Sorry, I've been criticized before for apparently *sheltering* my kids too much and that I can't possibly understand or know what they know ... like withholding pornography and explicit music from my young children makes me "not cool" or a stuffy old prude or something. 1.) I'm not supposed to be too cool, I'm a mother; and 2.) A prude? WTF?
pr0n? From kids? And you were criticized?Sorry, I've been criticized before for apparently *sheltering* my kids too much ... like withholding pornography and explicit music from my young children makes me "not cool" or a stuffy old prude or something. 1.) I'm not supposed to be too cool, I'm a mother; and 2.) A prude? WTF?
What a sad state of affairs. I will just resort to violence. Kid does something I dont like, I will kick him or her down the stairs. Worked for me.
Yeah, I was trying to remember what thread that was in if it's still around.
I don't know who the moron who siad: no porn = sheltering.Sorry, I've been criticized before for apparently *sheltering* my kids too much and that I can't possibly understand or know what they know ... like withholding pornography and explicit music from my young children makes me "not cool" or a stuffy old prude or something. 1.) I'm not supposed to be too cool, I'm a mother; and 2.) A prude? WTF?
Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynn of course, the only 2 opinions that even matter.I don't know who the moron who siad: no porn = sheltering.
This thread is getting waaay off track! In the hope of returning it to its original focus I hereby submit the following two photos I took at a soccer game recently...
From MSNBC's story about school fashion.
Kinda looks like Angie Harmon, that's hot.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14232292
Talk about peer pressure to 'give in' while in HS....
Where is the rule that states that one must be fully engaged in sexual activity before graduating from HS? Or that the person is a , a pansy, or fugly if not?
The 'norm' these days is quite abominable... and unfortunately I find myself swimming against the current with this line-of-thinking.
I admire those who can show restraint and 'save' themselves for marriage. That is the true sign of character, discipline and integrity. To each their own, though.
Let's just address the holier-than-thou post one at a time.
No rule, but where is the rule that says they must not if they so choose? I also fail to see where I called him either of the three names ( , who knows, I might have done it in another post in this thread, but I'm at work and I'm not about to navigate TLong's stalker pictures with editors around), I only said he had the "he's not getting any pussy blues." If he has them because he chooses not to, well, good for him. Who's to say if it's of his own accord?
I'm really glad you admire those who live up to your standards, hegamboa, I really am. I admire those who live up to their own standards.
I admire those who make their own decisions about sex. If they choose to have it, I hope they protect themselves and their lover from disease and the possibilities of pregnancy and the lifelong responsibilities that it can bring. If they want to wait for the "right time" (not necessarily marriage), go for it.
And even though it doesn't make a lick of difference, I didn't engage in sexual intercourse at anytime in my high school years.
Nope, I said he "needed to get laid."
You know, to take the edge off...
And then I said he had the (*singing*) "No Pussy Blues...."
You know, to take the edge off...
And then I responded to TPark's saying he was a "no-pussy getting wuss," of which he brought up, not me...
Well, that was to take my edge off...
So, no, Hegamboa, since I'm 26 years old, I fail to see the "peer" pressure I gave to whatever-the- -his-name-was, because I frankly don't remember at this point.
I said to each their own.... when was I disallowed from criticizing mainstream opinions and concepts? Let's be clear on one thing; I'm not personally judging anybody.
You're en led to believe that... Kudos to those that can wait for the proper context of a sexual relationship however... at least as responsible adults.
Kids or teens should not be engaging in sexual intercourse period.
Last edited by hegamboa; 08-11-2006 at 06:48 PM.
He probably would have never read your post anyways... the peer pressure reference came from gauging a society which has become fixated on all things 'sex'... not specifically in reference to you.
BTW there is nothing wrong with sex... This act, however is not meant for children or teens since 99.9% of them are not able to handle the emotional windfalls that are associated from the experience. Are they physically prepared to engage in sexual activity? Most are since about the age of 12... Mentally and emotionally however, they are not prepared.
Let's be clear on one thing: I didn't say you were disallowed from criticizing any opinion, much less mainstream.
Why is it that people feel dissent of dissent is censorship?
People that believe that should have their criticisms disallowed.
Not censorship per sé.... more along the lines of knowing that defending a minority opinion is 1000x harder than going with the flow.
Whatever.
Roll your eyes all you wish.Whatever.
If people are stupid enough to whine when somebody takes exception to their opinion, then maybe they're too stupid to have one. There's a difference to thinking an opinion is wrong and stating why they believe so - as I've done with you and you've done with me - or crying that, "Oh, I'm being oppressed because you don't like my opinion."
I know you're smarter than that, hegamboa.
I can imagine people in the Spurs forum..."Oh, well, I liked how Pop went small ball, but since people here don't like that opinion, I guess I'm being oppressed and I've been disallowed from criticizing that opinion."
what's a "dress code"?
"Yo, y'all fellas like to stress them chicks
Impress them chicks, spend money to dress them chicks
I sex them chicks and send them home
Corleone is known to be stoned
When I bone, I'm rubbered up in case that full blown
The other night around 8 P.M.
Pockets crazy slim, jumped out the gray BM
Went to the ATM, took a thou' out
then later on I had to wild out
In the club, knock some coward and his pal out
Then afterwards went to the restroom, pissed Cristal out
Now I'm thinkin - which chick number I could dial out
Cause it's L, the Harlem pimp baby, for real
I got more dimes than that Sprint lady"
I see you like making stuff up... I didn't say or imply anything of what you just wrote... which means you're the one taking exception to something that was never stated or inferred. I just wrote down my opinion and then asked when that priviledge was dissallowed. Your 'holier-than-thou' reference however, was a little more than just an opinion; it was an insult. But I'll say it again, I've got no personal feud with you.
Again.... whatever.
Well, maybe you aren't as smart as I gave you credit for.
I didn't say you, in fact, I praised you...but well, there's the evidence.
But in the fashion which you choose to end arguments, whatever, I'm done with you.
Tyler is going to get his ass kicked, that's what I know. His first and last name appears as the only student to support this policy. The ridicule will not end. Good luck Mr. Edwards; Shame on Mr. Reporter.
Secondly, I think this is over the top. The law cannot protect everyone from themselves. I love the hypocrisy of people claiming that nothing is more important than education, yet our punishments are taking more and more kids needlessly out of the classroom. From anti-drug policies to anti-weapons zero tolerances and dress codes that leave kids suspended for weeks on end – we are coming to treat our kids more and more like social deviants before they do anything wrong. We are in a global economy. All these fun games over school morality and the ‘zero tolerance’ of things like nail clippers and vitamins is going to cost the American economy in the long run.
The installation of cameras and the arguments that justify such measures hurts the Bill of Rights in the long run and makes for a citizenry that more and more reliant of the government to set the standard by which they live because they are the last great source of authority.
As a man not that far removed from his days as a horny teenager, never did it matter what the object of my lust was wearing (or not wearing). My experience was not sex in school, but sex after school, and if a girl wants to wear something revealing, there are cars and public bathrooms to change. We can't stop teenagers from having sex. It's just not possible.
I am stunned at what little 4-year-olds are running around in nowadays, but it's not the clothes that are causing teenagers to have sex. Like much of our rules and school guidelines, it's attempting to put a cosmetic fix on a deep-rooted problem in our at udes towards the opposite sex and how we feel about ourselves.
Having sex at 16, 17 is not the problem. The problem is having sex at 16, 17 for the wrong reasons. The problem is how having sex at 16, 17, and 18 affects our ideas about intimacy, sex, and relationships throughout the rest of our lives. The problem is not being prepared for the emotional upheaval of sex, and feeling the need to hide it from parents and teachers for fear that they will not understand. Girls who think they need to have sex to keep a boyfriend, and boys who don't feel like they are men until they have sex...this is the problem. It starts early, like with what a four-year-old is dressed in and how that child reacts to their parents interactions with the opposite sex.
This idea that we are in the middle of the most promiscuous generation is false. We are in an undisciplined generation. Not the worst or the one that we should be the most afraid. Not a generation of Satan’s minions, just parents who don’t properly prepare their children to resist the urge to indulge every whim and an inundation of consumption-driven images that work against this generation of parents while simultaneously teaching the children who will become adults and parents to value the material things over relationships with loved ones and their children, perpetuating the problem for the next generation.
This preoccupation with sex absolutely baffles me. I mean the preoccupation with hiding sex as something dirty. It's a biological function like anything else. It's the only function we don't offer open advice and instruction to our children on. If we were less Puritanical in our ideas about sex and talking about sex, perhaps we would have healthier at udes and the pressure would not be so great on these kids in the first place.
Last edited by Darrin; 08-13-2006 at 07:27 AM.
I could care less how you choose to gauge my intellect.
But if you needed some material...
Your 2nd response to my post:
If you read it closer, your very comment embodied that which you were criticizing.
Your comment thereby negated the very message you were trying to get across. Unfortunately, I don't believe you realize the trap that you ended up writing yourself into, and so by your own admission, had you believed your comment you shouldn't have written it to begin with.
If anything my only error was having quoted you instead of just replying to the thread.... of course, if I did it, it was because I was addressing a point which had long left the general flow of the thread, and used your post as a weak reference to what I was talking about. So if that was the cause of confusion; my bad.
Peace.
BTW I've never heard of the phrase 'holier-than-thou' having a positive connotation or being used as a 'praise.' I've always seen it used with a negative connotation implied; particularly because it is used as a synonym for the word 'judgemental.'
Good section.
My parents once got a disapproving call from my 1st grade teacher. The concern: not only was I younger than everyone else in my class (I was four years old), but apparently I was the only one to call my genitals by their proper biological names (penis, scrotum, testicles etc... and because I also knew the female parts by their names as well). My parents always had a very open discussion with me and my siblings about sex where they were always our 'first source' on the topic and not others around us.
Somehow referring to the genitalia as 'private parts' or 'down there' would have made it seem as though my parents were uncomfortable talking about the subject. Instead, I knew that whatever info they were relaying was open and 'normal' -- even when the rest of society regarded the subject as taboo. The result: I believe we comprehended the purpose of sex well before our hormones created an unnecessary confusion between normal curiosity and other emotions harbored at that pubertal/teen phase of our lives...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
