the time? You can't say they are mooching while you are saying a parent should make sacrifices to stay at home because you can't have it both ways. It has to be one of them. Guess what, some parents do choose to live on welfare to raise their kids and they still get judged for it for their choice they make because people are expecting them to *gasp* work more jobs to stay off welfare and not be with their kids.

http://www.washtenawwatchdogs.com/forme ... -of-m.html

http://www.kgw.com/news/Girls-claim-sch ... 85721.html

You shouldn't tell him that. AngelRho thinks it's ok for old men to screw 14 year olds as long as they're married. I don't know why people even bother to debate him anymore.

I fail to see how that's even relevant. But since you brought it up, can you give me a rational and/or moral argument as to why this shouldn't be? Further, why restrict this to adult men? Adult women screw 14 year olds, too, y'know. If it had been me, I'd have good sense enough to keep my mouth shut about it, but unfortunately too many teen boys fail to recognize the bountiful resources that young, hot female teachers are. She's worth more than your bragging rights, people. Get a clue.

Anyway, I don't see the problem if they're married. The thing is, parents of minors are not obligated to consent to marrying them off at an early age. If you object to your minor having sex as a young teenager under any circumstances and deem them too young to marry, don't allow them to either have sex or get married.

And before you get all judgmental on me over it, I'm willing to change my position on the issue if you can give me GOOD REASON to see it any other way.

The discussion that came about from the Maryville incident dealt with the powers parents have to impose morality and discipline on their kids. Part of LKL's issue with me had to do with differences of opinion we have as to the exact extent to which we can limit a teen's freedom. She seems to believe there are limits on what parents can do...I say there are virtually no limits (obviously we can't cause bodily injury or exceed reasonable force dealing with an out-of-control child). If we operate under the assumption that a parent's ability to discipline a teen is limited, i.e. we have to pretty much just let them do whatever they want, exactly what is the rational or moral basis for preventing them from having sex with adults? If they want to get married to adults when they're 14, why not just let them? Why shouldn't we allow them to have sex with whoever they want? Why even require them to be married, which is pretty much status quo anyway? And why is it anyone's business whether the older partner is an adult any more than if they're both teens? No, I don't care if they're married. But if we're so put off by adults marrying teens and having sex with them, can't we just withhold our consent to allow them to get married? I don't personally know any parent who'd consent to that, except MAYBE in extraordinary circumstances (like if my teen daughter was dying of cancer or something). Do YOU personally know of any teens getting, as in people you personally acquainted with? I don't. I'm not counting FLDS, and I should hope the reasons are self-evident: girls being married off against their will. If normal parents aren't consenting and therefore teens are not in any practical way allowed to consent to sex with adults, exactly what is the problem? That whole practice of marrying that young went out of vogue with my grandparents.

Give me a rational reason or a moral reason that this is wrong, and you might be surprised how quickly I agree with you.

The problem with marrying off people at the age of 14 is that this would (obviously) increase teen pregnancy rates, with all the adverse affects associated with this:

- Lower maternal health
- Lower child health
- Increased risk of miscarriage
- Increased risk of educational loss for the mother
- Increased risk of occupational loss for the mother
- Increased risk of divorce (and thus, increased risk of a single parent household - with all the nasty associated risks included)

I also find it somewhat puzzling that AngelRho would have an issue with premarital sex, but feel okay about people marrying at the age of 14.

After all, marriage in principle means that you would commit yourself to someone else for the rest of your life. A romp in the hay (given proper sex education) seems ridiculously trivial in comparison...

How do you propose to do this? Lock them in a closet until they turn 18?



I do not follow this line of reasoning. It is not the parents ability to discipline their child; it is how much of an effect it will have. Teens do what they want. You can try to alter what they want to line up with what you want, but may not make the slightest bit of difference. Yes, some people have difficulties in spending more time with their children, but that does not make them bad parents. Yes some people spend massive amounts of time with their children, but that does not make them good parents. You seem to think that it is either "you're a good parent so your kid will turn out fantastic" or "you are not a good parent therefor your child will be an immoral monster." This is so overly simplistic it makes me worry for your children. When your kids are teens, you should come find this thread again and read what you have written about how effective your parenting styles will be on teens.

You forget that I'm a former certified public school teacher. Classroom management and behavior modification are the name of the game. Sure, as a classroom teacher, I've been limited as to the means I had available to me, but part of my job was to make sure that the preteens and teens under my supervision didn't end up in the principal's office. I was successful for the MOST part and there were always exceptionally disruptive students. However, I didn't allow myself the luxury of writing disciplinary referrals to get them out of my class. That was always a last resort. But it was an unfortunate last resort in that as a teacher I had to follow district policy on discipline procedure.

I learned a LOT about teenagers and how to deal with them. #1--they like their freedom, and #2--they want to be respected like and treated like adults. So for the MOST part, teaching them was easy--you need my class to graduate, I need a paycheck (besides the fact that I have a vested interest in the material and enjoy talking about it all day). Act like civilized grownups and I'll treat you like civilized grownups; act like a kid, and I'll treat you like a kid. I'll demand your respect until I've earned it, and I expect nothing more until that happens. We all play nice and fair, we all follow district/school rules/procedures, and we'll all get along just fine. Like I said, for the MOST part we did well, and the exceptions were the same exceptions in everyone's classroom. Some of the worst kids liked me more than other teachers simply because I didn't automatically treat them like thugs from the second they entered the room. Those kids NEVER tried to get revenge on me the few times I DID have to go to administrators on them (smoking behind the building or in the bathroom, etc.) because they KNEW I was doing everything I could to keep them OUT of trouble. At least one of my coworkers during this time wasn't so lucky--and considering the psychological damage these kids were able to inflict on her, she probably should never have been in the teaching business to begin with.

The point of all this is not to lock away kids in a closet until they turn 18. The point is that we, as parents, must do everything we CAN as is appropriate and NECESSARY to correct behavior. That's all. I'm not looking at every minuscule aspect of my kids' behavior in order to bust them for the sake of busting them. My goal is to guide them towards a pattern of behavior that avoids those kinds of things from happening in the first place.

And why are we under the false assumption that kids are always guaranteed to be deviant, disobedient, and disrespectful? Why assume my kids MUST turn out that way? All I'm saying is IF that's what it takes, I'll go to whatever extreme I have to within reason to correct behavior. If locking them up in a closet until they turn 18 is an option (it isn't), let's do that. See parenthesis. If it is NOT an option, we'll do something else. But there are a wider number of ways in which we can restrict freedom that do not harm kids, and there are a wider number of ways of doing that than most parents seem to be willing to utilize.

To sum it all up: Parents have no reason whatsoever to feel their hands are tied when it comes to raising their kids. If you care about your kids, you'll do whatever it takes to keep them safe. It COULD be unpleasant, but so what? Better that than having to watch your kids end up in prison, dead, or just as good as either. If that were to happen to my kids despite having done all I could do, AT LEAST I don't have to live with the guilt of having done nothing or not enough. I agree with you if you believe that at a certain point the person has to take personal responsibility and that it's not always the parents' fault. I'm just trying to cover all my bases as a parent.