Again with the bladder reference. You have tried to (emotionally) infer the "painful" conditions. Stitled emotional framing of an imagined situation in order to cast dispersions on my parenting skills is a both a personal attack and an childish response to my object lesson.
There was no pain involved, the child was asked, and could have hiked it in the bushes if needed. This is not complicated.
Fine, let's readdress this, since you originally brought up the point.
You stated that you decided that your child was better off holding her bladder than seeing graffiti. You stated this in the context of a discussion regarding free speech. (ie, the free speech == graffiti connection, which you still haven't refuted, so we'll drop that as a given at this point.) You further were apparently forwarding this anecdote in a manner illustrating a serious point on how extreme the situation was, that your daughter had to hold her bladder for 'quite some time'.
Now, two scenarios can be deduced from this:
1) Your child was under no real discomfort, which apparently is what you are stating now. In which case, the 'object lesson' of the anecdote was... what again? That graffiti exists? That sexually oriented graffiti exists? That the existence of such illegal markings caused your child a mild discomfort? I'm sorry, but that's hardly a point at all, much less an 'object lesson'. You were offended, your child had some mild discomfort. So? Guess what, I'm highly offended by much *I* see, and it causes *me* mild discomfort... but I don't think that it somehow equates with child pornography, or other serious issues. Equating a trivial discomfort with a serious crime only serves to trivialize the crime, not make the discomfort somehow more intense.
2) Your child *was* severely discomforted by this, and it *was* a serious problem for her, which given the context and tone originally used, was apparently what you were going for. In which case, I am still of the opinion that choosing this for your child instead of exposure to bathroom graffiti is an extreme position, and one that, again, in my opinion, is borderline abusive. Given that, the hue and cry of 'for the children!' is the height of hypocrisy and arrogance... which is usually the case.
So which is it? Was your child severely put out by this or not? If not, then exactly why did you choose to share this bit of trivia with us? Moreso, what on earth made you think that it was a 'lesson' in any way, shape of form?
I appreciate the reasoned post, but I don't think we are making the connection.
When someone takes a public space and breaks the law to defile it, they need to be dealt with through apporpriate legal recourse. That is all there is to this, using "free speech" and it "doesn't hurt anyone" is not valid, these rules are in place to keep a limit to what, in part, children hear in those public spaces.
The mural depicting oral sex and the copy requesting anal sex are perfect examples of a few slimeballs who are not resposible, or caring enough, to keep things out of the hands of those who cannot handle them---or worse suffer psychologially form that exposure.
I'm going to let this go here. Except for this: you people who find it "hard to believe" that my 7-year-old doesn't know how to give head should be ashamed of yourselves.
No, it's not. A child in the 1st and 2nd deserves protection from pornography. If you can't be bothered to control what your kids are exposed to, you have no business being a parent.
But you can't control it 100%, 24/7. Assuming that you can, and leaving your child with zero defenses when they *do* run across such things, (and they *WILL*) is a bad choice in parenting. It's the equivalent of thinking that if you can keep them in a plastic bubble, they'll never get sick. No, all that does is lead to a lack of an immune system.
Control the exposure, but also give them the tools with which to make good decisions when it does happen. Because it will.
Quote:
You guys need to step back and look at what you are advocating here. Assuming a first grader is aware of fellatio is not sane.
I was reading college biology and psychology texts at age 6. I knew the mechanics of sex. You know what I thought of it? Nothing. It was a weird abstraction, something that I knew happened, but I never gave a second thought to it.
That's the child's view. It isn't until adults make a big deal out of something that they get intrigued by it.
Quote:
Extrapolating the control you have over a 7-year-old to the control you have over and 18-year old is shallow reasoning.
Thinking you'll continue to have that control is shallow hope.
Not giving your daughter the information and tools to be able to say "Oh, that's graffiti - something stupid people scrawl, it doesn't mean anything." is, in my opinion, poor parenting... How do I know? Because I was the target of it myself.
You know she's going to run into it, no matter how tight the lock on her environment. And when she does, she'll wonder why she wasn't warned and informed about it. She might even grow to resent you for leaving her defenseless and scared... but she'll likely raise her children the same way, from a position of fear and instilling that fear in the next generation.
But that's your choice. Hopefully she can break the cycle when it comes to her turn as a parent.
No, it's not. A child in the 1st and 2nd deserves protection from pornography. If you can't be bothered to control what your kids are exposed to, you have no business being a parent.
You guys need to step back and look at what you are advocating here. Assuming a first grader is aware of fellatio is not sane.
Extrapolating the control you have over a 7-year-old to the control you have over and 18-year old is shallow reasoning.
Firstly, read my post above this which I was editing while you posted. I feel it answers your first point.
Secondly, assuming that your first or second grader is *not* aware of fellatio is also not sane. All parents are not like you, and you have no idea what the hell those darned kids are talking about while playing together. Are you going to start restricting her access to other children? Do you have some form of playmate vetting system? Is there a survey that you hand out to parents of potential playmates?
'Playmate' is used in the innocent way, not the naked girl sense, just to be clear. Which brings me to my next point:
The 18 year-old thing ... it was a joke. It was obviously hyperbole, but still too subtle for you. Oh, and before you ask, so was the statue of David thing.
I appreciate the reasoned post, but I don't think we are making the connection.
When someone takes a public space and breaks the law to defile it, they need to be dealt with through apporpriate legal recourse. That is all there is to this, using "free speech" and it "doesn't hurt anyone" is not valid, these rules are in place to keep a limit to what, in part, children hear in those public spaces.
*sigh* On this we are *in agreement*. Graffiti is not free speech. You were the one that tied the two together, not anyone else.
Stern's show, in general, I find offensive. But I control my own radio dial. Until he crosses the line of legality, I *SUPPORT* his being able to air his dreck. The *only* issue in my mind is where that line of legality lies. I am more tolerant than you on that point. Fair enough.
But you also control your own radio dial and power switch. Take responsibility for your own listening, as you wish others to take responsibility for their utterances. It goes both ways, as with anything in a sane society.
But you can't control it 100%, 24/7. Assuming that you can, and leaving your child with zero defenses when they *do* run across such things, (and they *WILL*) is a bad choice in parenting. It's the equivalent of thinking that if you can keep them in a plastic bubble, they'll never get sick. No, all that does is lead to a lack of an immune system.
Control the exposure, but also give them the tools with which to make good decisions when it does happen. Because it will.
I was reading college biology and psychology texts at age 6. I knew the mechanics of sex. You know what I thought of it? Nothing. It was a weird abstraction, something that I knew happened, but I never gave a second thought to it.
That's the child's view. It isn't until adults make a big deal out of something that they get intrigued by it.
Thinking you'll continue to have that control is shallow hope.
....
But that's your choice. Hopefully she can break the cycle when it comes to her turn as a parent.
You are contradicting yourself beyond hope of understanding. You knew the mechanics of sex at 6 and in the same breath were the product of "overprotective" parenting. Hardly sounds protective to me. Then you want criticize dmz because he won't expose his 7 year old to pornographic graphitti. And you have how many children?
Believe me, children who know "all about sex" at 7 are one of the many reasons I DON'T send my children to public school.
You are contradicting yourself beyond hope of understanding. You knew the mechanics of sex at 6 and in the same breath were the product of "overprotective" parenting. Hardly sounds protective to me.
Not contradictive at all. When it came to anything substantial of note in life (graffiti, an honest portrayal of sex, etc), my parents tried their damnedest to keep me far from it.
But I was let loose in the local library on the weekends because, in their highly myopic view of the world, there wasn't anything that could *possibly* be in a public library that wasn't sanitized. Well, I just bypassed the children's books and went for ones at my reading level. *shrug*
And like I said, my trauma over it? None. I recall thinking the whole thing seemed pretty messy and weird, but that was about it until puberty. (I had much more important things to worry about, like making that wooden ramp for my BMX track in the side yard.)
Would have been nice to have had parents who had prepared me for that, but no, they were too concerned with keeping that bubble intact at all costs.
Quote:
Then you want criticize dmz because he won't expose his 7 year old to pornographic graphitti.
Nope, re-read the arguments again. It might help. I criticized him for choosing causing her physical pain over that exposure. And that criticism and perception of his anecdote were brought into question to the point where I think we can all agree he and I utterly miscommunicated. Here endeth that point. I never advocated he expose her to the graffiti just for the hell of it.
Quote:
And you have how many children?
None, but three nieces/nephews that I adore... and I'm watching them get screwed up by well meaning buy utterly wrong directed fundamentalist Catholic parents. These kids already display severe emotional problems, and having known them since birth, it's been easy to see the progression... and all it's done is reinforce my opinions on parenting. I've been grateful for the opportunity to see yet another example of how things can go wrong, up close.
Quote:
Believe me, children who know "all about sex" at 7 are one of the many reasons I DON'T send my children to public school. [/B]
I can't say I'm sold on public schools myself, mostly for the low academics. Watching the aforesaid children get seriously screwed up *worse* by home schooling ("Phonics for Young Catholics"??? *shudder*) and a lack of interaction with the world and the society they're going to take a part in some day has cooled me on my anti-public school ardor however.
In not letting her into the bathroom you exercised the same level of control that you have over her radio, television, website, book, magazine, and movie exposure. That's your prerogative as a parent, and that is the extent to which you can dictate what she is exposed to.
Bingo.
---
My fiancee is the product of parenting along the lines you describe, dmz. Sheltered, never watch TV until she was 13. Not allowed to listen to the radio. Privately schooled. Kept under strict control by her parents until she left for college.
She has been completely overwhelmed by the reality of life, unprepared to deal with it, and is now in constant conflict with her parents because of the resentment she holds towards them as a result.
It's a disservice to one's children to send them out in the world unprepared for it.
Bite the bullet and have those hard conversations as the opportunities arise. A good rule of thumb for when it's an appropriate time is letting them ask. And oh, they will.
dmz, what you saw as a situation that your daughter needed to be completely shielded from, I see as a teaching opportunity. Not on the finer points of fellatio, for god's sake, but on civic duty (graffiti is wrong), free speech (the line ends at criminal acts), limits on expression (indoor voice! indoor voice!), and, if asked, about sexuality (that's not it, just a crude stupid scrawling that doesn't mean anything). Different approaches, different philosophies.
Just leave the sex parts out of it, and dollars to donuts, she wouldn't bring them up at that age anyway. They'd just go totally over her head... which they should. Not because of sheltering, but because they just don't matter.
I appreciate the reasoned post, but I don't think we are making the connection.
When someone takes a public space and breaks the law to defile it, they need to be dealt with through apporpriate legal recourse. That is all there is to this, using "free speech" and it "doesn't hurt anyone" is not valid, these rules are in place to keep a limit to what, in part, children hear in those public spaces.
The mural depicting oral sex and the copy requesting anal sex are perfect examples of a few slimeballs who are not resposible, or caring enough, to keep things out of the hands of those who cannot handle them---or worse suffer psychologially form that exposure.
I'm going to let this go here. Except for this: you people who find it "hard to believe" that my 7-year-old doesn't know how to give head should be ashamed of yourselves.
The difference here is that while you never know when you'll run into graphetti, you do know exactly when and where Howard Stern is on every week day. Which means that with all of you parenting skills, you can not tune in.
Your "moral tale" has nothing to do with the actual issue.
And if the FCC can go after Stern for using the clinical and proper term "penis", why can't they stop Limbaugh from blatantly misrepresenting facts and lying on his show? If they have the responisbility of monitoring what we hear, shouldn't they also validate things being passed on "truth"?
Well Oprah had a guest explain salad tossing in graphic detail and wasn't fined for it when Stern was for a less graphic discussion about it.
An interesting note was brought up on the radio today. it was a local show that runs during Stern's morning show, but they brought up the point that during the discussions the FCC stated "a fair and even hand was used when doleing out punishment". However, they pointed out that later in the meeting they didn't go after Oprah because "she's too popular".
Comments
Originally posted by dmz
Again with the bladder reference. You have tried to (emotionally) infer the "painful" conditions. Stitled emotional framing of an imagined situation in order to cast dispersions on my parenting skills is a both a personal attack and an childish response to my object lesson.
There was no pain involved, the child was asked, and could have hiked it in the bushes if needed. This is not complicated.
Fine, let's readdress this, since you originally brought up the point.
You stated that you decided that your child was better off holding her bladder than seeing graffiti. You stated this in the context of a discussion regarding free speech. (ie, the free speech == graffiti connection, which you still haven't refuted, so we'll drop that as a given at this point.) You further were apparently forwarding this anecdote in a manner illustrating a serious point on how extreme the situation was, that your daughter had to hold her bladder for 'quite some time'.
Now, two scenarios can be deduced from this:
1) Your child was under no real discomfort, which apparently is what you are stating now. In which case, the 'object lesson' of the anecdote was... what again? That graffiti exists? That sexually oriented graffiti exists? That the existence of such illegal markings caused your child a mild discomfort? I'm sorry, but that's hardly a point at all, much less an 'object lesson'. You were offended, your child had some mild discomfort. So? Guess what, I'm highly offended by much *I* see, and it causes *me* mild discomfort... but I don't think that it somehow equates with child pornography, or other serious issues. Equating a trivial discomfort with a serious crime only serves to trivialize the crime, not make the discomfort somehow more intense.
2) Your child *was* severely discomforted by this, and it *was* a serious problem for her, which given the context and tone originally used, was apparently what you were going for. In which case, I am still of the opinion that choosing this for your child instead of exposure to bathroom graffiti is an extreme position, and one that, again, in my opinion, is borderline abusive. Given that, the hue and cry of 'for the children!' is the height of hypocrisy and arrogance... which is usually the case.
So which is it? Was your child severely put out by this or not? If not, then exactly why did you choose to share this bit of trivia with us? Moreso, what on earth made you think that it was a 'lesson' in any way, shape of form?
See? No emotion. Logic.
Choose one.
When someone takes a public space and breaks the law to defile it, they need to be dealt with through apporpriate legal recourse. That is all there is to this, using "free speech" and it "doesn't hurt anyone" is not valid, these rules are in place to keep a limit to what, in part, children hear in those public spaces.
The mural depicting oral sex and the copy requesting anal sex are perfect examples of a few slimeballs who are not resposible, or caring enough, to keep things out of the hands of those who cannot handle them---or worse suffer psychologially form that exposure.
I'm going to let this go here. Except for this: you people who find it "hard to believe" that my 7-year-old doesn't know how to give head should be ashamed of yourselves.
Originally posted by dmz
No, it's not. A child in the 1st and 2nd deserves protection from pornography. If you can't be bothered to control what your kids are exposed to, you have no business being a parent.
But you can't control it 100%, 24/7. Assuming that you can, and leaving your child with zero defenses when they *do* run across such things, (and they *WILL*) is a bad choice in parenting. It's the equivalent of thinking that if you can keep them in a plastic bubble, they'll never get sick. No, all that does is lead to a lack of an immune system.
Control the exposure, but also give them the tools with which to make good decisions when it does happen. Because it will.
You guys need to step back and look at what you are advocating here. Assuming a first grader is aware of fellatio is not sane.
I was reading college biology and psychology texts at age 6. I knew the mechanics of sex. You know what I thought of it? Nothing. It was a weird abstraction, something that I knew happened, but I never gave a second thought to it.
That's the child's view. It isn't until adults make a big deal out of something that they get intrigued by it.
Extrapolating the control you have over a 7-year-old to the control you have over and 18-year old is shallow reasoning.
Thinking you'll continue to have that control is shallow hope.
Not giving your daughter the information and tools to be able to say "Oh, that's graffiti - something stupid people scrawl, it doesn't mean anything." is, in my opinion, poor parenting... How do I know? Because I was the target of it myself.
You know she's going to run into it, no matter how tight the lock on her environment. And when she does, she'll wonder why she wasn't warned and informed about it. She might even grow to resent you for leaving her defenseless and scared... but she'll likely raise her children the same way, from a position of fear and instilling that fear in the next generation.
But that's your choice. Hopefully she can break the cycle when it comes to her turn as a parent.
Originally posted by dmz
No, it's not. A child in the 1st and 2nd deserves protection from pornography. If you can't be bothered to control what your kids are exposed to, you have no business being a parent.
You guys need to step back and look at what you are advocating here. Assuming a first grader is aware of fellatio is not sane.
Extrapolating the control you have over a 7-year-old to the control you have over and 18-year old is shallow reasoning.
Firstly, read my post above this which I was editing while you posted. I feel it answers your first point.
Secondly, assuming that your first or second grader is *not* aware of fellatio is also not sane. All parents are not like you, and you have no idea what the hell those darned kids are talking about while playing together. Are you going to start restricting her access to other children? Do you have some form of playmate vetting system? Is there a survey that you hand out to parents of potential playmates?
'Playmate' is used in the innocent way, not the naked girl sense, just to be clear. Which brings me to my next point:
The 18 year-old thing ... it was a joke. It was obviously hyperbole, but still too subtle for you. Oh, and before you ask, so was the statue of David thing.
Originally posted by dmz
I appreciate the reasoned post, but I don't think we are making the connection.
When someone takes a public space and breaks the law to defile it, they need to be dealt with through apporpriate legal recourse. That is all there is to this, using "free speech" and it "doesn't hurt anyone" is not valid, these rules are in place to keep a limit to what, in part, children hear in those public spaces.
*sigh* On this we are *in agreement*. Graffiti is not free speech. You were the one that tied the two together, not anyone else.
Stern's show, in general, I find offensive. But I control my own radio dial. Until he crosses the line of legality, I *SUPPORT* his being able to air his dreck. The *only* issue in my mind is where that line of legality lies. I am more tolerant than you on that point. Fair enough.
But you also control your own radio dial and power switch. Take responsibility for your own listening, as you wish others to take responsibility for their utterances. It goes both ways, as with anything in a sane society.
Originally posted by Kickaha
But you can't control it 100%, 24/7. Assuming that you can, and leaving your child with zero defenses when they *do* run across such things, (and they *WILL*) is a bad choice in parenting. It's the equivalent of thinking that if you can keep them in a plastic bubble, they'll never get sick. No, all that does is lead to a lack of an immune system.
Control the exposure, but also give them the tools with which to make good decisions when it does happen. Because it will.
I was reading college biology and psychology texts at age 6. I knew the mechanics of sex. You know what I thought of it? Nothing. It was a weird abstraction, something that I knew happened, but I never gave a second thought to it.
That's the child's view. It isn't until adults make a big deal out of something that they get intrigued by it.
Thinking you'll continue to have that control is shallow hope.
....
But that's your choice. Hopefully she can break the cycle when it comes to her turn as a parent.
You are contradicting yourself beyond hope of understanding. You knew the mechanics of sex at 6 and in the same breath were the product of "overprotective" parenting.
Believe me, children who know "all about sex" at 7 are one of the many reasons I DON'T send my children to public school.
Originally posted by Fangorn
Believe me, children who know "all about sex" at 7 are one of the many reasons I DON'T send my children to public school.
Hmm. Just because you send them to a private school won't help, but good try.
Originally posted by Fangorn
You are contradicting yourself beyond hope of understanding. You knew the mechanics of sex at 6 and in the same breath were the product of "overprotective" parenting.
Not contradictive at all. When it came to anything substantial of note in life (graffiti, an honest portrayal of sex, etc), my parents tried their damnedest to keep me far from it.
But I was let loose in the local library on the weekends because, in their highly myopic view of the world, there wasn't anything that could *possibly* be in a public library that wasn't sanitized. Well, I just bypassed the children's books and went for ones at my reading level. *shrug*
And like I said, my trauma over it? None. I recall thinking the whole thing seemed pretty messy and weird, but that was about it until puberty. (I had much more important things to worry about, like making that wooden ramp for my BMX track in the side yard.)
Would have been nice to have had parents who had prepared me for that, but no, they were too concerned with keeping that bubble intact at all costs.
Then you want criticize dmz because he won't expose his 7 year old to pornographic graphitti.
Nope, re-read the arguments again. It might help. I criticized him for choosing causing her physical pain over that exposure. And that criticism and perception of his anecdote were brought into question to the point where I think we can all agree he and I utterly miscommunicated. Here endeth that point. I never advocated he expose her to the graffiti just for the hell of it.
And you have how many children?
None, but three nieces/nephews that I adore... and I'm watching them get screwed up by well meaning buy utterly wrong directed fundamentalist Catholic parents. These kids already display severe emotional problems, and having known them since birth, it's been easy to see the progression... and all it's done is reinforce my opinions on parenting. I've been grateful for the opportunity to see yet another example of how things can go wrong, up close.
Believe me, children who know "all about sex" at 7 are one of the many reasons I DON'T send my children to public school. [/B]
I can't say I'm sold on public schools myself, mostly for the low academics. Watching the aforesaid children get seriously screwed up *worse* by home schooling ("Phonics for Young Catholics"??? *shudder*) and a lack of interaction with the world and the society they're going to take a part in some day has cooled me on my anti-public school ardor however.
Originally posted by audiopollution
In not letting her into the bathroom you exercised the same level of control that you have over her radio, television, website, book, magazine, and movie exposure. That's your prerogative as a parent, and that is the extent to which you can dictate what she is exposed to.
Bingo.
---
My fiancee is the product of parenting along the lines you describe, dmz. Sheltered, never watch TV until she was 13. Not allowed to listen to the radio. Privately schooled. Kept under strict control by her parents until she left for college.
She has been completely overwhelmed by the reality of life, unprepared to deal with it, and is now in constant conflict with her parents because of the resentment she holds towards them as a result.
It's a disservice to one's children to send them out in the world unprepared for it.
Bite the bullet and have those hard conversations as the opportunities arise. A good rule of thumb for when it's an appropriate time is letting them ask. And oh, they will.
dmz, what you saw as a situation that your daughter needed to be completely shielded from, I see as a teaching opportunity. Not on the finer points of fellatio, for god's sake, but on civic duty (graffiti is wrong), free speech (the line ends at criminal acts), limits on expression (indoor voice! indoor voice!), and, if asked, about sexuality (that's not it, just a crude stupid scrawling that doesn't mean anything). Different approaches, different philosophies.
Just leave the sex parts out of it, and dollars to donuts, she wouldn't bring them up at that age anyway. They'd just go totally over her head... which they should. Not because of sheltering, but because they just don't matter.
It's simple.
Howard Stern used to support Bush but recently has spoken against him.
ClearChannelCommunications gives money to Bush.
Howard Stern is fired.
Originally posted by dmz
I appreciate the reasoned post, but I don't think we are making the connection.
When someone takes a public space and breaks the law to defile it, they need to be dealt with through apporpriate legal recourse. That is all there is to this, using "free speech" and it "doesn't hurt anyone" is not valid, these rules are in place to keep a limit to what, in part, children hear in those public spaces.
The mural depicting oral sex and the copy requesting anal sex are perfect examples of a few slimeballs who are not resposible, or caring enough, to keep things out of the hands of those who cannot handle them---or worse suffer psychologially form that exposure.
I'm going to let this go here. Except for this: you people who find it "hard to believe" that my 7-year-old doesn't know how to give head should be ashamed of yourselves.
The difference here is that while you never know when you'll run into graphetti, you do know exactly when and where Howard Stern is on every week day. Which means that with all of you parenting skills, you can not tune in.
Your "moral tale" has nothing to do with the actual issue.
And if the FCC can go after Stern for using the clinical and proper term "penis", why can't they stop Limbaugh from blatantly misrepresenting facts and lying on his show? If they have the responisbility of monitoring what we hear, shouldn't they also validate things being passed on "truth"?
Originally posted by Aquatic
Why is this all happening?
It's simple.
Howard Stern used to support Bush but recently has spoken against him.
ClearChannelCommunications gives money to Bush.
Howard Stern is fired.
There's no other elements in that vacuum? Nothing else happened?
Originally posted by Scott
There's no other elements in that vacuum? Nothing else happened?
Well Oprah had a guest explain salad tossing in graphic detail and wasn't fined for it when Stern was for a less graphic discussion about it.
www.stopfcc.com/
...scroll down, and enter your zip code.
Originally posted by BR
Well Oprah had a guest explain salad tossing in graphic detail and wasn't fined for it when Stern was for a less graphic discussion about it.
An interesting note was brought up on the radio today. it was a local show that runs during Stern's morning show, but they brought up the point that during the discussions the FCC stated "a fair and even hand was used when doleing out punishment". However, they pointed out that later in the meeting they didn't go after Oprah because "she's too popular".
EDIT-Here's a transcript of what Oprah said and what howard said. http://www.howardstern.com/oprah.html