Re: [UnschoolingDiscussion] to nose pierce or not isn't unschooling absolute
[email protected]
Sandra --
Someone did post those words: "it's her body so what's the harm?"
Like anything else, it could be reasonable and moderate in one
situation and used to justify a harmful extreme in another.
I personally see all kinds of risks in having sex under age 14, and/or
when knowing someone only well enough for a movie date and a couple of
visits. That is what I see. Whether the majority of other unschoolers agree with me
is a separate question, as is whether and how I can help my children avoid
those risks.
To engage in risky behavior without harm doesn't lessen actual risk.
It just lessens our perception of risk (which perversely may result in more
exposure to it.)
Do you know the movie, "The Big Easy" with Dennis Quaid as a New
Orleans cop? They arrest a distraught woman for murdering her husband, and are much
amused because her defense is she never meant to kill him, she's stabbed him
before and he didn't die! <g>
I take your point that you don't see video games with violent content
as risky or objectionable. Not sure you've heard me, though. I get the feeling
you're in some other argument you've had before, raising objections to things
I haven't said and never even thought.
Like your riff about "today's highways" -- I don't see much
relationship between what I said and how you responded with something about living in
the present only. (Maybe you meant to be funny?)
Today's highways are different than when I learned to drive 30 years
ago. So I have to think about, and deal with, new realities and learning needs
for my children as drivers, not simply go on auto pilot from my own past and
how I was schooled or parented. Also I was a first-born child with a classic
focus on delayed gratification (living in the future) I agree we are here now,
but not that the present is all we have. It's all pretty seamless to me.
JJ
SandraDodd@... writes:
Someone did post those words: "it's her body so what's the harm?"
Like anything else, it could be reasonable and moderate in one
situation and used to justify a harmful extreme in another.
I personally see all kinds of risks in having sex under age 14, and/or
when knowing someone only well enough for a movie date and a couple of
visits. That is what I see. Whether the majority of other unschoolers agree with me
is a separate question, as is whether and how I can help my children avoid
those risks.
To engage in risky behavior without harm doesn't lessen actual risk.
It just lessens our perception of risk (which perversely may result in more
exposure to it.)
Do you know the movie, "The Big Easy" with Dennis Quaid as a New
Orleans cop? They arrest a distraught woman for murdering her husband, and are much
amused because her defense is she never meant to kill him, she's stabbed him
before and he didn't die! <g>
I take your point that you don't see video games with violent content
as risky or objectionable. Not sure you've heard me, though. I get the feeling
you're in some other argument you've had before, raising objections to things
I haven't said and never even thought.
Like your riff about "today's highways" -- I don't see much
relationship between what I said and how you responded with something about living in
the present only. (Maybe you meant to be funny?)
Today's highways are different than when I learned to drive 30 years
ago. So I have to think about, and deal with, new realities and learning needs
for my children as drivers, not simply go on auto pilot from my own past and
how I was schooled or parented. Also I was a first-born child with a classic
focus on delayed gratification (living in the future) I agree we are here now,
but not that the present is all we have. It's all pretty seamless to me.
JJ
SandraDodd@... writes:
> In a message dated 12/7/03 10:47:56 AM, jrossedd@... writes:[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> << But it seems to me worth mentioning that another extreme to avoid
> would be a sort of anything-goes tolerance for risky or demonstrably
> destructive
> choices, in the name of "unschooling." Where each of us begins to feel that
> extreme approaching will vary, of course. Nose-piercing, tattoos, sexual
> contact
> with others, ingesting mind-altering substances, handling guns, and playing
> violent video games all fit into that category for me, when it is my own
> children under 14 in question. >>
>
> Do you really consider playing video games (which are never violent, thought
>
> they might have "violent" subjects, like war, karate kicking, guns) is in
> the
> same category with mind-altering substances or tattoos or having sex?
>
> Drugs are illegal, tattoos are permanent, and sex can cause death or
> reproduction or both. A video game is a kid sitting in a chair with a
> remote control,
> not sticking anything into his body--not ink, LSD, other people's parts...
>
> Doesn't seem at all in the same category to me.
>
> <<I
> protecting and nurturing my children is to first protect them from their own
>
> extreme behavior long enough to help them to learn how to handle their own
> extreme
> impulses and desires that might do them permanent harm. >>
>
> My children have not experienced the "extreme behavior" you seem to be
> worried about. "Tolerance for risky or demonstrably destructive choices"
> hasn't
> been an issue at our house. I think Kirby had sex a time or two (at the
> same
> camping event) but I know he had condoms because I have them to him when he
> seemed in a possible range. It didn't cause him to go sex crazy. It's been
>
> nearly a year, and he was the girls boyfriend (in a way, they went to one
> movie,
> he visited her once and she came over here once) for several weeks and
> decided
> she wasn't really all that nice. No drama, no trauma. If it happened (as
> I
> suspect), she was his first but he wasn't her first.
>
> My choice wasn't "to tolerate" it or not. It seems to have been a done
> deal.
> He talked to me an somewhat vague terms about the situation being serious,
> and I talked to him in somewhat less vague terms about birth control, and
> condoms not being 100%, and serious relationships needing back-up birth
> control. He
> said "I'll mention that."
>
> When I was his age I was having sex. He's that age and is not (in general
> terms).
>
> <<Those are some places that the "it's their body so
> what's the harm?" philosophy seems extreme to me. >>
>
> I haven't heard people say "it's their body so what's the harm?"
>
> It IS their body. So help them learn to make choices when it's not so
> crucial instead of deciding for them up to the point that they're making
> their very
> first solo choices ever about things like tattoos, drugs, sex, guns, etc.
>
> My kids have been making choices their whole lives, and I don't see them
> doing crazy or dangerous or impulsive things.
>
> That pretty much goes against this: "I think part of my job in
> protecting and nurturing my children is to first protect them from their own
>
> extreme behavior long enough to help them to learn how to handle their own
> extreme
> impulses and desires that might do them permanent harm. "
>
> That doesn't mean, though, that I have not protected them, that I haven't
> helped them learn, and that I don't care whether they are done permanent
> harm.
>
> The article on balance is a warning against seeing the world as two extreme
> choices, either controlling or "losing control."
>
> << Up to now, I had been mainly thinking about how as an unschooler to
> help them handle learning to drive a car on today's highways, >>
>
> What other highways could they learn on? The past and future are not
> useable
> highways. Here we are, just today. Just now.
>
> Sandra
>
[email protected]
In a message dated 12/8/03 10:56:53 AM, jrossedd@... writes:
<< Someone did post those words: "it's her body so what's the harm?"
Was it about piercing or a tattoo?
Or was it about IV drugs or crazed group sex?
Honestly, not all things are equally dangerous.
<< Like anything else, it could be reasonable and moderate in one
situation and used to justify a harmful extreme in another.>>
Have you seen anyone on this list justify harmful extremes?
Let's talk about our real children and not our imaginary freak-out fantasies.
<< I personally see all kinds of risks in having sex under age 14>>
Kirby was sixteen, close to seventeen. He's almost six feet tall. He's
shaved for a couple of years. He's not a little boy.
Holly's under fourteen. She's not even thinking about kissing, let alone
having sex.
So where did you get "under fourteen"?
<< I personally see all kinds of risks in having sex under age 14, and/or
when knowing someone only well enough for a movie date and a couple of
visits. >>
It wasn't that he didn't know her better, it's that he's really busy, and
didn't glom onto her in the desperation some teens do when another person will
pay personal, physical-touch attention to them. I've NEVER seen that kind of
desperation in any of the teenaged unschoolers I've know. I've seen it dozens
of times in kids at school, both when I was a kid and when I was a teacher.
The girl called Kirby a lot. When he discovered she was in the habit of lying
to her dad he wasn't very interested in pursuing a relationship with her. He
did go and meet her mom (who lives in another state, but had come to visit.
The girl was pressing Kirby to call her mom "mom." He wasn't comfortable with
the pressure on him to act married to her instead of just a boyfriend.
They were at a camping event where I was not, when "it" happened (as I
strongly suspect; Kirby was discreet enough not to talk about it openly, but there
were subtle indications). In the context of that camping event, it was quite
romantic. He had known her for a while, and was friends with many of her
friends. So the suggestion that he didn't know her is inaccurate.
The fact that he didn't jump on her like a flea on a hotter newer dog seems
to me proof of maturity.
The relationship started in February. He botched her prom invitation (not
knowing what a big deal prom was, he answered honestly "not really" to "Do you
want to go to the prom?"
When he discovered what a faux pas that had been, he went and reserved a tux,
called her and said he would go with her. She said she already had other
plans (to go with a female also-dateless friend) and his response when he got off
the phone was "Well that saved me a hundred dollars." She broke up with him
a day or two later. I think she was afraid of the fallout from her NOT going
with him when he was willing. She had all manner of school-based angst and
considerations about the relationship. Kirby had none of them.
<< To engage in risky behavior without harm doesn't lessen actual risk.
It just lessens our perception of risk (which perversely may result in more
exposure to it.)>>
I understand what you mean mathematically, but how does it work for you in
the real world?
Do you drive your car when the tires are getting bald?
Do you drive in the snow when it's less than life or death?
Have you ever exceeded the speed limit?
Did your lack of harm lessen the actual risk?
<< Not sure you've heard me, though. I get the feeling
you're in some other argument you've had before>>
I'm writing to hundreds of people. Maybe you were writing to just one.
The list isn't designed for that.
<< Like your riff about "today's highways" -- I don't see much
relationship between what I said and how you responded with something about
living in
the present only. (Maybe you meant to be funny?) >>
There's nothing funny about the fact that we are alive in this moment and
today's life is the only life we can live.
How will a child learn to drive today without today's highways?
<< Today's highways are different than when I learned to drive 30 years
ago. So I have to think about, and deal with, new realities and learning
needs
for my children as drivers, not simply go on auto pilot from my own past and
how I was schooled or parented. >>
Have you not considered your own driving in the past thirty years? Would you
teach them to drive with thirty-year-old visions and thoughts in your head?
Would you parrot what your driver's ed teacher said or what your parents said
(you said "how I was schooled or parented") instead of taking the synthesized
knowledge you possess from all possible sources and the experience of thirty
years and pass THAT on to your children?
<<Also I was a first-born child with a classic
focus on delayed gratification (living in the future) I agree we are here
now,
but not that the present is all we have. It's all pretty seamless to me.>>
I'm a firstborn with a sometimes-irritating amount of detailed recall of
childhood memories, and live seems QUITE seamless to me, yet the only point at
which my feet actually touch the ground is this moment. The past is memory and
the future is speculation. Whining about memory and losing sleep over
speculation only screw up the next breath we take.
In AA (my mom used to go) they very indelicately say "If you're standing with
one foot in the past and one foot in the future, you're pissing all over
today."
Sandra
<< Someone did post those words: "it's her body so what's the harm?"
>>Sorry, then, I missed that.
Was it about piercing or a tattoo?
Or was it about IV drugs or crazed group sex?
Honestly, not all things are equally dangerous.
<< Like anything else, it could be reasonable and moderate in one
situation and used to justify a harmful extreme in another.>>
Have you seen anyone on this list justify harmful extremes?
Let's talk about our real children and not our imaginary freak-out fantasies.
<< I personally see all kinds of risks in having sex under age 14>>
Kirby was sixteen, close to seventeen. He's almost six feet tall. He's
shaved for a couple of years. He's not a little boy.
Holly's under fourteen. She's not even thinking about kissing, let alone
having sex.
So where did you get "under fourteen"?
<< I personally see all kinds of risks in having sex under age 14, and/or
when knowing someone only well enough for a movie date and a couple of
visits. >>
It wasn't that he didn't know her better, it's that he's really busy, and
didn't glom onto her in the desperation some teens do when another person will
pay personal, physical-touch attention to them. I've NEVER seen that kind of
desperation in any of the teenaged unschoolers I've know. I've seen it dozens
of times in kids at school, both when I was a kid and when I was a teacher.
The girl called Kirby a lot. When he discovered she was in the habit of lying
to her dad he wasn't very interested in pursuing a relationship with her. He
did go and meet her mom (who lives in another state, but had come to visit.
The girl was pressing Kirby to call her mom "mom." He wasn't comfortable with
the pressure on him to act married to her instead of just a boyfriend.
They were at a camping event where I was not, when "it" happened (as I
strongly suspect; Kirby was discreet enough not to talk about it openly, but there
were subtle indications). In the context of that camping event, it was quite
romantic. He had known her for a while, and was friends with many of her
friends. So the suggestion that he didn't know her is inaccurate.
The fact that he didn't jump on her like a flea on a hotter newer dog seems
to me proof of maturity.
The relationship started in February. He botched her prom invitation (not
knowing what a big deal prom was, he answered honestly "not really" to "Do you
want to go to the prom?"
When he discovered what a faux pas that had been, he went and reserved a tux,
called her and said he would go with her. She said she already had other
plans (to go with a female also-dateless friend) and his response when he got off
the phone was "Well that saved me a hundred dollars." She broke up with him
a day or two later. I think she was afraid of the fallout from her NOT going
with him when he was willing. She had all manner of school-based angst and
considerations about the relationship. Kirby had none of them.
<< To engage in risky behavior without harm doesn't lessen actual risk.
It just lessens our perception of risk (which perversely may result in more
exposure to it.)>>
I understand what you mean mathematically, but how does it work for you in
the real world?
Do you drive your car when the tires are getting bald?
Do you drive in the snow when it's less than life or death?
Have you ever exceeded the speed limit?
Did your lack of harm lessen the actual risk?
<< Not sure you've heard me, though. I get the feeling
you're in some other argument you've had before>>
I'm writing to hundreds of people. Maybe you were writing to just one.
The list isn't designed for that.
<< Like your riff about "today's highways" -- I don't see much
relationship between what I said and how you responded with something about
living in
the present only. (Maybe you meant to be funny?) >>
There's nothing funny about the fact that we are alive in this moment and
today's life is the only life we can live.
How will a child learn to drive today without today's highways?
<< Today's highways are different than when I learned to drive 30 years
ago. So I have to think about, and deal with, new realities and learning
needs
for my children as drivers, not simply go on auto pilot from my own past and
how I was schooled or parented. >>
Have you not considered your own driving in the past thirty years? Would you
teach them to drive with thirty-year-old visions and thoughts in your head?
Would you parrot what your driver's ed teacher said or what your parents said
(you said "how I was schooled or parented") instead of taking the synthesized
knowledge you possess from all possible sources and the experience of thirty
years and pass THAT on to your children?
<<Also I was a first-born child with a classic
focus on delayed gratification (living in the future) I agree we are here
now,
but not that the present is all we have. It's all pretty seamless to me.>>
I'm a firstborn with a sometimes-irritating amount of detailed recall of
childhood memories, and live seems QUITE seamless to me, yet the only point at
which my feet actually touch the ground is this moment. The past is memory and
the future is speculation. Whining about memory and losing sleep over
speculation only screw up the next breath we take.
In AA (my mom used to go) they very indelicately say "If you're standing with
one foot in the past and one foot in the future, you're pissing all over
today."
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 12/08/2003 2:10:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
sentence of mine about my own concerns for my own children under 14, the sentence
to which you responded with your story about Kirby.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
> So where did you get "under fourteen"?Sigh. I started with it in the first place! It was quite plainly in the
>
sentence of mine about my own concerns for my own children under 14, the sentence
to which you responded with your story about Kirby.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]