6th Graders Had Sex During Class - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-19-2007, 10:30 AM   #91
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 06:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
[B]

Yes you're right, he did. It's way too early in a Monday morning But he also mentioned what kind of parents those kids must have. And I do have to wonder about that. Like I said, I understand that kids can still act out in certain ways in spite of even great parenting.
and what's so crazy about his "point" is that this, apparently, happened in Indiana.

jesus-lovin', Red Red Red indiana.



[q]No way in my opinion can 12 year olds have the emotional and psychological capacity to make mature decisions about having sex. Yes adults have unsafe and meaningless sex, but most adults are far better equipped emotionally than any 12 year old could ever be. A 12 year old has not progressed to the point of being ready for the all the ramifications of sex and sexual relationships, not matter how we try to put adult characteristics on younger and younger kids. [/q]

i agree. and i remember two kids in my jr. high who had sex in 8th grade, they were 13 or so, perhaps 14. we were all rather stunned at the news (and of course this happened after school), but that to me seems a different issue than here. two very young teenagers having sex is one thing, two kids having sex in the classroom (!!!) is a different action entirely, i think.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-19-2007, 02:40 PM   #92
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 11:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


It's not as if they can make us wake up tomorrow and think being obese and unhealthy is sexy.
Gosh, it sure worked with smoking.

But this is off-topic.
__________________

__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 03-19-2007, 02:46 PM   #93
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 05:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


Gosh, it sure worked with smoking.

But this is off-topic.
Yeah, smoking didn't have 100s of years history behind it or anything.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 03-19-2007, 02:54 PM   #94
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 06:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Yeah, smoking didn't have 100s of years history behind it or anything.
And that part about nicotine being addictive...
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 03-19-2007, 02:55 PM   #95
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 05:15 AM
No, it's all the medias fault.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 03-19-2007, 03:25 PM   #96
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 12:15 PM
Well, let's put it this way:
Yes, there is manipulation though advertising creating a demand, and yes, there is the consumer who is responsible for what is getting produced by deciding what he buys.

You can neither say there is never manipulation, nor the consumer is fully respnsible.

When it comes to children, this manipulation is very easy.

Just walk through a small market or shop. All the sweets and little toys are just above the ground. And why? Because children see them and immediately want them. So they beg to get it.

Every store is made up in a very complicated system that manipulates you. They use special colours, special smells and put everyhing so that you are forced to go through every lane. And at the cashier they have these little thinks like Mars, Snickers or Milky Way bars and all so you buy them spontaneously.

Take a look around in your room, what you've got there.
Many of these items weren't demanded by yourself, but they were developed, produced and through advertisement they got you to think that you need these items.

Nobody in the marketing or business sector would ever say there is no manipulation.

But still it doesn't take the responsiblity from the consumer. Through his buying he decides what gets produced.

It goes hand in hand
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 03-19-2007, 03:29 PM   #97
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega


Take a look around in your room,




It goes hand in hand

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-19-2007, 03:31 PM   #98
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 06:15 AM
what i'm finding interesteing, and this is a huge jump in speculation but bear with me, is that most of the anti-social behavior that we see being blamed on "secular progressives" -- early sex, out of wedlock pregnancies -- tend to happen in the red states (compare the out-of-wedlock birthrates in, say, MS to MA), yet the blame for such social maladies is focused on the "secular progressives" of the blue states, or the evil advertising executives of super blue Madison Avenue (who probably vote republican for lower taxes). so it's the children of the believers who emulate the values of the secular progressives, yet the children of the secular progressives who do a better job of meeting the standards of the believers.

kinda weird, no?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-19-2007, 03:38 PM   #99
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 12:15 PM
The kids of the "secular progressives" rebel in that they are acting like believers, and the kids of believer rebel by acting like those atheists who have the devil inside


Quote:
Originally posted by deep





Don't get it
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 03-19-2007, 03:40 PM   #100
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 06:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega
Well, let's put it this way:
Yes, there is manipulation though advertising creating a demand, and yes, there is the consumer who is responsible for what is getting produced by deciding what he buys.

You can neither say there is never manipulation, nor the consumer is fully respnsible.

When it comes to children, this manipulation is very easy.

Just walk through a small market or shop. All the sweets and little toys are just above the ground. And why? Because children see them and immediately want them. So they beg to get it.

Every store is made up in a very complicated system that manipulates you. They use special colours, special smells and put everyhing so that you are forced to go through every lane. And at the cashier they have these little thinks like Mars, Snickers or Milky Way bars and all so you buy them spontaneously.

Take a look around in your room, what you've got there.
Many of these items weren't demanded by yourself, but they were developed, produced and through advertisement they got you to think that you need these items.

Nobody in the marketing or business sector would ever say there is no manipulation.

But still it doesn't take the responsiblity from the consumer. Through his buying he decides what gets produced.

It goes hand in hand


this is all very true, but has more to do with Capitalism and the buy-buy-buy mentality than it does with "the media."

and i feel i can speak with some authority on this issue -- yes, the media is giving you what they think you want, but they also do quite a bit of research to support whatever decisions they make (and i defer to an earlier post from Yolland about how "the media" is a meaningless phrase, and "the media" is really a bunch of disparate groups who are using a similar medium to get their particular message across). i get quite dismayed when we get notes back from the client about how certain things need to be dumbed down, or how if were talking about an international subject we have to use American points of reference ("say that the new lake created by the Yangtze dam will be the length of Arizona, don't give us the actual numbers of kilometers"), or other such stuff. i find it quite disheartening just how low expectations are set for the viewer, but since television is about ratings, god forbid something on TV not be for everyone. again, it's capitalism. you want ratings? make it easy and sugary enough so that no one is going to change the channel. make it about YOU! THE VIEWER!

and so i'm not sure where else to go with this, but our bigger enemy is a wildly consumptive culture rather than whatever "values" one things are being promoted by "the media."

and the lack of values that are going to help you think it's okay to have sex in class have nothing to do with sexuality.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-19-2007, 03:42 PM   #101
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega




Don't get it
I thought you were looking in my room

sorry, I'm derailing the thread
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-19-2007, 04:01 PM   #102
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 12:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




this is all very true, but has more to do with Capitalism and the buy-buy-buy mentality than it does with "the media."

and i feel i can speak with some authority on this issue -- yes, the media is giving you what they think you want, but they also do quite a bit of research to support whatever decisions they make (and i defer to an earlier post from Yolland about how "the media" is a meaningless phrase, and "the media" is really a bunch of disparate groups who are using a similar medium to get their particular message across). i get quite dismayed when we get notes back from the client about how certain things need to be dumbed down, or how if were talking about an international subject we have to use American points of reference ("say that the new lake created by the Yangtze dam will be the length of Arizona, don't give us the actual numbers of kilometers"), or other such stuff. i find it quite disheartening just how low expectations are set for the viewer, but since television is about ratings, god forbid something on TV not be for everyone. again, it's capitalism. you want ratings? make it easy and sugary enough so that no one is going to change the channel. make it about YOU! THE VIEWER!

and so i'm not sure where else to go with this, but our bigger enemy is a wildly consumptive culture rather than whatever "values" one things are being promoted by "the media."

and the lack of values that are going to help you think it's okay to have sex in class have nothing to do with sexuality.

Yes, that's right.
Just wanted to step in and make the point that we are not entirely free of manipulation.

Of course research has to be done first to get at least a hint what could be succesful, but then they manipulate the consumers to actually buy it to some extent.

And no one is ever free of this manipulation.

The media really is a phrase one shouldn't use when trying to figure out reasons for some problems, just as any other single thing never is the answer.

It is the media, the society, the parents, the friends, the culture, the school and so on, not one of them.

In Germany we always get both first the figure and then they compare it. For example when their is some bush fire somewhere, then they say it's e.g. 21,000km² or about the size of Hesse (not Herman ).

I can understand that as it's easier to realize just how much it is instead of just having a figure.

But of course information gets boiled down so much sometimes. For example a documentation about a dam in Mexico by the Discovery Channel that was made so simple, and commented in such an easy language it was hilarious. More like kids TV than some documentation for adults.



Quote:
Originally posted by deep


I thought you were looking in my room

sorry, I'm derailing the thread
You never know

Nice TV set by the way
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 03-20-2007, 01:53 AM   #103
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 10:15 PM
I don't think we need to point the finger anywhere but squarely at the kids and their family themselves. You know what - not every kid growing up is a little innocent cherub just waiting for the big bad media to swoop in and corrupt them, sometimes there are so kids, where nothing works on them. Maybe their parents wern't around (quite likely - therefore boredom lead on to other activities), maybe something happened to them in early childhood, or maybe the just have that personality where they want to go out and rebel, have sex, be stupid etc etc. Not saying that we can't CHANGE it with hard work, but sometimes kids are just naughty because of how they are - they want to push the boundaries etc, they mature at 10/11 early then the others and therefore with early maturity (physically, obviously not emotionally) comes added risks.

In 1994 I was 12 and went to a party with friends. The parents were up in the bedroom watching TV and to all our surprise two people at the party went to the boiler room in the basement and had sex thinking it was cool! Both of them were quite physically mature and wanted to prove a point or somesuch, but still even 12 years ago year 7's were having sex. Only them, no one else in our year did, so its still a small populace, therefore in my long winded way, im tryng to say that it is not 'external' factors because we are all exposed to it, rather more internal psychologial factors.
__________________
dazzlingamy is offline  
Old 03-20-2007, 10:06 AM   #104
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 06:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy
You know what - not every kid growing up is a little innocent cherub just waiting for the big bad media to swoop in and corrupt them,


agreed. but some parents seem to need to maintain this illusion for themselves. it's quite understandable and human to think, "not my kid," and then when it is your kid, you think, "something must have made him do it," or, "the secular progressives made him have sex in the classroom."
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-20-2007, 11:47 AM   #105
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 04:15 AM
Well maybe they learned it from here.

Quote:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2964814

Pair Sentenced for Sex in Front of Girl

RI Mom, Boyfriend Sentenced for Having Sex in Front of Child to Teach Her About Sex

PROVIDENCE, R.I. Mar 19, 2007 (AP)— A mother and her boyfriend were sentenced to three years probation on Monday for having intercourse in front of the woman's 9-year-old daughter to teach the girl about sex.

Chief Family Court Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah Jr. sentenced Rebecca Arnold of Woonsocket, and her boyfriend, David Prata, to probation and a three-year suspended sentence after they pleaded no contest to a felony child neglect charge.

The judge said he wanted to spare the young girl, now 11, from testifying, according to Michael Healey, a spokesman for Attorney General Patrick Lynch.

During an investigation by the state child welfare authorities, Prata, 33, said he and Arnold, 36, had sex "all the time" in front of the child and that "we don't believe in hiding anything." He told an investigator that they did not force the girl to watch.

The allegations surfaced in December 2004 after the girl went to live with her father in North Adams, Mass., after spending the summer with her mother in Woonsocket.

A teacher called a child abuse hotline to report that the girl said her mother and her boyfriend had sex in front of her. Woonsocket police arrested the couple February 2005.


Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
__________________

__________________
Justin24 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com