Uechi-Ryu.com

I don't always get you Bill. Here we have a case of a lesbian being expelled for doing what lesbians do, where it would be very easy to cry discrimination and demand she get to go back, and as the lone outspoken same sexer on the forums I say it's a matter of the contract with the school and what everyone agreed to and you get all upset because I was "hijacked." I'm still lost and you're still upset about nothing I've actually said, from what I can tell.

"Not just any one, mind you, but one of MY choosing. And I support the right of others to do the same."

Me too. So why are you upset?

"You argue best when you argue my point, Ian"

No Bill. My point from the very beginning. You missed it??

"You don't have to like the contracts that certain people enter in for the benefit of THEIR OWN children."

Ah, but I DO like them. Go back to my first comments. A contract is a contract and if they signed one that's the one parents and kid should follow.

"Do you think the school had a right to kick him permanently from the team, effectively ending his reason for going to the school in the first place?"

Yes I do. As I've said a half dozen times, read the contract. And football players have such a record of ... less ideal conduct than biochem majors, we'll say... and I'm sure this was all laid out for the young man. In his case, you list activities which are illegal at any age, activities which threaten the lives of others, and contributing to reckless behaviors among others. That's a far cry from the activities I mentioned (smoking, speeding with no mention of recklessness--this is but an activity we all engage in) and I specified I was speaking to my opinions about what I would want a school to do, not arguing that schools should change what they do or that no one should be able to seek more restrictive schooling for whomever. Again, what are you upset about?

"So when a Christian school has a student engaged in "un-Christian behavior" outside of school (whatever that is...), don't you think they would be stupid not to punish the student in some way?"

Well, that's a tough question, since Christian behavior runs a huge spectrum from favoring lesbian embracing to lesbian executing, and "in some way" could mean a chastizement to expulsion or corporal punishment. My first comments still stand: read the contract. However, in the imaginary christian school I would run, I wouldn't investigate students for activities outside of school that were generally private and unlikely to affect the school, whether comission (being lesbian) or omission (donating nothing to charity, not volunteering--how many kids they throw out this year for that?). Naturally it matters not how I would run a christian school, however.

"This I find highly insulting, Ian. You are presuming I don't discuss sex with my kids because my views are different from yours. How narrow-minded! How prejudiced your thinking! How uninformed!"

You know what happens when you assume.....

I said that informing your kids they will be punished if they have any kind of sex, and I mean grandly punished since we are talking about jeopardizing their college plans, can discourage them from talking to you and lack of talking = lack of knowledge and that can lead to mistakes. That's true... I didn't say you directly told your kids not to talk to you. I said threatening consequences decreases openness. You really think that's not a valid concern? Teens steal condoms because they're embarassed to even buy them from strangers some of the time. Of course worrying they might get slammed for having sex can discourage them from talking to their parents about sex! If you think otherwise, you haven't been observing adolescents as closely as you think. I for one wasn't going to approach my parents with any questions unless I knew not just that they hadn't said anything homophobic... not just that they accepted questions... but only if I knew they would receive the questions happily and celebrate my life as much as any regular kid. I didn't get that sense of safety, and I didn't ask or tell for 5 years--that's just plain wise, according to my friend who came out to his parents and lost all his college funding. You want openness with your kids, you make them feel safe being open. (My parents, I should point out, are sweethearts, so that just goes to show.)

"Focus on your own story a bit, Ian. The more you do so, the more you'll understand what I'm trying to communicate."

Just spell this out Bill. I've been saying reasonable things (a contract is a contract; my not so weird preferences for the role of a school; adults who break and broke laws have to acknowledge the effects of that behavior on discussions with the kids; importance of sex ed) from the beginning and you're acting as if I'm quite thick. Just what are you upset about?

_________________
--Ian

I don't know, Ian, but you can tell me if it pleases you.

Certainly I didn't define "Christian behavior," did I? And it is true that it runs the gamut from sects that discourage dancing and drinking to those that are fairly permissive and laissez faire. There are those who use Christianity to support capital punishment, and those who use the same to condemn it. There are those who preach turning the cheek and those who encourage crusades against infidels.

What we're talking about in this thread is a Christian school that chose to expel female students for admitting to having an underage sexual relationship. In my opinion the fact that it was lesbian was more for media effect - kind of like the old favorite soap opera plot of the priest having an affair when I was a lad. It makes for a titillating story. But what-ever... I'm perfectly happy with what this PRIVATE school chose to do with the students because I would not be surprised to find a random Christian school opposed to underage and/or same-sex sexual activity amongst its students. The fact that this group chooses not to have members that engage in this kind of sexual activity with minors doesn't bother me any more than the Yankees choosing not to employ players who choose to grow their hair long. As I see it, these students can take their education to another institution, and in fact get an education in the public school system for free. And it doesn't make sense to me that someone would want to be associated with an organization that had different values.
Whether or not someone wants to give this Christian school a difficult time for being "homophobic" is IMO a waste of energy. I would bet you a dinner of your choice that there exists a contract of some sort that would make any legal challenge a waste of time.

Meanwhile if Disney or Intel want to hire gays and lesbians adults and give them health benefits on par with married heterosexual couples, well I'm cool with that too.

The real disagreement between us, Ian, is the degree to which you and I think children and adolescents should be having sex. I think this is something that isn't a matter of fashion or opinion. I believe it's something that borders on a universal right. In my opinion, children and adolescents have the right to be children and adolescents. They have the right to grow up and mature before engaging in behavior consistent with an individual who should be completely self-sufficient.

I think it's wrong not to ask adolescents to delay these choices until they are capable of independently dealing with the consequences that come with them. And quite frankly it's cruel to saddle individuals and groups of individuals with these responsibilities too early in life. It's just as cruel ask asking a child or adolescent to work full time and support the family. And yes, there was a time when that was done. My great grandfather in fact fought for the Union Army at age 14. He did it out of necessity (to avoid starvation), and not because it was the right thing to do.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

I'll put the maturity and knowledge of my kids up against any more liberal parents on the issue - in spite of the fact that my boys know there would be consequences for engaging in such activity too early. And I can't help that other parents - sexually liberal or conservative - aren't informed enought to teach their children. The fact of the matter is education and "behavior modification" are two completely independent entities.

Here's the real deal though. If kids don't do it in the first place, then there's no issue.

By the way, does it bother you that female teachers now are going to jail for having sex with minors? This used to be the fantasy of many adolescent boys. (It certainly was of mine...) There's actually a fashionable description for the activity - tadpoling. It seems to me that if we're going to be dinging adults that severely for being involved in half the equation...

- Bill

Bill, I'm glad you agree with my repeated comments about the importance of the contract in this case. Vigorously continue to agree with me all you want. But I'm not going to bet you a dinner that you're right when you're repeating my arugments. I wouldn't know how to decide the victor.

"I don't know, Ian, but you can tell me if it pleases you."

"The real disagreement between us, Ian, is the degree to which you and I think children and adolescents should be having sex. I think this is something that isn't a matter of fashion or opinion."

Here's what you're mad about: you're upset because you think I believe adolescents "should be having sex." It's a lot more complicated than that. Suffice to say this claim is inflated to say the least. As a small example of how some of my statements have been perhaps misread, the statement with which you "disagree wholeheartedly" merely says that telling children severe consequences follow sexual activity "CAN" discourage them from speaking with parents. You'd posit that this has never happened? Almost any teen will tell you mere embarassment is enough for some, never mind actual consequences.

PS: I'm glad your system is working for your boys; I'm basing my views on what I would think would work for most adolescents. I've no interest in finding out what they do and don't know about hymens

_________________
--Ian

Severe consequence? I don't see minors getting kicked out of a private high school that doesn't see eye-to-eye with their behavior a "severe consequence." I think it's just a life lesson and perhaps a good wakeup call. These girls will grow up to be women, do fine in another school in spite of the setbacks, and find a more accepting place in the world once they are adults making adult decisions and choices.

It's all good.

And won't it be a better world when this just becomes another story about teens getting in trouble for having sex? That wouldn't make press today and this shouldn't either. It should be like any other discipline matter with a minor, and frankly their privacy is more important than a voyeuristic world's "right to know."

Bill

I got to thinking about this more in the past few days...

Someone who posts online a lot was talking to me about this thread. She said something that made me chuckle - "The best parents in the world are those who don't have any kids." And this of course came from a parent who has the battle scars to prove it.

It's not like someone who doesn't have kids can't possibly comment. In fact there are professionals who give advice to parents all the time who themselves don't have kids or maybe aren't even married. It's just that the vicissitudes of life have a way of imparting wisdom that can triumph over logical stalemates.

So there I was driving the kids to their respective private schools this morning, trying to figure out exactly why I was so sure of my support of the private school in question here. Maybe I don't share their specific view about any one social cause. But I didn't see this as a reason to pull any trump cards. To me, it seemed obvious and logical, and all the newsworthy soap opera crap was a distraction.

And then it hit me...

You see... Here we have a young girl (or young girls) who choose to have a PDA moment. (For those of you who don't love, PDA = Public Display of Affection) Let's just tune out all the static for a second. PDAs generally get people watching. Some think it is sweet; some thing it is annoying. But you most definitely get peoples' attention.

Hmm...

And then when confronted about the PDA moment, what does this young girl do? Well... She volunteers that she was intimate with another person. Mind you, this is an adolescent. Mind you, that any boy or girl with a valid adolescent license wouldn't IN THEIR RIGHT MIND admit to doing things that they know they shouldn't do. They may not lie about it, but they certainly don't volunteer the truth.

What's wrong with this picture???

From a "been there, done that" parent, I'll tell you what the deal is here. More than a couple of kids going to private school don't particularly care to be there. My son has had classmates who intentionally screwed up because they didn't want all the extra homework and extra hassel they get when being sent to a private school by their parents. Yes, they INTENTIONALLY screw up.

So why would two girls engage in PDA, and then volunteer information that any betting person would say will cause them to be removed from the school in question? You do the math.

And any parent whose had a kid in private school and has seen classmates fall by the wayside for various reasons knows what I'm talking about here.

So... Why is it necessary for ANYONE to be talking about injustice? From my point of view, the girls got what they wanted, and the school got what it wanted. The parents may not be happy that their kids chose to mess up like that but...

"It" happens.

- Bill

Meta:
Just an interesting factoid.
According to data from agencies across the entire world, the age of consent is on the average, 16.

Apparently as far as most of the world is concerned, maturity is different than age.

In any case, this issue is not about breaking the law, but rather,
It is about possible discrimination by a certain religious group which is often generally and notoriously known for displaying intolerances.


I think the original information, as presented, was lacking details in order to assess the issue properly.
So far, we all are making many assumptions here, some of which are:

1. Was there a contract or policy existing which contained specific language that certain explicit actions would result in grounds for dismissal?
2. IF so, is that contract or policy indeed even legally binding?
3. WOULD such said contract be written to encompass both sexes, and unilaterally cover all orientations, creeds, colors and faiths, as set forth by adherances to the 14th Amendment to WHICH NO ONE is above or below?
4. Would the school have acted as such if it were a secular school?
5. Would the school have acted as such if the participants were of usual genders?
6. What were the methods of inquiry used by the school staff to assess if indeed a contract rule had been compromised, and was there a fair and accurate oversight and perhaps appeal process unless specifically stated otherwise in such an agreement? Was it he said, she said? (Or she said, she said?)

We just don't know.
Without the answer to the questions above, there can be no real discussion on the validity or even moral/legal implications of the subject.

More input is required.



Meta: Being a Liberal or conservative has nothing to do with the issue. The logic is faulty, not to mention that you make it sound as if other parents who do not agree with you precisely are simply "uninformed".

I daresay, this speaks volumes.




Meta: A few sensationalized cases in the press, and suddenly it's some sort of epidemic?
(Not your words exactly, but the thought stream was there even if you did not directly say it.)

...And am I reading right when you report that you elude to the ideas of holding to account and perhaps punishing minors when they are sexually abused by adults?
Lastly, to suggest that the girls performed the act merely to escape going that particular school is indeed possible, but again, given the lack of proper information on the subject, the jump in conclusion is reaching at best, and utterly ludicrous at playing the "blame the victim" game, at worst.
~To these last two items I say: "You simply must be 'shrooming, sir!"

_________________
There's a bit of Metablade in all of us.

You argue best when you argue my point, Meta.

A common pejudice against parents who would discourage children or adlolescents against early sexual activity is that the children of said parents are more likely to be uninformed (or will have no good adult to talk with on these serious matters) and therefore will make bad choices when rebelliously engaging in said activity. But don't take my word for it, Meta. READ THE THREAD. It's right there in black and white.

It's enough to make you want to post something like this.

Imagine that!


To whom are you addressing this question, Meta, and for what purpose?

If you are in a fact-seeking mode, I'll be happy to help you. It's my understanding that the rate of sexual predatory activity by adult females has remained fairly constant. (I can quote some statistics if you like) It's well known that reporting sensationalist articles in the press can lead to distortions of reality from people who don't choose to check the data. This is partially why many people fear flying in planes, but won't think twice about driving in rush-hour traffic. It's why women fear rape from strangers, but won't think twice about getting stinking drunk with someone they "know."

And for the benefit of your fact-seeking mode... The purpose of bringing the subject up was to juxtapose adult females being sent to jail for having sex with minors vs. how the population views minors having sex with minors. It's a comparison worthy of some considerable thought. Who is the victim? Who is committing a crime? What punishment(s) (if any) matches the crime(s)?

Not at all, Meta. And I speak from personal experience.

I grew up in a family where 8 kids were sent both to religious AND non-religious private schools. And I now have 2 kids in private schools. When said schools are highly competitive, it is a common - yes, common - ploy for a student to sabotage his/her status in the school by one of many possible ways. A common scenario (and I can name names) is for a kid to have friends in the neighborhood who have more free time. The private school kid resents the extra pressure, extra work, higher expectations, and lower grades. (S)he would rather kick back and maybe "party" more, have more free time, have fewer social restrictions, and get better grades for it all. And (s)he may actually prefer the kids in his/her social group than the ones in the private school in question.

I have been there, done that, although I asked to go to another private school, and for unique reasons. Long story, but an interesting one if you really want to get in my head here. And it's not what you think based upon the prejudgements I read in your posts.

As for your list of legal details, I can tell you from personal experience that challenges parents make to rule enforcement don't generally get past a conversation with their lawyers. Any parent who would consider such a challenge obviously was too stupid to read the material that the school made them sign.

I happen to be one of those crazy people who actually READS what I am asked to sign. Go figure...

If this is your idea of shrooming, then you must be consuming some bad schit. Sir...

Oh and one last thing. Whenever I see a case of someone committing an inappropriate act (sexual activity of ANY kind between minors) and said person is referred to as a "victim" when consequences are dealt out, it just makes me shake my head. To me, I see it as a disease of a modern society that chooses to blame others rather than taking responsibility for actions and choices.

I could go on and on about this. But I believe this mentality has been the most cruel thing our society has done to the poor. We have enabled behavior which guarantees that generations of the disadvantaged will be slaves to poverty.

- Bill

Meta: It is said that the first signs of aging are when one begins to repeat themselves.



Meta: So just to be clear, are you saying that the above is or is not your position on the subject?



Meta: Your statement eluded by content and form that you were commenting on what you perceive as a some sort of mounting issue in society. If that was not your position, then why mention it at all? If indeed that was your position, then I disagree with that point. As you said yourself, the statistics have remained fairly consistent and additionally, had nothing to do with the topic, but rather can be seen as another tactic used to justify your point, which is what any good debater does, and you do generally debate well when you choose to, however it is just really a matter of what others can and will recognize and as well, allow one to get away with, myself included.




Note: This is Argumentum ad numerum.

Meta: And few people exist which are less guilty of this.



Meta: Again, the logic here is misplaced, in this case, in the form of Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, and furthermore, it is entirely your opinion based upon your perceptions.

If we examine the technical aspects on what you exactly wrote here, we can reveal some items which the reader must accept if we are to be swayed by it, which are, according to what you wrote:

1. All woman fear rape from strangers.
2. All women drink excessively to the point of "stinking drunkenness."
3. All women are eager to be sexually promiscuous with familiar men when intoxicated.

Classic Dicto simpliciter

I have a feeling that this is not what you meant?, Yes?
Yet know it or not, it reveals a bit about your feelings on the various subjects involved, per the Socratic Method.




Meta: Excellently put!
(and now I'll poke you with a pointy stick and say:)
"There, you see? was that so hard?"




Meta: I would be highly interested to read of your personal experience on the subject.



Meta: Aren't you are assuming that the school had such a contract in place, and that it also specifically mentioned the behavior?
Where would that argument be if they had not?



Meta: Ah....such empathy for your fellow man in that wonderfully bombastic statement.
I feel simply all warm and toasty!

I'd be willing to bet that there has been at least one time in your life where you did not thoroughly peruse and understand a contract before you signed it and thereby committed yourself to it.




Meta: In the case of minors, they are defined in our society by attributes such as:

1. They are not considered adults.
2. They cannot vote.
3. They are absolved from entering binding contracts without an adult co-signer.
4. They may not engage in sexual activity.
5. Unless emancipated, they must be under the care of a parent or legal guardian
6. They do not have the same rights or protections under the law as adults do, in some cases, more, in others, less.
7. They may not consume alcohol or tobacco
8. They must meet certain legal attendance requirements for school.
9. There are wholly separate courts and laws pertaining separately to minors.
etcetera, etcetera.

With respect to the age of consent,
is the age at which a person is considered to be capable of legally giving informed consent to sexual acts with another person. In most jurisdictions, the Age of Consent is violated when an adult has intercourse with an individual who has not reached that jurisdiction's AOC.

These special treatments are put in place because generally it is considered that minors, not being considered full adults in mental capacity, cannot always make unimpaired decisions themselves especially in cases when potentially "life altering" decisions are presented.
This is especially true in cases involving sexual contact with an adult and a minor, and why often among other charges, "corrupting a minor" is often attached.
As well, "Statutory rape" (which is considered equivalent to rape, both in severity and sentencing) is seen as such due to society determining that due to a minor's undeveloped mental state with respect to providing fully formed thought processes and decisions, they thusly are placed in a status of being unable to give consent, and therefore again, society considers sexual contact with them to be equivalent to rape regardless of the minor's consent.

Therefore, if one cannot give consent, even legally, there clearly is a crime, and as such, a perpetrator , and a victim.
In a just, reasonable and mature society, we do not "punish" victims of crime, rather we perform judicative process on the perpetrators.

I rest my case, your honor.





Meta: I'm not certain what it is you are attempting to say or correlate here, could you please expand a bit?

_________________
There's a bit of Metablade in all of us.

Interesting thread. Personally I'm of the opinion that the choice of whether and what sexual behaviors to engage in is one that a significant portion of adolecents have good enough judgement to make. While it's all well and good to refer to studies showing development in brain centers related to judgement, I think the more important question is whether it's critically neccesary for an individual to reach their theoretical apex of reason before choosing to have sex. I would argue that not only is it not neccesary, it's almost irrelevant.

For one thing, I see no evidence that the degree to which age affects judgement is more significant than individual variance. There is no shortage of irresponsible sexual behavior to be found among, say, graduate students, 30-something club-goers and so on. Yet there are many, many adolescents who engage in sex acts safely and without any apalling consequences. Are adolescents likely to have less refined judgement than someone in their 30s? Of course. Does that mean that all adolescents need to be prohibitted from sex with each other? I would say no.

For another, there are many decisions adolescents are expected to make that are at least as far-reaching and weighty as whether or not to have sex. In a lesbian relationship, for example, it's probably safer to stay home and have sex than to get in a car to go on a date. Adolescents get jobs, have checking accounts and routinely do things that have potentially disasterous results if they make a mess of it. Sex is a significant decision, certainly, but it's not the be-all and end-all of decision-making.

_________________
- Justin Powell

Meta: I agree to an extent but I am certain that there is data out there to suggest, at least in some areas, that judgment is indeed less developed in certain younger age groupings, but the question perhaps is at exactly which band of age groups?
Low teens? High teens? None or all of the above?

However, certainly one does not require a study of sort to show that as one works backward and approaches the single digit years, plainly it can be observed that child is less likely to have a fully developed *anything*, least of all, mental decision making processes.

_________________
There's a bit of Metablade in all of us.

{Admin Hat == on}

While the mental jousting has been entertaining...

PLEASE try to take things down a notch. There are more than a few comments that are walking a very fine line IMNSHO (and that's the only one that counts in this regard).

In other words, PLAY NICE!

Take care and be good to each other...

In dwelling, live close to the ground. In thinking, keep to the simple. In conflict, be fair and generous. In governing, don't try to control. In work, do what you enjoy. In family life, be completely present.

~Lao Tzu

_________________
There's a bit of Metablade in all of us.

Sorry about the broken furniture, boss. We'll be more careful.

But this is like so many similar discussions in that minds are so rarely changed. Folks seem to have attitudes, and engage in discussions which rationalize their own points of view. And yet I often wonder as the tone of the discussion rises and falls if any minds are ever changed. Probably not, which then leads to more discussions, tangents, creation of strawman arguments, etc., etc.

Meta

I'm at a loss as to how to respond to your post since I see you discussing something that doesn't seem germaine to or an accurate representation of my thoughts and feelings on the matter.

Perhaps brother Ian summed it up pretty well when saying it's ultimately a contractual issue. And we can discuss semantics and opinions all we want but... It's a group of people who created an alternate (NOT mainstream or required) educational venue. They created their own rules, and set the consequences for those rules. Read the rules, read the contract, and see if they are relevant, legal, and binding.

Anything else is IMO just a reason for someone to choose or NOT choose that school as an alternate to the public educational system. I may or may not like a particular school's rules and overall mission statement. But I'll generally support their right to have their own sandbox to play in if people want to use their own money to create that sandbox. There are exceptions of course. But for the most part, it's none of my business if I don't choose to participate.

I'm also a big, big believer in a parent's right to raise kids his/her own way. I don't need no village, if you know what I mean. I don't need society telling me what values to impart in my kids. That's my right as a parent. And in my view it's GOOD if there is disagreement amongst parents. Those parents can conceive and raise their own kids to conquer the world in a manner of their choosing - so long as nobody breaks any laws.

The kids will get exposure to the rest of the world's opinions soon enough.

- Bill

Meta: As long as such an organization practices within the policies and behavior within the law of the land, and does not attempt to hold and enforce it's own values as higher than that law, then as free peoples, it is their right to do so.



Meta: As with all things, there must always exist opposites.
How would Dark define itself as such, if not for the Light?

_________________
There's a bit of Metablade in all of us.

Bill, you are still talking about how you really support the school here. If you were relaying this concern to me, again, I've supported the school in any relevant contract issues from the beginning.

You are worried that I believe parents who "discourage" adolescents from having sex will have less informed kids and that this is a prejudice. Well:
--abstinence only education doesn't improve abstinence related outcomes; it may decrease use of condoms when kids make mistakes.
--"discourage" is not what I said; I said threaten severe punishment. People "discourage" behavior by acting as role models and making the case for abstinence, and I sure have never come out against those things. I've said my opinion, which is just an opinion, is that parents shouldn't lead their kids to fear severe punishments if they do have sex (even responsibly). Let's agree to disagree about that.
--Yes, having your education interrupted at the end, potentially changing which school you go to and putting off your education for a year if graduation is delayed (which would cost you the difference in a year's wages between your no -high school diploma wage and a college educated wage, in other words at least tens of thousands of dollars) is a "severe punishment." You discount the opinions of nonparents here, but even *I* know that a pimple is a medical crisis when you are 17; having your school knocked off track could be an atom bomb.
(Remember that japanese girl crushed to death trying to sneak in thru the closing high school gate because she didn't want to be LATE??)

Boundaries. You support em. Kids test rules. Yes. But if you're going to hint that this kid might be TRYING to get sent back to public school, don't you have to admit that you'd be giving her exactly what she wanted by going along with the plan? Food for thought.

"I'm also a big, big believer in a parent's right to raise kids his/her own way. I don't need no village, if you know what I mean. I don't need society telling me what values to impart in my kids."

You know, you're a good parent. The catch in generalizing your argument is that it also applies to the mormon parents who were marrying off their daughters to 40 - 50 year old polygamists in their early teens--not long ago, and in the name of religion. How do you draw the line in the behavior the parents can stipulate? To expand the matter a little and extend it to adults (at the risk of diluting our thread):

"Whenever I see a case of someone committing an inappropriate act (sexual activity of ANY kind between minors) and said person is referred to as a "victim" when consequences are dealt out, it just makes me shake my head. To me, I see it as a disease of a modern society that chooses to blame others rather than taking responsibility for actions and choices."

Would you characterize lesbians stoned to death or adulterers executed or men at a gay function rounded up for hard labor after a sham trial in the middle east as victims? I sure do. That's because I have a greater respect for my own moral compass than the laws in those countries; those are not just consequences or a reflection of local statute.

_________________
--Ian