Update: Problems with 14yr old sister...
Daniel
talk to her last night (she keeps putting that kind of stuff off & I think
it ended with more of a "to be continued" than anything else). She said
that she's noticed a change in me since I've got with my girlfriend, though
she admitted that what she was seeing wasn't a bad change. She talked
though as if she wasn't talking but someone else was talking through her &
she was giving the thoughts they put into her head. She tried to argue that
I don't spend as much time at the computer any more. I explained to her
that the main reason I did before is because I didn't have much else to do
(wont go into the details of it on this post...but basically my whole life,
mainly growing up, I've been forced into having to put all my time &
attention into something because there wasn't anything/anyone else worth
being around until more recently with her...& even then it was durring any
time I wasn't with her). She also said that she thinks my girlfriend has
changed the way I dress. This because since I've met her, I've found 2
shirts that have dragon pictures on them, rather than the usual plain solid
or stripped that I'd normally wear. I explained to her that she didn't get
them for me but simply showed me that they were at the store we happened to
be in at the time (& she recognized that I might like them based on many of
the video games that I've played). My sister did agree on this after I
explained it to her (& 2 shirts isn't hardly changing someone's look). She
also tried to argue also that I'm neglecting my responsibilities (but
couldn't give any example...& then finally agreed in more of a confused/"why
did I say that"/"what did I even mean by that" that this wasn't true. She
asked that I remind her to do the dishes or other chores & not yell at her
for not doing them...but then immediately recognized that not only have I
not yelled at her for not doing her chores (I simply don't give her as much
allowance for it...she gets allowance based on a percentage of how much she
does vs. how much I do..& I let her do as much as she wants so she could get
double the amount, & she agrees that allowance is payment for work done, not
a gift, & doesnt have a problem with the way I do it), but I also have
reminded her many times & she still didn't get them done (remind her to do
something mid day Saturday, she's home all day & reminded her sunday too,
then didnt do it Monday & finally did a last minute half-assed job Tuesday
morning before leaving). She then brought up the fact that we've not spent
much time together lately, however she agreed that I've given her the chance
& she's chosen to be gone until late in the evenings & then hide in her room
the rest of the night, & where I've had to plan activities for her in order
to get her to be with me. She also did recognize that I didn't like coming
home after my recent trip & after not having seen her for 8 days (which is
the longest time she's not seen me in about 1.5 yrs), her first thing she
asked (I called her, she was at a friend's house about a 10 minute walk
away) was if she could go over to her boyfriend's house for a few hrs
(BEFORE seeing me...since he was more important). Her excuse was that she
was upset that I at first (before knowing the full travel information) said
I'd be home about 7-8PM, but then got home a few hrs before that (&
understood this wasn't a valid arguement since she had a copy of all the
flight information & could have met me at the airport had she wanted
to...she even knew exactly when each plain would take off & land...even the
ones that didnt concern her...an exact copy of all the info that I had/I
just printed 2 of them). Another thing she tried to say was that she heard
that I've talked to her social worker & told them of her sneaking around &
about her 19yr old boyfriend & that I didn't want her any more. I finally
got her to admit where she'd heard that...it was from our friend (who I'd
known for 5.5 yrs & who has done allot for me & I've done allot for her). I
explained that this wasn't true because she knows she doesnt even have a
social worker, & when I offered to prove it to her by showing her the phone
bill (which logs date/time/phone# of incoming & outgoing calls), she
declined to see the proof that I was telling the trueth & agreed with me
that I'd not been trying to get her in trouble or get rid of her. But this
brings up a further problem. This friend (according to their chat logs) has
apparently for the past few months been telling me one thing & telling my
sister another. She's been supporting me on not liking what has been going
on with this guy but then turns around & helps my sister with it & lets her
know how much I know about things (I never told her I've been reading the
logs of my sister & her boyfriend...& only recently read the full log for my
sister & her). She even offered & agreed to cover for my sister this past
week, to have my sister stay with her through the week but actually to let
her spend the night with her boyfriend (19yr old) (she is not only
supportive of an innappropriate relationship with someone who has been
causing my sister some problems, but is willing to lie to me & cover things
up for her...this after all that we've done for each other too in the past
5.5 yrs.) So now I've got another problem that has been found too (for
those who don't approve of chat logging & spying in that sense...this is why
I did it...now I know who to watch out for as well.) My girlfriend & I have
thought of the possibility of jelousy that she's no longer the only
important person in my life (she did somewhat finish raising me & has tought
me allot). Though my girlfriend's sister has suggested the possibility of
jelousy in that I'm not HER boyfriend. We've both disagreed on this due to
the facts that she's had over 5yrs to have decided to go that direction with
me had she wanted to, has had more than enough time to have done that (based
on the timings & amount of time spent together, plus me living with her this
past summer), & had not shown any interest in anything more than a big
sister type of relationship with me (the reason I'd never thought of that
possibility myself). My sister acted throughout the conversation as if she
was quoting/reading a script when making her various claims about what has
supposedly been different lately (I say this seeing how easy it was to
explain the reasoning to her or correct her on her thoughts & how she
appeared more as if she was looking for proof that those thoughts/ideas
weren't right). There will probably be more to talk to her about later (as
she was somewhat preocupied at the time...but if I try to sit her down with
nothing to distract her she ends the conversation very quickly, needing to
go do something else & wont talk...so thats why I didnt mind her doing other
things at the time). I'll post an update later on that & any
feedback/questions too.
(for those who think I'm making excuses of why I'm not trying certain things
& that I'm not really looking for input...if I weren't then why would I be
taking the time to post/follow up here? For those others who have made
suggestions & comments that have been good ideas & useful, thank you for
your time & please continue to contribute.
--
--
There are 10 types of people in this world...
...those who understand binary & those who dont.
Jacques Michel
> Here is an update on what has happened so far. I finally got the chance to
> talk to her last night
I am going to snip the rest of your post, not because I have not read
it (I have) but because this is the most important part. It is good
that you managed to talk to her.
And is is nice that you come back to tell us about the outcome. Thank
you.
You are on the right track. Instead of dissecting all what you wrote,
let me answer more globally:
1: Only your sister can choose her life. This is the most important
point, but you'll understand it fully much later. For now, it will
mean that whatever decision needs to be taken must come from her.
2: You won't like this part, but your problem is a two persons
problem. You have issues yourself. Am I right in my understanding that
this girlfriend of yours is your first one? I guess that it must not
have been easy everyday (I guess that from EXPERIENCE. There, I said
it. It hurts to.)
Mind you: your sister knows about your problems, that's what she is
trying to tell you about the shirt and computer thing: that you are
healing because somebody entered your life. Somebody entered her life,
too. Even if you don't like her choice, that brings you both closer
than you think and the healing process will run for both of you.
3: Don't try to find an explanation for everything. People are far
less rational than they would like to believe. The friends, your
sister, yourself. Even me. Only important thing: do what works.
4: Don't try to solve the problems of your sister. She has to do that
herself. Actually, she probably already knows what the solution is,
and she should vocalise it herself to accept it. It is not the same
thing if it comes from your mouth first. Just ask her where she wants
to be in 5 years.
I know that I probably sound wacko and new age and that you would
rather like a more detailled, rational explanation. But your problem
is about feelings, not doings and understandings and it can't be put
into words. Please do the following and you'll see what I mean: leave
your computer, go to your sister and tell her that you care about her.
Tell her simply that: that you care about her. Within 24 hours you'll
know what I mean.
For this, you'll have to trust me (me, a stranger from the Usenet,
yes...), but the amount of trust required is minimal. You do care
about her: she's your only family and you took this enormous
responsibility of acting as her parent. Most of all: you have no real
reason NOT to tell her.
So just do it. Tell her that you care.
lessonone
are very strong for taking in your sister and trying to help her lead
a responsible life. I congratulate you on your courage. I don't know
what others have suggested, but I can only say is try to put yourself
in her shoes. Her mother has abandoned her, and so has her father.
She's afraid of being abandoned and rejected. And the only example of
adult behavior she has been given comes from your mother. So she
latches onto the first guy who comes along. What you need to do is
open up the communication between the two of you...and it sounds like
you've been trying. Let her know that you will always be there for
her, will always have your door open and you can talk about anything.
You have to do this not only with words but with action.Maybe you can
establish time every day where you connect... breakfast, dinner, right
after school, as long as it's consistent. And you have at least one
night a week that you go bowling together or something. Let her know
that is your time together. Create a stabel environment for her where
she can always know what to expect. She didn't come from a stable
environment and is not use to the idea that there is someone who loves
her no matter what, and who she can trust. And together, you can
figure out your relationship both as a guardian and as a brother and
sister.
Good luck,
Laura Root
Contributing Writer, Lesson One: The ABCs of Life
http://www.lessonone.org
R. Steve Walz
You're waaaaaay overinvolved and obviously arguing with another adult
whom you're just trying to manipulate for your own weird ends, some
twisted goal of abusing and punishing another by controlling them.
You need to leave her the fuck alone, treat her like an adult, and
get on with your life so she can get on with hers. You're NEVER going
to do any good this way, and you are destroying any potentially good
or beneficial relationship you might ever have. If you seek to drive
her out of your life for your convenience you are doing an excellent
job, but then asking for help here is disingenuous and reprehensible!
Steve
Daniel
news:5e2ca8a5.04032...@posting.google.com...
> "Daniel" <daniel_h_wATyyahooDOTccom> wrote in message
news:<Y9CdnS-L3vn...@giganews.com>...
> > Here is an update on what has happened so far. I finally got the chance
to
> > talk to her last night
>
> I am going to snip the rest of your post, not because I have not read
> it (I have) but because this is the most important part. It is good
> that you managed to talk to her.
>
> And is is nice that you come back to tell us about the outcome. Thank
> you.
>
> You are on the right track. Instead of dissecting all what you wrote,
> let me answer more globally:
>
> 1: Only your sister can choose her life. This is the most important
> point, but you'll understand it fully much later. For now, it will
> mean that whatever decision needs to be taken must come from her.
>
be. Like I've said in another reply (last post), you cant force someone to
do something...even someone at gunpoint has the choice to die rather than to
do what is told of them.
> 2: You won't like this part, but your problem is a two persons
> problem. You have issues yourself. Am I right in my understanding that
> this girlfriend of yours is your first one? I guess that it must not
> have been easy everyday (I guess that from EXPERIENCE. There, I said
> it. It hurts to.)
Yes you are right, but I'm still not sure what you are meaning in your first
sentences here. We haven't had problems between us & have both helped each
other in many ways. (& before anyone suggests that my attention to her is
what lead to this with my sister, I'll explain that she was doing this
before then too...it is actually her staying gone allot & hanging out with
this guy & his friends whom were also her friends too, that gave us more
time to spend together & eventually get together like this.)
> Mind you: your sister knows about your problems, that's what she is
> trying to tell you about the shirt and computer thing: that you are
> healing because somebody entered your life. Somebody entered her life,
> too. Even if you don't like her choice, that brings you both closer
> than you think and the healing process will run for both of you.
>
Can you better explain this? I'm still not completely sure what you're
meaning here. She was trying to point out my being more social & less
hidden as a bad thing (which as I said as soon as I explained it to her she
dropped her arguing it as a bad thing, more as if she was instructed to
think this & was just looking for the proof that this wasn't right).
> 3: Don't try to find an explanation for everything. People are far
> less rational than they would like to believe. The friends, your
> sister, yourself. Even me. Only important thing: do what works.
>
You mean like trying to figure out why after helping me go from being mostly
dependant on someone else to being able to function in the world & go as far
as owning my own home, that same person would then turn around & try to help
my sister mess herself up?
> 4: Don't try to solve the problems of your sister. She has to do that
> herself. Actually, she probably already knows what the solution is,
> and she should vocalise it herself to accept it. It is not the same
> thing if it comes from your mouth first. Just ask her where she wants
> to be in 5 years.
>
>
> I know that I probably sound wacko and new age and that you would
> rather like a more detailled, rational explanation. But your problem
> is about feelings, not doings and understandings and it can't be put
> into words. Please do the following and you'll see what I mean: leave
> your computer, go to your sister and tell her that you care about her.
> Tell her simply that: that you care about her. Within 24 hours you'll
> know what I mean.
>
Did that...that was discussed in the talk that night...though I may have to
do it again since she might not have been listening the whole time (like I
said, ended with a "to be continued" not a "the end").
Daniel
news:5277dd98.04032...@posting.google.com...
> Daniel, I read some of your previous posts regarding this issue. You
> are very strong for taking in your sister and trying to help her lead
> a responsible life. I congratulate you on your courage. I don't know
> what others have suggested, but I can only say is try to put yourself
> in her shoes. Her mother has abandoned her, and so has her father.
> She's afraid of being abandoned and rejected. And the only example of
> adult behavior she has been given comes from your mother. So she
> latches onto the first guy who comes along. What you need to do is
> open up the communication between the two of you...and it sounds like
> you've been trying. Let her know that you will always be there for
> her, will always have your door open and you can talk about anything.
> You have to do this not only with words but with action.Maybe you can
> establish time every day where you connect... breakfast, dinner, right
> after school, as long as it's consistent. And you have at least one
> night a week that you go bowling together or something. Let her know
> that is your time together.
(by HER request). I was home EVERY week except of 45 minutes durring one
night, but that didnt matter since she didnt get home until about 10 minutes
before I did anyway. She planned the time, she specified when it would be,
then she wouldn't be there for it. Any other ideas? I can't force her to
be there or she just cant wait for the time to be over so she can run back
to her god.(tried this too)
> Create a stabel environment for her where
> she can always know what to expect. She didn't come from a stable
> environment and is not use to the idea that there is someone who loves
> her no matter what, and who she can trust. And together, you can
> figure out your relationship both as a guardian and as a brother and
> sister.
>
Done this...she's actually been with me for almost 6 months, & actually
lived with me over the summer.
6-12-03 (ironicly the day our niece was born...from one of our other sisters
up in Miami OK): She came & talked to me & our friend (the one who turned
traitor on me) about getting out of her living situation (had been kicked
out of the home for about the past 2 weeks & was staying with a friend from
school).
7-8-03: Found out first hand that neither DHS nor the local police give a
sh*t about what is going on in the home & only refer you to the other. (but
this is America, so thats not too surprising at this point)
8-26-03: She had to go back home, cant hide her any longer, school will
start the following Monday.
9-14-03: Police raid, hell breaks loose & home is no more.
9-17-03: I started proceedings with her case worker to get her out of the
shelter.
9-18-03: She was released to me, guardianship was done the next day.
9-30-03: Final guardianship hearing, it is now finalized (was only emergency
guardianship before).
10-29-03: Finally got home ready & moved in.
12-08-2003: After long wait, job finally gets me on a day shift (no more
leaving at 17:00 & gone til 02:00+).
01-04-04: Date according to their chat logs, when they officially began
their current relationship.
02-03-04: I first decided to read their chat logs (going back as far as
01-28) & saw what was going on, saw their future plans, saw him having given
her drugs, confirmed that even the sex crimes devision doesn't care about
what is going on with them & can't even get protective order on him until
she was ready to do it (see above comment referring to not being suprised
that the american justice/police/court system is this way).
03-11-04: Began posting to usenet about issue.
03-22-04: Talked with her after she had a week to think about things, found
out about the friend gone traitor, most recent talk to now.
Jacques Michel
> "Jacques Michel" <jak...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5e2ca8a5.04032...@posting.google.com...
> > "Daniel" <daniel_h_wATyyahooDOTccom> wrote in message
> news:<Y9CdnS-L3vn...@giganews.com>...
> > 2: You won't like this part, but your problem is a two persons
> > problem. You have issues yourself. Am I right in my understanding that
> > this girlfriend of yours is your first one? I guess that it must not
> > have been easy everyday (I guess that from EXPERIENCE. There, I said
> > it. It hurts to.)
> Yes you are right, but I'm still not sure what you are meaning in your first
> sentences here. We haven't had problems between us & have both helped each
> other in many ways. (& before anyone suggests that my attention to her is
> what lead to this with my sister, I'll explain that she was doing this
> before then too...it is actually her staying gone allot & hanging out with
> this guy & his friends whom were also her friends too, that gave us more
> time to spend together & eventually get together like this.)
>
> > Mind you: your sister knows about your problems, that's what she is
> > trying to tell you about the shirt and computer thing: that you are
> > healing because somebody entered your life. Somebody entered her life,
> > too. Even if you don't like her choice, that brings you both closer
> > than you think and the healing process will run for both of you.
> >
> Can you better explain this? I'm still not completely sure what you're
> meaning here. She was trying to point out my being more social & less
> hidden as a bad thing (which as I said as soon as I explained it to her she
> dropped her arguing it as a bad thing, more as if she was instructed to
> think this & was just looking for the proof that this wasn't right).
>
I don't think I can better explain this and I am even not sure I
should. I mean: you probably have some issues yourself (most people
have and you have had a difficult background on top of it). This makes
things more difficult for both of you and means that your sister (who
is most probably aware of your issues) expects you to work on your
issues if you want her to work on hers.
I am not going to discuss the issues you may have because, just as
your sister has to come to terms with her problems herself, you have
to come to terms with your problems yourself. Besides, there is only
so much that can be done on the Usenet.
> > 3: Don't try to find an explanation for everything. People are far
> > less rational than they would like to believe. The friends, your
> > sister, yourself. Even me. Only important thing: do what works.
> >
> You mean like trying to figure out why after helping me go from being mostly
> dependant on someone else to being able to function in the world & go as far
> as owning my own home, that same person would then turn around & try to help
> my sister mess herself up?
>
This is the second part on my message above: would figuring that out
help you in bringing your sister to adulthood? No? Save your time.
The first part means that this person may actually think that she is
helping your sister, as strange as it may seem to you. And maybe she
does, on some points, like your sister may feel much better having an
adult relationship, even if on other points (drugs, school), the
effect is detrimental. Think parallel planes.
(snip)
> > Please do the following and you'll see what I mean: leave
> > your computer, go to your sister and tell her that you care about her.
> > Tell her simply that: that you care about her. Within 24 hours you'll
> > know what I mean.
> >
> Did that...that was discussed in the talk that night...though I may have to
> do it again since she might not have been listening the whole time (like I
> said, ended with a "to be continued" not a "the end").
>
Try saying it alone: "Whatever happens, do not forget that I care
about you".
(snip)
Daniel
> should. I mean: you probably have some issues yourself (most people
> have and you have had a difficult background on top of it). This makes
> things more difficult for both of you and means that your sister (who
> is most probably aware of your issues) expects you to work on your
> issues if you want her to work on hers.
>
with...is some of the issues I've had (mostly related to dealing with other
people & the public, & then other reasons why she is my first girlfriend at
almost age 24 (am 24 now), but some others area in areas in which my sister
would be the better one to help me with...though I'll not get into the
details of all of this on this reply).
> I am not going to discuss the issues you may have because, just as
> your sister has to come to terms with her problems herself, you have
> to come to terms with your problems yourself. Besides, there is only
> so much that can be done on the Usenet.
>
True that only so much can be done on usenet, but I do know quite a bit of
advice can be given, as if talking in person but world-wide & not just
someone you can physically be around (kind of like over the phone, but
without the long distance costs & minute limitations...only better due to
that we dont have to both take the time out of our days at the exact same
time).
>
> > > 3: Don't try to find an explanation for everything. People are far
> > > less rational than they would like to believe. The friends, your
> > > sister, yourself. Even me. Only important thing: do what works.
> > >
> > You mean like trying to figure out why after helping me go from being
mostly
> > dependant on someone else to being able to function in the world & go as
far
> > as owning my own home, that same person would then turn around & try to
help
> > my sister mess herself up?
> >
>
> This is the second part on my message above: would figuring that out
> help you in bringing your sister to adulthood? No? Save your time.
> The first part means that this person may actually think that she is
> helping your sister, as strange as it may seem to you. And maybe she
> does, on some points, like your sister may feel much better having an
> adult relationship, even if on other points (drugs, school), the
> effect is detrimental. Think parallel planes.
>
I've come up with the best theory that we can for now, the possibility that
she is jelous for some unknown reason, other theorys have been a guilt
removal that if my sister makes the same mistakes then she wont feel as bad
about herself...& if she does think that she's trying to help, then any idea
why she thinks that going behind my back & talking to me in one way & my
sister in another way would actually help us? At times what she said almost
seems like she's trying to turn my sister & I against each other meanwhile
causing her even more problems & trouble. Any ideas on how to handle this
one? That I'm working against another adult who is also a close friend of
my sister & who she may be more likely to listen to since sh3e will give her
what she wants (even if it is hurting her & she knows it)?
>
> (snip)
> > > Please do the following and you'll see what I mean: leave
> > > your computer, go to your sister and tell her that you care about her.
> > > Tell her simply that: that you care about her. Within 24 hours you'll
> > > know what I mean.
> > >
> > Did that...that was discussed in the talk that night...though I may have
to
> > do it again since she might not have been listening the whole time (like
I
> > said, ended with a "to be continued" not a "the end").
> >
>
> Try saying it alone: "Whatever happens, do not forget that I care
> about you".
>
I will...if she appears to continue this thing of spending all of her time
with him & none with me (or as little as possible with me) then I'll
re-explain a few things & make sure she understands this (& that I'm NOT
trying to get rid of her or even discussing the possibility of it as she had
thought I was).
Jacques Michel
> > > > 3: Don't try to find an explanation for everything. People are far
> > > > less rational than they would like to believe. The friends, your
> > > > sister, yourself. Even me. Only important thing: do what works.
> > > >
> > > You mean like trying to figure out why after helping me go from being
> mostly
> > > dependant on someone else to being able to function in the world & go as
> far
> > > as owning my own home, that same person would then turn around & try to
> help
> > > my sister mess herself up?
> > >
> >
> > This is the second part on my message above: would figuring that out
> > help you in bringing your sister to adulthood? No? Save your time.
> > The first part means that this person may actually think that she is
> > helping your sister, as strange as it may seem to you. And maybe she
> > does, on some points, like your sister may feel much better having an
> > adult relationship, even if on other points (drugs, school), the
> > effect is detrimental. Think parallel planes.
> >
> I've come up with the best theory that we can for now, the possibility that
> she is jelous for some unknown reason, other theorys have been a guilt
> removal that if my sister makes the same mistakes then she wont feel as bad
> about herself...&
The two explanations can be right at the same time.
> if she does think that she's trying to help, then any idea
> why she thinks that going behind my back & talking to me in one way & my
> sister in another way would actually help us?
I have seen that before. I can't explain it, because it is not logical
behaviour (the point I was trying to make...), but it happens fairly
often.
> At times what she said almost
> seems like she's trying to turn my sister & I against each other meanwhile
> causing her even more problems & trouble. Any ideas on how to handle this
> one?
This is very easy, actually. Go to your sister and tell her that this
woman is saying different things to her and to yourself. Then, tell
your sister what the woman says to you about her. If you do that, your
sister will have both sides of the picture and cannot be manipulated
in this manner any more.
Your sister may or may not elect to inform you about what she tells
her, but that is not relevant. Your sister may also say she does not
believe you, which is also not relevant (the point is that she should
know, not believe), so try to keep the information as factual as
possible. If you can, just cite her words.
> That I'm working against another adult who is also a close friend of
> my sister & who she may be more likely to listen to since sh3e will give her
> what she wants (even if it is hurting her & she knows it)?
>
Her only weapon is that your sister does not have the other side of
the picture.
(snip)
> I will...if she appears to continue this thing of spending all of her time
> with him & none with me (or as little as possible with me) then I'll
> re-explain a few things & make sure she understands this (& that I'm NOT
> trying to get rid of her or even discussing the possibility of it as she had
> thought I was).
You don't understand. You don't have to say you care about her... when
things deteriorate. You have to say it NOW. If needs be, believe that
it is just a wacko "emotions" thing, but do it anyway.
Please go to your sister and tell her that you care you care about
her. Even if you do not agree about lots of things, you still care
about her. It's that simple.
@
that
> > she is jelous for some unknown reason, other theorys have been a guilt
> > removal that if my sister makes the same mistakes then she wont feel as
bad
> > about herself...&
>
> The two explanations can be right at the same time.
>
> > if she does think that she's trying to help, then any idea
> > why she thinks that going behind my back & talking to me in one way & my
> > sister in another way would actually help us?
>
> I have seen that before. I can't explain it, because it is not logical
> behaviour (the point I was trying to make...), but it happens fairly
> often.
>
Just as its not logical that she should help my sister do what she wants to,
even if it isn't good for her.
> > At times what she said almost
> > seems like she's trying to turn my sister & I against each other
meanwhile
> > causing her even more problems & trouble. Any ideas on how to handle
this
> > one?
>
> This is very easy, actually. Go to your sister and tell her that this
> woman is saying different things to her and to yourself. Then, tell
> your sister what the woman says to you about her. If you do that, your
> sister will have both sides of the picture and cannot be manipulated
> in this manner any more.
> Your sister may or may not elect to inform you about what she tells
> her, but that is not relevant. Your sister may also say she does not
> believe you, which is also not relevant (the point is that she should
> know, not believe), so try to keep the information as factual as
> possible. If you can, just cite her words.
>
Did that the night we talked about those things (Monday). She knows that
I'm being told one thing & her another. She also knows that this person may
not be telling her the trueth either. For example, the thing about me
talking to a social worker about getting rid of her...she didn't say
anything more about it when I offered to show her the phone logs to prove
this wasn't true...she also told me that this person was the same one who
had told her that our mom told the same worker that she thinks my sister is
doing all kinds of other bad things...which our mom denies & she agrees is
probably also not true. Before she had thought the worker was the one
lieing, but now she apparently figured it out. From the way she'd made it
sound before though, I thought she was saying the worker himself had told
her this & not this other person we know.
>
> > That I'm working against another adult who is also a close friend of
> > my sister & who she may be more likely to listen to since sh3e will give
her
> > what she wants (even if it is hurting her & she knows it)?
> >
>
> Her only weapon is that your sister does not have the other side of
> the picture.
>
Which apparently she is enjoying the use of that weapon.
> (snip)
>
> > I will...if she appears to continue this thing of spending all of her
time
> > with him & none with me (or as little as possible with me) then I'll
> > re-explain a few things & make sure she understands this (& that I'm NOT
> > trying to get rid of her or even discussing the possibility of it as she
had
> > thought I was).
>
> You don't understand. You don't have to say you care about her... when
> things deteriorate. You have to say it NOW. If needs be, believe that
> it is just a wacko "emotions" thing, but do it anyway.
>
> Please go to your sister and tell her that you care you care about
> her. Even if you do not agree about lots of things, you still care
> about her. It's that simple.
OK.
Daniel
news:t9GdndbG3Ld...@giganews.com...
Sorry...someone else had been using this computer (this isn't the normal one
I was posting from) & I'd forgot to change the name & e-mail settings back.
Jacques Michel
> >
> > Please go to your sister and tell her that you care you care about
> > her. Even if you do not agree about lots of things, you still care
> > about her. It's that simple.
>
> OK.
Good. Feel free to post back if that helps.
Daniel
Well, I did get to talk to her more last night...nothing special, just
normal stuff about whats going on & what she's doing over the next few days.
Plus she actually ate dinner with us (my girlfriend & I) rather than
stuffing herself to run back to her room or taking her food with her. So I
guess that is a good sign. I'm wondering if she's starting to realize/has
realized that this friend of ours was telling her lies about me & was only
making her dislike me for invalid reasons. For the past few nights she's
actually been home when requested (at 8PM, I get off work around 6) & even
on Tuesday night she was home the whole afternoon/evening (my girlfriend &
myself had planned to go to a concert with her that evening, we try to do
something like this once a month, & needed to leave about 5PM, she actually
stayed home after school & didn't run off to his house until just before 5PM
like she'd have done before).
Jacques Michel
Well, you insist on understanding just besides the point, don't you? I
said "just tell her that you care", not "talk to her about nothing
special, just normal stuff". Try again.
Daniel
--
Daniel dani...@mail.com
--
There are 10 types of people in this world...
...those that understand binary & those that don't.
I did that (just didnt explain it all here because I was in a hurry &
thought you'd assume I had). Now, about a week later, she is staying home
more, she's asking what time to be home & is sticking to that time, isn't
dumping me or her other friends (she's actually been spending LESS time with
him, has had a friend stay the night 2 nights this past weekend, the friend
that HE got her to break up with whom she'd been friends with for many
years, + had other people from school over last night instead of staying at
his house).
Now she has been fighting with him allot lately & broke up with him last
night (but not surprisingly after calling her a "b*tch *ss c*nt" & saying he
couldnt trust her based only off of what others have done in his past, he
came over & talked her into not breaking up with him & not too surprisingly
she accepted him back).
But so far there is good news & bad news to it...I guess the bad news is
that she's still not learned that he's controlling & has a major anger
problem & that they fight way too much for a normal relationship & for those
reasons alone she should dump him (forgeting about anything else I've posted
here, those reasons alone are enough to say someone should leave someone).
The good news is that even though she does go to his house after school, she
is home when I ask her to be & also she hasn't been over every night (though
not sure if the fighting has much to do with it...or how much).
Jacques Michel
> I did that (just didnt explain it all here because I was in a hurry &
> thought you'd assume I had). Now, about a week later, she is staying home
> more, she's asking what time to be home & is sticking to that time, isn't
> dumping me or her other friends (she's actually been spending LESS time with
> him, has had a friend stay the night 2 nights this past weekend, the friend
> that HE got her to break up with whom she'd been friends with for many
> years, + had other people from school over last night instead of staying at
> his house).
Quite positive, then.
> Now she has been fighting with him allot lately & broke up with him last
> night (but not surprisingly after calling her a "b*tch *ss c*nt" & saying he
> couldnt trust her based only off of what others have done in his past, he
> came over & talked her into not breaking up with him & not too surprisingly
> she accepted him back).
> But so far there is good news & bad news to it...I guess the bad news is
> that she's still not learned that he's controlling & has a major anger
> problem & that they fight way too much for a normal relationship & for those
> reasons alone she should dump him (forgeting about anything else I've posted
> here, those reasons alone are enough to say someone should leave someone).
> The good news is that even though she does go to his house after school, she
> is home when I ask her to be & also she hasn't been over every night (though
> not sure if the fighting has much to do with it...or how much).
"Good news and bad news" are good news. Because the real news is that
you are making PROGRESS. Give yourself a pat on the back.
And don't expect this process to move very fast. It will take years
(litterally: a fews years, count between 2 and 5) before you can look
back in the past and say it worked.
Don't focus on the guy, though. Eventually one of 3 things will
happen:
-she will realise he is an asshole and dump him
-she will realise he is an asshole and change him
-he will grow up himself
(by order of probability ;-) but it may take some time).
Instead of focussing on the guy, regularly tell your sister that you
care. Because that is what she needs most: having somebody she can
count upon and trust.
And please stop logging her computer. You don't need it anymore now
that you can talk to her. And if you keep that, the day she'll find
out, the trust you built will be gone. You don't want to take that
risk.
Daniel
Then should I just give up on trying to do something about him getting her
into trouble & this other friend who she was supposed to be staying with the
week I was gone but allowed her to stay the night at his house? Last week
I'd caught her with a bong (had to go into her room, first time she had time
to hide it, 2nd time was only a few minutes later & she wasn't as
quick...she claimed she was fixing it for someone...which explained why
there was water in it along with a small amount of marajuana & the pipe was
still warm from a flame). Her school has caught people with drugs & may be
doing random drug tests...she says she wants me to not let them when they
call about it, but I told her she shouldn't have anything to worry about if
she isn't doing anything like she claims she isn't. With a failed drug test
+ the chat logs saying he's giving her the stuff, along with the cell phone
records showing that she was staying the night at his house without my
permission while I was gone (logs to show she called him after I called her
that night at the other friends house & then she called the friend the next
morning to pick her up...the phone company can report approximately where
she was when making those calls & be able to say that yes she was over
there), this is more than enough to take some form of action & he IS having
a very bad effect on her along with this other friend who is helping her
destroy her future so she can have more fun. You're saying that to keep
trust I should just ignore all this? If you're not saying this, then how do
you suggest I deal with it?
The argument that I've used before: Would you really be upset with
someone if you thought you could trust them not to be spying on you but then
because of them spying on you they were able to stop you from playing with a
bomb you'd have likely accidently detonated on yourself?
Anyway...for now all logging is being held off due to her spilling
something into the keyboard.
R. Steve Walz
> > that you can talk to her. And if you keep that, the day she'll find
> > out, the trust you built will be gone. You don't want to take that
> > risk.
>
> Then should I just give up on trying to do something about him getting her
> into trouble & this other friend who she was supposed to be staying with the
> week I was gone but allowed her to stay the night at his house?
She gets herself in trouble, either be her friend or get the fuck out
of her life, you're just going to destroy the last connection you
have with her, for GOOD!
> Last week
> I'd caught her with a bong (had to go into her room, first time she had time
> to hide it, 2nd time was only a few minutes later & she wasn't as
> quick...she claimed she was fixing it for someone...which explained why
> there was water in it along with a small amount of marajuana & the pipe was
> still warm from a flame). Her school has caught people with drugs & may be
> doing random drug tests...she says she wants me to not let them when they
> call about it, but I told her she shouldn't have anything to worry about if
> she isn't doing anything like she claims she isn't.
----------
Don't be a stupid fucking asshole. Drug testing her is still illegal
without parental approval and they only do it with kids that have
extracurricular school sports and other such anyway. If you have her
tested you're setting yourself up for her to leave and never ever
bother with your stupid fucking ass again. As well as that being a
really stupid fucking shoot-yourself-in-the-foot if you trash her
permanent record like that because you were too fucking stupid to
say NO to the stupid fucking school. Do you want to support her for
fucking-ever???
Virtually ALL kids do pot nowadays, so what you bothering her will
prove is nothing other than that you're not fucking FIT to be her
friend OR any kind of parent! Parents defend their kids from being
eaten by the stupid fucking system, period, no questions asked!!
If you don't you're a shit-fucking nuthin' parent!
> morning to pick her up...the phone company can report approximately where
> she was when making those calls & be able to say that yes she was over
> there),
-------------
You and your stupid little fucking macho intrigues. Just break down
and learn the real lesson here, that any power you try to take over
another makes everything between you two a hundred to a thousand
times WORSE, NEVER better! The ONLY thing that works is accepting
them, because THEN you are their friend, and you have their ear and
can tell them things that can help them. If you fuck around with her
life she will turn you off like a lame radio station.
> this is more than enough to take some form of action & he IS having
> a very bad effect on her along with this other friend who is helping her
> destroy her future so she can have more fun.
-------------
Stop deluding yourself that HE's doing it, SHE is doing it to herself.
Get used to accepting her doing things you might not like, that IS
the inherent and necesssary nature of all friendships.
> You're saying that to keep
> trust I should just ignore all this?
-------------
YES! You stupid asshole, YES!
> The argument that I've used before: Would you really be upset with
> someone if you thought you could trust them not to be spying on you but then
> because of them spying on you they were able to stop you from playing with a
> bomb you'd have likely accidently detonated on yourself?
----------------
She's old enough to know what a bomb is, get the fuck out of her
business if you can't handle being friends with her.
> Anyway...for now all logging is being held off due to her spilling
> something into the keyboard.
----------------------------
Intentional maybe, good move on her part. If *I* were her and knew
the shit you were pulling, I'd burn your fucking house down!
Steve
Jacques Michel
> "Jacques Michel" <jak...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5e2ca8a5.04033...@posting.google.com...
> > And please stop logging her computer. You don't need it anymore now
> > that you can talk to her. And if you keep that, the day she'll find
> > out, the trust you built will be gone. You don't want to take that
> > risk.
>
> Then should I just give up on trying to do something about him getting her
> into trouble & this other friend who she was supposed to be staying with the
> week I was gone but allowed her to stay the night at his house?
No. But as you remarked at the end of this post, you don't need the
computer logs for that.
> Last week
> I'd caught her with a bong (had to go into her room, first time she had time
> to hide it, 2nd time was only a few minutes later & she wasn't as
> quick...she claimed she was fixing it for someone...which explained why
> there was water in it along with a small amount of marajuana & the pipe was
> still warm from a flame). Her school has caught people with drugs & may be
> doing random drug tests...she says she wants me to not let them when they
> call about it, but I told her she shouldn't have anything to worry about if
> she isn't doing anything like she claims she isn't. With a failed drug test
You are being silly. If the school want to test her, don't let them.
She asked you not to let them, please comply. She'll be in trouble,
obviously. You don't want her in trouble.
Marijuana is realtively harmless as drugs go. Still, it is not ok for
a 14 years old and you may point to her just that: she is 14, there is
a good reason why she is not supposed to drink before she is of age,
the same reason applies for marijuana (and tobacco).
I would not give the same advice for other drugs, especially cocaine
but also legal psychotropic drugs like benzodiazepines which one can
get from the doctor. But indeed marijuana is relatively harmless (less
dangerous than alcool) and the main danger is that it puts you in
contact with people selling other things.
Try to get some scientific information about the activity of drugs and
discuss it with her. About smoking, just tell her that, just like for
cigarette, she is too young to start. And that she will have problems
if she gets caught, because the law is silly (this is the reason why
you want to stand with her and not sign her for the test).
Maybe the best solution would be to try to limit her smoking to
something very low like once a month. She is more likely to accept
that than a total ban and the effect will be the same.
In case you wonder: no, I don't smoke myself.
BTW: if you find a warm pipe in her room and she says she is fixing it
for someone, I think you should ask if she thinks you are completely
stupid. Her lying in such a blatant way should be of more concern to
you than her smoking.
(snip)
> The argument that I've used before: Would you really be upset with
> someone if you thought you could trust them not to be spying on you but then
> because of them spying on you they were able to stop you from playing with a
> bomb you'd have likely accidently detonated on yourself?
Yes, I would. And your sister will.
> Anyway...for now all logging is being held off due to her spilling
> something into the keyboard.
So you are not logging, but still found out about the water pipe. See:
you don't need the log.
Jacques Michel
(big snips)
>
> Get used to accepting her doing things you might not like, that IS
> the inherent and necesssary nature of all friendships.
>
Steve is quite right here, it is just he has the last word point to
the wrong subject. Let me rephrase:
"Get used to accepting her doing things you might not like, that IS
the inherent and necesssary nature of being a parent."
R. Steve Walz
Parenthood is an imaginary state, fancifully conceived by ignorant
parents fondly pretending they can wield control of another person,
when they obviously cannot, while really, the ONLY truly possible
human relationship is friendship, and you are helpless in that
state, which while being less comfortable, is at least real, and
teaches you something.
Steve
Christopher Weeks
> Then should I just give up on trying to do something about him getting her
> into trouble & this other friend who she was supposed to be staying with the
> week I was gone but allowed her to stay the night at his house?
Consider the long term. What possible good can you do that will, in the
end, outweigh teaching her that you are the enemy? I understand your
bomb analogy, and I think Steve missed the point -- there are dangers
that outsiders can sometimes see better than the person in danger. But
the key is to treat her like you want her to treat you. If you believe
her life is in immediate, accidental danger, save her. Whatever it
takes is fine. Bodily pulling her out of the path of a speeding bus is
a good thing. But like all of us, she has to be allowed to make her
mistakes.
You're still young. Notions of "ruining her life" still seem scary to
you. It's mostly bogus. Whatever she does now isn't going to ruin her
life unless she physically ruins her body. Bad grades is not your
problem, and not much of one for her. Using drugs isn't a problem --
lots of kids her age drop acid numerous times and go on to productive
adulthood. If she's having lots of sex, and she hasn't been neglected
or abused into self-destruction, she's using condoms. If you fear for
her because of some certain specific behavior, tell her that. And maybe
if she believes in your honesty it will effect her. And maybe she'll
educate you. And maybe she'll tell you that she knows there are risks
that she's taking but she's making an informed decision. Whatever the
outcome, you'll both be better off.
Maybe you could get high with her. Maybe you could shield her from the
system. Maybe you could just love her unconditionally.
> Last week
> I'd caught her with a bong (had to go into her room, first time she had time
> to hide it, 2nd time was only a few minutes later & she wasn't as
> quick...she claimed she was fixing it for someone...which explained why
> there was water in it along with a small amount of marajuana & the pipe was
> still warm from a flame).
Ignore the lie and offer to help. It's a good opportunity for you to
problem-solve and bond with her. She doesn't need you calling her on
the lie, she knows it was stupid.
> Her school has caught people with drugs & may be
> doing random drug tests...she says she wants me to not let them when they
> call about it,
I know this is an unpopular view, but you must remember that The Man is
your enemy. Whether it's the cops or the school or the employer. You
and your loved ones are all that matters. The school is only concerned
about drugs because they bear liability if they don't act that way.
Just blow them off.
> but I told her she shouldn't have anything to worry about if
> she isn't doing anything like she claims she isn't. With a failed drug test
> + the chat logs saying he's giving her the stuff, along with the cell phone
> records showing that she was staying the night at his house without my
> permission while I was gone (logs to show she called him after I called her
> that night at the other friends house & then she called the friend the next
> morning to pick her up...the phone company can report approximately where
> she was when making those calls & be able to say that yes she was over
This is scary shit. It's scary that you _can_ track her like this and
it's scary that you _would._ Ubiquitous law enforcement is on the way.
> there), this is more than enough to take some form of action & he IS having
> a very bad effect on her along with this other friend who is helping her
> destroy her future so she can have more fun.
Dude! Fun is all there is! Feel good! Sure, you have to learn how to
make a living (easy) or see to your own needs (hard), but why? So you
can have fun! What future is she throwing away?
> You're saying that to keep
> trust I should just ignore all this? If you're not saying this, then how do
> you suggest I deal with it?
Stop spying. Honestly convey your fears. If you lay your raw emotions
out on the table (and you need to include the very real fact that you're
scared of your own personal failure under the circumstances of having
been thrust by reality into this position) she'll be inclined to do the
same. Have these conversations at the right time -- not when she has
company over, for instance. You need to bond, not enslave.
> Would you really be upset with
> someone if you thought you could trust them not to be spying on you but then
> because of them spying on you they were able to stop you from playing with a
> bomb you'd have likely accidently detonated on yourself?
Yes! I would never trust them again -- even if I was glad to have survived.
> Anyway...for now all logging is being held off due to her spilling
> something into the keyboard.
You should admit what you've been doing and seek forgiveness.
Chris
Daniel
Well your quoting him is the ONLY way that I'm going to read it...his
pedophile self has been added to the kill filter long ago.
Daniel
news:5e2ca8a5.04033...@posting.google.com...
> "Daniel" <daniel_h_wATyahooDOTcom> wrote in message
news:<eqednekTics...@giganews.com>...
> > "Jacques Michel" <jak...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:5e2ca8a5.04033...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > And please stop logging her computer. You don't need it anymore now
> > > that you can talk to her. And if you keep that, the day she'll find
> > > out, the trust you built will be gone. You don't want to take that
> > > risk.
> >
> > Then should I just give up on trying to do something about him getting
her
> > into trouble & this other friend who she was supposed to be staying with
the
> > week I was gone but allowed her to stay the night at his house?
>
> No. But as you remarked at the end of this post, you don't need the
> computer logs for that.
>
> > Last week
> > I'd caught her with a bong (had to go into her room, first time she had
time
> > to hide it, 2nd time was only a few minutes later & she wasn't as
> > quick...she claimed she was fixing it for someone...which explained why
> > there was water in it along with a small amount of marajuana & the pipe
was
> > still warm from a flame). Her school has caught people with drugs & may
be
> > doing random drug tests...she says she wants me to not let them when
they
> > call about it, but I told her she shouldn't have anything to worry about
if
> > she isn't doing anything like she claims she isn't. With a failed drug
test
>
> You are being silly. If the school want to test her, don't let them.
> She asked you not to let them, please comply. She'll be in trouble,
> obviously. You don't want her in trouble.
>
She would get into trouble with the school for failing a drug test? They
wont just let me know she failed & let me deal with it?
> Marijuana is realtively harmless as drugs go. Still, it is not ok for
> a 14 years old and you may point to her just that: she is 14, there is
> a good reason why she is not supposed to drink before she is of age,
> the same reason applies for marijuana (and tobacco).
>
> I would not give the same advice for other drugs, especially cocaine
> but also legal psychotropic drugs like benzodiazepines which one can
> get from the doctor. But indeed marijuana is relatively harmless (less
> dangerous than alcool) and the main danger is that it puts you in
> contact with people selling other things.
>
> Try to get some scientific information about the activity of drugs and
> discuss it with her. About smoking, just tell her that, just like for
> cigarette, she is too young to start. And that she will have problems
> if she gets caught, because the law is silly (this is the reason why
> you want to stand with her and not sign her for the test).
>
> Maybe the best solution would be to try to limit her smoking to
> something very low like once a month. She is more likely to accept
> that than a total ban and the effect will be the same.
>
> In case you wonder: no, I don't smoke myself.
>
>
> BTW: if you find a warm pipe in her room and she says she is fixing it
> for someone, I think you should ask if she thinks you are completely
> stupid. Her lying in such a blatant way should be of more concern to
> you than her smoking.
>
The worst part of this is that she should know the dangers drugs can lead
to...thats the whole reason she is with me, because of all that our mom's
boyfriend got into & then got busted with.
>
> (snip)
> > The argument that I've used before: Would you really be upset with
> > someone if you thought you could trust them not to be spying on you but
then
> > because of them spying on you they were able to stop you from playing
with a
> > bomb you'd have likely accidently detonated on yourself?
>
> Yes, I would. And your sister will.
>
> > Anyway...for now all logging is being held off due to her spilling
> > something into the keyboard.
>
> So you are not logging, but still found out about the water pipe. See:
> you don't need the log.
So are you saying that when I get the information from the cell phone
company to confront her with it to show her that she went behind my back and
stayed with him anyway? Then ask her why she felt the need to lie to me &
do it anyway? Should I confront this friend who let her do this & if so
then how? (this is someone who I've known for 5.5 years, who has helped me
get out on my own & helped me with allot of things & eventually getting my
sister out of her bad living situation & into my home which I own & she
helped me in getting...then for no known reason she starts going against me
on this.)
karen
> Parenthood is an imaginary state, fancifully conceived by ignorant
> parents fondly pretending they can wield control of another person,
> when they obviously cannot, while really, the ONLY truly possible
> human relationship is friendship, and you are helpless in that
> state, which while being less comfortable, is at least real, and
> teaches you something.
> Steve
parenting isnt about control. some things it is about are love, respect and
nurturing.
perhaps you confuse the words guidance and control. there is a difference
Dan Abel
<kdoe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> > Parenthood is an imaginary state, fancifully conceived by ignorant
> > parents fondly pretending they can wield control of another person,
> > when they obviously cannot, while really, the ONLY truly possible
> > human relationship is friendship, and you are helpless in that
> > state, which while being less comfortable, is at least real, and
> > teaches you something.
> parenting isnt about control. some things it is about are love, respect and
> nurturing.
> perhaps you confuse the words guidance and control. there is a difference
I liked the way you put that, Karen. Steve and I have argued about this
before, and will probably again. A parent can and must do *everything*
for a newborn. An adult child is their own person and their parents
should not attempt to run any part of their life. In between, it is a
parent's job to determine what they can turn over to the kid and what they
can't. You don't let a five year old kid decide if they want to go to
school that day, or eat nothing but candy for a week, or start smoking, or
get stinking drunk every morning. But you don't tell a seventeen year old
when to go to bed, or what to eat for dinner. I personally think that 14
is one of the hardest ages. They aren't adults, or anywhere near adults,
but they certainly aren't children anymore either.
--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
da...@sonic.net
Jacques Michel
(big snip)
>
> So are you saying that when I get the information from the cell phone
> company to confront her with it to show her that she went behind my back and
> stayed with him anyway? Then ask her why she felt the need to lie to me &
> do it anyway? Should I confront this friend who let her do this & if so
> then how? (this is someone who I've known for 5.5 years, who has helped me
> get out on my own & helped me with allot of things & eventually getting my
> sister out of her bad living situation & into my home which I own & she
> helped me in getting...then for no known reason she starts going against me
> on this.)
Only answer to the above text: no, you should not confront.
I'm sorry Dave, but I will have to stop responding to your posts. The
more I read you, the more I think that YOU need help beyond what an
usenet exchange can offer. It is not only your sister.
Oh, you have made progress with your sister, that is a good thing. But
this is not enough.
Please, PLEASE, go and speak with a real human person, a psychologist,
about you. Take a printout of this whole usenet thread for him to
read, that will probably save a lot of time.
I am not a doctor, Dave, nobody here is one. And a doctor is what you
need.
So I will stop responding to your posts. Not because I do not want to
help you, but because I feel that as long as you will get some
makeshift help here, you will not make a move toward real,
professional help. And I really feel this is what you need.
I will be pleased to respond to your posts again AFTER you have
received help for at least 2 months (psychologists are slow). Just
send me an e-mail in case I do not check the forum at the time.
I hope you'll understand.
Daniel
> "Daniel" <daniel_h_wATyahooDOTcom> wrote in message
news:<eOudnfR6MYr...@giganews.com>...
> (big snip)
> >
> > So are you saying that when I get the information from the cell phone
> > company to confront her with it to show her that she went behind my back
and
> > stayed with him anyway? Then ask her why she felt the need to lie to me
&
> > do it anyway? Should I confront this friend who let her do this & if so
> > then how? (this is someone who I've known for 5.5 years, who has helped
me
> > get out on my own & helped me with allot of things & eventually getting
my
> > sister out of her bad living situation & into my home which I own & she
> > helped me in getting...then for no known reason she starts going against
me
> > on this.)
>
>
> Only answer to the above text: no, you should not confront.
>
> I'm sorry Dave, but I will have to stop responding to your posts. The
> more I read you, the more I think that YOU need help beyond what an
> usenet exchange can offer. It is not only your sister.
>
explination of what it is that makes people think this....just like my
girlfriend keeps getting doctors saying that she needs something done about
her high blood preasure, & they're all always so freaked out that nothing
has been done, then they dont do anything themselves.).
> Oh, you have made progress with your sister, that is a good thing. But
> this is not enough.
>
Yes we've made progress & after my other sisters came over last night (they
live out of town so we only see them about once a year) I talked with them
about it & we've agreed to not try to get him or the other friend into
trouble until my sister asks for it or there is a real danger or problem
(for example if we had proof she was planning on running away with him out
of state or country or if she'd got pregnant or anything like that).
> Please, PLEASE, go and speak with a real human person, a psychologist,
> about you. Take a printout of this whole usenet thread for him to
> read, that will probably save a lot of time.
>
> I am not a doctor, Dave, nobody here is one. And a doctor is what you
> need.
>
> So I will stop responding to your posts. Not because I do not want to
> help you, but because I feel that as long as you will get some
> makeshift help here, you will not make a move toward real,
> professional help. And I really feel this is what you need.
>
> I will be pleased to respond to your posts again AFTER you have
> received help for at least 2 months (psychologists are slow). Just
> send me an e-mail in case I do not check the forum at the time.
>
I would if I could afford it but I can't.
> I hope you'll understand.
Not really.
R. Steve Walz
>
> Daniel wrote:
>
> > Then should I just give up on trying to do something about him getting her
> > into trouble & this other friend who she was supposed to be staying with the
> > week I was gone but allowed her to stay the night at his house?
>
> Consider the long term. What possible good can you do that will, in the
> end, outweigh teaching her that you are the enemy? I understand your
> bomb analogy, and I think Steve missed the point -- there are dangers
> that outsiders can sometimes see better than the person in danger.
I didn't miss a thing, because IT *IS* THAT kind of high-handed
interference in a kid's life that quite literally makes them go
out and "BUY" MORE such "bombs" JUST TO SPITE YOU!
> But
> the key is to treat her like you want her to treat you.
-------------
Which means to respect HER decisions, and also to retain your good
relationship with her so that you DO still have her ear, because
you are civil and friendly and respectful and honoring of HER
decisions!!
> If you believe
> her life is in immediate, accidental danger, save her. Whatever it
> takes is fine. Bodily pulling her out of the path of a speeding bus is
> a good thing. But like all of us, she has to be allowed to make her
> mistakes.
-----------------
And stop fooling yourself that she is somehow blind to danger in some
toddler analogy that your kind of highhanded idiotic parental figure
will almost invariably be wont to use, when actually you just want to
rationalize having YOUR way. She's not stupid. And by you pretending
that she is all you're doing is being disrespectful and dishonoring.
You won't BE able to stop her by force, and you're buying a WORLD of
trouble if you try!
> You're still young. Notions of "ruining her life" still seem scary to
> you. It's mostly bogus. Whatever she does now isn't going to ruin her
> life unless she physically ruins her body. Bad grades is not your
> problem, and not much of one for her. Using drugs isn't a problem --
> lots of kids her age drop acid numerous times and go on to productive
> adulthood. If she's having lots of sex, and she hasn't been neglected
> or abused into self-destruction, she's using condoms. If you fear for
> her because of some certain specific behavior, tell her that. And maybe
> if she believes in your honesty it will effect her. And maybe she'll
> educate you. And maybe she'll tell you that she knows there are risks
> that she's taking but she's making an informed decision. Whatever the
> outcome, you'll both be better off.
-----------------
Yup.
> Maybe you could get high with her. Maybe you could shield her from the
> system. Maybe you could just love her unconditionally.
--------------------
As a REAL parent would!
> > Last week
> > I'd caught her with a bong (had to go into her room, first time she had time
> > to hide it, 2nd time was only a few minutes later & she wasn't as
> > quick...she claimed she was fixing it for someone...which explained why
> > there was water in it along with a small amount of marajuana & the pipe was
> > still warm from a flame).
>
> Ignore the lie and offer to help. It's a good opportunity for you to
> problem-solve and bond with her. She doesn't need you calling her on
> the lie, she knows it was stupid.
>
> > Her school has caught people with drugs & may be
> > doing random drug tests...she says she wants me to not let them when they
> > call about it,
>
> I know this is an unpopular view, but you must remember that The Man is
> your enemy. Whether it's the cops or the school or the employer. You
> and your loved ones are all that matters. The school is only concerned
> about drugs because they bear liability if they don't act that way.
> Just blow them off.
----------------------
Absolutely!
> > but I told her she shouldn't have anything to worry about if
> > she isn't doing anything like she claims she isn't. With a failed drug test
> > + the chat logs saying he's giving her the stuff, along with the cell phone
> > records showing that she was staying the night at his house without my
> > permission while I was gone (logs to show she called him after I called her
> > that night at the other friends house & then she called the friend the next
> > morning to pick her up...the phone company can report approximately where
> > she was when making those calls & be able to say that yes she was over
>
> This is scary shit. It's scary that you _can_ track her like this and
> it's scary that you _would._ Ubiquitous law enforcement is on the way.
-------------------
I think he's a lying shit, nobody has the TIME to do this even IF they
have the vaguest inkling as to HOW! I think he's hoping she or her
friends are watching, since this is being carried on in public.
> > there), this is more than enough to take some form of action & he IS having
> > a very bad effect on her along with this other friend who is helping her
> > destroy her future so she can have more fun.
>
> Dude! Fun is all there is! Feel good! Sure, you have to learn how to
> make a living (easy) or see to your own needs (hard), but why? So you
> can have fun! What future is she throwing away?
----------------------
Life is much shorter than you THINK it is! Get real! Get enjoyment!
> > You're saying that to keep
> > trust I should just ignore all this? If you're not saying this, then how do
> > you suggest I deal with it?
>
> Stop spying. Honestly convey your fears. If you lay your raw emotions
> out on the table (and you need to include the very real fact that you're
> scared of your own personal failure under the circumstances of having
> been thrust by reality into this position) she'll be inclined to do the
> same. Have these conversations at the right time -- not when she has
> company over, for instance. You need to bond, not enslave.
---------------------------
It won't ever work anyway.
> > Would you really be upset with
> > someone if you thought you could trust them not to be spying on you but then
> > because of them spying on you they were able to stop you from playing with a
> > bomb you'd have likely accidently detonated on yourself?
>
> Yes! I would never trust them again -- even if I was glad to have survived.
------------------------
Yup, I'd find a way to hurt them, and never let them near me again,
OR my children! I STILL have THAT kind of hate of authoritarians
like this asshole, and I'm 54!!!
> > Anyway...for now all logging is being held off due to her spilling
> > something into the keyboard.
>
> You should admit what you've been doing and seek forgiveness.
>
> Chris
-------------------------
Absolutely, and don't use that for some sick ruse, either, simply
eat shit, shut up, and respectfully await her forgiveness.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
I'm no "pedophile", you moron, and you ARE an idiot.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> So are you saying that when I get the information from the cell phone
> company to confront her with it to show her that she went behind my back and
> stayed with him anyway? Then ask her why she felt the need to lie to me &
> do it anyway?
*YOU'RE* why she felt the need to LIE to you, MORON!
>Should I confront this friend who let her do this & if so
> then how? (this is someone who I've known for 5.5 years, who has helped me
> get out on my own & helped me with allot of things & eventually getting my
> sister out of her bad living situation & into my home which I own & she
> helped me in getting...then for no known reason she starts going against me
> on this.)
-----------------
She's going against you because you're proving to be an idiot!
Steve
R. Steve Walz
Simple, your profoundly devious viciousness and self-destructiveness
and other-destructiveness. You have a self-destructive desire to win
at all costs, and that is the CORE of all forms of child-abuse and
spousal-abuse, and even sick family-annihilator behavior, and it NEVER
EVER WORKS!
> just like my
> girlfriend keeps getting doctors saying that she needs something done about
> her high blood preasure, & they're all always so freaked out that nothing
> has been done, then they dont do anything themselves.).
----------------
Your notions about this are skewed stupidly.
> > Oh, you have made progress with your sister, that is a good thing. But
> > this is not enough.
> >
> Yes we've made progress & after my other sisters came over last night (they
> live out of town so we only see them about once a year) I talked with them
> about it & we've agreed to not try to get him or the other friend into
> trouble until my sister asks for it or there is a real danger or problem
> (for example if we had proof she was planning on running away with him out
> of state or country or if she'd got pregnant or anything like that).
---------------------------
You're manifesting the kind of idiocy that will cause you to experience
immense grief and gnash your teeth with self-destructive panic when
you find that your efforts will only destroy that which you claim to
prize.
> > Please, PLEASE, go and speak with a real human person, a psychologist,
> > about you. Take a printout of this whole usenet thread for him to
> > read, that will probably save a lot of time.
> >
> > I am not a doctor, Dave, nobody here is one. And a doctor is what you
> > need.
> >
> > So I will stop responding to your posts. Not because I do not want to
> > help you, but because I feel that as long as you will get some
> > makeshift help here, you will not make a move toward real,
> > professional help. And I really feel this is what you need.
> >
> > I will be pleased to respond to your posts again AFTER you have
> > received help for at least 2 months (psychologists are slow). Just
> > send me an e-mail in case I do not check the forum at the time.
> >
> I would if I could afford it but I can't.
----------------------
You can talk to professionals at numerous free social service outlets.
if you won't, at least stop doing harm and bite your tongue and sit
on your hands for a few years till you die or learn better.
> > I hope you'll understand.
>
> Not really.
---------------
Then you'd better get some help, squirrel.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
If you try to force guidance on someone, it will produce the
exact opposite result.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> In article <CDVac.7946$o_....@fe1.texas.rr.com>, "karen"
> <kdoe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > Parenthood is an imaginary state, fancifully conceived by ignorant
> > > parents fondly pretending they can wield control of another person,
> > > when they obviously cannot, while really, the ONLY truly possible
> > > human relationship is friendship, and you are helpless in that
> > > state, which while being less comfortable, is at least real, and
> > > teaches you something.
>
> > parenting isnt about control. some things it is about are love, respect and
> > nurturing.
> > perhaps you confuse the words guidance and control. there is a difference
>
> I liked the way you put that, Karen. Steve and I have argued about this
> before, and will probably again. A parent can and must do *everything*
> for a newborn. An adult child is their own person and their parents
> should not attempt to run any part of their life. In between, it is a
> parent's job to determine what they can turn over to the kid and what they
> can't. You don't let a five year old kid decide if they want to go to
> school that day,
Sure you can. In fact, that's EXACTLY when you should do so, because
it EXACTLY is then that THEY MUST find their OWN reasons to go to
school, or they will simply be caged there and resent it, never making
constructive use of the experience as they will if they are in front
of the 8-ball instead of behind it, intentionally investigating what
it can do for them, instead of merely surviving it. Better they take
off that time to find this out THEN than ANY other time in the future!
> or eat nothing but candy for a week,
-------------------
The earlier kids are permitted to do so and see how they feel rather
than really develop hatred of authority that becomes engrained with
time, the sooner they will adopt their OWN sensible eating habits
because of their OWN experiences, and not persist in a form of what
is nothing more than dietary self-abuse and rebellion which is exactly
where the Amerikan love-affair with junk-food comes from.
>or start smoking,
--------------------
He who finds out smoking chokes you and smells bad, without wanting it
to be the key to their secret rebellion against authoritarian parents
and teachers, will be the ones who do not continue and become addicted
to the naughtiness and the nicotine. Much of the allure of tobacco
is the rebellion of the bad boy, the anti-establishment anti-authority
hero, which they don't develop unlesss someone tries to control them
abusively by saying NO. Authoritarianism CAUSES smoking addiction!
> or
> get stinking drunk every morning.
----------------
Drunks get drunk for similar reasons, to assuage their hurt and hatred
of the authoritarians who humiliated them and harmed them, often only
by the kind of abuse that isn't even necessarily violent, but merely
controlling and abusively authoritarian.
> But you don't tell a seventeen year old
> when to go to bed, or what to eat for dinner.
-----------------
You don't do that with ANYONE, or else it TAKES them to age 20 or
30 or 40 to come to grips with their own motivations and realize
that they have wasted half their lives rebelling against those who
made their childhood a living hell.
> I personally think that 14
> is one of the hardest ages. They aren't adults, or anywhere near adults,
> but they certainly aren't children anymore either.
> Dan Abel
-----------------------
This is because it is an age where parents have not really come to
grips with the fact that their kid is now suddenly grown and also
autonomous and they can't do shit about it.
At 14 a teen's parents are the most stressed by this change than
they will ever be again, they feel a kind of hurt that their "child"
has disappeared, and that they have been replaced by someone who
talks back, whom they didn't marry, and whom they consequently have
no familiar control over, or feel accustomed subservience to, and
that they now still have to let this being live in their house
without being their humble little obedient slave anymore.
To these kind of parents, these people raised to be limited monogamous
social incompetents, as people are simplistically raised to be in
America instead of a respectful citizen who can interact politically in
a sophisticated manner with others, this situation is a violation
of the simplistic promise of their adulthood wherein the society
implied that they would be permitted to run THEIR home as THEY want,
something THEIR parents didn't PERMIT, which was WHY they LEFT HOME
IN THE FIRST PLACE!!
Amerika raises social incompetents who can only relate closely to
one other person sexually who either dominates them or is subservient.
Teens TOTALLY violate the expectations of what these poor simplified
versions of human beings have been trained to expect and cope with!
Steve
karen
> --------------------
> I'm no "pedophile", you moron, and you ARE an idiot.
> Steve
what do you call grown men that have sexual encounters with their/ and
probably other children?
do you realize how many children in this world are sexually abused? that
dont want to get fucked by daddy, but have NO choice? your advocation of
having sexual relations with children puts you on the same list of those
perverts, in my book.
now...go ahead..start typing how i need to die, how im twisted etc.
keep living in denial taht you are indeed the one that is sick and twisted.
you make some, very few, valid points, but they are smothered with all of
your perversion.
my heart goes out to your now grown children and to their kids, taht are
probably being sexually abused, thanks to you
Jacques Michel
> Why do you say that (I get that often...the "you need help", but no
> explination of what it is that makes people think this....
If many persons come independently to the same conclusion about you,
you should take their advice seriously.
I am sorry, but I will not say why I think that you need help. I think
it is essential for you to heal that you get a trained psychologist to
do it.
> just like my
> girlfriend keeps getting doctors saying that she needs something done about
> her high blood preasure, & they're all always so freaked out that nothing
> has been done, then they dont do anything themselves.).
>
If your girlfriend has high blood pressure, she should get medication
and cut on salt. Possibly have her heart checked. Send her to hospital
for a check-up.
> I would if I could afford it but I can't.
>
Maybe you think about psychoanalysis (which is expensive and takes
years). A psychologist or psychiatrist is just like a normal
practitionist. He will discuss things with you, maybe prescribe you
some medication (like anxiolitics if you have anxiety at night or
anti-depressant if you regularly think that you can't cope, etc...)
but more importantly give you pratical advice in dealing with your
life and, in your case, your sister. Just like what I am doing, except
that he is a live person and better trained than I am. I am not
knowledgeable about the US insurance system, but the costs for you
should not be more than when you go to your general practitionist
(which you may visit first to direct you to the right person).
If you want keep costs down, print this thread and bring it with you
for him to read. That will save him time.
R. Steve Walz
>
> > --------------------
> > I'm no "pedophile", you moron, and you ARE an idiot.
> > Steve
>
> what do you call grown men that have sexual encounters with their/ and
> probably other children?
Do you mean consensually?
Fathers.
> do you realize how many children in this world are sexually abused?
----------------------
A small minority of all those who had sex with parents or siblings
or relatives.
More report as adults that they were quite pleasantly sexually
satisfied by what they did with their parents and siblings.
(Kinsey reported this.)
> that
> dont want to get fucked by daddy, but have NO choice?
----------------------
Then they were raped, which is NOT what I'm talking about.
> your advocation of
> having sexual relations with children puts you on the same list of those
> perverts, in my book.
----------------------
You continue mixing up lies with truth and then pretend
you know what I said. Having sex with kids who want it
is entirely unrelated to forcing sex on kids.
> now...go ahead..start typing how i need to die, how im twisted etc.
> keep living in denial taht you are indeed the one that is sick and twisted.
> you make some, very few, valid points, but they are smothered with all of
> your perversion.
------------------------
You can't think very well. You can't recall what anyone actually said,
your little twisted damaged brain is screaming so loud that you can't
hear what they said.
> my heart goes out to your now grown children and to their kids, taht are
> probably being sexually abused, thanks to you
----------------------
Didn't happen. Get used to it!
Steve
Daniel
news:<-OmdnfXeVuW...@giganews.com>...
>
> > Why do you say that (I get that often...the "you need help", but no
> > explination of what it is that makes people think this....
>
> If many persons come independently to the same conclusion about you,
> you should take their advice seriously.
>
> I am sorry, but I will not say why I think that you need help. I think
> it is essential for you to heal that you get a trained psychologist to
> do it.
>
Not even a non-detailed (but non-completely broad) explination?
>
> > just like my
> > girlfriend keeps getting doctors saying that she needs something done
about
> > her high blood preasure, & they're all always so freaked out that
nothing
> > has been done, then they dont do anything themselves.).
> >
>
> If your girlfriend has high blood pressure, she should get medication
> and cut on salt. Possibly have her heart checked. Send her to hospital
> for a check-up.
>
But again the same reason I mentioned that. Everyone says "you should do
something about that"...everyone, doctors, hospital doctors, even when she's
been to the emergency room for other things (non-related) they all say "you
should do something" but never say what or do anything themselves, only
comment about how something needs to be done.
>
> > I would if I could afford it but I can't.
> >
>
> Maybe you think about psychoanalysis (which is expensive and takes
> years). A psychologist or psychiatrist is just like a normal
> practitionist. He will discuss things with you, maybe prescribe you
> some medication (like anxiolitics if you have anxiety at night or
> anti-depressant if you regularly think that you can't cope, etc...)
> but more importantly give you pratical advice in dealing with your
> life and, in your case, your sister. Just like what I am doing, except
> that he is a live person and better trained than I am. I am not
> knowledgeable about the US insurance system, but the costs for you
> should not be more than when you go to your general practitionist
> (which you may visit first to direct you to the right person).
> If you want keep costs down, print this thread and bring it with you
> for him to read. That will save him time.
I say I can't afford it because I've always heard about $100/hr for about an
hr a week. Thats $400/month. I know people who have their insurance cover
it (but they are sevear enough to get their doctor to tell them to go see
one...& that is the only way it's covered...& doctors around here rarely
seem to send you to one...that based on experience of many others I've known
with problems of their own). No I don't have anxiety or think I cant cope
or other such related issues.
greccogirl
R. Steve Walz wrote:
Oh yes Steve I can see a world where five year olds make these
decisions! A lot of them would simply not go.
>>r eat nothing but candy for a week,
>>
>>
>-------------------
>The earlier kids are permitted to do so and see how they feel rather
>than really develop hatred of authority that becomes engrained with
>time, the sooner they will adopt their OWN sensible eating habits
>because of their OWN experiences, and not persist in a form of what
>is nothing more than dietary self-abuse and rebellion which is exactly
>where the Amerikan love-affair with junk-food comes from.
>
Yeah they can see how they feel when they end up weighing 300 lbs
>
>
>
>
>>or start smoking,
>>
>>
>--------------------
>He who finds out smoking chokes you and smells bad, without wanting it
>to be the key to their secret rebellion against authoritarian parents
>and teachers, will be the ones who do not continue and become addicted
>to the naughtiness and the nicotine. Much of the allure of tobacco
>is the rebellion of the bad boy, the anti-establishment anti-authority
>hero, which they don't develop unlesss someone tries to control them
>abusively by saying NO. Authoritarianism CAUSES smoking addiction!
>
>
Baloney. Nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs there is. For
whatever reason one picks up that first one, many are lost from that
moment (or shortly thereafter) on. There is no "allure of continuing".
They are hooked.
>
>
>
>>or
>>get stinking drunk every morning.
>>
>>
>----------------
>Drunks get drunk for similar reasons, to assuage their hurt and hatred
>of the authoritarians who humiliated them and harmed them, often only
>by the kind of abuse that isn't even necessarily violent, but merely
>controlling and abusively authoritarian.
>
Possibly we should allow the five year old to get drunk daily for a week
too?
>
>
>
>
>>But you don't tell a seventeen year old
>>when to go to bed, or what to eat for dinner.
>>
>>
>-----------------
>You don't do that with ANYONE, or else it TAKES them to age 20 or
>30 or 40 to come to grips with their own motivations and realize
>that they have wasted half their lives rebelling against those who
>made their childhood a living hell.
>
>
Yes, for a child you do. For an older child you do not. People make
poor choices Steve that have nothing to do with rebellion. It has to do
with being stupid.
>
>
>
>>I personally think that 14
>>is one of the hardest ages. They aren't adults, or anywhere near adults,
>>but they certainly aren't children anymore either.
>>Dan Abel
>>
>>
>-----------------------
>This is because it is an age where parents have not really come to
>grips with the fact that their kid is now suddenly grown and also
>autonomous and they can't do shit about it.
>
>
>At 14 a teen's parents are the most stressed by this change than
>they will ever be again, they feel a kind of hurt that their "child"
>has disappeared, and that they have been replaced by someone who
>talks back, whom they didn't marry, and whom they consequently have
>no familiar control over, or feel accustomed subservience to, and
>that they now still have to let this being live in their house
>without being their humble little obedient slave anymore.
>
Within limits. Support is owed any child t age 18, however parents do
NOT have allow abuse of them or their homes and are stupid if they do.
All children disappear and well they should. Any parent that carries
it as far as what you've said above has real problems themselves.
>
>To these kind of parents, these people raised to be limited monogamous
>social incompetents, as people are simplistically raised to be in
>America instead of a respectful citizen who can interact politically in
>a sophisticated manner with others, this situation is a violation
>of the simplistic promise of their adulthood wherein the society
>implied that they would be permitted to run THEIR home as THEY want,
>something THEIR parents didn't PERMIT, which was WHY they LEFT HOME
>IN THE FIRST PLACE!!
>
>Amerika raises social incompetents who can only relate closely to
>one other person sexually who either dominates them or is subservient.
>Teens TOTALLY violate the expectations of what these poor simplified
>versions of human beings have been trained to expect and cope with!
>Steve
>
Nonsense. Only for some.
>
>
R. Steve Walz
So I'm supposed to ignore that: Left to their own opinions, our
kids came to us and begged to learn to read at age 3 and 4, and that
they studied countless things without being coerced or threatened,
and without learning those things in school because the schools
were absolutely primitive and disappointing compared to OUR HOME
blackboards in the hallway, and since the schools were MOSTLY
occupied with trying to keep the kids there, and keep the vicious
ones from abusing the others, instead of actually teaching much??
> >>r eat nothing but candy for a week,
> >-------------------
> >The earlier kids are permitted to do so and see how they feel rather
> >than really develop hatred of authority that becomes engrained with
> >time, the sooner they will adopt their OWN sensible eating habits
> >because of their OWN experiences, and not persist in a form of what
> >is nothing more than dietary self-abuse and rebellion which is exactly
> >where the Amerikan love-affair with junk-food comes from.
> >
> Yeah they can see how they feel when they end up weighing 300 lbs
----------------------
That didn't happen, kids who are bullied do that.
> >>or start smoking,
> >--------------------
> >He who finds out smoking chokes you and smells bad, without wanting it
> >to be the key to their secret rebellion against authoritarian parents
> >and teachers, will be the ones who do not continue and become addicted
> >to the naughtiness and the nicotine. Much of the allure of tobacco
> >is the rebellion of the bad boy, the anti-establishment anti-authority
> >hero, which they don't develop unlesss someone tries to control them
> >abusively by saying NO. Authoritarianism CAUSES smoking addiction!
>
> Baloney. Nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs there is.
-------------
Then how come MOST people who try it never become addicted?? It's
because the addictive PERSONALITY is responsible for addictions,
and NOT the drugs. That personality is produced by abuse.
> For
> whatever reason one picks up that first one, many are lost from that
> moment (or shortly thereafter) on. There is no "allure of continuing".
> They are hooked.
-----------------------
Nonsense, three times as many try them as become addicted.
> >>or
> >>get stinking drunk every morning.
> >----------------
> >Drunks get drunk for similar reasons, to assuage their hurt and hatred
> >of the authoritarians who humiliated them and harmed them, often only
> >by the kind of abuse that isn't even necessarily violent, but merely
> >controlling and abusively authoritarian.
> >
> Possibly we should allow the five year old to get drunk daily for a week
> too?
---------------------------------
They aren't interested in that at 5.
They have other interests.
> >>But you don't tell a seventeen year old
> >>when to go to bed, or what to eat for dinner.
> >-----------------
> >You don't do that with ANYONE, or else it TAKES them to age 20 or
> >30 or 40 to come to grips with their own motivations and realize
> >that they have wasted half their lives rebelling against those who
> >made their childhood a living hell.
>
> Yes, for a child you do.
---------------
And when you do you destroy that part of their self-esteem that
enables them to trust themselves later without yeilding to who
is pushing them or why.
>For an older child you do not.
----------------
These older "children" whom you abused when they were younger
will make bad decisions becauseof what you did to them when they
were younger.
> People make
> poor choices Steve that have nothing to do with rebellion.
------------------
People are made by their experiences, the "choices" they make
are the result of those experiences, they do not magically
choose them with some divine equanimity and perfect knowledge
as you suggest.
There is no "Free Will", we are the absolute product of our
experiences.
> It has to do with being stupid.
------------------
You just don't get it, that's EXACTLY where being stupid comes from.
> >>I personally think that 14
> >>is one of the hardest ages. They aren't adults, or anywhere near adults,
> >>but they certainly aren't children anymore either.
> >>Dan Abel
> >-----------------------
> >This is because it is an age where parents have not really come to
> >grips with the fact that their kid is now suddenly grown and also
> >autonomous and they can't do shit about it.
> >
> >At 14 a teen's parents are the most stressed by this change than
> >they will ever be again, they feel a kind of hurt that their "child"
> >has disappeared, and that they have been replaced by someone who
> >talks back, whom they didn't marry, and whom they consequently have
> >no familiar control over, or feel accustomed subservience to, and
> >that they now still have to let this being live in their house
> >without being their humble little obedient slave anymore.
>
> Within limits. Support is owed any child t age 18, however parents do
> NOT have allow abuse of them or their homes and are stupid if they do.
---------------
All persons of whatever age have the right to their desires and their
accomplishing their desires, whether or not you also owe them a living
because of their age or not.
They are owed a living till they can support themselves because you
have dragged them into this world without their express permission or
informed consent. You may resent this debt, but it is still yours to
thwm WITHOUT condition. That you want to control them too is merely
you trying to weasel out of your true debt.
> All children disappear and well they should. Any parent that carries
> it as far as what you've said above has real problems themselves.
------------------------------------------
Nope, doesn't happen, you have cause and effect in all of reality
regarding humans ass-backwards.
Rocks and objects can be pushed and they move in the desired
direction, but if you push humans they turn around on you and
push back and swear a dire oath to never let you bully them
again, even if it costs them their life. You can't push human
beings around because of this feature of their nature.
You have left to you ONLY helping them AS THEY WISH TO BE HELPED,
just as Jesus and other Rabbis have told you.
> >To these kind of parents, these people raised to be limited monogamous
> >social incompetents, as people are simplistically raised to be in
> >America instead of a respectful citizen who can interact politically in
> >a sophisticated manner with others, this situation is a violation
> >of the simplistic promise of their adulthood wherein the society
> >implied that they would be permitted to run THEIR home as THEY want,
> >something THEIR parents didn't PERMIT, which was WHY they LEFT HOME
> >IN THE FIRST PLACE!!
> >
> >Amerika raises social incompetents who can only relate closely to
> >one other person sexually who either dominates them or is subservient.
> >Teens TOTALLY violate the expectations of what these poor simplified
> >versions of human beings have been trained to expect and cope with!
> >Steve
>
> Nonsense. Only for some.
------------------------
Nope, for EVERYONE!
Steve
karen
> They aren't interested in that at 5.
> They have other interests.
>
>
this reminds me of something i was thinking about the other day as i read
through your posts...
you always say that if you have sexual relations with a kid that wants it
thats not abuse, correct?
dont you think a kid that watches their parents have sex would be far more
interested/curious
about it than those children that dont watch?
if so, then isnt it fair to say that by allowing them to watch, you are
planting the seed for them to
want to learn about it at a much younger age than a child who isnt directly
exposed to sex?
Jacques Michel
> "Jacques Michel" <jak...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5e2ca8a5.04040...@posting.google.com...
> > "Daniel" <daniel_h_wATyahooDOTcom> wrote in message
> news:<-OmdnfXeVuW...@giganews.com>...
> >
> > > Why do you say that (I get that often...the "you need help", but no
> > > explination of what it is that makes people think this....
> >
> > If many persons come independently to the same conclusion about you,
> > you should take their advice seriously.
> >
> True...but see below.
>
> > I am sorry, but I will not say why I think that you need help. I think
> > it is essential for you to heal that you get a trained psychologist to
> > do it.
> >
> Not even a non-detailed (but non-completely broad) explination?
>
Not even that. I'm sorry Dave, you are trying salami tactics here: one
slice at a time.
> >
> > > just like my
> > > girlfriend keeps getting doctors saying that she needs something done
> about
> > > her high blood preasure, & they're all always so freaked out that
> nothing
> > > has been done, then they dont do anything themselves.).
> > >
> >
> > If your girlfriend has high blood pressure, she should get medication
> > and cut on salt. Possibly have her heart checked. Send her to hospital
> > for a check-up.
> >
> But again the same reason I mentioned that. Everyone says "you should do
> something about that"...everyone, doctors, hospital doctors, even when she's
> been to the emergency room for other things (non-related) they all say "you
> should do something" but never say what or do anything themselves, only
> comment about how something needs to be done.
>
I don't believe you. No doctor will say that a patient needs something
to be done and refuse to say what. I dare you: send her to her general
practitionist, ask about blood pressure and then have him issue a
statement IN WRITING that he does not know what should be done. Then,
mail that to me and I'll believe it.
> >
> > > I would if I could afford it but I can't.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe you think about psychoanalysis (which is expensive and takes
> > years). A psychologist or psychiatrist is just like a normal
> > practitionist. He will discuss things with you, maybe prescribe you
> > some medication (like anxiolitics if you have anxiety at night or
> > anti-depressant if you regularly think that you can't cope, etc...)
> > but more importantly give you pratical advice in dealing with your
> > life and, in your case, your sister. Just like what I am doing, except
> > that he is a live person and better trained than I am. I am not
> > knowledgeable about the US insurance system, but the costs for you
> > should not be more than when you go to your general practitionist
> > (which you may visit first to direct you to the right person).
> > If you want keep costs down, print this thread and bring it with you
> > for him to read. That will save him time.
>
> I say I can't afford it because I've always heard about $100/hr for about an
> hr a week. Thats $400/month. I know people who have their insurance cover
> it (but they are sevear enough to get their doctor to tell them to go see
> one...& that is the only way it's covered...& doctors around here rarely
> seem to send you to one...that based on experience of many others I've known
> with problems of their own). No I don't have anxiety or think I cant cope
> or other such related issues.
You are just simply not honest here. That you are not honest with me,
ok. But you are not honest with yourself and that is bad. Go to the
bloody doctor and ask him how much it costs and then you'll know.
Print this thread and show it to your general practitionist and he
will send you to a psychologist. What will you tell me next: that you
don't have the time? That your pet dragon died and you have to attend
the funeral? What part of "procrastinating" don't you understand?
Dan Abel
> R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> >Dan Abel wrote:
> >>In article <CDVac.7946$o_....@fe1.texas.rr.com>, "karen"
> >><kdoe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> >>>parenting isnt about control. some things it is about are love, respect and
> >>>nurturing.
> >>>perhaps you confuse the words guidance and control. there is a difference
> >>should not attempt to run any part of their life. In between, it is a
> >>parent's job to determine what they can turn over to the kid and what they
> >>can't. You don't let a five year old kid decide if they want to go to
> >>school that day,
> >Sure you can. In fact, that's EXACTLY when you should do so, because
> >it EXACTLY is then that THEY MUST find their OWN reasons to go to
> >school, or they will simply be caged there and resent it, never making
> Oh yes Steve I can see a world where five year olds make these
> decisions! A lot of them would simply not go.
More importantly to me is *why* they would choose not to go. I don't
think that five year olds have the knowledge, experience and judgment to
make that decision. Furthermore, the reason to let kids make mistakes is
so that they can learn from the experience. I don't see that happening
here. The consequences of a kid permanently dropping out of school at the
age of five will not be felt for years, at which point the kid will be
absolutely furious at their parents for abdicating their responsibility.
In addition, the law in most places makes school attendance mandatory, and
parents have a legal obligation to force their kids to attend.
I had the opposite problem many years ago. My daughter was in second
grade (she is now in college), and I tried to trick her into missing some
school. I wanted to go visit relatives and do some camping, but didn't
want to face the hordes out there during the summer. I thought I'd try
for late spring. It would just be my daughter and I. My wife was fine
with it, and she talked to the teacher. The teacher said that my daughter
had mastered everything she was supposed to learn for second grade, and
that she wouldn't miss a thing by being gone. So I talked to my daughter
about the dates, conveniently "forgetting" to mention that she would be
missing school. A couple of weeks later my daughter asked again what the
dates were. Upon looking at the calendar, she apologized, but said she
wouldn't be able to go because she had school then. I explained that we
had already talked to her teacher and it wasn't a problem to miss school
then. No, she was adamant that she couldn't miss school. I thought that
encouraging her to be responsible about attending school was more
important than missing the crowds, so I cancelled the trip.
R. Steve Walz
>
> > They aren't interested in that at 5.
> > They have other interests.
> >
> >
>
> this reminds me of something i was thinking about the other day as i read
> through your posts...
> you always say that if you have sexual relations with a kid that wants it
> thats not abuse, correct?
> dont you think a kid that watches their parents have sex would be far more
> interested/curious
> about it than those children that dont watch?
It's hard to be curious about something you don't even know, but
then what happens is that the child notices what is conspicuously
ABSENT, and wonders desperately about it and makes up elaborate
weird torturous fantasies trying to explain it to themselves
somehow, and invents terrible frightening hidden motives why
adults don't just come out and explain it to them, fearing there
surely must be SOME GENEUINELY *HORRIBLE* reason that they don't
tell themor show them what and why and how!!
Sex and the covering of genitals is like that, the child who does
NOT know what they are for is like the child who has never seen
anyone else peeing, they fear that peeing is something weird and
twisted and magical, and they invent terrors about it. And this
child is VERY ABUSED by that imposed thoughtless stupidity and
ignorance by their parents in doing this. A child is naturally
the most secure and the most confident in his parents love when
NOTHING WHATSOEVER is EVER hidden from him by his parents, and
otherwise all children deprived of this knowledge invariably
grow up quite paranoid and terrified of there being countless
hidden secrets to life, AND NONE OF THEM GOOD!!!
> if so, then isnt it fair to say that by allowing them to watch, you are
> planting the seed for them to
> want to learn about it at a much younger age than a child who isnt directly
> exposed to sex?
------------------
If we didn't walk upright around them would they ever want
to walk? If we didn't eat would they ever want to eat?
YOUR SICK suggestion that some sick fixation is caused by normal
observation of normal activities is itself the ONLY thing that
is TRULY twistedly fixated and REALLY AND TRULY SICK!
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> In article <4070D30C...@yahoo.com>, grecc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > R. Steve Walz wrote:
> >
> > You don't let a five year old kid decide if they want to go to
> > >>school that day,
>
> > >Sure you can. In fact, that's EXACTLY when you should do so, because
> > >it EXACTLY is then that THEY MUST find their OWN reasons to go to
> > >school, or they will simply be caged there and resent it, never making
>
> > Oh yes Steve I can see a world where five year olds make these
> > decisions! A lot of them would simply not go.
>
> More importantly to me is *why* they would choose not to go. I don't
> think that five year olds have the knowledge, experience and judgment to
> make that decision. Furthermore, the reason to let kids make mistakes is
> so that they can learn from the experience. I don't see that happening
> here. The consequences of a kid permanently dropping out of school at the
> age of five will not be felt for years, at which point the kid will be
> absolutely furious at their parents for abdicating their responsibility.
You're being silly. A 5 year old will not sign papers that forever
prevent her from going to school, she will do it a few days and
then get curious and wonder what she is missing, and she has then
recovered her curiousity about it, and with a new feature, she has
been respected and is in control of whether she goes there or not!
That's a win-win.
> In addition, the law in most places makes school attendance mandatory, and
> parents have a legal obligation to force their kids to attend.
---------------------------
No they don't, in these days you can excuse them for illness and
then move if you need to, or homeschool, it's not that difficult.
> I had the opposite problem many years ago. My daughter was in second
> grade (she is now in college), and I tried to trick her into missing some
> school. I wanted to go visit relatives and do some camping, but didn't
> want to face the hordes out there during the summer. I thought I'd try
> for late spring. It would just be my daughter and I. My wife was fine
> with it, and she talked to the teacher. The teacher said that my daughter
> had mastered everything she was supposed to learn for second grade, and
> that she wouldn't miss a thing by being gone. So I talked to my daughter
> about the dates, conveniently "forgetting" to mention that she would be
> missing school. A couple of weeks later my daughter asked again what the
> dates were. Upon looking at the calendar, she apologized, but said she
> wouldn't be able to go because she had school then. I explained that we
> had already talked to her teacher and it wasn't a problem to miss school
> then. No, she was adamant that she couldn't miss school. I thought that
> encouraging her to be responsible about attending school was more
> important than missing the crowds, so I cancelled the trip.
> Dan Abel
---------------------
You simply deceived her, and cost yourself a modicum of trust she
had for you, how could you be such a vicious fucking liar?? I could
NEVER have done that to MY children!
Steve
Daniel
> "Daniel" <daniel_h_wATyahooDOTcom> wrote in message
news:<AMWdnd1VRtL...@giganews.com>...
> > "Jacques Michel" <jak...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:5e2ca8a5.04040...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Daniel" <daniel_h_wATyahooDOTcom> wrote in message
> > news:<-OmdnfXeVuW...@giganews.com>...
> > >
> > > > Why do you say that (I get that often...the "you need help", but no
> > > > explination of what it is that makes people think this....
> > >
> > > If many persons come independently to the same conclusion about you,
> > > you should take their advice seriously.
> > >
> > True...but see below.
> >
> > > I am sorry, but I will not say why I think that you need help. I think
> > > it is essential for you to heal that you get a trained psychologist to
> > > do it.
> > >
> > Not even a non-detailed (but non-completely broad) explination?
> >
>
> Not even that. I'm sorry Dave, you are trying salami tactics here: one
> slice at a time.
>
> > >
> > > > just like my
> > > > girlfriend keeps getting doctors saying that she needs something
done
> > about
> > > > her high blood preasure, & they're all always so freaked out that
> > nothing
> > > > has been done, then they dont do anything themselves.).
> > > >
> > >
> > > If your girlfriend has high blood pressure, she should get medication
> > > and cut on salt. Possibly have her heart checked. Send her to hospital
> > > for a check-up.
> > >
> > But again the same reason I mentioned that. Everyone says "you should
do
> > something about that"...everyone, doctors, hospital doctors, even when
she's
> > been to the emergency room for other things (non-related) they all say
"you
> > should do something" but never say what or do anything themselves, only
> > comment about how something needs to be done.
> >
>
> I don't believe you. No doctor will say that a patient needs something
> to be done and refuse to say what. I dare you: send her to her general
> practitionist, ask about blood pressure and then have him issue a
> statement IN WRITING that he does not know what should be done. Then,
> mail that to me and I'll believe it.
>
They dont refuse to do anything. They just go on about "you need to see
another doctor" & then drop it. I brought this up only to show that there
are many times when someone says the general "you need to do something" but
then wont say what & will refer you somewhere else (not anyone specific).
Its usually a "you have other problems & I'll take care of those" & then
they forget/ignore the other problem they just referred you to somewhere
else other than them.
I have talked to some as well as got my information from others who have
been themselves (the the co-worker who's insurance pays for most of it, he
only pays a small percentage). Time is NOT the problem as I work through
the weekend & have two business days off (for the purpose of having more
time...since I can't drive I have to walk or take the bus or get a ride &
thats not very possible when you work Monday through Friday durring the
business hours of the day). Plus I'm sure I could get mine & my sister's
appointments scheduled at the same time or at least close to it & possibly
with the same person...that is IF I could do something about the cost of it.
Like I said, I'm not depressed or problems like that...I obviously can't say
for sure what problems I would have (reason for asking others to tell me if
they claim they know) other than at times being too paranoid (further not
helped by my highly analizing & fast processing brain which allows me to not
only find a too paranoid point of view but also to find many detailed
explinations of why it is possible & other similar situations as well, all
this in only a few minutes at most & without even trying). Basically I can
do the "what if" but to the extream with thoughts or situations & also be
able to quickly come up with explinations of why the thought is possible &
not just wild imagination.
Jacques Michel
Pardon my interruption, but I do not quite understand your reasoning.
Of course a children that is exposed to sex at an early age is going
to want to learn about it before one that is not. So what? A children
that is exposed to reading, music, math, woodworking, whatever, is
also going to want to learn about any of those activities before one
that is not. Is that a bad thing?
It is not that I want to stand up and defend the wacko theories of
Steve Walz, but please try to find arguments that makes sense.
karen
>< whatever, is
> also going to want to learn about any of those activities before one
> that is not. Is that a bad thing?
>
its a bad thing when its done to manipulate children into doing things they
arent
mentally/physically ready for, like SEX. especially when they will be
experiencing hands on learning from a perverted daddy. get it?
>
> It is not that I want to stand up and defend the wacko theories of
> Steve Walz, but please try to find arguments that makes sense.
my argument is that one shouldnt manipulate children into things that they
arent ready for. children arent mentally or physically ready to watch or
have sex , period.
get it?
now, like i already said, im done here. this time for sure:)
Dan Abel
<kdoe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> >< whatever, is
> > also going to want to learn about any of those activities before one
> > that is not. Is that a bad thing?
> its a bad thing when its done to manipulate children into doing things they
> arent
> mentally/physically ready for, like SEX. especially when they will be
> experiencing hands on learning from a perverted daddy. get it?
There's a big difference between learning and doing. Kids at the age of
five should know about sex. They don't need to know much about it, they
don't need to watch it, and they certainly shouldn't be doing it. One of
the things they need to know about sex is that it is for adults, and not
for kids. If anything, they need to learn *not* to be manipulated into
doing things that they aren't ready for.
> > It is not that I want to stand up and defend the wacko theories of
> > Steve Walz, but please try to find arguments that makes sense.
> my argument is that one shouldnt manipulate children into things that they
> arent ready for. children arent mentally or physically ready to watch or
> have sex , period.
> get it?
No, I don't get it. We are talking about learning, not watching or doing.
> now, like i already said, im done here. this time for sure:)
I've heard that before. I'll see it when I believe it.
:-)
R. Steve Walz
> > planting the seed for them to
> > want to learn about it at a much younger age than a child who isnt directly
> > exposed to sex?
>
> Pardon my interruption, but I do not quite understand your reasoning.
> Of course a children that is exposed to sex at an early age is going
> to want to learn about it before one that is not. So what?
Well, use logic, they are NOT going to want to learn about anything
they are exposed to that HURTS, only things that FEEL GOOD, so saying
that exposure causes interest is incorrect, it depends on whether it
is good or bad material.
Now sex is clearly good material, so as soon as they hear of it or
see an explanation and detailed information about what their genitals
are for, they are of course quite interested. Anyone who had had this
pleasure hidden from them would be interested in more of it, but if
they had had something hurtful to them that had been hidden away then
they would be perfectly glad if it REMAINED hidden!
This shows that sex is desired, not that they are interested in just
any old thing, but that it depends upon its effects on them.
> A children
> that is exposed to reading, music, math, woodworking, whatever, is
> also going to want to learn about any of those activities before one
> that is not. Is that a bad thing?
----------------------
of course not. Idiots who are against kids learning sex early are of
an UNDEFENDABLE belief that sex is bad or evil, a purely religious
and very SICK superstition with NO basis. It was contrived once back
in feudal times to enable the nobles, actually NOT "noble" at ALL,
but simply enslaving bandits and thieves, to enslave their conquered
peoples more easily, because people are more easily controlled if
you can control their access to sex. That was the only reason for
edicts against open sexuality and incest, to isolate people to small
innocuous monogamous families and prevent anyone from having sex
except those the nobles wanted to be bredding them some more slaves.
If they had allowed people to fuck in the town square the people
would have regained their tribal trust and groupsex alliances and
they'd have been able to mount a tribal opposition to these enslaving
conquerors.
> It is not that I want to stand up and defend the wacko theories of
> Steve Walz, but please try to find arguments that makes sense.
---------------
Yes, do try, you'll come up with what *I* came up with if you're
honest and perceptive!
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> >< whatever, is
> > also going to want to learn about any of those activities before one
> > that is not. Is that a bad thing?
> >
>
> its a bad thing when its done to manipulate children
I definitely want you assholes tostop manipulating children
as you have done, AGAINST their normal sexual desires!
> into doing things they arent
> mentally/physically ready for, like SEX.
------------------
Capitalising it doesn't make it DANGEROUS, either, you idiot.
There's nothing magically difficult or harmful about sex. Even
ignorant squirrels and other small animals do it just fine, it
isn't any kind of "rocket-surgery" or anything. And before
puberty nature has prevented any less desired outcome from it,
because they aren't fertile! After puberty Nature has MADE them
want it, proving that they ARE ready!
> especially when they will be
> experiencing hands on learning from a perverted daddy. get it?
-----------------------
When children's rights are upheld, and parents are no longer given
abusive power over them, then they can't BE coerced into anything.
The way children are DENIED their RIGHTS to what THEY want NOW is
what CONTRIBUTES TO AND CAUSES child rape!
> > It is not that I want to stand up and defend the wacko theories of
> > Steve Walz, but please try to find arguments that makes sense.
>
> my argument is that one shouldnt manipulate children into things that they
> arent ready for.
------------------
Like missing OUT on sex. Fundy Bigot Assholes like YOU wish to
manipulate children out of their right to explore and learn about
sex and their own genitals and the real truth about human beings!!
> children arent mentally or physically ready to watch or
> have sex , period. get it?
----------------
No, nobody "gets it", and "period" is ALSO not any argument,
You see, YOU haven't given any reasonable or logical proof or
even a rationale for that assertion! And in actual fact THERE
ISN'T ANY!! Kids have watched sex for hundreds of thousands of
years, they do so NOW in MANY cultures, if only because of
tiny huts and the heat, and there is NO reason to expect this
has somehow magically changed just because your sicko Fundy
religious bigotry believes "sex is dirty", and only as recently
as the last last century or two.
> now, like i already said, im done here. this time for sure:)
------------------------
You're done? Shit, you never even began to make any actual sense,
because you haven't any!
Steve
Christopher Weeks
> arent ready for.
Agreed!
> children arent mentally or physically ready to watch or
> have sex , period.
Uh...what are you basing this on?
I mean, there's tons of evidence to support the hypothesis that many
kids aren't ready to learn to read at five, and in fact, pressuring them
to start at that age harms them...but sex?
I think that like everything else, they should decide when they're
ready, not us. We can't be in their heads. Give them exposure to a
wide variety of activities and let them choose their path.
Chris
R. Steve Walz
>
> There's a big difference between learning and doing. Kids at the age of
> five should know about sex. They don't need to know much about it, they
> don't need to watch it, and they certainly shouldn't be doing it.
They DEFINITELY need to see it, and do whatever they wish to explore
it even if that only means being nude and idly fiddling with their
genitals. But they NEED to see sex among older people simply because
otherwise there is a HUGE PIECE OF THEMSELVES that they will be
FORCED to contrive private and frightening superstitions about,
ones they feel they dare not speak, and to believe in some way
that their genitals are somehow BAD and thus THEY THEMSELVES are
BAD!
> One of the things they need to know about sex is that it is for
> adults, and not for kids.
---------------
More superstiton and nonsense, they only need to know that they don't
have to do any sex with anybody unless they really want to by
themselves.
> If anything, they need to learn *not* to be manipulated into
> doing things that they aren't ready for.
-----------------
They need PARENTS to stop coercing and manipulating them and to be
made aware that they have rights and can call the authorities to
defend those rights for them!!
> > > It is not that I want to stand up and defend the wacko theories of
> > > Steve Walz, but please try to find arguments that makes sense.
>
> > my argument is that one shouldnt manipulate children into things that they
> > arent ready for. children arent mentally or physically ready to watch or
> > have sex , period.
> > get it?
>
> No, I don't get it. We are talking about learning, not watching or doing.
-------------------
Watching or doing is the ONLY learning.
> > now, like i already said, im done here. this time for sure:)
>
> I've heard that before. I'll see it when I believe it.
> Dan Abel
------------
Yup.
Steve
greccogirl
better than school, most homes are. It just isn't feasible for many
parents to do so.
Jacques Michel
> >< whatever, is
> > also going to want to learn about any of those activities before one
> > that is not. Is that a bad thing?
> >
>
> its a bad thing when its done to manipulate children into doing things they
> arent
> mentally/physically ready for, like SEX.
But in Steve's theory, children are mentally/physically capable of
having orgasms by the age of seven (or even before)! Whom should we
believe? You, who gives no argument whatsoever, or Steve, who pretends
he has had the experience at the age of 11 with a 7 year old girl, but
has been lying for 11 years?
> especially when they will be
> experiencing hands on learning from a perverted daddy. get it?
>
This is a definite risk if children are introduced to sex at an early
age. I noted that a few weeks ago.
Of course, in Steve's theory, daddy gets so much to do to entertain
the adult females in the family, that he is busy enough for this risk
not to happen.
>
> >
> > It is not that I want to stand up and defend the wacko theories of
> > Steve Walz, but please try to find arguments that makes sense.
>
> my argument is that one shouldnt manipulate children into things that they
> arent ready for. children arent mentally or physically ready to watch or
> have sex , period.
> get it?
No, I won't get it without understandable arguments. 100 years ago, on
a different subject, people would have said "negros aren't mentally or
physically ready to vote and have civil rights. They are inferior,
period." Doesn't it sound similar?
> now, like i already said, im done here. this time for sure:)
Nice smiley.
R. Steve Walz
>
> You were lucky. Not that dispute your home learning situation was
> better than school, most homes are. It just isn't feasible for many
> parents to do so.
They can if they are sane enough to want to.
And they SHOULD!
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> "karen" <kdoe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> But in Steve's theory, children are mentally/physically capable of
> having orgasms by the age of seven (or even before)!
It's no mere "theory", it's documented in a host of research
and in my experience and that of many others. Go look it up!
> Whom should we
> believe? You, who gives no argument whatsoever, or Steve, who pretends
> he has had the experience at the age of 11 with a 7 year old girl, but
> has been lying for 11 years?
-------------------------
Why are you denying what it took me many years to decide to talk
about?????? You're making some sense, and all of a sudden you come
out with this weirdness!
> > especially when they will be
> > experiencing hands on learning from a perverted daddy. get it?
>
> This is a definite risk if children are introduced to sex at an early
> age. I noted that a few weeks ago.
---------------------------
No parent who merely lets their child explore as THE CHILD wishes
is a "pervert", however much the parent might enjoy it. There's
nothing whatsoever wrong with enjoying sharing sex with your family.
> Of course, in Steve's theory, daddy gets so much to do to entertain
> the adult females in the family, that he is busy enough for this risk
> not to happen.
----------------------------
This isn't a risk in a family or a society where the parents are
not abusive, because they will respect their children's rights to
chose their own explorations. To sane parents, any additional sexual
gratification they get from it is fine, but not desperately sought
in the way YOU seek sex desperately because you've been denied it
and deny it to yourself in such a sick twisted manner.
> > > It is not that I want to stand up and defend the wacko theories of
> > > Steve Walz, but please try to find arguments that makes sense.
> >
> > my argument is that one shouldnt manipulate children into things that they
> > arent ready for. children arent mentally or physically ready to watch or
> > have sex , period.
> > get it?
>
> No, I won't get it without understandable arguments. 100 years ago, on
> a different subject, people would have said "negros aren't mentally or
> physically ready to vote and have civil rights. They are inferior,
> period." Doesn't it sound similar?
--------------------------------
Precisely!
Steve
Jacques Michel
> Jacques Michel wrote:
> >
> > But in Steve's theory, children are mentally/physically capable of
> > having orgasms by the age of seven (or even before)!
> ---------------------
> It's no mere "theory", it's documented in a host of research
> and in my experience and that of many others. Go look it up!
>
My personal religion teaches me to call everything that a sentient
being forms in his head to explain nature a "theory". Of which there
are 4 types: true, false, not yet proven and unprovable.
>
> > Whom should we
> > believe? You, who gives no argument whatsoever, or Steve, who pretends
> > he has had the experience at the age of 11 with a 7 year old girl, but
> > has been lying for 11 years?
> -------------------------
> Why are you denying what it took me many years to decide to talk
> about?????? You're making some sense, and all of a sudden you come
> out with this weirdness!
>
My personal religion calls on me to act weirdly on purpose. Here the
purpose was to prove that you have no sense of humour.
My personal religion also calls on me to convert all of humanity and
especially children to at least some sense of humour. By this account,
I think you cruelly mistreated your children and should be shot. You
still have a chance to repent, but it is slim. May the Laugh have
mercy on you.
(snip)
R. Steve Walz
>
> "R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
> > Jacques Michel wrote:
> > >
> > > But in Steve's theory, children are mentally/physically capable of
> > > having orgasms by the age of seven (or even before)!
> > ---------------------
> > It's no mere "theory", it's documented in a host of research
> > and in my experience and that of many others. Go look it up!
>
> My personal religion teaches me to call everything that a sentient
> being forms in his head to explain nature a "theory". Of which there
> are 4 types: true, false, not yet proven and unprovable.
This is proven. Pay better attention to fact.
> > > Whom should we
> > > believe? You, who gives no argument whatsoever, or Steve, who pretends
> > > he has had the experience at the age of 11 with a 7 year old girl, but
> > > has been lying for 11 years?
> > -------------------------
> > Why are you denying what it took me many years to decide to talk
> > about?????? You're making some sense, and all of a sudden you come
> > out with this weirdness!
>
> My personal religion calls on me to act weirdly on purpose.
----------------------------
???
> Here the
> purpose was to prove that you have no sense of humour.
-----------------------------
I don't have a sense of humor about important things.
Most people's humor in that setting is used to obviate
their actual obligations.
> My personal religion also calls on me to convert all of humanity and
> especially children to at least some sense of humour.
------------------------------
Things are too important for avoidance by humor.
> By this account,
> I think you cruelly mistreated your children and should be shot.
-----------------------------
My children are my judges.
> You
> still have a chance to repent, but it is slim. May the Laugh have
> mercy on you.
-------------------
I'm immune to your facetious bullshit.
Steve
Jacques Michel
> Jacques Michel wrote:
> >
> > "R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
> > > Jacques Michel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But in Steve's theory, children are mentally/physically capable of
> > > > having orgasms by the age of seven (or even before)!
> > > ---------------------
> > > It's no mere "theory", it's documented in a host of research
> > > and in my experience and that of many others. Go look it up!
> >
> > My personal religion teaches me to call everything that a sentient
> > being forms in his head to explain nature a "theory". Of which there
> > are 4 types: true, false, not yet proven and unprovable.
> ----------------------------
> This is proven. Pay better attention to fact.
>
You can't really read, can you? I explained that calling things a
theory does not mean they are false. At least not for me.
And yes, some medical studies have reported orgasm in 7 year old
children, I agree to that. What the studies do not say is what
percentage of the children have this capability. Neither do they say
what the effect of practicing or not practicing this ability will be
on future development of those childs.
(snip)
> > My personal religion also calls on me to convert all of humanity and
> > especially children to at least some sense of humour.
> ------------------------------
> Things are too important for avoidance by humor.
>
Humour, by definition, means being to laugh at important things. May I
suggest that you rewatch such movies as "Dr Strangelove"? Here Kubrick
told a very important message in a very humorous way. Yet nobody who
ever watched the movie would say that the message was less important
for it.
And laughing is a good thing. You should try it once.
R. Steve Walz
>
> "R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message news:<407619...@armory.com>...
> > Jacques Michel wrote:
> > >
> > > "R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
> > > > Jacques Michel wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > But in Steve's theory, children are mentally/physically capable of
> > > > > having orgasms by the age of seven (or even before)!
> > > > ---------------------
> > > > It's no mere "theory", it's documented in a host of research
> > > > and in my experience and that of many others. Go look it up!
> > >
> > > My personal religion teaches me to call everything that a sentient
> > > being forms in his head to explain nature a "theory". Of which there
> > > are 4 types: true, false, not yet proven and unprovable.
> > ----------------------------
> > This is proven. Pay better attention to fact.
>
> You can't really read, can you? I explained that calling things a
> theory does not mean they are false. At least not for me.
So often the ill-educated do, that it is hard to tell.
Sorry if I underestimate you.
Even if I'm right.
> And yes, some medical studies have reported orgasm in 7 year old
> children, I agree to that.
-------------------------
Masters and Johnson reported them in infants.
> What the studies do not say is what
> percentage of the children have this capability. Neither do they say
> what the effect of practicing or not practicing this ability will be
> on future development of those childs.
> (snip)
--------------------------------
It is now widely known in child development research to be universal.
Do you ever read?
> > > My personal religion also calls on me to convert all of humanity and
> > > especially children to at least some sense of humour.
> > ------------------------------
> > Things are too important for avoidance by humor.
>
> Humour, by definition, means being to laugh at important things.
------------------
And intelligence means to know when it's not really funny.
> May I
> suggest that you rewatch such movies as "Dr Strangelove"? Here Kubrick
> told a very important message in a very humorous way. Yet nobody who
> ever watched the movie would say that the message was less important
> for it.
----------------------
You don't imagine that your facetiousness ranks with Kubrick, do you?
> And laughing is a good thing. You should try it once.
----------------------
Oh I DO laugh at things which are actually funny.
Steve
Jacques Michel
(snip)
> I obviously can't say
> for sure what problems I would have (reason for asking others to tell me if
> they claim they know) other than at times being too paranoid
(snip)
You just had an insight in your problem: you said you are paranoid.
This is enough to look for help.
I let a few days past to see what would happen. Did you go to you
general practitionist to ask how to get on or do you still
procrastinate?