posted
wow. the difference between parenting strategies is amazing.
My parents routinely stranded me at school...I got lots of rides home from other kids' parents.
I was a latchkey kid from the age of seven. Those two to three hours without mom or dad home were wonderful.
My parents expected me to get rides from other people/parents if I wanted to spend a night at a friend's house, attend an athletic practice or game, an awards night, a drama rehearsal or play.
If my mother picked me up, she was always pissy about it.
If my father remembered to pick me up, we took the long route home (we stopped at one of the bars, he went in for drinking and food, and a couple hours later, THEN we'd make it home).
And if my father had to watch me if my mother was working at night and he decided he wanted to party...I got left out in the car for all hours.
So, I suppose understanding reasonable practices for kids being alone is tough.
And don't get me started on dating. I'm 24 and WAY behind the learning curve. And at 24, from peers, prospective dates, and even healthcare professionals, the expectation is that you have or are having sex in your relationships.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is slightly off topic, but this thread is already derailed so bad I don't think it will matter.
Talking about giving rides reminded me of something that's been puzzling me for a while. When I was a sophomore in high school I was sixteen and terrified of driving, my mom informed me I could drive myself, get rides, or not do anything. I got rides from friends everywhere I went my sophomore year.
My brother is a sophomore this year, he didn't turn sixteen until December, when he started driving right away. However, until he started driving himself he was absolutely NOT allowed to get rides places, my mo took him, even though quite a few of the guys on his soccer team live in our neighborhood.
I'm still enormously confused by this, can any of the mothers here shed some light on why the rules went that way and not the other (me not being allowed to drive with people)?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"you could have driven yourself if you'd wanted to" and "I don't want the other kids to have to go out of the way for him"
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The other thing that does happen, with astonishing regularity, is that high schoolers who were for all appearances model responsible human beings due to their upbringing or whatever, get to college, realize they have freedom and suddenly go nuts.
Everyone is assuming my kids see our rule as a lack of freedom. They don't. Oh, we had some problems with Natalie at first with the whole "spend the night" rules.
But, once I explained that these were our rules and what the limitations were she only had one question "Oh, so that means I can spend the night with Jordan, though - right?" Jordan is a friend who has an older sister and their parents are fellow church members, and I said yes, absolutely. She's never questioned it since.
For what it's worth, and I'm not trying to make anyone else feel bad for their decisions, but when I discussed this with my therapist she applauded our stance. She only had to give me a few numbers about how many young women she'd counselled that had been sexually abused at spend the night parties to make me feel even better about my decision.
Another thing is that my kids don't feel like they are abnormal at all. I mean, compared to some of the kids at school we are incredibly strict, but compared to other friends we are really relaxed on things. For example, Natalie has a lot of friends who've never seen the Lord of the Ring movies and think she has the coolest Mom ever because I not only took her to every movie but even made her an elven dress. Natalie told me once she considers us "right in the middle" Not too strict, not too loose. I can't think of anywhere I'd rather be, personally.
Edit: One more thing - there was one friend who asked Natalie to spend the night and we said no, we didn't know the parents well. It was about three weeks later the little girl came over and was dropped off by her Dad, who apparently graduated from the same school of parenting mack's parents attended. They made no provision for getting the girl home, and when I asked her when she was supposed to be home, she just shrugged and said "I dunno."
I drove her home about eight, and her parents weren't there. She asked me if I would wait until her Mom and Dad got home and I said of course (I had no intention of leaving a 10 year old alone) I asked her if her sister was there, because I knew she had an older sister and she said no, but Mike (not real name) was. Then she said 'That's why you have to stay, I'm not allowed to stay with Mike alone."
Some discreet questioning of the mother got me the following information: Mike is a friend of the dad's, and he has no other place to stay. The Mom then said "Mike has some problems, we just don't want the girls home alone with him. Not that he'd ever do anything to them or anything."
That one incident convinced me my policy was in the best interest of my kids. Imagine if I hadn't cared and had just let my daughter go over there and spend the night?
[ March 30, 2004, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you Belle, and I'll one up you. My kids are not allowed to go on sleep overs. They can have 'late night play dates' but not sleep overs.
I guess we have a different middle. When they are 16, I'll allow them to date. I'll advise them that group dating might be better for a while than one on one. But at that point, if I haven't taught them what they need to know yet, then I've already lost. In fact, I think if I haven't taught them the right things by about 12, I've neglected my responsibility.
I will always be there to guide and advise, but they are already making so many decisions on their own that they are learning much more from experience than I can teach them.
I'll trust them to make the right decisions.
I think that as a society we unfortunately expect less from our children. They'll only live up to those standards that we give them. Kids can handle a lot more than we give them credit for.
I got married when I was 20. I had my first child when I was 21. That is considered too young in this culture, but I disagree. I believe we've extended childhood too long. I believe we have too many expectations of what should happen before someone gets married and starts a family. A formal education, a career, a house, a good car... You don't need that to start a good marriage. I think my marriage is stronger because we had to struggle through tight finances and getting Vladimir into a good job. Things are good now, and we did it together. This is our life that we built, not the life I made and the life he made that we combined.
Teach your children with respect and then trust them to make the right decisions.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
once again Belle my comments about freshhman college students going wild were not directed particularly at you. If your kids think you are in the middle that is awesome!
posted
I think a lot of parents are way too paranoid. Risk is an important part of life and if you too afraid of letting your kids take risks, they'll suffer. Forbidding friendships for all but the far most extreme cases falls under this, I believe.
The funny thing is, most kids realize this when they are kids, but then forget it when they become parents. I suspect it's because parents fear losing their kids more than they fear losing their own lives, and have to justify this fear to themselves.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
See, Belle, as a teenager (and this is a biased opinion because of that), I am kind of insulted by some of your cannots. I understand that you want to protect your kids, but to me in many cases, you seem to assume that your children have ulterior motives (or that the member of the opposite sex has ulterior motives).
Of course, you know your children best, but I choose my friends so that I know I am safe with them and their families.
I'm not attacking your parenting techniques, I'm just giving you my as a teenager feedback. Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wonder if CM's problem is not that they think he is interested in the girl. Maybe there is an issue of him not being interested enough. My mom got real tired of the guys I had unrequited crushes on who were my friends. I know I'm a little late to show up and actually try to talk about what the thread was originally about...
Nah. We saw each other fairly reguarly. Not like, a TON, but on average once every other weekend or so. To go swing dancing or whatnot.
Posts: 1934 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not about ulterior motives. It's about not putting my children in positions that are fraught with risk and temptation.
It's like not letting them ride on the back of a motorcycle without a helmet. Do I trust them not to fling themselves off the motorcycle? Yes. Do I trust them to be safe if the motorcycle crashes? No. That's beyond their control.
Many things that can happen to them would be beyond their control, and it's not about not trusting them. If I had let her go on that sleepover and that man abused her - would it have happened because my daughter wasn't trustworthy?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think having friends requires going on sleepovers. My husband came from a family that didn't have sleepovers, but it was something I had grown up with (though I didn't have many friends, I tended to have a few close friends instead). So he was going to be open minded about it. But then he came across this case of some folks he knew personally where the children were abused at a sleepover it absolutely turned the lives of every member of the family inside out. I can't say it destroyed them, but it radically altered most major aspects of their lives.
Now we don't even let our daughter go to pajama parties at school. It's a major irritation that they keep having them. We actually relented on this last one and let her go, but wearing sweats.
Posts: 383 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*grin* Christy wasn't allowed to date in high school, couldn't have boys alone in any room in her house, and actually had car privileges taken away from her for years because she drove it once -- thinking she had permission -- to pick up some groceries, and they thought she'd stolen off somewhere.
Then she went to an all-girls' dorm, got involved in Bible study, and went (as Anna has indicated) "nuts," if by nuts you mean relatively normal. What's interesting, really, is that she was actually a lot less sheltered than a number of her other friends, so she wound up being the person they'd call when, for example, they'd just touched a guy through his underwear by "accident" and were afraid that they might get pregnant. (I was often curled up on the floor convulsed in silent laughter during these phone conversations, I'm slightly ashamed to admit.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And when I turned 16, I was set loose. No curfew, they didn't have to meet the guys, I had a job that kept me out late, and I when I went to college, I lived in a co-ed dorm. It wasn't neglect - my mom trusted me.
She actually said it. It was something along the lines that I was stubborn as all get out and had a very clear idea of standards.
My best friend's family was incredibly strict with her (hence their horror of me), and it used to irritate me to no end because they had no idea how much crap I talked her out of on a regular basis.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought some more about this last night. And I got to thinking back over my own experiences.
Did what I learn about heart ache and losing someone I thought I loved really help and prepare me for my marriage? I don't think it really did, but let's go ahead and assume that yes, it was helpful for me to meet Wes with having one serious and a couple of minor heart breaks behind me. (although I didn't get any of those before the age of 18)
Then I contrasted it with what I've been through because of sexual abuse (and I was never abused - I've only had to deal with survivor's guilt)
There is no comparison. I would much rather my daughter be a little inexperienced in heart ache than have her in a therapist office trying to pick up the pieces after being a victim of sexual abuse.
If you think I'm being paranoid - then you haven't talked to the people I've talked to. You must not know a gynecologist who works in pediatric gynecology and spends his time trying to heal the physical damages done to little girls. You must not know the therapists who try to heal the emotional damages.
If my daughters can grow up and enter into adult relationships without carrying around with them scars of past abuse then I will have done my job.
No one has yet been able to convince me that keeping them from sleepovers and dating is a bad thing, especially when looked at against the alternatives.
posted
My parents were fairly strict with me, and I was continually kicking against the pricks. But I had a friend who had almost no limitations -- zero curfue, etc.. His parents trusted him. My parents trusted him. If I was with him, then they felt a lot better about things.
And with good reason. If I had been given no curfue, it would have been a disaster. I am so grateful that my parents loved me enough to have me hate them at times for my own good. I know that I would have gotten into real trouble if my parents had given me enough rope to hang myself.
But it worked fine with my friend. He didn't need the tight leash that I did.
Thinking of this makes me scared. Each person has such different needs. I pray again and again that I will be able to provide my children with what they need. It's one of the biggest fears in my life right now.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I am totally with you on the sleepovers thing. I don't think my kids will ever be allowed to do sleepovers--too dangerous. But I don't understand what dating has to do with sexual abuse. If you are talking about unhealthy relationships, those can happen at any age.
posted
They can happen at any age but I think they are more likely to happen when you are young and insecure.
I don't want my kids caught in the trap of needing a boyfriend to fit in with the popular crowd at school. I don't think the attitude that "I have to be going steady or I'm not good enough" is unhealthy and I don't want to promote it.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But you can date without pairing off. You can date without physical involvement, and you can date without marrying the guy.
I agree, but why is dating at all necessary until you are ready to pair off? What do you get from dating that you cannot get from social interaction in a group setting? If it's not physical involvement what is it? The experience of having your heart broken? That's what I've heard so far and I'm not convinced that you learn something more from that at age 16, that would make it a vital part of growing up. Surely heart break can wait a few years?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle and katharina, it sounds like you somewhat agree because the sort of "dating" that katharina is talking about sounds very much like some of the acceptable activities on Belles list. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I still hold to the feeling that having expressed romantic intentions and having them expressed towards me in return was very, very good for me as a teen. Both of us involved held to certain limits and it was ok. But when I was in college, I had a really messed relationship that nearly ruined my life. I guess I am one of those who "went nuts", not because I felt repressed by my parents, but because I encountered things I had never had to deal with before and didn't know how to.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a difference in getting to know someone in a group setting and getting to know someone one-on-one.
Ultimately, you do pair off to one-on-one. Some people are different when there aren't other people around for distraction. Some relationships only work with an audience watching.
posted
I think there is no substituting for experience. I think that once we go out into the dating world, we are going to find things that we've never encountered before and will have to adjust to it. Yes, we don't want it to happen too young, but I don't think 16 is too young.
Our children will go into situations that are difficult for them. The way to help them is not to avoid this by putting strict restrictions on them, but to arm them with knowledge and self respect.
My curfews were more for giving my parents a time at which they should become worried that something had happened. If I called because I couldn't make it in on the stated time, they let me stay out longer.
posted
"If you think I'm being paranoid - then you haven't talked to the people I've talked to. You must not know a gynecologist who works in pediatric gynecology and spends his time trying to heal the physical damages done to little girls. You must not know the therapists who try to heal the emotional damages."
Actually, almost every female I consider a friend has been raped. Of those, only two were raped by someone who wasn't a member of their families.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am impressed again and again by how much our opinions are shaped by our experience. That is why you can discuss all day and not sway someone. You can't exchange experiences. All you can do is learn to understand and appreciate why someone feels the way they do.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm getting a little uncomfortable with all the "Mike this and Mike that" in this thread. Can't we use a different name? Like Isaiah? Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is so right. I think that I would have been happier and healthier with more structure from my parents in regards to dating/relationships. So I will give my children, probably to their much chagrin, more structure than I was given.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Things ranging from sleepovers to dating to having a friend with blue hair.
My grandmother won't ride on planes. Or boats. Or trains. She is afraid there will be some accident and she will end up in a gruesome death. And to refute any claims that such modes of travel are safe, she will point to all the statistics of people who got killed horribly because of a choice to ride a boat, or a train, or a plane. Thus, she holds firm in her fear, and as a result can't really travel anywhere far.
Parents tend to be a lot like this. Sure, it's easy to point to statistics about kids getting abused - but it's also easy to forget that for every one instance of abuse there's probably a million instances of healthy interpersonal interaction.
If you are really concerned about keeping your kid safe at all costs, just keep them in a padded room for their whole life. They'll be safe there. DEFINITELY, don't let them go to school - I can tell you with great confidence that many many kids are screwed up by the things they end up enduring at school. And college should be out of the qustion: Just look at the rape statistics! Don't let them get their liscense either - there are news stories every week about some kid dying at the wheel. In fact, don't let them get in a car at all - accidents are far too common. And let's add sports (life-altering injury possibility), babysitters (rape risk again), and the internet (online predators!) to the list while we're at it. All of these are more dangerous than, say, sleepovers or dating.
[Edit: I forgot church! The Catholic priest scandals have shown how dangerous it is to let your children associate with church officials, etc.]
Life is about risk-taking. Sometimes really bad stuff happens, are you have to deal with it, but to allow your life to revolve around avoiding that danger is to ruin your life, I believe. I think most people understand this, as evidenced by the fact that most adults take plenty of risks all the time. I mean, we are on a forum filled with people giving out random information about themselves on the internet to other people they barely even know - and occassionally even driving out to meet those people. What if there are 'crazy' people lurking? There have been plenty of stories about this happening after all. Obviously, we are willing to take that risk. I think this, along with all the other risky things I'm sure we all do, suggests we must believe such a level or risk is healthy for us.
But for the kids we have a different standard. The healthy level of risk is one thing, and what we actually allow kids is something altogether different. Why? Here's what I suspect: We fear screwing up our kids more than we fear screwing up ourselves. And whereas we feel the benefits of our own risk-taking ourselves, it is our children that get the direct benefits of their risk-taking. All parents get are the fear on the one hand, and the indirect benefit of making them happy on the other. Thus, I think parents who worry about their kids are predisposed to giving them less than the healthy level of risk. Even if the kids stand to lose on the deal, the parents stand to gain, because their (greater) fear is alleviated.
posted
I find this amusing because I never particularly wanted to date in high school. There were not that many girls I was interested in and either I was too shy or they were too taken. This worried my parents a little bit, and I recall several times being encouraged to date. Now if I had found the right person things might have been different, but I did not. The sum total of my high school dating experience was a bit of flirting and one meaningless makeout session freshman year. For the first two years I was sometimes a bit concerned because I could not find anyone, but by my junior and senior years I had seen enough of the crap that went on not to be so worried. Most high school relationships are stupid anyway, although lots of times the stupid things people do in them result in experience.
My definition of dating is romantic involvement. You may not have any definite plans to get married, and you may be saving yourself for marriage, but you are more than just friends. A movie with a female friend is not a date. The same movie with a girlfriend is. This is a little different than what kat did although I see nothing wrong with that either.
The thing is... Do the parents here remember high school? I have forgotten quite a bit and I have only been out for two years. If your kid wants to date, then either you will have to be so incredibly restrictive as to screw them up beyond what normal teenage dating can do, or they will ignore your lesser restrictions. Asking whether teenage dating is a good idea is asking the wrong question. Anyone with a brain can figure out the good and bad aspects of it. The question should be, "How can I teach my child to make wise choices in this area?" I have never once personally seen a rule against dating stop anyone who really wanted to break it. At 14, it might if it they were not serious, but at 16 or 17 they will do pretty much what they want to do. Even chaperoned trips cannot watch everyone all the time. I never seen that type of rule create anything but strife, and frankly I consider it unfair to the other half of the would be couple. Either they obey the wishes of the parents and get the child upset, or they sneak around and cause trouble between the parents and their child.
Certainly I would have little respect for barriers a parent put up between their daughter and myself. I doubt I would actually lie to them, but I would indeed help their daughter sneak out. If they asked me, I would be more likely to just tell her parents straight up that they were being unreasonable and I could care less about that particular rule of theirs. I have always had an antagonistic streak in me. This depends somewhat upon the situation - if they asked us to wait for a short term goal (two years ago high school graduation or 18th birthday would have been good examples) and had good reasons for it I would be much more open to doing that than if they said, "My daughter will never be allowed to date you because you are [white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, male, destroying your life with the Devil's weed, etc.]" The only way I would possibly consider not going out with a girl who had restrictions like that would be if her parents could and would seriously ruin her future prospects because of it. If I was a little more selfish and decided to stay with her, her parents would be the ones to ruin her life. Not me. I realize parents worry, but sometimes they worry too much and they have nothing to worry about from me in that area. As far as I am concerned everyone has a right to peacefully assemble, even if they are not legal adults.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I find this amusing because I never particularly wanted to date in high school. There were not that many girls I was interested in and either I was too shy or they were too taken. This worried my parents a little bit, and I recall several times being encouraged to date.
Hmmm... sounds like shy old me. Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Parenting is tough. I didn't realize sleepovers could be so dangerous. My daughter is going on her first sleepover to a friend's house next week. Should I be freaking out? She's 5, the friend is 5, and the family lives in our neighborhood. I don't know them well, but the little girls are best friends. The other little girl is going to sleepover at our house soon. I have a good feeling about this family, and I'm not worried at all. Abby is looking forward to a good time with a friend.
When it comes to dating, I've already talked with Abby a lot about my expectations for her - that she will make wise decisions, and come to me if she needs to talk about anything. I figure some bridges we will cross when we come to them.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
The difference is that at this point my teenage kids agree with me on this point. However, granted, they haven't fallen head-over-heels in crush with anyone yet, they are shy, and they just aren't the rebellious type. (like I was).
But it would be pretty darn hard for them to "sneak" and have a relationship without me knowing. 1) living on a farm means we are miles from the nearest town -- they can't just say "I'm walking over to so-and-so's house to work on a school project together. 2) none of them can drive my 5-speed truck very well, and have never asked for it. 3)I pretty much know where they are and who they are with at all times simply because we do most everything together.
So far, they aren't complaining, so I just count myself lucky that I didn't get kids with the personality that I am.
posted
Just wanted to say that this thread has helped to sort out my thoughts . I still really haven't reached a conclusion one way or another though...
I understand the practical reasons for only casually dating and not going steady, or even having no dating allowed at all, but there's something I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around. I guess it's because for me, love and romance are so far from practical...we don't develop feelings or fall in love when it makes sense to, or at least I didn't. And it just seems to be such an inevitability, that if you casually date someone you'll eventually find someone you want more with. And then you're on the dangerous "more" road, which leads to the "everything" lane...I don't know, it just all seems so inevitable.
Posts: 1676 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, I have had to come to the realization that raising a kid today is diffrent than it used to be. I went on many sleepovers. I also rode a bicycle without a helmet and trick-or-treated far and wide in the dark of night without parental supervision.
My kids may never experience the classic sleepover. I happen to think the risk is too high in that particular area. They may never experience many of the "freedoms" I did. I don't think I will be able to completely keep them from danger, but there are some things that I will do. Those things are up to individual parents.
On a side note, it does seem that parents are a lot more conscious today of danger to their kids than a generation ago. Such messages are much more widely taught. There were no child car seats when we were little. My husband was put in a "box" on the floor of the car as a baby. If you look at any baby magazine, it is full of safety information. Heaven forbid any mother puts a baby to sleep on its stomach!
Some of the hype I think is silly. Some of it is wisdom. The decisions are up to the parent (thank goodness). I happen to feel strongly about sleepovers. Belle happens to feel strongly about dating. Another parent doesn't. That is fine with me.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
What's important, and what you are forgetting, is that good parents know their children, and know better than anyone how to assess risk for them.
For example: I am comfortable allowing my daughter to go to the bathroom at church alone. I've been comfortable with that since she was 3. I do not allow my son to go by himself-- because I know his temperment, and I know that he'd dawdle, or play in the hall, etc.
It's nice to talk about acceptable risk for children, but the application of those ideologies is something else entirely. What Tresopax non-parents define as acceptable risk, parents know to be idealistic nonsense.
And while I would appreciate a young man like Tom being completely honest about going out with my daughter, that honesty does not remove the fact that I think (theoretically) he's a bad influence on my child.
I think we all agree that children need to be taught about life. No one is proposing that we keep the facts hidden from them. No one is proposing living in a convent, or secluding our children from the world. No one is saying that Christy's friends' parents in Tom's example have the correct attitude.
What we are saying (Belle said it first) is that while a child may know a thing, acting on that knowlege may be out of his or her capacity. That's where a good parent comes in-- to discern what is good and what is bad for a particular child, because frankly, they lack the wisdom to do so.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
However, it CAN happen when you're not looking. If you're fighting it, then probably not, but if you're just not paying attention, it can hit you between the eyes.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I have always been a big believer in that as well...
...but I'm fighting it BIG time at present. You can make a conscious thought in your head to say "don't fall in love with this person!" but sometimes that just seems to make them all the more irresitable.
Honest question, really. I can't really speak to this as, frankly, I started dating because I wanted to get laid, so obviously there were some issues there to begin with. I'm honestly trying to sort it all out :\.
Posts: 1676 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
If it's at all possible to fall in love with someone who was before merely a friend, then you can have love before attraction.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ladyday: We should teach our children to understand and control their emotions. We expect them to control their anger,their greed, their excitement, their honesty, and their altruism-- we should also teach them to control their instinct toward romantic love.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I sure wish CM would change the title of this thread. I mean, I know he posted out of frustration and emotions of the moment, but every time I visit the main page and see "I HATE ALL PARENTS" in caps like that, it just pierces me....
quote: If it's at all possible to fall in love with someone who was before merely a friend, then you can have love before attraction.
I don't know Kat. With Steve and I it went
Friendship (which while possibly love is a different and much more unconscious than romantic-relationship type love)---> Attraction--->romantic-relationship love
I love the greek words for love, they are so much more precise.
posted
I have to admit I currently have no definite theories about love whatsoever. That doesn't mean I'll believe any/everyone's - it just means that this stance I will not defend. Heck if I know.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Belle.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
This depends somewhat upon the situation - if they asked us to wait for a short term goal (two years ago high school graduation or 18th birthday would have been good examples) and had good reasons for it I would be much more open to doing that than if they said, "My daughter will never be allowed to date you because you are [white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, male, destroying your life with the Devil's weed, etc.]" The only way I would possibly consider not going out with a girl who had restrictions like that would be if her parents could and would seriously ruin her future prospects because of it. If I was a little more selfish and decided to stay with her, her parents would be the ones to ruin her life. Not me. I realize parents worry, but sometimes they worry too much and they have nothing to worry about from me in that area. As far as I am concerned everyone has a right to peacefully assemble, even if they are not legal adults.
