billvon 2,991 #76 May 7, 2007 >Well, the same generation that revelled in sexual freedom, now has >a laissez faire attitude about teenage sexuality . . . >that would go against the liberal agenda . . . Are you going after the Woodstock generation or the liberals? Or both? Hard to tell from your post. >In sex education classes, self control and responsibility are pooh poohed >as something that is not achievable,so we show them how to do it, instead. Every sex ed class I've been aware of (from the ones I took to the ones I've heard about secondhand) has covered both abstinence and birth control. History has shown that teaching abstinence does squat, but I think it should still be taught anyway as a valid option to birth control. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lisamariewillbe 1 #77 May 7, 2007 Quote You seem to assume that I am not intimately familiar with abuse and what it can do to a person long term. I was molested by my mother from age 8ish-14ish, beaten for as long as I can remember until I left home at age 17. I had no where to go, no resources, no help. No one believed me because my abuser was a 'good Christian woman' and they don't do that kind of thing, they turned a blind eye to the blood and bruises. I never assume anything like that, as a matter a fact I generally assume someone has had some form of abuse in thier life because the statistic show that there are more cases of such then of "normal" life. I think that is impressive that you made a life for yourself in spite of going it alone. You were cheated, sadly you were abused, whats more sad is others around you did not actively help you and make it stop. You had to do it on your own, you had two options, go the painful route and overcome or give into depravity by becoming a product of abuse. Just because you were able to does not mean that everyone can or that everyone can be expected to. QuoteIf I knew that she got mental health care to solve her problem and had been 'normal' for the last 20 years, I would welcome her back into my life in a heartbeat. Then again this was your mother, who there is a relationship with and so theres more investment emotional wise, I have no reason to look at a sexual abuser that is not of relation to me and accept their behavior and give them forgiveness. I also have no right to witch hunt them for crimes after they served their punishment, but I do have a right to know that there is a possible threat to the wellbeing of my own children and I have a right to perceive them as such based upon the fact that sexual crimes generally are serial crimes. I have a right to know and as long as I obey the law and do not use that information for harm then the registry serves me just fine. QuoteWhat happened 20 years ago has no affect on how either the guy or I perceive the girl in the scenario I respect your opinion, but not everyone would perceive the information the same way. I have a 8 year old boy (well 8 this saturday) I am sure I would take the knowledge different then my neighbor who does not have a 8 yr old boy. Its my own nurture versus nature. I can not live nor control every aspect of my children's life but I am in charge of their safety and I appreciate being informed of the people that are placed within close radius of me. No I do not shun them either, theres one 2 doors down, molested a 13 yr old girl, he waves I wave back but I dont invite him to my home nor would I ever. QuoteNothing has happened in 20 years and she is not a pedophile. Quote Unless that person is you then you do not know that the person has not done anything in 20 years. How many tv interviews have the neighbors stating "she was such a quiet girl, whod have thunk shed blow away her whole family over burned cupcakes" okay so im exaggerating but unless you speak of yourself you do not know what a person does or feels in their heart just as I do not know your heart. She is not the same person now that she was then, why should she be judged for someone she no longer is? Quote Theres a good chance she isnt who she was back then, but why should I have to go by her word? Why should she be excluded? If one is excluded then they all should be. Since I do not know the person I am able to judge her based solely on who she was at 13. She would never babysit my sons and thats my right. Would I treat her like shit and stone her? No but I also will not play the PC card and say I am unbiased. I am a mom, I am biased and I would prefer the knowledge then the ignorance. Was your judgement at 13 years old exactly what it is now? Is your sense of right/wrong exactly what it is now? Didn't you pull any stupid 13 year old stunts then that you wouldn't dream of doing now?Quote No but I never fiddled a kid nor has there been a time I ever considered it right once i hit puberty. I played doctor at 9 with 9 year olds, and I still play doctor, but I only play doctor within my peers and legally. Project 20 years down the road... should you be judged in 20 years for the mistakes that you are probably making right now in your life (we all screw up, this isn't a slam on you personally!)Quote Yes and no, I make choices everyday and as an adult I live with the outcomes, I know some judge me in both good and bad ways, I do what I can to show who I am but I do not break the law. If in 20 years people judge me based on their experience it is not my right to tell them they are wrong. And if I molested a child I would know that I broke the law, know that I hurt someone mentally and physically and would know that it would be a crime that no amount of time served could ever truly erase. Theres a big difference in me telling someone she is a crazy bitch and stay out of my life versus assault. Both are judged and judged differently. And anyone who says they are unbiased and do not judge people based on their past or what not is not completely honest. but at some point everyone deserves a second chance and some degree of forgivness assuming that they truly have modified their ways and have proven that for a substantial period of time (years). *** Thats impossible to prove though, I dont know if the pedophile no longer reacts to the disease nor do I know if they stopped acting it out or if they got better at hiding it. I have every right to judge someone as long as I do them no harm in the name of protecting my children (unless they are caught hurting a child then Id do harm to protect the child and take him/her out of the situation.) I also have a right to judge them based on their past because statistics dictate that there is a very high chance of them reverting back to that behaviors, and with that right as long as no harm comes from me to this person, I may live my life, and protect my children from the possible threat. I do not have to give anyone a second chance, nor should I be expected to assume they are cured because the justice system says they are. I do not need to forgive them, I do not need to assume they will not harm my kids. My responsibilities as a parent outweigh my responsibilities to treat strangers as equals, when it comes to who I expose my kids to I error on the side of caution.Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Royd 0 #78 May 8, 2007 >Well, the same generation that revelled in sexual freedom, now has >a laissez faire attitude about teenage sexuality . . . >that would go against the liberal agenda . . . QuoteAre you going after the Woodstock generation or the liberals? Or both? Hard to tell from your post.Those who participated in the debauchery[I am not innocent], saw the end results, but desire to justify their actions by perpetuating them[liberals] which I am not, are the ones of whom I am speaking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #79 May 8, 2007 >Those who participated in the debauchery[I am not innocent], saw the >end results, but desire to justify their actions by perpetuating >them[liberals] which I am not, are the ones of whom I am speaking. Well, I am a liberal, and I don't think that "laissez faire" is a good approach to sex education. So your comments may be a little bit mis-aimed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lindsey 0 #80 May 8, 2007 At 13 we no longer "play doctor" we at 13 have generally hit puberty and a 9 year old is pre-pubescent. That person in essence is a pedophile because he/ she is attracted and acts upon such feelings. Wrong. From the DSM IV "The paraphiliac focus of Pedophilia involves sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger). The individual with Pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least 5 years older than the child. For individuals in late adolescence with Pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used; both the sexual maturity of the child and the age difference must be taken into account." There's a reason that these distinctions are made. The difference between children and adults is more than just the number of years. To continue punishing an adult 20 years later for bad behavior as a 13 y/o is ridiculous, imho.-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 4 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Royd 0 #78 May 8, 2007 >Well, the same generation that revelled in sexual freedom, now has >a laissez faire attitude about teenage sexuality . . . >that would go against the liberal agenda . . . QuoteAre you going after the Woodstock generation or the liberals? Or both? Hard to tell from your post.Those who participated in the debauchery[I am not innocent], saw the end results, but desire to justify their actions by perpetuating them[liberals] which I am not, are the ones of whom I am speaking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #79 May 8, 2007 >Those who participated in the debauchery[I am not innocent], saw the >end results, but desire to justify their actions by perpetuating >them[liberals] which I am not, are the ones of whom I am speaking. Well, I am a liberal, and I don't think that "laissez faire" is a good approach to sex education. So your comments may be a little bit mis-aimed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #80 May 8, 2007 At 13 we no longer "play doctor" we at 13 have generally hit puberty and a 9 year old is pre-pubescent. That person in essence is a pedophile because he/ she is attracted and acts upon such feelings. Wrong. From the DSM IV "The paraphiliac focus of Pedophilia involves sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger). The individual with Pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least 5 years older than the child. For individuals in late adolescence with Pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used; both the sexual maturity of the child and the age difference must be taken into account." There's a reason that these distinctions are made. The difference between children and adults is more than just the number of years. To continue punishing an adult 20 years later for bad behavior as a 13 y/o is ridiculous, imho.-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
