Barney Frank on Family Values...

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

It doesn't, thig. Kids pay a lot more attention to what you do than what you say, in the event that what you say contradicts what you do/did.

This is assuming you are a positive role model for them.

I think you're making a blanket statement when one can't be made. Certainly some kids will say "you had sex, so that means I can" but plenty of kids will take to heart lessons taught from the basis of experience.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

imo open and frank discussion of sex can be done without a corresponding impulse to have sex.

I'll leave the rest of your response alone because I think we're arguing in circles at this point, but I wanted to say that I 100% agree with this. I'm in no way saying sex should be taboo, as it is with so many conservative families. Especially in today's world. Deciding not to talk to your kids about sex in the hopes that they won't be curious about it is is nothing but sticking your head in the sand.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Welcome back to the boards, my friend.

I don't think it's hypocritical, no. Certainly a parent should do everything they can to raise their child right. But do I believe the parent's example lessens the weight of their words? You're damn right I do.

See, kids are pretty smart, on a base level. They aren't hindered by political biases as we adults are. They do a pretty good job of taking in the world around them and forming judgements based on it. In fact, that's how they learn! And if a parent says to them "Don't smoke pot...I did, and let me tell you, it wasn't good for me"...well, if they have a positive view of that parent, this is tantamount to telling them "It's okay to smoke pot...You will still turn out fine, just like I did."

Thanks.

I see your point, but I don't really agree with your conclusion. Kids are kids, and in the end they may or may not follow their parents' advice/instructions (my oldest is six, but I already know this experientially to be true), but I don't think there's any doubt that parents are the strongest influence on a child's behavior, particularly if there is a positive relationship.

As for the Bristol Palin issue, I think you can look at it two ways. Certainly, one view is that the Republicans are hypocrites who bemoan the deterioration of family values unless it's in their own lap. The other view, though, is that Sarah Palin isn't going to reject her daughter for a poor choice. Rather, she's going to show her love and support for her daughter during what will undoubtedly be a premature introduction to adulthood. I personally think that Palin has handled the situation very well, and I don't think there's any question that it has helped her, not hurt her, with the voting public.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by jthig32

The hope would be that parents won't leave the discussion at such a basic, surface level as "it wasn't good for me".

God willing my wife and I are still going to be in a good family position by the time we start discussing sex with my daughter, but that doesn't mean we won't share with her the struggles we introduced to ourselves by having her at 18 instead of say, 25. Some kids certainly will look at it and say "well you guys turned out ok" but one would hope the deeper message of "look how much easier the early part of our marriage (and our adult lives) would have been with a couple different choices" would hit home with most kids.

I agree.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

I think you're making a blanket statement when one can't be made. Certainly some kids will say "you had sex, so that means I can" but plenty of kids will take to heart lessons taught from the basis of experience.

Of course a blanket statement can't be made, but I know the difference between a homeless person telling kids not to use drugs because he did and this is where he got him...and a successful business person or politician telling a kid not to use drugs. This is pretty basic stuff. If you can't show the kid what it cost you, then the kid isn't going to listen.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Of course a blanket statement can't be made, but I know the difference between a homeless person telling kids not to use drugs because he did and this is where he got him...and a successful business person or politician telling a kid not to use drugs. This is pretty basic stuff. If you can't show the kid what it cost you, then the kid isn't going to listen.

Well that's my point, I will be able to show them. In literal dollar figures, probably.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

As for the Bristol Palin issue, I think you can look at it two ways. Certainly, one view is that the Republicans are hypocrites who bemoan the deterioration of family values unless it's in their own lap. The other view, though, is that Sarah Palin isn't going to reject her daughter for a poor choice. Rather, she's going to show her love and support for her daughter during what will undoubtedly be a premature introduction to adulthood. I personally think that Palin has handled the situation very well, and I don't think there's any question that it has helped her, not hurt her, with the voting public.

Does anyone know if Bristol received abstinence only education at school? (I've only given a brief rundthrough of this thread.

Also, Obama referred to the hypothetical babies that his daughters might have as teenagers as "punishment." Palin's reaction is much, much better than that.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I don't agree. is it a "conservative value" to have a dysfunctional couple stay together, with the baggage that leaves on the kids, or for that dysfunctional family break up so the mother can find a better situation by herself?

What do you mean by dysfunctional couple?

should a couple who argue and fight stay together just for the kids? absolutely not, that environment isn't better for the kids.

No, they should work out their issues and stop arguing and fighting! You can't honestly be arguing that divorce is good for kids.

what about an abusive spouse? is it a "conservative value" for the recipient of that abuse to stay in the relationship just to keep the family together? heck no, they should get out asap.

That seems like an extreme example to me, but I don't think that most "conservatives" would argue that a woman (or man) should stay in an abusive relationship.

all of these contribute to single parent households. none of these run counter to conservative values.

Your solution to all of those things is a single parent household (via divorce), so I don't get your point!

imo open and frank discussion of sex can be done without a corresponding impulse to have sex.

Sure, but the question is what the discussion should include. Teaching kids about the proper method of donning a condom is certainly implying that using the condom is acceptable.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Thanks.

I see your point, but I don't really agree with your conclusion. Kids are kids, and in the end they may or may not follow their parents' advice/instructions (my oldest is six, but I already know this experientially to be true), but I don't think there's any doubt that parents are the strongest influence on a child's behavior, particularly if there is a positive relationship.

As for the Bristol Palin issue, I think you can look at it two ways. Certainly, one view is that the Republicans are hypocrites who bemoan the deterioration of family values unless it's in their own lap. The other view, though, is that Sarah Palin isn't going to reject her daughter for a poor choice. Rather, she's going to show her love and support for her daughter during what will undoubtedly be a premature introduction to adulthood. I personally think that Palin has handled the situation very well, and I don't think there's any question that it has helped her, not hurt her, with the voting public.

Of course she is going to love and support her daughter. What else would any good parent do?

How does that help her with the voting public?

What, do you assert that the typical politician wouldn't? That's crazy, man.

There was a time when social conservatives looked to their own as role models. These days your kid can be gay or pregnant and it's still cool with social conservatives, as long as you think god and guns are good. What has happened to social conservatives, that they now hold forth a mother of a teenage mother as emblematic of their worldview?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Sure, but the question is what the discussion should include. Teaching kids about the proper method of donning a condom is certainly implying that using the condom is acceptable.

One thing I don't understand about the sex ed arguments: If you don't think that telling kids "don't have sex" will convince them to not have sex, why would you think that telling them, "use a condom" will convince them to use a condom.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Of course she is going to love and support her daughter. What else would any good parent do?

it's also about the grandkid

What, do you assert that the typical politician wouldn't? That's crazy, man.

other politicians might pressure their child to kill the baby.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Of course she is going to love and support her daughter. What else would any good parent do?

I think that's the right reaction, but I think reality says that many parents would shun or ostracize their child.

How does that help her with the voting public?

It helps her because I think many people will be able to relate to her situation and see her as more human. Also, I think they will approve of how she is handling it.

What, do you assert that the typical politician wouldn't? That's crazy, man.

I didn't say what a typical politician would or wouldn't do. I think the key is that people will be able to relate to her situation, and I think they will see her response as genuine and not a contrived political maneuver.

Just my opinion.

There was a time when social conservatives looked to their own as role models. These days your kid can be gay or pregnant and it's still cool with social conservatives, as long as you think god and guns are good. What has happened to social conservatives, that they now hold forth a mother of a teenage mother as emblematic of their worldview?

Are you saying that Bristol Palin's decision to sleep with her boyfriend is Sarah Palin's fault? The fault of her abstinence-only beliefs? Really?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

One thing I don't understand about the sex ed arguments: If you don't think that telling kids "don't have sex" will convince them to not have sex, why would you think that telling them, "use a condom" will convince them to use a condom.

Gimme a break. The first is something that they are very inclined to do, by nature. The second is a learned, not natural, bahaviour.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

One thing I don't understand about the sex ed arguments: If you don't think that telling kids "don't have sex" will convince them to not have sex, why would you think that telling them, "use a condom" will convince them to use a condom.

Who said I think that?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I think that's the right reaction, but I think reality says that many parents would shun or ostracize their child.

Really? Are you actually being serious about this? Many parents would shun or ostracize the child, you say? Wow. Is that what happens in hard-right Christian families? Because I'm pretty sure that never happens anywhere else.

Wow, that is just shocking.

It helps her because I think many people will be able to relate to her situation and see her as more human. Also, I think they will approve of how she is handling it.

They will see her as "more human" than what, exactly? More human than a politician? I'm pretty sure that's what you said, and I think you ought to consider what that implies.

Are you saying that Bristol Palin's decision to sleep with her boyfriend is Sarah Palin's fault? The fault of her abstinence-only beliefs? Really?

In the world I grew up in, parents were held responsible for their kids' behaviour. God knows that my mother was far more responsible for my behavior than I I would have liked at the time. But she was a good mother, and now I can thank her for what she did for me.

So, no, I don't subscribe to the point of view that parents are absolved of their children's behavior.

Nor do I think it a good idea that they should be.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Really? Are you actually being serious about this? Many parents would shun or ostracize the child, you say? Wow. Is that what happens in hard-right Christian families? Because I'm pretty sure that never happens anywhere else.

Wow, that is just shocking.

I don't have time for straw men, Chum.

They will see her as "more human" than what, exactly? More human than a politician? I'm pretty sure that's what you said, and I think you ought to consider what that implies.

I said more human, and I simply meant someone with struggles and problems similar to theirs.

In the world I grew up in, parents were held responsible for their kids' behaviour. God knows that my mother was far more responsible for my behavior than I I would have liked at the time. But she was a good mother, and now I can thank her for what she did for me.

So, no, I don't subscribe to the point of view that parents are absolved of their children's behavior.

Nor do I think it a good idea that they should be.

Well, sure, parents are responsible when their kids throw a rock through the window of the neighbor's house. And I would agree that parents can contribute to poor decision-making by their children. But we're talking about a 17 year old girl here, and you're acting like her parents failed because she made a bad decision.

Since I don't know enough about the Palin family, I'll reserve comment on whether Sarah Palin (and her husband) should share some blame for the pregnancy. But speaking from experience, I know that parents can do just about everything right, and in the end kids still make bad choices sometimes.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Who said I think that?

nobody.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Gimme a break. The first is something that they are very inclined to do, by nature. The second is a learned, not natural, bahaviour.

[eyeroll] having sex without a condom is something people do naturally. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be a problem with unexpected pregnancies. People learn to deal with that impulse in a number of ways. Kids, by nature, don't have the foresight to learn to adjust their behavior for future consequences. That's the same for condoms and abstinence.

[chumdawg]

You backed away from the majority of your post, but on the part you did support...yes, parents can do everything right and their kids can still screw it up. That happens "sometimes," as you said. But it does not happen more often than not. More often than not, parents who commit to raise their kids with the direction that they don't have sex until they are married or adults...if they are good parents, their kids listen.

When you get into the realm of saying "kids will do what kids will do," you give up whatever role you have as parents.

Tell it to the father of a 12-year-old girl. Tell him that whatever he does, she will do whatever she is genetically (I guess) proposed to do.

That doesn't fly with me, bro. I'll take a more active role in parenting my girl.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

When you get into the realm of saying "kids will do what kids will do," you give up whatever role you have as parents. .

Isn't that the argument behind the modern sex education?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Isn't that the argument behind the modern sex education?

It's a part of it, yes.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You backed away from the majority of your post, but on the part you did support...yes, parents can do everything right and their kids can still screw it up. That happens "sometimes," as you said. But it does not happen more often than not. More often than not, parents who commit to raise their kids with the direction that they don't have sex until they are married or adults...if they are good parents, their kids listen.

I don't disagree with you, and I didn't back away from the majority of my post.

When you get into the realm of saying "kids will do what kids will do," you give up whatever role you have as parents.

I didn't say that. I said that sometimes kids make poor choices in spite of being taught the truth. In fairness, neither you nor I knows HOW the Palins raised Bristol to this point, so it's hard for us to draw conclusions about what role their actions/inactions played.

Tell it to the father of a 12-year-old girl. Tell him that whatever he does, she will do whatever she is genetically (I guess) proposed to do.

I didn't say that. My sincere belief is that if you teach your daughter not to have sex until she is married, she will listen to you. All I'm saying is that we need to know more than we do about the Palin situation before we can decide who did what wrong.

That doesn't fly with me, bro. I'll take a more active role in parenting my girl.

I'm really glad to hear it. I just don't know how you can assume the Palins didn't (unless you know more than me about the situation).

[chumdawg]

You say that we don't know (and can't know) how Palin raised her daughter. But she is the flagbearer for social conservatives who don't want their teenaged daughters having sex?

How does that make any sense at all?

If I don't want my 12-year-old daughter having sex at age 16, how can I offer up to her the example of Sarah Palin and her family?

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You say that we don't know (and can't know) how Palin raised her daughter. But she is the flagbearer for social conservatives who don't want their teenaged daughters having sex?

How does that make any sense at all?

So are you saying that she can't hold socially conservative beliefs and positions? Are you saying that her daughter's pregnancy somehow disqualifies her? I guess I don't see your point.

If I don't want my 12-year-old daughter having sex at age 16, how can I offer up to her the example of Sarah Palin and her family?

Are you saying you plan to offer up examples of public figures as your method of convincing your daughter that your viewpoint is correct?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Are you saying you plan to offer up examples of public figures as your method of convincing your daughter that your viewpoint is correct?

I'm saying that I don't want those public figures to undermine the viewpoint that I attempt to pass on to my child.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I'm saying that I don't want those public figures to undermine the viewpoint that I attempt to pass on to my child.

will you also be arguing against whatever sex ed she got in school?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

will you also be arguing against whatever sex ed she got in school?

No.