Protecting Children - DPChallenge Forums

05/29/2006 01:42:57 AM · #126

Originally posted by dacrazyrn:

Originally posted by livitup:
Unless you either are a social worker, doctor, judge, or sex offender (and thus speaking from primary experience), or you have done research on the statement you are making, it's not a fact.

I've been an ED RN for 10+ years...that count in the "eithers" above? :)
HypnoToad is hysterical

It counts for the emergency medicine. But I hope you would agree it does not make you an expert on clinical psychiatry. I'm not an expert on clinical psychiatry. That's why I research things before I post them. I was a police officer for 8 years before I switched careers, but that hardly makes me an expert on the American criminal justice system.

Are you familiar with HypnoToad? Google HypnoToad and see if you can find the video clip of him at the sheep herding contest. Halarious.

robshookphoto

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM

05/29/2006 01:46:36 AM · #127

Originally posted by amandalore:

edit to add: please do not compare homosexuals to pedofiles, I think the mere fact that most pedofiles were molested as children is proof that they are not born that way, they are traumatized that way.

so, if they are born attracted to children, or are molested into being attracted to children, shouldn't we feel sorry for them, because they can't voice their attraction, because it is socially considered wrong? i AM NOT saying that it is right to molest, or have any act of sex with a child. i am saying that we should be accepting of pedophiles WHO DO NOT molest children, but are merely attracted to them. the reason i compare homosexuals and pedophiles is the fact that they sexually want something different than "normal people."

Message edited by author 2006-05-29 01:47:25.

05/29/2006 01:46:57 AM · #128

Originally posted by amandalore:

Ok, then I appologize for that statement, but 30-60% is a large number... I could swear I read somewhere it was much higher... if I find that data, I'll post it.

I didn't mean to pick on you either... you were just an easy target. :) I agree that 30-60% is a large number. The point is that it hasn't been clinically proven to be a contributing factor. There seems to be just as much indication that it's a medically driven thing.

No need to apologize. :)

05/29/2006 01:51:51 AM · #129

Originally posted by livitup:

Originally posted by amandalore:

Ok, then I appologize for that statement, but 30-60% is a large number... I could swear I read somewhere it was much higher... if I find that data, I'll post it.

I didn't mean to pick on you either... you were just an easy target. :) I agree that 30-60% is a large number. The point is that it hasn't been clinically proven to be a contributing factor. There seems to be just as much indication that it's a medically driven thing.

No need to apologize. :)

ok, I'm not sure the validity of the goldstein-harte study, but here is a page full of shocking statistics (from other studies too) and you are correct, this one says 57% of pedofiles were molested as children... too big of a statistic to ignore Stats

05/29/2006 01:55:30 AM · #130

Originally posted by mo5988:

Originally posted by amandalore:

edit to add: please do not compare homosexuals to pedofiles, I think the mere fact that most pedofiles were molested as children is proof that they are not born that way, they are traumatized that way.

so, if they are born attracted to children, or are molested into being attracted to children, shouldn't we feel sorry for them, because they can't voice their attraction, because it is socially considered wrong? i AM NOT saying that it is right to molest, or have any act of sex with a child. i am saying that we should be accepting of pedophiles WHO DO NOT molest children, but are merely attracted to them. the reason i compare homosexuals and pedophiles is the fact that they sexually want something different than "normal people."

yeah, but we can't accept their behavior, it will only enforce that it is ok to hurt people because they cannot help themselves. If they cannot control their urges, they need to be locked up (or killed.) (did you know that it takes $30,000 a year to house the average inmate?) sorry livitup, I don't have the link to that stat, but I read it in a newspaper once, lol

05/29/2006 01:55:52 AM · #131

Originally posted by mo5988:

Robert, I got what you were saying from the beginning, and I'm with you.

If I may paraphrase: The desire to have sex with children is not any different from the desire to have sex with men, women, cats, or sheep. The only difference is what acts society will allow its members to carry out: Historically opposite sex pairings were always permitted, currently same sex parings are becoming more and more accepted. Children, cats, and sheep are currently off limits. But what you're saying is the mere desire is not, by itself, a "bad" thing for which someone should be condenmed.

dacrazyrn

Nikon D300

05/29/2006 01:56:51 AM · #132

Originally posted by livitup:

It counts for the emergency medicine. But I hope you would agree it does not make you an expert on clinical psychiatry.

I am by no means an expert in psychiatry...I hate it as a matter of fact! (mainly because of the things I deal with and the throwing of meds at it to make it better-especially children)
On the point of studies...being a police officer, did you find that more violence and just strange people and things go on during a full moon? Look up the studies on that and you will find most say that things are no different than any other night. Through experience of myself and form many RN's and PD I am acquainted with throughtout the country..the studies are wrong. Just a point. Not to mention NEW MOON's also.

Originally posted by livitup:

Are you familiar with HypnoToad? Google HypnoToad and see if you can find the video clip of him at the sheep herding contest. Halarious.

I watch Futurama religiously, so I have seen it many, many times. LOVE IT!!

Brain injuries causing pedophilia, sure it happens. also causes violent behaviors, inappropriate behavior, and on down the line. The point of it is, that is an injury and it makes people "not right in the head." If people are born this way then they are born with something "not right in the head."

robshookphoto

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM

05/29/2006 02:01:14 AM · #133

i'm sorry if it seemed that i was using opinions as fact. all i am saying is that people who have this sexual preference, wherever it came from, should be regarded as equals, as long as they don't do anything immoral. the reason i feel sorry for pedophiles is they can't do what they want to do, because it is socially unacceptable. yes, it is socially unacceptable for a good reason, but i think that we should include these people in society as long as they respect other people and morality issues. now, it is time for me to go to bed. i hope i haven't offended anyone (although i know i have), and now maybe this thread can get back on topic. g'night all.

p.s. look at livitup's most recent post (the one with the paraphrasal). He's got it right.

Message edited by author 2006-05-29 02:03:35.

dacrazyrn

Nikon D300

05/29/2006 02:09:32 AM · #134

their equals, their human, they have all the rights to think as they wish. Doing as you wish is a difference. When you don't get to eat for many a day, and food is presented to you, you are going to eat. I just think that this is the potential when people have this type of thinking. It soon will get the better of them and they WILL act. They need help...in whatever way possible. Hopefully before they do act on their urges. But after the fact I have no compassion for.

By the way, a photo of a 14 year old, posing in a bikini, I see nothing wrong with (in this innocent situation). See lots of teenagers running around with a bikini top on anyway, in the middle of the city. Not to mention, not a hell of a lot much else...SCARY!

I am putting this to bed also

Message edited by author 2006-05-29 02:11:22.

05/29/2006 02:35:31 AM · #135

OK, I'm going to do three replies in one, and then go to bed. I've got a lot of Memorial Day partying to do tomorrow... Hopefully it won't wind me up in Tracy's ER. :)

1- Robert, that rant-within-the-rant about fact vs. opinion was in no way directed towards you. You're stating a theory, and good one to argue the merits of. Keep at it. :)

2- Tracy, as punative as "not right in the head" is, I'll ceede that point to you. Whether dented like tomato soup cans, chemically imbalanced, or missing a lobe, the end result is the same. As for full moons, some guys would swear it, but they were also the ones who put their "lucky penny" in their bullet proof vests each night. I think that's more of a case of bad logic than anything else:

a) The workload is heavy tonight -
b) The moon is full tonight -
c) Therefore full moons cause heavy workloads.

You could just as easliy say

a) The ER was repainted pink today -
b) ER presentations were reduced by 50% today -
c) Therefore pink ERs cause less presentations.

See the faulty logic? (For a better explanation see //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_implies_causation ).

Amanda - Most of my research suggests lower figures, between 13 and 22 thousand, though I did see the 30 thousand statistic mentioned in a news article. I wonder if they account for capital expenditures (building a new jail will increase the cost to house the inmates dramatically for a year or more) and also consider that some of those costs would be paid by the state even if the person wasn't a convict (medicare/prision hospital, food stamps/prison food, etc.).

Irregardless of the cost to house sexual preditors in jails, the American public has not yet found it acceptable to sentance people to death for sexual crimes. I tend to agree with that stance, though I respect your opinion to the contrary.

Here's an interesting one from your link:

"99% of sexual abuse survivors know their perpetrators-80% are abused by family members, 19% are abuse by other trusted adults. CCPA, 1992"

So doesn't that indicate we should be less concerned about strangers from the internet than our uncles, cousins, next door neighbors, and (gasp!) police officers and priests?

Edit: This spring we had a local, independent, priest (not Catholic) accused of sexually abusing children. We didn't go to that church, but I'm not going to tell my kid he can't go to church because there might be pedophiles out there. How is telling a girl she can't wear a bikini any different?

---

That's enough for me for one night. Until next time.

Message edited by author 2006-05-29 02:43:54.

dacrazyrn

Nikon D300

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

05/29/2006 03:35:19 AM · #136

Originally posted by livitup:

a) The ER was repainted pink today -
b) ER presentations were reduced by 50% today -
c) Therefore pink ERs cause less presentations.

There is actually a big study on the color pink and its calming and "weakening"effect (on physical strength). Saw that one on 60 minutes. :)

Message edited by author 2006-05-29 03:36:56.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

05/29/2006 08:31:44 AM · #137

Am I going to protect (do I protect) my children? Yes.

Do I do it to the point that some of you consider paranoid? Yes.

Will I stop? No. The cost is just too great.

My children are 4 and 16 months. The 4 yo is very very shy, and won't talk to most people he knows, much less a stranger. He has always been this way. The 16mo is the exact opposite. When out in public, yes, I am extremely cautious and aware of where my children are, who is nearing, and who may be watching us. Abduction is one of my biggest nightmares. At this point, child care is very limited. My choice. I simply will not let my children stay with just anyone (not that the 4 yo would). Again, probably a bit paranoid, but that is something I will live with.

I don't disagree that children have to know what is going on in the world. They have to simply because they will have to deal with it. What I disagree with most of society is how old they need to be when they are introduced to some stuff.

An analogy. In our house, there is a flight of 14 stairs. The 18mo can't navigate stairs yet, but she desparately wants to. She spends a great deal of her day trying to figure out how to get to them (and I spend a great deal of my day making sure she doesn't). She can however, navigate one or two steps at a time, and 3 or 4 if someone helps her.

Now, if I take the attitude that she's got to learn to navigate the steps anyway, let her at it; I shouldn't, as a parent, try to "protect" her from them, I will end up with a small child doing somersaults down the steps. The result is not good.

If I go to the opposite extreme, and wait until her coordination is fully developed, I will be holding her hand, or carrying her, when she is 10 or 12 yo. That result isn't good either (thinking of, oh, my back for example).

Instead, right now, I carry her up and down the steps. In a month or so, I will let her go up them while holding my hands. Then, hold my hands to go down. Then, she can hold the rail, and I am there to assist if needed. Eventually, she will reach the place where she can go up and down any steps without assistance, just like her 4 yo brother.

Extrapolate that to the predator/bikini issue. Does my 4 yo need to know all the details of sexual abuse? No. Right now, for him, knowing that there are a few people out there who do bad things to little boys is as much as he can comprehend and handle. As he gets older, we can discuss and help him to understand more.

Will my daughter wear a bikini? Probably not. My husband and I have fairly strong convictions about such stuff. I'm not saying other parents can't/won't. I'm just saying that for me and my daughter, it is not something we do. I'm also not telling other parents they shouldn't and would (and do) expect the same respect in return (not telling me I should).

When it is all said and done, my children's "raisin'" is my job. How I choose to do it is also my business. I was raised in a lenient household with strict expectations. My brother rebelled. He was the only one of four that did. By the time he was 21, though, he too, had stopped rebelling and was living as my parents raised him to.

The rebellion I saw in my friends and later in my students usually wasn't from having the paramenters and guidelines firmly defined, established and enforced. It was from having the parameters and guidelines "mentioned" but bending them every time the situation warranted, or whenever the parent thought they were going to lose "popularity" with the child.

I am not to be my children's buddy. A friend, yes. A more mature, guiding, examplish loving friend. Not a pal. Not a peer. They need, and deserve, more than that.

(and I've heard/read teh studies of the wall colors effect as well)

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

05/29/2006 08:43:33 AM · #138

Originally posted by karmat:

An analogy. In our house, there is a flight of 14 stairs. The 18mo can't navigate stairs yet, but she desparately wants to. She spends a great deal of her day trying to figure out how to get to them (and I spend a great deal of my day making sure she doesn't). She can however, navigate one or two steps at a time, and 3 or 4 if someone helps her.

Now, if I take the attitude that she's got to learn to navigate the steps anyway, let her at it; I shouldn't, as a parent, try to "protect" her from them, I will end up with a small child doing somersaults down the steps. The result is not good.

This is probably not the strongest argument, because all children develop at different rates, but since we're here...

I took very nearly the latter approach you discribe. My son was walking around 12-13 months, and we started introducing him to the stairs almost right away. At first he would crawl up them, and refuse to go down. But we would almost always give him the option. Then he started scooting down, then he started walking up. Now, at 18 months, he uses the handrail going up and down, and very rarely needs any assistance.

The point here is that we educated and supervised. Sure we had a baby gate up, so he couldn't play on the stairs unsupervised. But I never once assumed that I knew what he was or wasn't capable of doing.

Originally posted by karmat:

When it is all said and done, my children's "raisin'" is my job. How I choose to do it is also my business.

I agree with this statement 100%. I give the example above not to suggest that you're dealing with the stairs in the "wrong" way, but just to illustrate how important it is to listen to what kids tell you, verbal or not.

In fact, doesn't that make the whole issue a moot point, since the orignal photographer who started this whole thing had the parent's permission to post the shots in question?

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

05/29/2006 09:14:30 AM · #139

Originally posted by livitup:

Originally posted by karmat:

An analogy. In our house, there is a flight of 14 stairs. The 18mo can't navigate stairs yet, but she desparately wants to. She spends a great deal of her day trying to figure out how to get to them (and I spend a great deal of my day making sure she doesn't). She can however, navigate one or two steps at a time, and 3 or 4 if someone helps her.

Now, if I take the attitude that she's got to learn to navigate the steps anyway, let her at it; I shouldn't, as a parent, try to "protect" her from them, I will end up with a small child doing somersaults down the steps. The result is not good.

This is probably not the strongest argument, because all children develop at different rates, but since we're here...

I took very nearly the latter approach you discribe. My son was walking around 12-13 months, and we started introducing him to the stairs almost right away. At first he would crawl up them, and refuse to go down. But we would almost always give him the option. Then he started scooting down, then he started walking up. Now, at 18 months, he uses the handrail going up and down, and very rarely needs any assistance.

The point here is that we educated and supervised. Sure we had a baby gate up, so he couldn't play on the stairs unsupervised. But I never once assumed that I knew what he was or wasn't capable of doing.

Originally posted by karmat:

When it is all said and done, my children's "raisin'" is my job. How I choose to do it is also my business.

I agree with this statement 100%. I give the example above not to suggest that you're dealing with the stairs in the "wrong" way, but just to illustrate how important it is to listen to what kids tell you, verbal or not.

In fact, doesn't that make the whole issue a moot point, since the orignal photographer who started this whole thing had the parent's permission to post the shots in question?

I bolded the line that I am responding to because I am too lazy to fix the quotes. :)

That is my point. My daughter, right now, is NOT ready to navigate the steps by herself. Her brother, at this point, because he developed physically before her was. Your post actually shows that the analogy is a bit stronger than you may have first realized. You didn't just take your child, at 12-13 months and say, "Here, son, go up and down the steps and I'll just watch." I daresay you didn't sit at the top and watch him "explore." You supervised. I'm not assuming she is not capable, I know she is not. She falls sometimes when trying to go down one step (she's got the up thing pretty good). There is no way she can do 14. So, who is to say what all 5 year olds, or all 14 year olds can and should be exposed to?

The stairs = something in society that parents feel their children need to be "protected" from.

Your child = the child who is able to deal with the stairs.

My child = the child who is not ready.

Reading some of the posts in this thread would make the parent of the second child (me) feel that I was overprotective and paranoid, when in fact, even though my child is older than yours, she is not able to deal with "the stairs." Again, not based on assumption, based on past experience (like two or three days ago) that she is not ready.

(and I wasn't necessarily talking about the original pictures that started this thread, just some of the general "stuff" that has come up since then.)

And I think you hit the two key words -- educated (knowing your child and what he/she is facing) and supervised (still watching while the child navigates). I believe the biggest problems occur when one of those two is missing.

05/29/2006 04:48:05 PM · #140

I'm not exactly sure, but I think a lot of our ideas are conflicting because we are talking about different aged children.

Karmat, absolutely yes, you should fully protect your children.

I'm talking about things like never letting your child go to a sleepover, never letting your child pick out their own clothes for school in the morning, never including your child in any of the decision making process regarding their own lives, and for teenagers, never letting them have phone calls from the opposite gender, basically, I'm talking about still treating your teen as if they were still 3 years old.

I'm just saying that the best way to prevent your child from wearing things you don't want them to or behaving in ways you don't approve of, is to instill in them at a young age, self esteem and respect, so that they don't want to in the first place. If your teen wants to wear something particular or behaves a certain way, you then run into a lot of problems in going, sometimes overboard, to stop them.

and for young kids, the only thing is to be careful not to tell them they aren't capable of doing whatever it is, because they will stop trying and stop believing they can. the best thing to do is let them try and be there for support and that sounds like exactly what you are doing.

(and if anyone wants my "qualifications" you can PM me, lol!)

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

05/29/2006 04:51:33 PM · #141

I also wanted to say that I don't think that any of the parents participating in this discussion could be "bad parents"

Any parent who is concerned about their children and loves and respects their children and treats them as such, is a really AWESOME parent

there is no guidebook and there are a million ways to raise a kid right, not to mention, every individual kid requires a completely different approach.

I think all of you should give yourselves kudos!

Spork99

OM System OM-1

05/29/2006 09:32:20 PM · #142

Originally posted by NightShy:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by NightShy:
Those who take the innocence and/or life of a child are not human anymore. They are monsters. They do not deserve the luxuries of prison. They do not deserve the luxury of an easy death penalty (not that people who hurt kids ever get it anyway...kill a full grown man and you're screwed!)

The caning punishment is much too good for these kind of "people".

This willingness to sink to the level of the criminal for vengeance is just sad...

It's sad you think I'm going to pay for these people to have television and indoor plumbing.

If you pay taxes, you already are.

I don't see how you can advocate torturing another person in the name of vengeance, that's as sick as you being the molester yourself.

Message edited by author 2006-05-29 21:37:06.

05/31/2006 09:00:21 PM · #143

Originally posted by dacrazyrn:

And Kimberly...I hate to do this to you but...there may be a pedophile with a foot fetish out there!! Does that now worry you? Little Birkies

It's her feet for crying out loud. I'm not worried about that. Please, that's going a bit far. She's not sitting there in a little bikini for the whole world to see.

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

05/31/2006 09:09:41 PM · #144

What I'd like to know is how many of you who think those who are teaching their children to be aware, be modest, protect themselves ect, are a bunch of overprotective freaks, how many of you have children of their own? And how many of you have daughters?

I can't believe one little question- "did you have permission to post these?" and stating how I am with my daughter, turned into this.

I see a bunch of narrowminded, opinionated people really.

I don't expect everyone to think like me or raise their children like me. I KNOW what's best for my child. And what's best for my child, may not be best for someone elses. NOBODY is a perfect parent, NOBODY has all the right answers.

Some of you need to get off your high horses already.

David Ey

Nikon D80

05/31/2006 10:27:02 PM · #145

Yes, but at least they are out of the box.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

06/01/2006 07:11:10 AM · #146

What is that supposed to mean lol?

Because I protect my child I'm living in a "box". I beg to differ.

She's going to a public school next year, has been in preschool since she was 3. If I were living in a box she'd be going to a private school and the best one we could afford. We CAN afford private school but chose public for other reasons.

If I lived in a box she'd never go to the beach, to the park, our for bike rides, or fly cross country to see her grandparents every year- granted she's flying with me, but roaming through 3 airports with a very outgoing 4yo is no easy thing. At 5 she's matured so she KNOWS not to talk to everyone.

If I lived in a box we'd never leave this house.

karmat, I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels the way I do and I've found that most of the parents I run into feel the same way and are the same way with their own children so we're not totally out of the loop lol.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

06/01/2006 07:55:26 AM · #147

Originally posted by missinseattle:

I have 2 kids, ages 3 and 5. I worry as much that I am being overprotective as that I am being too laissez-faire. I see as many problems from kids having "helicopter" parents as those who have parents who are too permissive.

(By "helicopter" parents, I mean those who hover, constantly ready to swoop in and solve whatever problem the child is facing. I suppose that's fine when you have toddlers, but smothering to an older child.)

Originally posted by missinseattle:

I can't believe one little question- "did you have permission to post these?" and stating how I am with my daughter, turned into this.

Me either, but it has.

Originally posted by missinseattle:

I see a bunch of narrowminded, opinionated people really.

I won't deny that, but have you looked in the mirror?

Originally posted by missinseattle:

I don't expect everyone to think like me or raise their children like me. I KNOW what's best for my child. And what's best for my child, may not be best for someone elses. NOBODY is a perfect parent, NOBODY has all the right answers.

Hopefully you won't smother your kids into social incompetence.

Originally posted by missinseattle:

Some of you need to get off your high horses already.

Agreed, I think your horse is tired too.