Mick Jagger the Child Rapist

[smartcooky]

Wow

Indeed

 

[xjx388]

I have no idea how or why you decided my post was a personal criticism of you. It is merely a description of the method we have applied to raising our daughter. A method that is every bit a valid as yours. The only difference is that we know what our daughter is doing and are able to provide any necessary guidance in a timely manner.



Tell you what, if you think you are being irrational raising your kids so they cannot be open with you then you carry right on doing that.



And by the way, I have never got any woman pregnant unintentionally, and my wife has never been pregnant unintentionally. Knowledge can be useful.

I’m confused by this post. I didn’t take your post as a personal criticism at all. I certainly didn’t mean my post as a criticism of you at all, though it seems you took it that way. I’m speaking in the context of how my parenting style might be viewed by the Swedish government, not fellow Americans. I don’t care what they think...

 

[sphenisc]

"Scotland’s finance secretary, Derek Mackay, has resigned hours before he was due to deliver next year’s budget after it emerged he had been sending messages to a 16-year-old boy."

(AoC is 16 in Scotland.)

Would this situation be treated differently in the US, Sweden, elsewhere?

 

[Arcade22]

As an American father myself, I can tell you that I did not allow my daughter to go on unsupervised dates until she was 17. I didn’t threaten anyone, nor did I imprison her in her home. I just didn’t give my permission to do so and if she did it anyway, there would have been consequences such as loss of privileges.

A 15 year old, let alone a 17 year old, would not need to have nor should they expect to be given parental permission to have sex or be in any kind intimate relationship with anyone. At that age they are a largely autonomous individual that is deemed mature enough by society to take personal responsibility for their own sexuality and personal relationships.

Ultimately there's a big difference between not assisting your child in doing something that you disapprove of, however justified you are in that disapproval, and actively keeping them from doing so. Parents are not obligated to drive their children to their friend(s) or lovers, nor is there an absolute responsibility to facilitate such contacts. Young children have a right to have friends, and parents are allowed to discriminate in who they chose to allow their children to be friends with, but as they grow older their own opinions of who they want to be friends with begin to overrule their parents wishes. Trying to force your kids to be friends with someone that they don't like is the kind of behavior that tends toward poor parenting, and in extreme cases could constitute child abuse.

Parents are however not allowed to actively prevent such contacts by restricting their freedom of movement or by utilizing physical force, emotional abuse or other forms of abuse (all kinds of physical "discipline" of children is illegal). I should note here that people cannot disinherit their children at all.

The only exceptions would be if it's necessary for their welfare and well-being, on purely objective grounds. That is not however a decision that should be made arbitrarily by the parents, because it could easily lead to situations where it ends up being an unjustified infringement in their child's freedom and autonomy, especially with regards to older children.

They can exercise their rights to have all the sex they like once I’m no longer responsible for supporting them. When my daughter turned 17 (the legal age of consent in Texas), she was still in High School and we were still responsible for her and the rules applied: she could date as long as we knew who she was dating and what time she was going to be home; no sex. Our concern wasn’t religious notions of chastity but ensuring she would be free to finish school and start her adult life (if that’s what she wanted) unburdened by teenage relationship drama and kids like her mom and I were. Would such a rule have gotten me in trouble if we lived in Sweden?

In the vast majority of cases children are in a very exposed situation. They are not able to chose where they live and are dependent on their parents for everything. This does not mean that parents interests in their child are absolutely allowed to overrule their child's own wishes and desires, especially as they become older.

Parental responsibilities to their child extends to recognizing that they are a individual person with their own personality and will, and as they mature their ability and will to fulfill their own wishes and desires may run counter to those of their parents. In that regard parents have to accept that they cannot decide for their children except in those cases where it would be motivated by concerns for their welfare.

Having children is, for the most part (edit: in developed western ciuntries), a choice people make. In that regard complaining about how you would be responsible for the upkeep of your children's children if they were to have a child comes off unjustified selfish and petty. It's really no different from complaining about being forced to pay for the upkeep of women that you have had children with. If you don't want to pay for your child, don't have children.

 

[Darat]

(AoC is 16 in Scotland.)



Would this situation be treated differently in the US, Sweden, elsewhere?

I've just started a thread about that incident.

 

[Belz...]

So it does not happen then? Parents can't keep their children from having perfectly legal sexual relationships because they think that sex before marriage is immoral?

What do you mean, "so"? Nothing I've said implies this. The only thing I've implied is that real examples would be appreciated, rather than fictional ones.

 

[Arcade22]

What do you mean, "so"? Nothing I've said implies this. The only thing I've implied is that real examples would be appreciated, rather than fictional ones.

Others in this thread have filled in with anecdotal examples of the type of behavior i described.

 

[Vixen]

A 15 year old, let alone a 17 year old, would not need to have nor should they expect to be given parental permission to have sex or be in any kind intimate relationship with anyone. At that age they are a largely autonomous individual that is deemed mature enough by society to take personal responsibility for their own sexuality and personal relationships.

Ultimately there's a big difference between not assisting your child in doing something that you disapprove of, however justified you are in that disapproval, and actively keeping them from doing so. Parents are not obligated to drive their children to their friend(s) or lovers, nor is there an absolute responsibility to facilitate such contacts. Young children have a right to have friends, and parents are allowed to discriminate in who they chose to allow their children to be friends with, but as they grow older their own opinions of who they want to be friends with begin to overrule their parents wishes. Trying to force your kids to be friends with someone that they don't like is the kind of behavior that tends toward poor parenting, and in extreme cases could constitute child abuse.

Parents are however not allowed to actively prevent such contacts by restricting their freedom of movement or by utilizing physical force, emotional abuse or other forms of abuse (all kinds of physical "discipline" of children is illegal). I should note here that people cannot disinherit their children at all.

The only exceptions would be if it's necessary for their welfare and well-being, on purely objective grounds. That is not however a decision that should be made arbitrarily by the parents, because it could easily lead to situations where it ends up being an unjustified infringement in their child's freedom and autonomy, especially with regards to older children.



In the vast majority of cases children are in a very exposed situation. They are not able to chose where they live and are dependent on their parents for everything. This does not mean that parents interests in their child are absolutely allowed to overrule their child's own wishes and desires, especially as they become older.

Parental responsibilities to their child extends to recognizing that they are a individual person with their own personality and will, and as they mature their ability and will to fulfill their own wishes and desires may run counter to those of their parents. In that regard parents have to accept that they cannot decide for their children except in those cases where it would be motivated by concerns for their welfare.

Having children is, for the most part (edit: in developed western ciuntries), a choice people make. In that regard complaining about how you would be responsible for the upkeep of your children's children if they were to have a child comes off unjustified selfish and petty. It's really no different from complaining about being forced to pay for the upkeep of women that you have had children with. If you don't want to pay for your child, don't have children.

AIUI A parent can disinherit a child if they stipulate a specific reason outlining exceptionally outrageous behaviour of that individual in their will. However, this has nothing to do with respect for one's children, it is merely based on ancient laws from the Middle Ages of passing on property to the next generation. (For the uninformed this differs from UK /US inheritance laws in that in those jurisdictions, the spouse gets the legal entitlement, not the children.)

Parents being possessive towards their offspring wrt their friends and who they date is surely not unknown in Sweden (aside from the immigrant communities you have alluded to)?

 

[Belz...]

Others in this thread have filled in with anecdotal examples of the type of behavior i described.

Yes, I was talking about you, Arcade. You responded to my request with a fictional example, so I called you on it. I don't know why it's so difficult.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I mean, yeah...this is true. My wife and I definitely were among the bunnies. Even though she got pregnant, it didn’t “harm” us.

Nonsense that relationship drama destroyed your lives and ruined your education. Simple really. At least you saved your daughter from your mistakes.

 

[carlitos]

A 15 year old, let alone a 17 year old, would not need to have nor should they expect to be given parental permission to have sex or be in any kind intimate relationship with anyone. At that age they are a largely autonomous individual that is deemed mature enough by society to take personal responsibility for their own sexuality and personal relationships.

So - at what point does the parent's responsibility turn from keeping the child safe, to allowing the child independence in things like sex, curfew, etc.? As I asked earlier, at what age can a child tell their parents to sod off, and stay out as late as they want or have sex with whomever they want?

 

[Steve]

I’m confused by this post. I didn’t take your post as a personal criticism at all. I certainly didn’t mean my post as a criticism of you at all, though it seems you took it that way. I’m speaking in the context of how my parenting style might be viewed by the Swedish government, not fellow Americans. I don’t care what they think...

Maybe I misunderstood, but when you quoted me and them asked me "Don't I have the right to be irrational?" it seemed that you thought I was implying that you were irrational.

I have no argument with how you raise your children. It is not my business. You seem to be doing what you think best and that is good.

It seems we were both misunderstanding each other's intent. That can happen when posting on a forum. No harm, no foul.

 

[xjx388]

Nonsense that relationship drama destroyed your lives and ruined your education.

It did make it very, very difficult for us, yes. We didn't want that kind of struggle for our daughter (or our son who had the same kind of rules). I can't see how that's unreasonably draconian.

Simple really. At least you saved your daughter from your mistakes.

Yes, we did. #winning.


***
I have never said that the way we raised our kids was a model of child-rearing. I know what mistakes we made. What I'm objecting to here is this idea of a nanny state coming in and chastising a parent for not letting their teenage daughter have sex. I believe that parents do have a right to raise their children as they see fit (barring abuse and neglect, of course).

It seems that in Sweden, if I were Tommy Chong and forbade a 15yo Rae Dawn from leaving with a 33yo rock star, that the Parent Police would come tell me how wrong I am because kids at that age are legally of age, basically autonomous and can make their own decisions about who to hang out with. That seems fundamentally wrong to me.

 

[xjx388]

So - at what point does the parent's responsibility turn from keeping the child safe, to allowing the child independence in things like sex, curfew, etc.? As I asked earlier, at what age can a child tell their parents to sod off, and stay out as late as they want or have sex with whomever they want?

And to put a finer point on it: At what point can kids involve some State authority to make their parents fall in line?

 

[ponderingturtle]

So - at what point does the parent's responsibility turn from keeping the child safe, to allowing the child independence in things like sex, curfew, etc.? As I asked earlier, at what age can a child tell their parents to sod off, and stay out as late as they want or have sex with whomever they want?

18, before that parents can have them kidnapped and beaten for getting to uppity. There is a whole industry based on this, and avoiding responsibility for the inevitable deaths.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It did make it very, very difficult for us, yes. We didn't want that kind of struggle for our daughter (or our son who had the same kind of rules). I can't see how that's unreasonably draconian.

Yes, we did. #winning.


***
I have never said that the way we raised our kids was a model of child-rearing. I know what mistakes we made. What I'm objecting to here is this idea of a nanny state coming in and chastising a parent for not letting their teenage daughter have sex. I believe that parents do have a right to raise their children as they see fit (barring abuse and neglect, of course).

Because abstinence only education does not work, it is far more effective to give them the knowledge to have good safe sex than try to prevent them from having sex at all. That is shown over and over again.

 

[BStrong]

So it does not happen then? Parents can't keep their children from having perfectly legal sexual relationships because they think that sex before marriage is immoral?

As i recall American parents have been until very recently and probably still can in many states, force their kids to have "gay cure" therapies because they are not heterosexual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conve...File:Countries_banning_conversion_therapy.svg

It's banned in several states and there are currently proposed bans in the majority of U.S. states.

 

[smartcooky]

(AoC is 16 in Scotland.)

Would this situation be treated differently in the US, Sweden, elsewhere?

In America, they would elect him President.

 

[xjx388]

Because abstinence only education does not work, it is far more effective to give them the knowledge to have good safe sex than try to prevent them from having sex at all. That is shown over and over again.

What do you mean it doesn't work? My daughter had her first child at 27!

 

[Planigale]

The reason why "parental consent", together with the notion of "parental rights", is so problematic lies in the simple fact that what the parents want for their child is not necessarily what's in the child's best interest. There's no shortage of examples demonstrating that parents can be, and often are, more concerned with their own wishes rather than those of their child, or their objective well-being.

If it's illegal to have sex with a 15 year old because legislators have, in their infinite wisdom, decided to enact a general age limit that is higher than that, based on the reasoning that those under said age are too immature to consent to sex, it's fairly straight forward to dismiss any objections from the underage individual because they are legally assumed to lack the maturity decide for themselves about this at all.

But what if the parents consent? Right now in Turkey legislators of the ruling party are trying to enact the type of law that allows the person who had sex with an underage individual to avoid prison, if they marry their victim. With the parents consent, of course. The impetus for this law is the large influx of Syrian refugees, who are not only more conservative than the Turks, they also live in rather desperate material and social conditions. Because of this, they place far less importance on the well-being of their individual children than their family as a whole. Yet this law basically assumes that the parents would serve as a kind of safe-guard against abusive relationships, even when no one really has any illusions about the fact that they can't serve that role.

If a 15 year old is too young to have sex because the law says so, then that should be the case no matter what they think about it. More importantly, their parents should not be able to overrule the legality of their ability to legally have sex. The same applies to marriage and plenty of other things where the law has often allowed parents a say in things where really the welfare of the child ought to be the only significant factor.

I thought this was the law in many US states already? Thirteen US states have no minimum age for marriage essentially allowing legal pedophilia.

Between 2000 and 2015, over 200,000 minors were legally married in the United States, or roughly six children per thousand. ... In many cases, minors in the US may be married when they are under the age of sexual consent, sixteen to eighteen for most states. In some states minors cannot legally divorce, leave their spouse, or enter a shelter to escape abuse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States

So Turkey has better protection for children than the US.