CDZ Intergenerationality

[oldsoul]

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!

Actually, I know exactly what this discussion was intended to be about. I'll give you a hint: It's not sexual relationships, something you, and only you, continue to bring up. I simply wonder why that is. As someone who has first hand knowledge of the subject, though not professionally, it is my understanding that when a person continually brings sex into an otherwise non-sexual discussion, it is generally due to unresolved sexual issues on their part. I have no idea if this is true for you, nor do I care. I do, however, care about your lack of discretion when it comes to the identity of a minor. Something you portend to be in agreement with me on, until you showed your lack of discretion.
So, before you continue to go around spewing general indictments of the male gender, remember that you are not without fault as well, and that most men are not predators, therefore it would be unwise to make generalizations to that effect. It is sexism, just as generalizations about women is sexism, generalizations about race is racism, etc.

 

[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.

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

I apologize.

As described before, I am coming from a very sensitive, traumatizing experience, which is therefore requiring multiple steps in my thought process to explain the situation without incurring further uncontrolled reactions that had been loosely but firmly imprinted on my, at that time, unwanted self.

I should delight in riddles, I went to advanced schooling for them (college and university in the cultural anthropology program). The institutional processes weren't, anyhow, supportive of my engaging and developing interest in alliance to my personal history of a disenfranchised individual identity.

Yes, precisely. I was attempting to state what you so simply put as danger only really increasing in perception but not in anyway exterior, not in a world in which the law is not only academic, but existential in binding the very particles of the diverse compounds that characterize physical conditions and movement. Those same laws continue their development in the physical world unto the social world, ever since civilization was established from more primitive, now strictly historic, human associations. That understanding of safety (the understanding of the law in governing guidance) simply has not been reached by all citizens yet, although freely available and easily accessible, which is why I support the improvement of education (on life, human life, and sex). Perhaps the improvement at this point does not require further structural change (in policy or grades), but it most definitely would require a change in deliverance. I think the most crucial aspect of a proposal for an improved education is that people may be educated anywhere and in any situation, regardless of their chosen social activities, of their interest for sex, or their preferential living standards, even as they may be fully biological human beings (therefore rightful owners of sex who benefit from it individually) and most fundamentally animals (therefore owners of an organism provided for by the geological environment).


If still anyhow relevant, the "second and third neighbor" discourse was simply an analogy to the difficulty of deliverance and reception in a yet reaching education experienced by most citizens I have encountered throughout my own gradual education. The "second and third neighbors" were (and perhaps still are) the uneducated projections of single individuals who would yet be struggling ignorantly, dissociating their perceptions of danger from their own ability (and inability) to comprehend the world at large as well as their own unnecessarily protected, enclosed world (infiltrated - beneficently but overwhelmingly - by an information more complex than their ability to process it because of emergent technological achievements, therefore generally recurring to a numbing intoxication in order to alleviate the impact).

 

[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

Is this what you are hoping to get from our teen members?

No. I brought up this article because I wanted to make a point that few people like to acknowledge, despite it being pretty obvious to anyone who has actually been a teen and hasn't somehow forgotten what their thoughts dwelled upon for a good amount of that time- teens -want- to be sexual. I certainly wanted to be when I was a teen. Hell, I wanted to be sexual -before- I was a teen. I personally had very few opportunities. Being a mother, perhaps you would think that was a good thing. I certainly didn't.

The mainstream media harps endlessly about predators of various shapes and sizes, but there is a very ugly underbelly to all of these arguments: our culture frequently pretends that the only issue is adults wanting to be sexual with teens. The fact of the matter is that teens -also- want to be sexual with teens, and there's a hell of a lot more teens trying (and succeeding) in -being- sexual with teens then adults. The referenced article depicts a truly tragic tale. A young teenage female, who -wanted- to flirt with teenage classmates by letting them see her via webcam in various stages of undress. She enjoyed doing this for a year, until a mother of one of the boys found out. Here's how she describes it:
**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.**

Then one day, it all changed:
**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.**

Now, here's a little quiz question for you- what, precisely, do you think damaged her: her sexual flirtations with a few of her male teenage classmates, or the reaction from the rest of society when her flirtations were discovered by one of the boy's mothers?

The thing is, a fair amount of minors have suffered even worse then she did for engaging in some type of sexual interaction with their peers. Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia's entry on Judith Levine's book, "Harmful to Minors":
**The book also examines the terms "harmful to minors" and "indecency," which Levine considers to be umbrella terms for censorship, as well as the Dylan v. Heather case, and the little-known SPARK-Support Program for Abusive Reactive Kids and STEP-Sexual Treatment Education Program and Services, both of which she claims do far more harm than the child sex offenders did themselves.**

Harmful to Minors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[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

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

I disagree, especially if the child in question is not exactly a social butterfly. When I was 17, I got access to a bulletin board system, the internet not really being around yet. I was pretty awkward socially with my peers, but I had little trouble striking up conversations with people of all ages online. At first, I preferred doing this strictly on a 1 to 1 basis. No forum posts for me, thank you. Only later, once I became more comfortable with dealing with people in a public setting did I start posting in forums. In the bulletin board, one's age was usually posted, but I later got an account at a MUD, or Multi User Dungeon, basically a text based role playing game online- on that, people's ages was frequently not mentioned and we all got along fine anyway. I think I was one of the first teens to find more of a social life online then off it, and to have a distinct disregard for ages. That was 23 years ago, around 1992. Today, it's become common for teens to make friends online -before- meeting them in person:
**Interestingly, 57% of teens reported meeting a new friend online. 29% of teens say they have made five or more friends online.**

Source: Teens are actually more old-fashioned than adults when it comes to online dating

A lot of people, of all ages, like the fact that online, you can frequently find a niche where you can just be who you want to be, and you can leave many of the things that would hamper you in the 'real world' behind. Back when the internet was just starting out, in 1993, there was a famous cartoon from the New Yorker that has 2 dogs talking to each other, one in front of a computer monitor that has since become a well known adage. Wikipedia goes into more depth:
**"On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog" is an adage which began as a cartoon caption by Peter Steiner and published by The New Yorker on July 5, 1993.[1][2] The cartoon features two dogs: one sitting on a chair in front of a computer, speaking the caption to a second dog sitting on the floor listening to the first.[3] As of 2011, the panel was the most reproduced cartoon from The New Yorker, and Steiner has earned over US$50,000 from its reprinting.[1][4][5]**

The article continues further down:
**The phrase can be taken "to mean that cyberspace will be liberatory because gender, race, age, looks, or even 'dogness' are potentially absent or alternatively fabricated or exaggerated with unchecked creative license for a multitude of purposes both legal and illegal", an understanding that echoed statements made in 1996 by John Gilmore, a key figure in the history of Usenet.[9] The phrase also suggests the ability to "computer cross-dress" and represent oneself as a different gender, age, race, etc.[10]**

Source: On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[phoenyx]

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!

Actually, I know exactly what this discussion was intended to be about. I'll give you a hint: It's not sexual relationships, something you, and only you, continue to bring up. I simply wonder why that is. As someone who has first hand knowledge of the subject, though not professionally, it is my understanding that when a person continually brings sex into an otherwise non-sexual discussion, it is generally due to unresolved sexual issues on their part. I have no idea if this is true for you, nor do I care. I do, however, care about your lack of discretion when it comes to the identity of a minor. Something you portend to be in agreement with me on, until you showed your lack of discretion.
So, before you continue to go around spewing general indictments of the male gender, remember that you are not without fault as well, and that most men are not predators, therefore it would be unwise to make generalizations to that effect. It is sexism, just as generalizations about women is sexism, generalizations about race is racism, etc.

Technically, this discussion was meant to focus on intergenerationality and sex ed. While most agree that sexual relationships between adults and minors isn't a good thing, adults aren't the only ones who can have sexual relationships with minors. Minors generally tend to have sexual relationships with their own age group. Most parents may wish they could freeze their children's sexuality until they reach adulthood, and some try their hardest to do just that. The effects can frequently be chilling however. The lack of the adult world to give most children a proper sexual education creates many more problems. And finally, the trend of cutting minors off from interacting with adults who their parents don't personally sanction, even online, can be downright stifling. I'm very happy that my parents weren't watching over my shoulder all the time to see exactly who I was talking to online. I was happy that they trusted me to be able to handle myself online with whoever I spoke to. Online, I could speak to adults, but in terms of meetups, we generally stuck to our own age group, although there were sometimes mixed age events (I only went to one of those). On the whole, the online world opened up a lot of windows in my life, some of which became doors that led to paths I would never have taken had it not existed. My very presence here can be traced back to my introduction to the online world.

 

[320 Years of History]

Online, I could speak to adults, but in terms of meetups, we generally stuck to our own age group

The idea of meeting up with someone whom I "met" and "interact" with only via the WWW is, plain and simple, a non-starter with me. That's just not going to happen. I'm not going to even hint that I'd ever be amenable to engaging with folks whom I know only through some short period of interaction on the Internet. In the "real world," sure, I've done the singles' bar scene, but aside from that, I haven't (and won't) invited strangers into my life. Even hosting events -- firm socials, charity fundraisers, etc. -- at my home and having lots of guest whom I don't truly know well is something I keep to the very barest minimum of occurrences.

Can Internet inspired relationships work out well for both parties? Sure they can; plenty surely have. They just don't work for me. That they should often bode well for minors is asking a bit much in my mind.

Then again, I'm of the sort who doesn't take well to folks who obtain my name -- perhaps by legitimately asking for my license or asking for my full name on the phone as when one calls the bank or some other service provider -- and referring to me by my first name. That's a level of familiarity that I think needs to be earned and offered, not taken.

 

[phoenyx]

Online, I could speak to adults, but in terms of meetups, we generally stuck to our own age group

The idea of meeting up with someone whom I "met" and "interact" with only via the WWW is, plain and simple, a non-starter with me. That's just not going to happen. I'm not going to even hint that I'd ever be amenable to engaging with folks whom I know only through some short period of interaction on the Internet. In the "real world," sure, I've done the singles' bar scene,

There's where you and I are different. I've never done the singles bar scene- I don't drink, for starters. But I'm certainly amenable to meeting someone I've met online in the physical world, and have done it since I was a teen.

but aside from that, I haven't (and won't) invited strangers into my life. Even hosting events -- firm socials, charity fundraisers, etc. -- at my home and having lots of guest whom I don't truly know well is something I keep to the very barest minimum of occurrences.

I never said I invited someone I just met online to my -home-, laugh . That's another level of trust entirely. When I have only met someone online, I will only meet them in a relatively public place.

Can Internet inspired relationships work out well for both parties? Sure they can; plenty surely have. They just don't work for me. That they should often bode well for minors is asking a bit much in my mind.

Personally, I can't remember if I was 17 or 18 when I had my first online to offline meetup with other teens. All I remember is it was fun, if somewhat awkward. I believe there were atleast 3 meetups, but the one I remember more distinctly, we went to the Science Center here in Toronto. All but one of them were a bit too goofy for me. The one serious guy was a bit full of himself, but while everyone else raced ahead of us, we took our time. The rest of the group essentially lost us since they were so far ahead, while me and Tony had a nice chat, and then we both headed home. The second meetup I remember was both better, and worse. By that time, I knew quite a bit about some of the online members of the bulletin board I was frequenting regularly at the time. It was a girl's birthday party, and yes, she invited a bunch of us teens to her home. I had spoken to her (N), her girl friend (B), and her boyfriend (Aaron) fairly frequently in the past. It happened at the cusp of relatively large events for both the girl whose birthday it was, as well as me. Her boyfriend, who I have always greatly respected, and to this day hold him in high esteem (we're still Facebook friends) told me that he was going to tell her that he was going to break up with N. Certainly an awkward time to learn this, being that it was N's birthday party. I remember N wanting to play a sad song from counting crows called round here and me persuading her not too- the last thing I needed was a sad song to go along with what I knew was already in the works. Maybe she already knew on some level. A few months later, I would -not- be on good terms with either N or B, but my friendship with Aaron has lasted until this day. As luck would have it, I later went to Aaron's high school later on- it was a complete coincidence, unless you're someone like Obi 1 Kenobe who doesn't believe in coincidences . While I was there, I firmly believe that Aaron saved me from a messy situation that I had gotten myself into, and I am still thankful to him for that.

Then again, I'm of the sort who doesn't take well to folks who obtain my name -- perhaps by legitimately asking for my license or asking for my full name on the phone as when one calls the bank or some other service provider -- and referring to me by my first name. That's a level of familiarity that I think needs to be earned and offered, not taken.

I have a feeling that you're perhaps a bit older than my 40 years? I just never had an issue with people calling me by my second name and in fact always prefer it to people calling me by my last. I haven't ever really used my first name (a bit of a story to that).

 

[320 Years of History]

I've never done the singles bar scene- I don't drink, for starters.

FWIW, drinking alcohol is not required at singles' bars. They sever OJ and other juices, coffee, tea, milk, soda/pop and usually several kinds of water. LOL Now if you don't care to be around folks who are drinking alcohol, well, then bars of any sort are likely and understandably not your "cup of tea."

I have a feeling that you're perhaps a bit older than my 40 years?

Nearly 20 years older.

 

[phoenyx]

I've never done the singles bar scene- I don't drink, for starters.

FWIW, drinking alcohol is not required at singles' bars. They serve OJ and other juices, coffee, tea, milk, soda/pop and usually several kinds of water. LOL Now if you don't care to be around folks who are drinking alcohol, well, then bars of any sort are likely and understandably not your "cup of tea."

No, I'm ok with being around people who drink, though I guess I'm not a big fan of it all. I once went out with the only female room mate I ever had, on Canada day. She certainly drank, as did her friends, I just ordered a perrier. To this day, I'm thinking perhaps I should have sprang for a taxi to take her home, because that was the first and only time I went out with her. We still -got- home, we just took public transit. Anyway, that was the last time I ever went out with her. She had a boyfriend, and I know he took her out, but on that day, for some reason, he didn't show up. I suspect he was seeing someone else; all I know is she certainly wasn't happy with him when she called him.

I have a feeling that you're perhaps a bit older than my 40 years?

Nearly 20 years older.

Ah, that would explain things. A few more years, and you'd be my dad's age ;-).

 

[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 you mean by "second or third neighbour"?

I apologize.

As described before, I am coming from a very sensitive, traumatizing experience, which is therefore requiring multiple steps in my thought process to explain the situation without incurring further uncontrolled reactions that had been loosely but firmly imprinted on my, at that time, unwanted self.

I should delight in riddles, I went to advanced schooling for them (college and university in the cultural anthropology program). The institutional processes weren't, anyhow, supportive of my engaging and developing interest in alliance to my personal history of a disenfranchised individual identity.

Yes, precisely. I was attempting to state what you so simply put as danger only really increasing in perception but not in anyway exterior, not in a world in which the law is not only academic, but existential in binding the very particles of the diverse compounds that characterize physical conditions and movement.

Ok, cool

... I support the improvement of education (on life, human life, and sex).

Cool

Perhaps the improvement at this point does not require further structural change (in policy or grades), but it most definitely would require a change in deliverance. I think the most crucial aspect of a proposal for an improved education is that people may be educated anywhere and in any situation, regardless of their chosen social activities, of their interest for sex, or their preferential living standards, even as they may be fully biological human beings (therefore rightful owners of sex who benefit from it individually) and most fundamentally animals (therefore owners of an organism provided for by the geological environment).

That sounds like some pretty radical change you have in mind there, heh . I'd need to know more of the specifics before I could tell you if I support it, but it sounds like it has potential. I certainly believe that children should have more freedom in deciding what they'd like to study from an earlier age, and I also believe that a lot of what kids are taught is generally useless (I can still remember all the dates that we had to memorize that I have since forgotten for history class).

If still anyhow relevant, the "second and third neighbor" discourse was simply an analogy to the difficulty of deliverance and reception in a yet reaching education experienced by most citizens I have encountered throughout my own gradual education. The "second and third neighbors" were (and perhaps still are) the uneducated projections of single individuals who would yet be struggling ignorantly, dissociating their perceptions of danger from their own ability (and inability) to comprehend the world at large as well as their own unnecessarily protected, enclosed world (infiltrated - beneficently but overwhelmingly - by an information more complex than their ability to process it because of emergent technological achievements, therefore generally recurring to a numbing intoxication in order to alleviate the impact).

Ok.

 

[phoenyx]

No. There is no reason why an adult man should be interacting with young teen girls or boys, unless it is a parent, teacher or other family member.

But it's ok if it's an adult woman doing the interacting -.-?

Nope. It is not.

In that case, ChrisL would also be "guilty". She has certainly interacted with the same minor I have, in the very same sub forums on here, no less.

In fact, I have been keeping a close eye on a couple of former female teachers that are in contact with my son.

I'm not saying that teacher/minor interactions can't be inappropriate. I'm pretty sure we have all read certain news stories. That being said, they can also be helpful for both parties. I really think that adults sometimes lose sight of their "inner child", and I also think that minors need guidance in their road to adulthood. Most people would agree with that. Teachers are even vetted, so I think they, of all people, should have more leeway in doing so. Judging by the fact that you are allowing your song to continue to interact with some of his former female teachers, it seems that you may well be in agreement with me on that count.

That is the parent's job to provide guidance, not some strange 40-year-old man on the internet without the parents knowing about it.

Always making this about me -.- Unfortunately, parents aren't always the best person for children to turn to. I have no complaints regarding my own parents in terms of talking about my issues, they pretty much knew everything, if not when things happened, at least not that long afterwards, but some parents aren't as accepting as others. Official teachers may not always be the best choice either.

 

[phoenyx]

You'd think she was blonde.....

This is the clean debate zone. I would suggest you stick to the subject.

I am, I edited the original post................The subject in your mind is dirty...Mine is not...

Are you trying to say that your mind isn't dirty? I've read some of your comments about teenage girls before.

I bet you have, and they related to when I was a teen..

Please. Save it.

Because you know Moonglow better then he knows himself, that what you mean?

 

[phoenyx]

I was a 15-year-old girl. I know what these men who seek "relationships" with teen girls are all about.

I can't say that I was ever a 15 year old girl, but I was certainly once a 15 year old boy. I didn't have any problems with any relationships I had with adults, minimal as they were. I got online when I was 17, the internet wasn't really around for the general public at the time, but there were bulletin boards that I would spend a lot of time on, interacting with people of all ages, and I'm happy that I had that outlet of communication. I think I really needed it at the time, as I wasn't too good with making relationships with my peers in the physical world. I actually generally got along fairly well with my teachers though.

Pedophile Used World of Warcraft to Meet Underage Girl

That link doesn't actually include the story- it links to the story, and the link is dead. I'm not saying that bad things can't happen, but bad things can happen in the physical world as well. There is an added degree of safety if the interaction is online. So long as minors are taught to to avoid taking certain online interactions with individuals into the physical world, that safety can remain in place.

I don't care what you say. As someone who WAS a 15-year-old girl, I know better.

Sigh. I guess the old line "Never argue with someone who knows they're right" applies here -.-...

Exactly.

One day, you may well grow up enough to realize that just because you -think- you're right doesn't automatically make you right.

 

[phoenyx]

Again, I've been there. I know men. Normal men don't want to have a relationship with

If I found some adult man interacting with my teenage girl online, you can bet there would be hell to pay.

Again, such a strong focus on men and girls. As mentioned previously, you have also interacted with a teenage girl online, but it seems that it's all fine and dandy since you are an adult woman -.-

When did I interact with any teenage girls online?

Really? You have responded to one in a certain thread in the Economy forum, as well as in this very forum as well.

That is not having a personal interaction...

How is it not a personal interaction?

...or trying to befriend a minor.

Why are you so against befriending minors anyway? Heck, why are you so ageist? They're human beings, just like everyone else.

 

[phoenyx]

Actually, you're mistaken. This thread is about interactions between adults and minors. A business relationship definitely qualifies.

A business relationship? Well 15-year-old children are not allowed to enter any kind of business contracts.

A business relationship qualifies for this discussion, but I didn't say that -only- business relationships qualify for this discussion. I see nothing wrong with adults having friends who are minors. I would argue that any good parent or teacher would strive to have a friendly relationship with his or her students, for example, but it should extend beyond that, because minors can't always be under their supervision.

So . . . why did you include specifics about sex in your OP?

I imagine you're referring to sex ed. Adults educating minors regarding sex ed is something that our society is conflicted about, and I certainly thinking it's something that should be talked about more, in the hopes of coming to an agreement as to how it should be done.

Those are teachers, not some strange man in the internet.

First of all, why exactly do you think I'm a "strange man"? Secondly, you don't need credentials to talk about sex ed on the internet. Thirdly, if it makes you feel any better, I was actually an english teacher for a time in Mexico. Forthly, I've noticed that though the opening post mentions sex ed, and you have frequently posted in this thread, you have never -once- addressed the issue, instead focusing almost exclusively on what you think about me. What do -you- believe teens should be taught in school regarding sex ed?

 

[phoenyx]

No, it really isn't. This thread is about intergenerationality and sex ed.

So, you want to teach minors online that you don't know about sex ed? What's the point and how are the two related?

Why must you consistently make this discussion about me? Again, the subjects were intergenerationality and sex ed. Most people agree that sex ed should be taught to minors by adults- that is the link between the 2 subjects. Do you think sex ed in schools is a good thing?

Adults who are educated to be teachers and pass background checks. Not some strange man online.

Minors these days don't need to interact with anyone if they want to learn about sex ed, so long as they have access to the internet. Now could you finally get to the main subjects of this thread? What do you think of Sex Ed in general, for instance?

What about sex ed? I don't live in Canada. Your OP about sex ed doesn't apply to the United States.

You don't have to live in Canada (or the province of Ontario, to be more precise) to have a view as to the way they teach it here.

 

[phoenyx]

One- Sexual Education of minors. That's it. If you want to talk about that, by all means. I even included a link to the Sex Ed curriculum in Ontario, the province I live in. By all means, let me know what you think of it.

I read it. What does it have to do with intergenerational relationships with minors online behind their parents' backs?

You still don't seem to have noticed that -you- are the one who keeps on mentioning intergenerational "relationships". The purpose of this thread was to talk about intergenerational interactions in general. That can be as simple as a teen waitress, as Moonglow mentioned, or it can be an online discussion about the economy between atleast one adult and one minor in an online forum such as this one, one in which I know you have participated in.

I don't see a problem with discussing economics online in a public setting with a minor.

Awesome . Finally, a point we can agree on.

Trying to befriend them, lure them into a discussion with you, and perhaps private messaging with them is inappropriate. Especially if their parents are not aware of it. Kids have parents and guardians for a reason.

So adults talking about economics with them is fine, but trying to be friendly with them, which I suppose could be considered trying to befriend them, is bad? Why? As to "lure them into a discussion with you", not sure what you mean. I just write on subjects that I find interesting and hope that people find my posts interesting as well. Do I "lure" potential responders into responding to me? I guess? I'm not trying to lure any particular age group, though. I just like interacting with fellow human beings. As to private messaging, that's something I generally don't do, especially with minors, unless they do it first. There is too much hoopla about this issue, no sense in going into dangerous political minefields uninvited. But if I'm invited, that's another story.

No, if you are invited, then you do not go there. YOU are the adult in the situation. Behave like one.

As mentioned in another post, I myself got online as a teen, and I spoke to both people my own age, as well as adults there. At first, I would do this -only- on a one to one basis. I wasn't comfortable with the forums, so I'd just look at people's resumes (that's what they had back then, not profiles), and write them directly. You're entitled to your view as to whether it was "appropriate" for me to do so, or whether it was "appropriate" for the adults I wrote to to respond, but I'm glad I did it.

 

[phoenyx]

I'd say there's another very important job for a parent- to give a child everything they need to grow. I strongly believe that this includes interactions with adults. Most parents agree that interactions with teachers is a good thing. And yes, they are vetted, as you say. That being said, children will not always be dealing with adults who are vetted. This becomes increasingly true the older they get. Given this fact, it behooves parents to train their children to know what types adult behaviours to look out for, but also to let them know that not all non family/non teachers are out to get them. I think that online environments can be a good place to start, as there is a barrier towards any physical interactions taking place, which is generally the ones that carry the most potential for harm.

What do you think a 14-year-old girl's parents would say if she told them about a 40-something-year-old man on the internet who was trying to make friends with her?

I can imagine various reactions. The bottom line, in my view, is that people of all ages will make friends with people of all ages. I think the important thing in a society is to try to ensure that the relationships anyone has are good ones. I think that trying to severe any type of interactions between adults and minors when not in a school setting can be worse. Tell me, have you seen the film "Lord of the Flies"?

Irrelevant. You, as an adult man, should not be befriending minors on the internet.

So if I was an adult woman, it would be ok?

Why are you so adamant about making "friends" with underage people anyhow?

What's with the quotes around "friends"? Do you think it's impossible for an adult to be the friend of a minor?

 

[phoenyx]

From my previous link . . .

After the Predator has made a Connection: Grooming
Adolescence is a time of turmoil for many kids resulting in difficult relationships with parents as they are seeking to be independent adults. This is neither the fault of parents nor kids. Some kids may feel lonely, unsupported, that their parents are too strict, and that no one understands them. They may turn to the Internet and chat rooms to find someone they can talk to and feel a connection with. Unfortunately, this can be a recipe for disaster as predators wait for these vulnerable kids.

Yes, it -can- be a recipe for disaster. Or it can help them out. It depends on whether they interact with a nice person or a predator. Unfortunately, many nice adults probably wouldn't do it, for fear of being branded a predator when they were just trying to be nice. To your credit, you -have- interacted with the very same minor we've been talking about, so there's that.

Stop trying to bring me into this. I'm sure every adult here knows not to fall for this type of manipulation. I can see that you are in fact a manipulative person.

Yes, adults who prey on minors certainly do play a role in that. But as has been mentioned here before, such adults generally do so within their own circles- their own families or children of their friends. Trying this type of thing online is likely to get them arrested, because parents and guardians are much more vigilant when it comes to people outside of their own circles.

That is not true.

I disagree...

**Very often the TV, radio and newspaper cover stories about children who are abused, abducted and even murdered, usually by strangers but it is important to know that these are not typical crimes. Sexual abusers are more likely to be people we know, and could well be people we care about; after all more than 8 out of 10 children who are sexually abused know their abuser. They are family members or friends, neighbours or babysitters – many hold responsible positions in society. Some will seek out employment which brings them into contact with children, some will hold positions of trust which can help to convince other adults that they are beyond reproach, making it hard for adults to raise their concerns.**

Source: Child sexual abuse questions answered

Facts and Statistics

Does that really matter? It is well known that children are in fact abused by strangers on the internet.

Yes, ofcourse it matters. It means that the main danger when it comes to sexual abuse of minors comes from people within their own circles, not from online strangers. That doesn't mean that there aren't some cases where strangers are doing the abusing. But even there, it can only occur if the minors don't take certain precautions, such as not revealing their addresses, full names or phone numbers. I think the most important thing here is whether the benefits of minors interacting with adults online outweigh the potential drawbacks. I believe they do.

I don't care about that.

You -should- care about that. It strongly suggests that your fears don't match up with reality.

YOU are responsible as the adult in the situation to draw the line.

Sure. It's just that, unlike you, I don't feel that it's a sin to talk to a minor in a private online communication instead of just public ones.

What are the benefits to engaging in a relationship with a child...

You've always made this solely about me- that is your biggest mistake. I like talking to people of pretty much any age. Some minors (including myself, when I was one) have the same mindset. I tend to base who I talk to on whether we have things we'd like to talk about together. This situation is no different.

 

[phoenyx]

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?

Very good questions.

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.

I have felt exactly the same way on this.