CDZ Intergenerationality

[phoenyx]

I had around the same amount of sexual education myself, although one substitute teacher did manage to sneak in the subject of contraception and our home room teacher had a little speech about not trying to presume too much from getting a hug.

I also was not only restricted in the absence of a sexual education by limited human anatomy, but in my language classes we got to write dissertations on problematic or controversial topics which would pretty much include the wide-spread social absence of sexual orientation and sexual gender education. Those dissertations were never only to be referred in relation to the school and the teaching methods (which largely evaded the students' minds as a long established system of 100 years old), but to the situation in the whole nation. So although our education was limited, it was determined to provide indirectly and at a long term development to each students' individual situation.

Cool . I'm a subscriber of the Salon newsletter, and I got this in my email box today, I thought it was appropriate, especially in light of the issues that many teens face, and how having online friends can help...
The Internet saved my life: At 13, I told one person I wanted to kill myself—my best friend, whom I had never met

In the very same Salon email, there was also also an article detailing the dark side of intergenerationality, from a woman who had suffered child sexual abuse and wrote a memoir about her life, including that element:
My husband wouldn’t read my memoir: “It’s just too painful”

The article itself doesn't specify who did the abusing, but another article I found does- like most cases, it was someone within her circle, in this case a cousin...
Memoir 'The Telling' makes sense of Zoe Zolbrod's childhood sexual abuse

The article actually raises a really interesting point which I think is leading to a general comprehension not only of the necessary education that we all require to live quality lives but also why education doesn't come to be obvious as the fundamental conduct for life as we live in such a complex world, both or children and adults.

Leigh: Nearly ten years later, I was living with my abusive boyfriend, waitressing in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I was seriously depressed again, taking medication in hopes that if I could just “fix” what was inside me, our relationship would also be fixed.

[...]

David: I remember you attributing things to a “chemical imbalance” and not really understanding what that meant at all.

[...]

Leigh: For some reason, I was like, this is really dire and I know the solution… the solution is to end things. [...] I needed to be seen,

[...]

David: Which I think is probably frequently the case. People just want to be heard. And I think at that age, you don’t know what it is. [...] I think a lot of kids in that situation say, “Something is wrong inside of me and it’s been that way for a long time and I don’t see it ending.” Probably the kids that end up going through with it most of the time just say, “It’s felt like this forever and I can’t feel this way anymore and I don’t know what it is.”

I think we can all agree that plenty of mistakes, very grave mistakes, have been made throughout history from its very origin, thousands of years ago. Even after civilization has been built and developed for so long, we still get, at the least, some media informed reference to criminal activity happening somewhere, although at this point the message is usually very politically convoluted and generally confusing for the lay public...

I'm not sure what you mean when you mention "criminal activity happening somewhere". You mention a lot of other stuff, but I think I'll just start with this...

Leigh: Do you remember what your screenname was?

David: I think the standard one was ITWBaker, standing for "Into the Woods" Baker. [...] And what was yours?

Leigh: At one point it was Drama Goil, like with a New York accent.

I think the close suicide of the New York Drama Goil being prevented by the "Into the Woods" Baker empathy somewhat elucidates the problem's reach as well as the problem's solution.

Not sure how it elucidates the problem's reach (and how are you defining the problem?). It seems clear that the author thinks she may well have saved her life though, so it certainly helped with that...

 

[oldsoul]

You are manipulating my posts and you are also manipulating the facts of my interactions with minors. I have done nothing more than answer some of Pumpkin Row's posts. I have not tried to "befriend" her in any way because that is not my "job." She has parents.

Great job. You just "ousted" a minor for any potential pedophiles. I'm sure she, and her parents would be grateful to learn of your indiscretion.

 

[Holos]

I'm not sure what you mean when you mention "criminal activity happening somewhere". You mention a lot of other stuff, but I think I'll just start with this...

I'm mostly referring to popular associations of interactions between foreign and oppositely targeting human groups and medial opportunities taken as inert suggestions by singular individuals that would either choose to abide to one group, or to another, or to none, but in whatever of the three cases deciding to retaliate impulsively through unrestrained consumption or extradition of sources already vetted AND also tolled. Those popular associations, the originating surging messages for those averse public reactions to recognize and redistribute text and image as continuous and importing crime through static technological publication is the mind-frame I was intending to capture.

The picture of a gun with wrapped piles of powders advertised by a printed newspaper sold on newspaper-street-boxes for a single monetary unit is an example. For at least the last 10 years of my lucidity, every day, walking down any main-street, new editions of these papers could be seen either at these pick up newspaper boxes or at actual news-stands with people handing the printed papers for the monetary units in exchange. The citizens at these countries would respond verbally to the papers by talking to each other, generally always displeased at their neighbors behavior, those neighbors in turn which were just another neighbor away from serial, insensitive, lethal criminal activity.

The ebbing result was the "somewhere" always to be evaded, when it was factually just after the second or third neighbor, never too far, so that the children could not explore their own towns without their mothers, fathers, sisters or brothers preoccupied in a possible real assault, homicide or genocide from those not so distant marginalized neighbors.

Not sure how it elucidates the problem's reach (and how are you defining the problem?). It seems clear that the author thinks she may well have saved her life though, so it certainly helped with that...

The article made it clear that if it was not for her friend, she would have proceeded to commit suicide because of no evident venues to promote and enhance life either in the city or anywhere else. Her friend had already at least some glimpse of those avenues in being able to project from Las Vegas, a large city, where baking is sure widespread, "into the woods", where you'd find hundreds if not thousands of the best ingredients for enhancing and promoting life in any form - baking or otherwise.

 

[phoenyx]

I'm not sure what you mean when you mention "criminal activity happening somewhere". You mention a lot of other stuff, but I think I'll just start with this...

I'm mostly referring to popular associations of interactions between foreign and oppositely targeting human groups and medial opportunities taken as inert suggestions by singular individuals that would either choose to abide to one group, or to another, or to none, but in whatever of the three cases deciding to retaliate impulsively through unrestrained consumption or extradition of sources already vetted AND also tolled. Those popular associations, the originating surging messages for those averse public reactions to recognize and redistribute text and image as continuous and importing crime through static technological publication is the mind-frame I was intending to capture.

The picture of a gun with wrapped piles of powders advertised by a printed newspaper sold on newspaper-street-boxes for a single monetary unit is an example. For at least the last 10 years of my lucidity, every day, walking down any main-street, new editions of these papers could be seen either at these pick up newspaper boxes or at actual news-stands with people handing the printed papers for the monetary units in exchange. The citizens at these countries would respond verbally to the papers by talking to each other, generally always displeased at their neighbors behavior, those neighbors in turn which were just another neighbor away from serial, insensitive, lethal criminal activity.

The ebbing result was the "somewhere" always to be evaded, when it was factually just after the second or third neighbor, never too far, so that the children could not explore their own towns without their mothers, fathers, sisters or brothers preoccupied in a possible real assault, homicide or genocide from those not so distant marginalized neighbors.

Holos, I hope you're not offended, but the way you speak, it kind of reminds me of riddles . I could guess at the meaning of many of the things you have said above, but I think I'll just focus on the last paragraph- are you essentially agreeing that "stranger danger" has not increased, just its public perception? Also, could you elaborate on what y ou mean by "second or third neighbour"?

Not sure how it elucidates the problem's reach (and how are you defining the problem?). It seems clear that the author thinks she may well have saved her life though, so it certainly helped with that...

The article made it clear that if it was not for her friend, she would have proceeded to commit suicide because of no evident venues to promote and enhance life either in the city or anywhere else.

Ah, ok

 

[phoenyx]

I found an article I found to be quite interesting today, and would appreciate constructive comments on it. Its intergenerationality context is the frequently deep divide between what younger generations are seeing as appropriate and what older generations are seeing as appropriate. I'll include a brief excerpt:
**When I Was a 13-Year-Old Camgirl

Before sexting even existed, I was stripping on webcam for boys at my school. My only regret is being found out.

I was speaking to my dad on the phone last month when we started talking about sexting. He asked, his voice swollen with pained incredulity, if I'd heard how a 14-year-old boy from the north of England had been put onto a police database after sending a naked picture of himself to a girl of the same age via Snapchat.

"Isn't it awful? This boy's life will never be the same again, " my dad said, recounting how the boy's school had gotten in touch with the police after his sext began circulating among students. I listened on the other end of the line with a sinking heart and a tightening chest.

We talked about the anonymous boy; about his life, his feelings, and the harm he is now enduring and will endure for far longer. We were also talking about me.

Sexting, of course, is a word of adult invention. Its etymology betrays a disconnect with youth, and when ascribed to the behavior of minors, its usage is mainly employed in conjunction with parental panic. But sexting isn't a recent invention—it's the result of the natural progression in how adolescent sexuality is communicated in an ever-advancing digital age. Before Snapchat, there was BBM; before BBM was MMS, and before we took virtual sexual communications on the go, there was the humble webcam.

The webcam, that bulbous little fly on the wall, was a status symbol in the days of MSN Messenger. I had to have one. On my 13th birthday, my parents trudged after me in Brent Cross Shopping Centre in suburban London as I picked out my first ever personal computer. I didn't have any requirements that needed meeting except one: That it came with a webcam. My parents didn't know any better, though they kept asking why the damn webcam was so important to me.

To be fair, the journey of my sexuality had started long before the webcam's mechanical eye. It started when I was seven years old, hiding in the toilets at my all-girls' primary school and learning how to kiss with my classmates. I wasn't much older than nine when I clicked on a porn pop-up and realized that masturbation could now be accompanied with video and images.

My move to a mixed-gender school at 11 coincided with my first experiences of cat-calling: Men in cars told me I had a "nice ass" as I skipped to the shops. I was aware not only of my own sexual desires but also the desires of others. That awareness gave me a licence to freely explore my own sexuality from a young age. At least, that's what it felt like.

To put it simply—and to me, it really was simple—I had an arrangement with around five or six boys in my year at school when I was 13 years old. I would log on to MSN Messenger almost immediately after I got home from school. Just as everyone else did, I'd talk shit with whoever was online. But as soon as one of the boys in the know logged on, all other conversations halted.

They would usually ask me to strip, sometimes half-naked, sometimes completely. After ten minutes or so, our conversation would end; I'd move onto another boy. One boy asked me to jerk off for him, but I declined; that was that.

After a blissful year of camming, my entire life as I knew it flipped on its head in the space of a day. One of the boys told his mother, or maybe she found out some other way. And despite my activities being more or less widely known throughout the male population of my year at school, the fact that it was now known outside of the sanctioned circle turned it unacceptable.

When I walked into school on the first day of Year 9, I knew that everyone knew. My parents knew; the other children's parents knew; I'm pretty sure that every teacher at my very small school knew. I came home to a handwritten, hand-posted letter from my best friends, explaining exactly why what I had done was disgusting, and that as a result they could now no longer associate themselves with me. I was a pariah...**

Read more at: When I Was a 13-Year-Old Camgirl | Broadly

 

[320 Years of History]

You are manipulating my posts and you are also manipulating the facts of my interactions with minors. I have done nothing more than answer some of Pumpkin Row's posts. I have not tried to "befriend" her in any way because that is not my "job." She has parents.

Off Topic:
Is that member a minor? I don't know, but if s/he is, that explains a lot about the epistemology of his/her remarks and why they exist. Of course, and again assuming s/he is a minor, that s/he takes an active enough interest in current political issues and discussion is a good thing.

For parents, any time an adult person shows an unusual amount of interest in befriending your child on the internet or in real life, you should be concerned. That is the MO of your typical pedophile. Most adults are not out trying to befriend children.

Well, I have to agree with that and take it one step further. Even adults who have very close, positive and meaningful relationships with minors understand those relationships cannot evolve into friendships until the minor reaches the age of majority. The kids in those relationships may consider the adults to be friends, but the adults in them, at least if they have held the relationship in the proper perspective, know they are parents, teachers, mentors, advisors, etc., and that they are not the children's friend, nor the child theirs, no matter how avuncular, benevolent, beneficent or benignant they are toward the children.

 

[phoenyx]

You are manipulating my posts and you are also manipulating the facts of my interactions with minors. I have done nothing more than answer some of Pumpkin Row's posts. I have not tried to "befriend" her in any way because that is not my "job." She has parents.

Off Topic:
Is that member a minor? I don't know, but if s/he is, that explains a lot about the epistemology of his/her remarks and why they exist. Of course, and again assuming s/he is a minor, that s/he takes an active enough interest in current political issues and discussion is a good thing.

Assuming the age on her profile is reasonably accurate, yes, she would be a minor. I think she's pretty right wing (though she doesn't like Trump or the Republican party), I'm pretty left wing (I wanted Bernie, since he's out I'm now supporting Jill Stein), so we generally don't agree on political matters.

For parents, any time an adult person shows an unusual amount of interest in befriending your child on the internet or in real life, you should be concerned. That is the MO of your typical pedophile. Most adults are not out trying to befriend children.

Well, I have to agree with that and take it one step further. Even adults who have very close, positive and meaningful relationships with minors understand those relationships cannot evolve into friendships until the minor reaches the age of majority. The kids in those relationships may consider the adults to be friends, but the adults in them, at least if they have held the relationship in the proper perspective, know they are parents, teachers, mentors, advisors, etc., and that they are not the children's friend, nor the child theirs, no matter how avuncular, benevolent, beneficent or benignant they are toward the children.

I just found a 2 articles online that I think kind of express my views on all of this. The first one examines the issue of whether it's a good thing if parents befriend their kids. It concludes that friendship is a good thing, so long as it's a certain -kind- of friendship:
**
Friendships with authority figures: Warmth, trust, companionship...and limits

Consider the parent who enforces limits and avoids worrying her kids with detailed accounts of her adult personal problems.

She is first and foremost a mother to her kids.

But she might also see herself as a friend because she and her kids share a sense of mutual loyalty, trust, and respect.

In addition...

• She treats her children as individuals with minds of their own.
• She talks with her kids about their thoughts, hopes, ideas, and feelings.
• She shares bits of her own “mental life" with them--not the bits likely to distress kids, but bits that help kids see their parents as human beings (Example: “I’m disappointed. I wish we could go to Disneyland, too, but we can’t afford it.")

This notion of friendship seems consistent with the literature on secure attachments, “mind-minded parenting," inductive discipline (explaining why it’s important to follow rules), and authoritative parenting (parenting that is warm and responsive, but also associated with high standards).

Is this really friendship?

It’s not a strictly egalitarian friendship. It’s more like the sort of friendship that some adults manage to have with authority figures--like senior colleagues, supervisors, mentors, community leaders, or religious advisors.

Both parties respect each other. They care about and trust each other. They can have meaningful conversations and enjoy each other’s company in informal settings. But there are constraints. The dominant party has to keep some information to himself. And there are times when the dominant party must exercise his authority.

Is it worth it? I suppose it depends on your personal characteristics and cultural beliefs. And maybe some kids don’t adapt well to the parent-as-authoritative-friend model.

But studies on Western kids are generally supportive of the rational, friendly, authoritative approach to parenting. **

Read more at: Should parents be friends with their kids?

The second article is addressed to parents as well, but it goes beyond the parenting box, to other adults that children interact with. It focuses on adult interactions with preteens, not teens, but I think that the argument can be extended to teens as well.
**
Love you but….
“It’s normal for kids to enjoy spending time with adults who aren’t their parents,” says Douglas. “Let’s face it: mom and dad aren’t always on their company behaviour.” A grown-up friend isn’t reminding your child to do his homework, or worrying about getting dinner on the table — she’s focusing on all the good stuff. Children with siblings at home may feel like an only child, the sole centre of attention, with their new friend. “It’s a novelty,” says Douglas.

“Parents have to divide their attention between wants and needs,” says Heather MacDonald-Moore, who has 17 years of experience working with Brownies and Girl Guides. “A family friend or aunt is usually able to focus on just the wants and kids like that,” says the Brantford, Ont., mom of two. “Having other adults befriend your kids can open them up to different perspectives and different ways of doing things, different ways of thinking,” she says. “That’s what you want for your kids — the chance to have unique experiences that they can then bring home and share with the rest of the family.”

These relationships aren’t always long-term either. “Lacey seems to move from aunt to aunt,” she says of her oldest daughter. “I can understand the attraction — her aunts have fashion shows with her, it’s all about fun when she’s with them.”**

Connection concern
If you’re worried about the bond your child is forming with another adult, there are things you can do to allay your fears. Start by getting to know the adult yourself if you don’t already. Find out what kinds of things they do when they’re together, and make sure intentions are above-board. “It helps to form a connection of your own,” says MacDonald-Moore. “Do they share at least some of your values? Will they respect the boundaries you’ve set for your child, at least the ones you feel are most important? Do you trust the other adult?”

And if the hairs on the back of your neck are still standing up, dig deeper. In Douglas’ case, her son was spending a lot of time with a friend’s father, asking him for rides, wanting to spend time at their house. “Over time, we discovered it was because the friend’s dad set no limits — he’d let the kids do anything.” At first Douglas’ son was resentful of their questioning, but eventually realized why the relationship wasn’t a positive one. “Talk to your children about your concerns,” says Douglas. And teach them how to develop their own internal radar, so they can recognize an unhealthy relationship.

Support system
As the saying goes, it takes a village to raise a child. “If there’s one more adult looking out for your kid, one more person they can turn to in an emergency, or find reassurance and understanding from — that’s not a bad thing,” says Douglas. Plus, says MacDonald-Moore, “Your kids are learning to relate to other people, to broaden their horizons.” It may also help your kids appreciate you even more.**

Read more at: Why It's Normal For Your Preteen To Bond With Other Adults

 

[320 Years of History]

I think she's pretty right wing

She, like all minors, is "fishing" for what she is, what she wants to be, and why. That's appropriate as one's minority is the right time to figure out those things.

The moment you doubt whether you can fly, you cease forever to be able to do it.
― J.M. Barrie, Peter Pan​

 

[ChrisL]

I found an article I found to be quite interesting today, and would appreciate constructive comments on it. Its intergenerationality context is the frequently deep divide between what younger generations are seeing as appropriate and what older generations are seeing as appropriate. I'll include a brief excerpt:
**When I Was a 13-Year-Old Camgirl

Before sexting even existed, I was stripping on webcam for boys at my school. My only regret is being found out.

I was speaking to my dad on the phone last month when we started talking about sexting. He asked, his voice swollen with pained incredulity, if I'd heard how a 14-year-old boy from the north of England had been put onto a police database after sending a naked picture of himself to a girl of the same age via Snapchat.

"Isn't it awful? This boy's life will never be the same again, " my dad said, recounting how the boy's school had gotten in touch with the police after his sext began circulating among students. I listened on the other end of the line with a sinking heart and a tightening chest.

We talked about the anonymous boy; about his life, his feelings, and the harm he is now enduring and will endure for far longer. We were also talking about me.

Sexting, of course, is a word of adult invention. Its etymology betrays a disconnect with youth, and when ascribed to the behavior of minors, its usage is mainly employed in conjunction with parental panic. But sexting isn't a recent invention—it's the result of the natural progression in how adolescent sexuality is communicated in an ever-advancing digital age. Before Snapchat, there was BBM; before BBM was MMS, and before we took virtual sexual communications on the go, there was the humble webcam.

The webcam, that bulbous little fly on the wall, was a status symbol in the days of MSN Messenger. I had to have one. On my 13th birthday, my parents trudged after me in Brent Cross Shopping Centre in suburban London as I picked out my first ever personal computer. I didn't have any requirements that needed meeting except one: That it came with a webcam. My parents didn't know any better, though they kept asking why the damn webcam was so important to me.

To be fair, the journey of my sexuality had started long before the webcam's mechanical eye. It started when I was seven years old, hiding in the toilets at my all-girls' primary school and learning how to kiss with my classmates. I wasn't much older than nine when I clicked on a porn pop-up and realized that masturbation could now be accompanied with video and images.

My move to a mixed-gender school at 11 coincided with my first experiences of cat-calling: Men in cars told me I had a "nice ass" as I skipped to the shops. I was aware not only of my own sexual desires but also the desires of others. That awareness gave me a licence to freely explore my own sexuality from a young age. At least, that's what it felt like.

To put it simply—and to me, it really was simple—I had an arrangement with around five or six boys in my year at school when I was 13 years old. I would log on to MSN Messenger almost immediately after I got home from school. Just as everyone else did, I'd talk shit with whoever was online. But as soon as one of the boys in the know logged on, all other conversations halted.

They would usually ask me to strip, sometimes half-naked, sometimes completely. After ten minutes or so, our conversation would end; I'd move onto another boy. One boy asked me to jerk off for him, but I declined; that was that.

After a blissful year of camming, my entire life as I knew it flipped on its head in the space of a day. One of the boys told his mother, or maybe she found out some other way. And despite my activities being more or less widely known throughout the male population of my year at school, the fact that it was now known outside of the sanctioned circle turned it unacceptable.

When I walked into school on the first day of Year 9, I knew that everyone knew. My parents knew; the other children's parents knew; I'm pretty sure that every teacher at my very small school knew. I came home to a handwritten, hand-posted letter from my best friends, explaining exactly why what I had done was disgusting, and that as a result they could now no longer associate themselves with me. I was a pariah...**

Read more at: When I Was a 13-Year-Old Camgirl | Broadly

Is this what you are hoping to get from our teen members? This would explain your unusual amount of interest in befriending teen members. That would child pornography which is against the law.

 

[ChrisL]

You are manipulating my posts and you are also manipulating the facts of my interactions with minors. I have done nothing more than answer some of Pumpkin Row's posts. I have not tried to "befriend" her in any way because that is not my "job." She has parents.

Great job. You just "ousted" a minor for any potential pedophiles. I'm sure she, and her parents would be grateful to learn of your indiscretion.

The age and sex of the poster is right on the profile. Derrr. Not to mention, a big discussion was already had about whether or not this particular member was too young for this type of venue.

 

[ChrisL]

Again, I would caution any parents who's child is associating online with an adult man.

 

[oldsoul]

You are manipulating my posts and you are also manipulating the facts of my interactions with minors. I have done nothing more than answer some of Pumpkin Row's posts. I have not tried to "befriend" her in any way because that is not my "job." She has parents.

Great job. You just "ousted" a minor for any potential pedophiles. I'm sure she, and her parents would be grateful to learn of your indiscretion.

The age and sex of the poster is right on the profile. Derrr. Not to mention, a big discussion was already had about whether or not this particular member was too young for this type of venue.

How, exactly, would one have such knowledge, unless one was interested in more information that said poster readily revealed to them? In other words, why would you bother to look, unless you had a reason? So, what was your reason?

It really does not change the fact that YOU made the information more accessible.

 

[ChrisL]

You are manipulating my posts and you are also manipulating the facts of my interactions with minors. I have done nothing more than answer some of Pumpkin Row's posts. I have not tried to "befriend" her in any way because that is not my "job." She has parents.

Great job. You just "ousted" a minor for any potential pedophiles. I'm sure she, and her parents would be grateful to learn of your indiscretion.

The age and sex of the poster is right on the profile. Derrr. Not to mention, a big discussion was already had about whether or not this particular member was too young for this type of venue.

How, exactly, would one have such knowledge, unless one was interested in more information that said poster readily revealed to them? In other words, why would you bother to look, unless you had a reason? So, what was your reason?

It really does not change the fact that YOU made the information more accessible.

Give it up. I've done no such thing. Like I said, there was a discussion about this particular poster in the announcements section of the forum. Now, it is completely inappropriate for a 40-year-old man to be private messaging and trying to form a "relationship" with this child online. INAPPROPRIATE at least.

 

[oldsoul]

Again, I would caution any parents who's child is associating online with an adult man.

I am curious. Why are you so angry at men? Why is it that you seem to support different rules for men than women? Is that not sexism? Is it not sexism to make blanket statements about all men based on the actions of a few? How is what you are saying about men, different from racist comments? Or generalizations about women?

More to the point, why are you so adamantly focused on sexual relationships, when the thread was about sex ed. and general interactions? By the way those where initially presented as two separate topics that are related for the purpose of the discussion, but otherwise are not. I find it disturbing that you are unable to distinguish between interactions and relationships of a sexual nature. It would indicate to me that you have some unresolved issues, but then I am no clinical psychologist.

 

[oldsoul]

You are manipulating my posts and you are also manipulating the facts of my interactions with minors. I have done nothing more than answer some of Pumpkin Row's posts. I have not tried to "befriend" her in any way because that is not my "job." She has parents.

Great job. You just "ousted" a minor for any potential pedophiles. I'm sure she, and her parents would be grateful to learn of your indiscretion.

The age and sex of the poster is right on the profile. Derrr. Not to mention, a big discussion was already had about whether or not this particular member was too young for this type of venue.

How, exactly, would one have such knowledge, unless one was interested in more information that said poster readily revealed to them? In other words, why would you bother to look, unless you had a reason? So, what was your reason?

It really does not change the fact that YOU made the information more accessible.

Give it up. I've done no such thing. Like I said, there was a discussion about this particular poster in the announcements section of the forum. Now, it is completely inappropriate for a 40-year-old man to be private messaging and trying to form a "relationship" with this child online. INAPPROPRIATE at least.

You can deflect all you want, the fact remains that until YOU posted the name, I had no idea who you were talking about. I seriously doubt I am alone in this.

 

[ChrisL]

You are manipulating my posts and you are also manipulating the facts of my interactions with minors. I have done nothing more than answer some of Pumpkin Row's posts. I have not tried to "befriend" her in any way because that is not my "job." She has parents.

Off Topic:
Is that member a minor? I don't know, but if s/he is, that explains a lot about the epistemology of his/her remarks and why they exist. Of course, and again assuming s/he is a minor, that s/he takes an active enough interest in current political issues and discussion is a good thing.

Assuming the age on her profile is reasonably accurate, yes, she would be a minor. I think she's pretty right wing (though she doesn't like Trump or the Republican party), I'm pretty left wing (I wanted Bernie, since he's out I'm now supporting Jill Stein), so we generally don't agree on political matters.

For parents, any time an adult person shows an unusual amount of interest in befriending your child on the internet or in real life, you should be concerned. That is the MO of your typical pedophile. Most adults are not out trying to befriend children.

Well, I have to agree with that and take it one step further. Even adults who have very close, positive and meaningful relationships with minors understand those relationships cannot evolve into friendships until the minor reaches the age of majority. The kids in those relationships may consider the adults to be friends, but the adults in them, at least if they have held the relationship in the proper perspective, know they are parents, teachers, mentors, advisors, etc., and that they are not the children's friend, nor the child theirs, no matter how avuncular, benevolent, beneficent or benignant they are toward the children.

I just found a 2 articles online that I think kind of express my views on all of this. The first one examines the issue of whether it's a good thing if parents befriend their kids. It concludes that friendship is a good thing, so long as it's a certain -kind- of friendship:
**
Friendships with authority figures: Warmth, trust, companionship...and limits

Consider the parent who enforces limits and avoids worrying her kids with detailed accounts of her adult personal problems.

She is first and foremost a mother to her kids.

But she might also see herself as a friend because she and her kids share a sense of mutual loyalty, trust, and respect.

In addition...

• She treats her children as individuals with minds of their own.
• She talks with her kids about their thoughts, hopes, ideas, and feelings.
• She shares bits of her own “mental life" with them--not the bits likely to distress kids, but bits that help kids see their parents as human beings (Example: “I’m disappointed. I wish we could go to Disneyland, too, but we can’t afford it.")

This notion of friendship seems consistent with the literature on secure attachments, “mind-minded parenting," inductive discipline (explaining why it’s important to follow rules), and authoritative parenting (parenting that is warm and responsive, but also associated with high standards).

Is this really friendship?

It’s not a strictly egalitarian friendship. It’s more like the sort of friendship that some adults manage to have with authority figures--like senior colleagues, supervisors, mentors, community leaders, or religious advisors.

Both parties respect each other. They care about and trust each other. They can have meaningful conversations and enjoy each other’s company in informal settings. But there are constraints. The dominant party has to keep some information to himself. And there are times when the dominant party must exercise his authority.

Is it worth it? I suppose it depends on your personal characteristics and cultural beliefs. And maybe some kids don’t adapt well to the parent-as-authoritative-friend model.

But studies on Western kids are generally supportive of the rational, friendly, authoritative approach to parenting. **

Read more at: Should parents be friends with their kids?

The second article is addressed to parents as well, but it goes beyond the parenting box, to other adults that children interact with. It focuses on adult interactions with preteens, not teens, but I think that the argument can be extended to teens as well.
**
Love you but….
“It’s normal for kids to enjoy spending time with adults who aren’t their parents,” says Douglas. “Let’s face it: mom and dad aren’t always on their company behaviour.” A grown-up friend isn’t reminding your child to do his homework, or worrying about getting dinner on the table — she’s focusing on all the good stuff. Children with siblings at home may feel like an only child, the sole centre of attention, with their new friend. “It’s a novelty,” says Douglas.

“Parents have to divide their attention between wants and needs,” says Heather MacDonald-Moore, who has 17 years of experience working with Brownies and Girl Guides. “A family friend or aunt is usually able to focus on just the wants and kids like that,” says the Brantford, Ont., mom of two. “Having other adults befriend your kids can open them up to different perspectives and different ways of doing things, different ways of thinking,” she says. “That’s what you want for your kids — the chance to have unique experiences that they can then bring home and share with the rest of the family.”

These relationships aren’t always long-term either. “Lacey seems to move from aunt to aunt,” she says of her oldest daughter. “I can understand the attraction — her aunts have fashion shows with her, it’s all about fun when she’s with them.”**

Connection concern
If you’re worried about the bond your child is forming with another adult, there are things you can do to allay your fears. Start by getting to know the adult yourself if you don’t already. Find out what kinds of things they do when they’re together, and make sure intentions are above-board. “It helps to form a connection of your own,” says MacDonald-Moore. “Do they share at least some of your values? Will they respect the boundaries you’ve set for your child, at least the ones you feel are most important? Do you trust the other adult?”

And if the hairs on the back of your neck are still standing up, dig deeper. In Douglas’ case, her son was spending a lot of time with a friend’s father, asking him for rides, wanting to spend time at their house. “Over time, we discovered it was because the friend’s dad set no limits — he’d let the kids do anything.” At first Douglas’ son was resentful of their questioning, but eventually realized why the relationship wasn’t a positive one. “Talk to your children about your concerns,” says Douglas. And teach them how to develop their own internal radar, so they can recognize an unhealthy relationship.

Support system
As the saying goes, it takes a village to raise a child. “If there’s one more adult looking out for your kid, one more person they can turn to in an emergency, or find reassurance and understanding from — that’s not a bad thing,” says Douglas. Plus, says MacDonald-Moore, “Your kids are learning to relate to other people, to broaden their horizons.” It may also help your kids appreciate you even more.**

Read more at: Why It's Normal For Your Preteen To Bond With Other Adults

People who the child's family KNOWS. No one in their right mind would encourage children to befriend adult men that they meet online!!!

 

[ChrisL]

You are manipulating my posts and you are also manipulating the facts of my interactions with minors. I have done nothing more than answer some of Pumpkin Row's posts. I have not tried to "befriend" her in any way because that is not my "job." She has parents.

Great job. You just "ousted" a minor for any potential pedophiles. I'm sure she, and her parents would be grateful to learn of your indiscretion.

The age and sex of the poster is right on the profile. Derrr. Not to mention, a big discussion was already had about whether or not this particular member was too young for this type of venue.

How, exactly, would one have such knowledge, unless one was interested in more information that said poster readily revealed to them? In other words, why would you bother to look, unless you had a reason? So, what was your reason?

It really does not change the fact that YOU made the information more accessible.

Give it up. I've done no such thing. Like I said, there was a discussion about this particular poster in the announcements section of the forum. Now, it is completely inappropriate for a 40-year-old man to be private messaging and trying to form a "relationship" with this child online. INAPPROPRIATE at least.

You can deflect all you want, the fact remains that until YOU posted the name, I had no idea who you were talking about. I seriously doubt I am alone in this.

Whatever, buddy! You have no idea what this discussion is about apparently!

 

[ChrisL]

There is bound to be at least 1 pedophile on any large and busy website, especially true for those that are of interest to children/teens. So that is something to keep in mind. These places are like a magnet to the ghouls.

 

[phoenyx]

I think she's pretty right wing

She, like all minors, is "fishing" for what she is, what she wants to be, and why. That's appropriate as one's minority is the right time to figure out those things.

The moment you doubt whether you can fly, you cease forever to be able to do it.
― J.M. Barrie, Peter Pan​

I agree on the fishing part. I don't agree with Barrie on that point though . I believe that doubting or disbelieving something (or the reverse, feeling or believing that something is true) only affect you while those conditions are in effect. I think Robin Williams' Peter Pan got the gist of that- as soon as he started believing in certain things again, he could once again see his world as magical again

 

[phoenyx]

You are manipulating my posts and you are also manipulating the facts of my interactions with minors. I have done nothing more than answer some of [PR's] posts. I have not tried to "befriend" her in any way because that is not my "job." She has parents.

Great job. You just "ousted" a minor for any potential pedophiles. I'm sure she, and her parents would be grateful to learn of your indiscretion.

The age and sex of the poster is right on the profile. Derrr. Not to mention, a big discussion was already had about whether or not this particular member was too young for this type of venue.

He may have missed the original discussion. That being said, the fact that this minor hasn't participated in this thread at all may suggest that perhaps we should keep her USMB moniker out of this thread?