# ChatRoom Anxiety & Paranoia (CRAP)



## Dan Frank (Apr 3, 2002)

I considered posting this as a reply in the "Talking Dirty" thread, but decided to make it a new thread for a few reasons, A) I don't believe one really needs to read that entire thread to understand my point, B) because this is not aimed at anyone specific within that thread, but rather an argument against a widespread mentality, C) posting new threads gives me a sense of power, and (the most important reason by far) D) this is one more step on my road to "Princess Post-A-Lot" status.

I would first like to ackowledge the fact that this is generally understood to be a 'support' forum, and this thread is neither asking for personal support nor giving support to another.

However, I _am_ asking for support... support for teens worldwide, to be assisted, rather than hindered, in their own quest for support and understanding through the net... a quest not unlike that which brought all of you here.

Those of you who _have_ read the "DD Talking Dirty" thread (and I recommend it, if only to see me posting a lot







) will remember a prevalent idea. It states that the Internet _might_ be safe, or at least an acceptable risk (due to the abundance of knowledge and how readily available means for censorship are), but the real-time communication medium known collectively as "Chat Rooms" is another story altogether. I have dubbed this irrational fear: ChatRoom Anxiety & Paranoia, hereafter referred to as CRAP.

Those who have read the afore-mentioned thread will likely also remember the fact that I took exception to such a belief, and put forth my reasons. Why, then, am I posting here? Is it because I have nothing better to do? Well, yes. Do I want to beat a dead horse? Almost certainly. But there is more to it than that. First of all, I did not cover several important points. Second, those points I did cover were scattered throughout my other opinions, specifically opinions about teens and sex.

For the reasons above, I hereby present my comprehensive (to me, anyway) argument against the CRAP mentality. Before reading, I suggest grabbing a snack and blinking repeatedly. This is a lengthy one.

I will attempt to refute or minimize the popular myths surrounding chat rooms in a straightforward list, since I am far too lazy to present it in a snazzy essay format.

*1) Talking in Chat Rooms is 'dangerous'*

By far the most prevalent theory in the CRAP belief structure, this idea postulates that 'perverts' patrol chatrooms, looking for teens to prey on. This is most definitely the subject I checked in on the most in the previous thread, but I will present all of those points (and maybe more!) in one section, here, for ease of reading.

*1a) Teenage Intelligence:* Perhaps the most overlooked reason the danger of chatrooms is minimal is simply the intelligence of teenagers. Most computer-using teenagers are well aware that rapists exist, and, like anyone, have access to the net.

A common stereotype of the computer age is the computer savvy teen and clueless parent... this may be an exaggeration, but it is an exaggeration of a simple statistic fact. Most teens know of the dangers of the net, and it is likely that those few who don't either A) also have no interest, or B) could be enlightened by a few informative words from a parent.

Statistics show that the greatest danger age is 11-14.
(800-suspected-internet-related child abductions in 1998. This fact is taken from the internet protection company Symantec, however, and so is somewhat suspect. The real figure may be lower)

Statistics of missing children, from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, NCIC, are as follows:

Juvenile&#8230;.. 801,332. This, however, includes things like runaways.
Endangered .106,332, counting most abductions, including ones by parents and such.
and... Involuntary .33,908 cases... this refers to blatant kidnappings.

800 may have sounded high, but when compared to the other statistics it seems somewhat.... lacking

The reason younger teens and preteens are more at risk is, of course, that younger teens are less likely to take as many precautions as older teens. Does this mean they should be banned, and older teens let free? Certainly not. Does this mean their parents should take more interest in what their child is doing online? Yes. Does this mean their parents should discuss safe internet behavior with their child before they reach the 'danger age' of 11? Yes!

*1b) Perv Prevalence:* While chatroom predators are the frequent subjects of magazine articles and horror stories, their actual prevalence is questionable. I just spent several hours entering every possible keyword into google, from internet-related to rape to predator... and got a slew of sites. But not a single one, including government sites about the Child Protection Act, posted a single statistic....a solid number on just how many net predators are even _suspected_ to be out there.

I wonder why....

Since I have been unable to find facts regarding Perv Prevalence, I will take the coward's way out and challenge you to find evidence, actual numerical fact, that supports the CRAP claim of internet rapists being more prevalent than, say, in-person stranger-rapists. (relatively infrequent... rape by someone you know is, statistically, the most likely. Rape by a spouse comes in a close second.)

*1c) The "Virtual Factor":* The simple fact that rapists can't reach through a screen and abduct your teenager. There are no doubt the occasional cracker rapists, who could perform sophisticated technical maneuvers to discern the identity of your teen... but restricting chatroom access in such a situation is somewhat akin to forbidding a teen from taking a shower, for fear they might slip on a bar of soap.

Barring crackers, what threat do net rapists truly pose? Verbal abuse or heckling may be a possibility... but it's also a possibility when doing anything that involves human interaction.

All that remains is the fear that your teen might unwittingly go to meet a rapist. This, first of all, ties into 1a: your teen is likely smart enough to take precautions. If you fear your teen lacks the foresight to plan, then I suggest you talk to your teen about the dangers of meeting someone in person. If he or she wants to meet someone in person, it is your duty as a parent to _know_ this, and help take precautions. It is _not_ your duty to forbid them from meeting anyone, nor your right.

*2) Net relationships don't do any good.*
This seems to be the less prevalent CRAP belief, at least on these boards, but it requires addressing because it is even more flawed than the danger beliefs, and it _has_ come up.
I will address this with one primary argument and, if I get around to it, some secondaries.

*2a) The Hypocrisy Syndrome*
Where are we? Unless I'm quite blind, we are communicating in a public forum. And, again, I could be wrong, but I _suspect_ that this forum is designed as a support network, through which you can speak with other mothers and garner advice and simple kind words from people you have never met.

I have several times seen people belittle chatrooms in one breath, then speak of how wonderful their comrades in Mothering are in the next. Does this strike no one as hypocritical? If the friendships you've made in this forum are valid (and I think they most definitely are), then why are the friendships your children make automatically suspect? Automatically dismissed as dangerous, frivolous, or fake? Why is it likely that the people they meet would be predators, but unlikely that those here would have anything but good intentions?

Or is it the real-time aspect? So none of you would like to speak with your friends here in real time? I find that hard to believe.

I find it ironic that those of CRAP mentality would come to an internet forum, to say that teens should under no circumstances be allowed to participate in internet forums.

*2b)My own Experiences:* These, of course, are not valid as arguments. But I needed to have another subset of 2







.
I have made easily 100 friends on the internet, in various forums. These forums have ranged from net-gaming platforms (such as Myth: The Fallen Lords, and Diablo 2), to open chatrooms (a D&D server and an LotR forum, to name a few), to private communicae (specifically: ICQ and AIM), to Message Boards (already made a few here







).

have met, I'd guess, about 15 of my net friends in person, if that. Some of my closest relationships, which have spanned some 4-5 years, have never actually involved in-person communication. However, I would bet my life on their identity. There is no doubt in my mind. I know too much about them, have spoken about too many random inanities, and, for the most part, spoken on the phone. I do not think my experiences are abnormal. I also think that my life would not be nearly as happy as it is if I did not have those friends.

*3) The Mechanics of it All*
It is important to note the mechanics of an internet relationship. Teenage Chatrooms may well hold occasional perverts... but what about private AIM chats with people who, like the above (2b), are known quite well by your teen? What about chat in a net gaming situation? Few people buy video games and spend time on them to lure kids, because more than half the people playin the game are young men anyway. Chat can occur in a variety of places, and banning it indiscriminately is likely not a very good idea.

For these reasons, I believe that attempting to in any way hinder a child's access to chat rooms, rather than assist and inform, to be a decision based upon CRAP. I hope that this list has swept away some, if not all, of your CRAP.

I thank you all for coming this far, and wish you well in all your endeavors, or at least the ones I agree with


----------



## boysrus (Dec 2, 2001)

But NMs daughter WAS participating in sexually explicit behavior. No, it was not with a 45 yo rapist, but it was sexually explicit none the less. If I may speak for Nursing Mother, I would just like to say that one point that you are missing is that she is raising her children in a household that believes that engaging in sexual relationships outside of marriage is a sin. And sexual relationships include "talking dirty" to people on the internet. I understand that in your household, this is not the practice, but I think we should respect the customs that each mothering family chooses.

I think that restricting her daughters chat room acccess was a perfectly justifiable response, as her daughter was given the freedom to use the computer however she saw fit, and she chose to violate the rules of the house by going into chat rooms that directly violate the family's moral code.


----------



## Chanley (Nov 19, 2001)

Dan,

once again I am getting a kick out of you!

I have been on internet chat sites for quite some time. Mostly gardening related stuff mixed with ethnobotany (lots of that actually). I met my husband in an IRC chat that was set up through a discussion board much like this. Many of my best friends I have never laid eyes on. The net and chatrooms have enriched my life beyond belief. Yet, I have never been subjected to internet porn pervs. No more than here.

Actually, I see more pervs here than I have in chat. We have all seen the posts that crop up in the breastfeeding forums. We detect them immediately and go on about our biz, ignoring stupidity.

I was going to bring up the religious issue. It makes a huge difference in POV (point of view) between myself and NM or boysrus.


----------



## Els' 3 Ones (Nov 19, 2001)

Well I have another acronym,

*C*hildren *R*ebel *A*gainst *P*arenting










I must say, Dan, that I hope my children can hold a debate with as much gumption as you do. I have always been a hothead and usually fly willy-nilly without bringing home my point. That's irl. Here on the message board I can ponder at my lesiure what and how I want to respond. I'm learning how to apply this irl and with parenting in particular.

I'm going to respond here - with this caveat -
The original thread involved a 15yo; it is this age and younger that I most refer to when I'm responding. The closer one draws to the age of consent (16 and up, depending where you live) the more maturation has taken place. (We hope)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Dan Frank_
*1) Talking in Chat Rooms is 'dangerous'* ........
*Statistics of missing children, from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, NCIC, are as follows:*
Stats are pretty meaningless to me also. It's 100% if it happens to me. The fact that the numbers aren't out there could also mean that _they just don't know_ how many are out there. That does not lead to the conclusion that there are few, does it?

Quote:

*Net relationships don't do any good.*
I certainly don't think that. I think that life without them is just as good as life with them. I think there are many, many, many places to meet people and develop friendships. Again, I ask, how am I _damaging_ my young teen by keeping them away from a chat room?


----------



## Dan Frank (Apr 3, 2002)

*Boysrus*, one of the reasons (should have clarified, will edit clarifications in) I posted this in a new thread, beyond my several attempts at humor, was that this is not aimed at NM, it is rather because of her. I highly doubt any argument I say will change her mind, nor do I think it would do much good to try. This is a more general discussion of the topic.

As for religion... I agree with you, it does indeed make a difference. But again, note that my argument against CRAP does _not_ specifically address anti-cybersex sentiment. It addresses anti-chatroom sentiment.

If one's religion bars sexual interaction, then certainly cybersex would be anathema (I personally do not believe a parent has the right to force a child to adhere to religious beliefs, but this is _definitely_ not the post for that). It does not follow, however, that all forms of chat be automatically banned for fear that your teens might engage in cybersex. I'll admit my knowledge of the Bible, Q'Ran, and Torah is somewhat lacking, but I don't _believe_ there is a proscription against AIM. ("Thou shalt not chat"?)

*Chanley*, thank you







. See my response above about the religious issue.

*El's*, I prefer to call it *C*hildren who *H*ate *A*sinine *T*enets.









Stats _are_ important. It all relates to the likelihood of something detrimental happening versus the gain, even if the gain is only entertainment. Eating sushi isn't necessary, but damn is it tasty! There's danger in eating sushi, though, isn't there? Will you forbid your kid from eating sushi? I think telling a teen he can, under no circumstances, eat sushi... is ludicrous.

I already acknowledged that the lack of numbers doesn't prove my point. However, one would expect the proponents of the Perv Prevalence theory to at least compose _estimates_. Yet they don't. Why?

You are damaging your teen by irrationaly forbidding an interesting life experience that is certainly no more harmful than riding in a car, and likely safer than eating sushi, too.


----------



## Els' 3 Ones (Nov 19, 2001)

Would you like to explain to me where I am being _irrational?_


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

Dan, Dan, Dan,

You certianly do keep us on our toes!









(ya know if you would have broke that post up into several you would a lot futher along the way to "Posting Princess"







)

Ok it's late and I can't remember what I wanted to say. I am still in shock from the series of explicit porn sites that just popped up on my screen....it took me a good 5 mins to get rid of them all, as my son (19) laughed his head off at me!

I must say I doubt that any of the parents here are forcing their religion on their children. In my experience children that grow up in loving christian homes(or jewish, hindu,etc....) tend to respect and follow that faith while growing up with their loving parents....often embracing their parents religion for life.

Now, about chat rooms. I have said before that we have found them to be a time waster. Not inherintly evil, but for many, simply sucking the ambition out of them. I would not encourage my teens to spend hours on end chatting on the phone or in person with friends either. There is wisdom in moderation and restraint. I prefer to help my kids come to this realization on their own but I respect parents that feel the need for more limits. This is a culture of fast-foods and entertainment. Too much of either will make you puke!!

Well, that is my 2cents worth.


----------



## SummerLover (Nov 19, 2001)

Dan,
Have you heard of Judith Levine? She has a new book out that may interest you.


----------



## Dan Frank (Apr 3, 2002)

Wait a second... either religion is a valid reason for banning chat rooms or it isnt.

If it IS, then that is because the parent is justified in _forcing_ their teen to adhere to their religious principles....

If the parent isn't forcing the child into religion, then the child doesn't need to respect those religious principles, eh?

If a Jewish dad made his kid eat only kosher food, or forbade leavened bread on Passover, would he not be forcing his child to adhere to religious principles?

And yes, SummerLover, recently read about Judith Levine's book in TIME... sounded interesting.

El's, you are being irrational because you are forbidding a mostly-harmless source of vast entertainment and enjoyment because of the slight potential for harm... As i said, it is no different than forbidding the consumption of sushi.


----------



## Els' 3 Ones (Nov 19, 2001)

Ya know, Dan, as much as I would like my children to experience EVERYTHING that there is in the world. Go everywhere, taste, touch, smell, hear it all. Read everything ever written, walk thru all of life...............I have neither that much time with them or money to do that. So I WILL decide some of what is going to happen in my short time in their lives and then they are free to do, go, be whatever.

So, you say because I won't let them do it all, I'm irrational.

Nope. Doesn't fly here.

In fact, at this point, I might postulate that you are being irrational in your defense of a _chatroom_. Perhaps you should take a look inside, Dan, and see why this is soooo important to YOU.


----------



## Chanley (Nov 19, 2001)

Sorry to beat a dead horse, but I thought the real issue was in the forbading not the actual "thing" that was being forbidden. I think Dan's issue (at least the way I am seeing it) is that in forbading your teen to do something a parent is denying them an opportunity.

Well I have said before, regardless, I think forbidding is not the correct way for my house. I want to know WHY the behavior is arising. Many people have "chats" on the computer and it does not get sexual. What would draw your teen to sexually oriented chats? That would be my issue.

I dont see how Dan is being irrational at all, i simply think he is enjoying a debate and feels that for him, the action taken was not conducive to his learning environment.

But I am putting words in Dan's mouth and he obviously fills his own chompers with words far more eloquently than I.


----------



## Els' 3 Ones (Nov 19, 2001)

No, Chanley, my issue in this discussion has been _the chatroom._ Not the computer, or the internet, or sexual discussion for that matter. And as I've stated previously, I don't chat. So if you are saying that I'm forbidding something that I'm doing, think again.

And as for NM's action. If you read the original post again she says that dd seemed relieved to be discovered. And probably relieved to have parent's _irrational_ act to fall back on as an excuse to not chat. It may have got beyond where she was comfortable and she (at 15yo) needed help getting out.

And this horse is very dead. I'm off.


----------



## Dan Frank (Apr 3, 2002)

Both my need to have the last word, and my desire to mutilate corpses (







) has driven me to post yet again.

El, assuming you read this... Chatrooms are an aspect of the larger picture. The point is, forbidding _anything_ as harmless as chatrooms or sushi (which is to say, mostly harmless) is irrational. As for the argument that your time with your kids is limited, and you should therefore do what you can to ensure that you enjoy it..... is forced quality time really very quality?

Few kids will try to do _everything_, but imo you should support whatever your kid _does_ decide to do so long as it is not life-threatening to themself or another (and I believe the above argument proves that it is not), whether your child loves chat rooms, hates them, or is indifferent (much the same way that you would support your childs desire to eat sushi frequently, occasionally, or never).

And ime, kids rarely 'want to be caught'.

Despite my earlier corpse-mutilation comment, I don't think this horse is dead till the arguments stop flowin' through my fingers. As you can see, it hasn't happened yet.









As for the attempt to turn this into ad hominem mudslinging, El, I will simply give such a comment the retort it deserves and ignore it.


----------



## Chanley (Nov 19, 2001)

Els,

I think you misunderstand me. I have NEVER said what NM did was "wrong". I dont view the world in rights or wrongs in that regard. I am not the mother of her daughter therefore, I cannot make the best decisions for NM's family. I have lauded her actions a few times.

However, for my family that would not be the correct method of dealing with this situation. I can only speak for myself.

Now I ask, how can you condemn something which you have no experience yourself?


----------



## Nawny (Jan 1, 2002)

I'm bumping this for JW, since I don't think she's read it...


----------



## asha (Mar 5, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Dan Frank_
*

1b) Perv Prevalence: While chatroom predators are the frequent subjects of magazine articles and horror stories, their actual prevalence is questionable. I just spent several hours entering every possible keyword into google, from internet-related to rape to predator... and got a slew of sites. But not a single one, including government sites about the Child Protection Act, posted a single statistic....a solid number on just how many net predators are even suspected to be out there.
--------------------------------------------------

For these reasons, I believe that attempting to in any way hinder a child's access to chat rooms, rather than assist and inform, to be a decision based upon CRAP. I hope that this list has swept away some, if not all, of your CRAP.

*
for what it's worth, about every 2 months in my town the police arrest a man who has drive or even*flown* here to have sex with a youngster he has met on the internet.

I would also like to add that there is a big difference between live chat and a moderated forum like this one. I have spent a lot of time in chats, and yes, i have been subjected to the occasional dirty picture or perverted come-on. it IS out there. And frankly, if a parent thinks that the internet is a thing their child can do without, it is entirely the parent's decision.


----------



## Nawny (Jan 1, 2002)

asha posted:

Quote:

for what it's worth, about every 2 months in my town the police arrest a man who has drive or evenflown here to have sex with a youngster he has met on the internet.

I would also like to add that there is a big difference between live chat and a moderated forum like this one. I have spent a lot of time in chats, and yes, i have been subjected to the occasional dirty picture or perverted come-on. it IS out there.
I'm just thinking on the keyboard here, but if you're right, and the perverts are out there, and if Dan, Chanley, FatherDove and other pro-chat folks are right, and there is much to be gained from chat room dialogue...









Maybe it is time for parents and teens to make a concerted effort to promote fun discussion in chat rooms that doesn't violate or lead to violations of other people. It recently occurred to me that women were once accused of causing rape by walking alone at night or wearing short skirts. There were two obvious options for women -- don't do anything that might be construed as an invitation for rape, or risk getting raped and have it be your own damn fault. Women didn't accept either of those options. Instead, they worked to raise consciousness and change people's perceptions of short skirts and walking alone at night. Clearly, entering a chat room is no more an invitation to perverted come-ons than wearing a short skirt is an invitation to rape.

Perhaps the choices here are not simply ban chat rooms or open the door to internet perverts... Perhaps the third, better choice is for more wholesome folks to get online and into chat rooms to change the perceptions and expectations people have about chat room relationships!


----------



## Chanley (Nov 19, 2001)

I also think it depends on the type of chat room. Not all chats are created equal.

I get more provacative crap in spam than I ever will in chat.


----------



## Dan Frank (Apr 3, 2002)

Thank you asha!! I appreciate that _someone_ has given me a numerical estimation... without opposing arguments, I'm left having to dissect myself! And lemme tell ya, it ain't pretty.









My first question is.. do you know the nature of the relationship? I mean, was the guy 22 and the girl 17, and therefore illegal? or even, say 25, and 15. Did the girl _know_ his true age and identity? If not, then yes, that is a decent statistical basis to go on...

If yes, then we need to know how big/computerized a city you live in (hypothetical, not asking you to give that info out, of course)... see how representative it is of other areas, etc...

Assuming it really is 6/year/city... then thats a sizable amount of rapists. yet it doesnt compare the the rapes that occur walking, as Nawny said, down the street at night.

Hmmmmm....


----------



## asha (Mar 5, 2002)

My city is a tad over 100,000 people, and very white-collar. The men involved in these incidents ranged from 25 to over 50, if I recall correctly. the girls were 13-16. In a few instances the police found handcuffs, rope, duct tape etc in their vehicles. In one instance the police showed up at the hotel room door to find the two having sex.

These are only the situations where people get caught.
I have no idea what the girls knew about the men.

As an aside, how weird is it to actually FLY a long distance just to have sex??? I don't get it.

And the suggestion to go into chat WITH your child is an excellent one!


----------



## LaLa (Nov 18, 2001)

I don't have the time to read through the pages of posts on this subject, so pardon me if I am repeating someone else's thoughts, but there are two things that jump out in my mind on the topic:

1) I remember being a sexually active 15 and 16 year old girl. Sure, I thought I was very intellegint, and I felt that I was just as "adult" as a 21 year old etc.
Looking back now, I see that I was very naive in those beliefs and that I was lucky I didn't get hurt by using poor judgement with men.

2) The other thing that seems odd is that Dan seems to be coming across as the voice of Teen American :LOL
I'm sorry, but I highly doubt that you qualify as that voice, Dan, or at least no more so then any of us do (which I doubt we do).

I'm not saying I'm disagreeing with you, or that I'm on one side of the fence or the other. What I am saying is that the issue is not black and white. Teen Girls make mistakes that can change their lives in a heartbeat, and even if they are well educated on the trheat of rape, stranges, pervs etc, that doesn't mean tehy will see it coming. If women knew who would be committing rape, or who were perverted men, pedophiles etc, then those people would easily be avoided. That is not the case. It is easy to gain the trust of someone over the internet. Especially over time. A patient person can learn quite a bit abot a fellow chatter over time (given that the chatter is honest).

Anyway, my point is that there are precautions that must be taken and made for young women and men who may become victims in some way or another.

I am not saying they cannot use the internet, and I don't think anyone has said that or implied it in any way, but I think it is too important of a point to overlook, and I just wanted to throw it out there.

Sorry if I don't have time to respond to everyone









edited to add: Dan, I have read that you said all of the people you've met from "online" have been honest non-pervs, nice people and good experiences. I think that is great and I am very Happy for you! I think you would be heartbroken to know how many of the women who post on this board have had experiences with sexual and verbal abuse, stalkers, etc. If you had heard even half of the stories from the women ... what they went through, how it is affected their lives forever on...I think you may understand why some people take the subject of protecting their children from outside influences very seriously...even Teen children. I appreciate your posts, and I hope you are open to considering other sides of the issue too.








Gentleness~
LaLa
(oh, and pardon my typos!! :LOL )


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

Thats it. Iam not posting one more time untill it is officially changed from "Senior member" to "princess-post-a-lot".


----------



## Dan Frank (Apr 3, 2002)

Again, Asha, thank you so much for answering my questions!!!

Hm, 100,000, white collar... unfortunately, we have now reached "Out of My League" zone, here (contrary to what some would have us believe, I know a great deal about what I've been posting up until this point). Sooo the next paragraph is 100% speculation, and not to be taken as supposed fact of any kind. I'm gonna do some thinking-as-I-type now...

I would guess that white collar, small cities (more like large towns, maybe...) would probably be one of the most frequent places you'd find the teens who get preyed on... teens who have computers in their room, most importantly. Now the question remains... how many such towns are there?
A whole helluva lot... Yet 6/year is still a pretty small number, even when multiplied sizably, when compared to the number of rapes (and thats just what gets reported), period.

And I wish i knew what the kids involved thought. While I'm not too keen on the idea of a thirty year old and a 13 year old hooking up, it makes a difference in the amount of 'predators' (if not the amount of weirdos) if the they both knew the truth about one another, wouldnt you say? One of, hell, my best, friend in the world was raped when she was fifteen, by a 20something year old (she knew his age) she met on the net... I do not pretend that no danger can come of it. I simply believe the danger is not as unique to the setting, or as common, as some would have us believe.

Quote:

As an aside, how weird is it to actually FLY a long distance just to have sex?
When that's the only reason... pretty _damn_ weird. When there's an actual relationship, and sex is just part of it... then I wouldn't call it that weird at all.

Lala...
I certainly don't think I'm a representative of all teens, any more than any of you can claim to be representative of all, or even most, parents. Everyone is different. I _can_ claim to know a great deal about chatrooms, and back up my claim with facts. I tried to keep my anecdotal evidence to a minimum.

My point is not that parents have no right to protect their kids... it is that trying to 'protect' their kids by banning chatrooms is not productive. And parents _have_, in fact, suggesting forbidding the internet entire as a possible solution.

Again, my gripe is not with parents wanting to keep their kids safe.. it is with the methods, and reasons, for that desire.

And thank _you_, Lala. I appreciate opposing views, even if I fight them tooth and nail


----------



## Dan Frank (Apr 3, 2002)

What the hell!? What hapened to my posts?

I am very confused...

grrr and I was so close, too... alreayd nearing 50! I only had about a thousand or so to go!!


----------



## Dan Frank (Apr 3, 2002)

LoL Lilyka!!!

I have wondered how laralou accomplished that....

JW....
I hadn't noticed that about my posts, thank you for pointing it out.









I find it unfortunate that you have deemed me devoid of compassion, when you truly have no idea what kind of a person I am.

I never said I dislike anecdotes... I love anecdotes. I simply don't think that anecdotes should be the basis for important decisions impacting another's life, when such a decision is directly contrary to that other person's own opinion.

As an aside, JW, if you plan on posting everywhere I do simply to inform everyone there of what a horrible, horribly person I am... well, I respectfully ask that you do not.


----------



## amy mama (Apr 17, 2002)

Dan Frank-you officially rock my world!!! Just when I thought I was going to be the only wise-a$$ around here, I stumble upon your very pithy post. Children hate asinine tenents-I shall be chuckling over that one for the rest of the day!


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

Quote:

Perhaps the choices here are not simply ban chat rooms or open the door to internet perverts... Perhaps the third, better choice is for more wholesome folks to get online and into chat rooms to change the perceptions and expectations people have about chat room relationships!
Nawny, this sounds like a pretty constructive thing to do. As a mother I've found that there is a time to "protect" and "shelter" children from things and a time to let them be "the salt to the world." It takes a wise parent to know when is the right time for each. There is a need to prepare them to be able to stand on their beliefs in a world where they will often be swimming upstream. There is no magic age, children aren't cut from some cookie cutter. As for the internet....a wise parent will inform and educate their child about the pitfalls and dangers. They will also protect and shelter them if they aren't ready to be "salt" in a chat room or forum.

peace~


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

...just an additional thought.....
no matter how much we want to shelter and protect our children from dangers in the world, and from making bad choices, there are no garuntees. Help them to be wise, loving and compassionate people who will be able to recognize and learn from their mistakes. These are the people that will impact their world!

peace,


----------



## Sierra (Nov 19, 2001)

I need to ask that we keep this dicussion focused on the issues it has raised, not on personal issues. I do not want to have to close another thread due to personal attacks, but I also don't want to see posts that just _border_ on inappropriate (due to their personal nature).

I would like to remind everyone here of what these boards are for first and foremost: support. That does not mean that sometimes we can't engage in conversation just for the sake of conversation. However, we must do everything in our power to maintain the gentle nature of these boards, even through our disagreements. If you are unable to do that in any given conversation, please refrain from posting in that conversation or becoming involved in that conversation through the private messaging system provided here. If you are unable to do that with any individual, please refrain from interacting with that individual. Sometimes that will mean swallowing pride, shaking our heads silently, and scrolling by. But what it means in the end is that the nature of these boards are preserved, and when people come here for support, they will find it.

So, for everyone's future reference: Please refrain from posting or private messaging personal attacks. Please refrain from posting about someone when it is off-topic and will border on an attack. Please be gentle with one another in all conversations, regardless of disagreements. Please don't participate in conversations or involve yourself with individuals if you can't do so without violating user guidelines or if you can't do so without threatening the nature of the boards.

With common sense and an effort on all our parts to cool off after reading stuff we disagree with, I think we can keep this thread open and respectable. To do otherwise is just to make my volunteer position extremely difficult.

Thank you.

Your loyal mod,
Sierra


----------



## Dan Frank (Apr 3, 2002)

Huzzah!!!
O Frabjous day, callooh callay!!

I discussed this thread with a friend of mine, apparently far more energetic than I, who then took it upon himself to surf the net for some large amount of hours. He found, from this site, which he calls "the key" .

www.soc-um.org/statsandlaw/statsandlaw3.html

From there, (and I don't know how, as I haven't even checked the site yet), he downloaded a PDF, and subsequently gave it to me.

These statistics aren't anywhere near what I want, but they're _something nonetheless. First things first I should tell you that these aren't the "this many people met this many predators" kind of stats that I prefer.... this is a sampling of 1,501 teens who are supposed to be representative of teens everywhere... this sampling has a 95% confidence rating... meaning it should statistically extrapolate into America's teens with about 95% accuracy. I suck at math, so don't ask me to explain the statistical basis for such a claim.

Much to my dismay, the figures, if we accept this sampling, aren't as compellingly in my interests as I would like. However, I think, on the whole, they support my argument... and besides, I'm not one to pretend the truth doesn't exist just because it's disagreeable.









This report comes, much to my delight, from the Crimes Against Children Research Center, which means that in all likelihood, any bias it has will be in favor of the CRAP argument.

Rather than list every stat, I will list the highlights, those relevant to this discussion.

I will divide them into separate posts, because, quite frankly, it's too hard to decide how many spaces to put between the different degrees of Subjects._


----------



## Dan Frank (Apr 3, 2002)

Ages ranged from 10 (only 4%), to 17 (13%). The highest, by a small margin, was 15 (18%)

53% male, 47% female.

The majority, 73%, were white.

The majority of the parents (79%), were married.

the majority, by a bit (38%), lived in 20,000-50,000 income houses. about 50% lived in higher income (I'm squishing several sections together)

As for the type of community... I'll just paste that wholesale.
• Small Town 28%
• Suburb of Large City 21%
• Rural Area 20%
• Large Town (25,000 to 100,000) 15%
• Large City 14%

the majority, 76%, had used the net in the past week.

And now, onto the good stuff!


----------



## Dan Frank (Apr 3, 2002)

First I will cover what the paper deems "Exposure to Unwanted Materials"

*25% of the teens had come across unwanted material while online.*

6% of the total teens (not just 6% of 25%), found the unwanted material to be upsetting/distressing.

There are additional statistics, however, the majority relate to emails and mistyped entries into search engines... and I would prefer to focus on Chat Rooms.

The real significance of this section is that the percentage of kids receiving unwanted pictures via chatrooms or messaging is apparently so small as to not even make up a single percentage point. Granted, even .5% out of the millions of teens who use the net could come up to a surprising total... but certainly no larger than the percentage of teens who come into contact with unwanted material in other forums.

They in fact provide a one-sentence testiomonial from a child whow as shown, in chat, a picture of a man having sex with a dog. This further indicates that the paper is aware of Chat-Related exposure, but that the percentage is indeed negligible.

Now that I have provided statistical support toward refuting the idea that teens are constantly barraged with pornography every time they enter a chat... I shall move on.


----------



## Dan Frank (Apr 3, 2002)

I will briefly mention close online friendships... specifically, friendships with adults. I will mostly enumerate statistics....

Only 3% of the teenshad close relationships with adults. I will mostly paste wholesale

Age of teen
• 15 18%
• 16 28%
• 17 46%

and gender
of teen:
• Female 59%
• Male 41%
of online friend:
• Female 41%
• Male 59%

And where they met
• Chat Room 56%
• Instant Messages 13%
• Game Room, Message Board, Newsgroup, Other 15%
• E-mail 10%
• Web Page 3%
• Don't Know 3%

And age
• 18 to 25 Years 85%
• Older than 25 Years 15%

And offline contact
• Sent Youth Regular Mail 51%
• Called Youth on Telephone 36%
• Asked Youth to Meet 21%
• Came to Youth's Home 10%
• Gave Youth Money or Gifts 10%
• None of Above 31%

74% of parents were aware of the relationship.

Met Online Friend in Person 31%
Parent Knew of Meeting 10%

Again, none of these friendships resulted in anything detrimental.


----------



## Dan Frank (Apr 3, 2002)

This section covers sexual solicitation, both benign and threatening.

*19% (almost 1 in 5) teens received some sexual solicitation last year.*

*3% received aggressive solicitation*
This is not threatening, but rather persistent.

*5% received distressing solicitation*
_This_ is threatening.

As someone pointed out above, the argument against CRAP does not address moral reservations towards general sexual interaction, since purely moral decisions should be made by the teen without hindrance by the parent.
Therefore, I will focus entirely on the *distressing* percentage of teens, as the other two were only unsettling if one is against teen sexual encounters completely (and any disturbing sexual solicitations are by default listed in the *Distressing* section.

While the majority, 75%, of the teens being solicited were female, fully one fourth of them were male.

Again, wile the majority of soliciters were male, 73%, a surprising percentage were female (13%... the other 14% is unknown).

A very important factor... 54% of the soliciters were under the age of 18. 17% were 18 to 15, and only 8% were older (again, unmentioned percentages were Unknown factors)

96% of the distressing solicitations began as purely online relationships.

the location is important enough to paste
o Chat Room 60%
o Using Instant Messages 26%
o Specific Web Page7%
o E-mail 1%
o Game Room, Message Board, Newsgroup,
or Other 2%
o Don't Know/Refused 1%

20% were asked to meet somewhere
9% sent snail mail
4% called ont he phone
and 1% sent money or other gifts.

81% were upset
53% were frightened

60% exhibited stress symptoms such as staying away from the net, thinking about the solicitation constantly, or becoming jumpy.

These are, of course, unfortunately large statistics.
However...

*no percentage is listed for rapes or molestation caused through these situations!*

What could this mean? Is the percentage really so small it as to not even be a single person out of 1,501? Apparently.

What percentage does that come to? It means that, assuming the integrity of this survey, ]I]less than .06 percent[/I], most likely a great deal less, of teens are raped or molested due to internet relationships.

Call me crazy, but that seems a very small number.

I have more to say on this, but it is very late. I will continue tomorrow.


----------



## Els' 3 Ones (Nov 19, 2001)

I hope that if someone has read this crap this far they see the # of children the report is talking about, I've included that below. While a % is expressed as a 1 or 2 digit #, the extrapolation is quite a different number.

The tone of these two threads seems to be anything but understanding and compassionate for the *very real* families that are victims of this.

I found this site with less than 10 min of search...........

I did not read all of the pdf file - I felt the #'s on the front page were very telling. I couple them with the _repeated_ warnings that are everywhere; the schools, the websites, the radio - tv, the police, etc. Why would all these warnings and suggestions be there if this was not a potential danger for _everyone_? I suppose the police have nothing better to do in Chicago than assign officers to surf..........

Keep in mind - these stats are nearly 2 years old. Do you suppose the numbers have gone up or down now that so many more are online?

_June 21, 2000_
The survey, "Online Victimization: A Report on the Nation's Youth", a survey of 1,501 youths who were regular Internet users, was commissioned by Congress.

Among the findings:

19% reported getting an unwanted sexual solicitation in the past year 1, which the study estimates, equals *4-5 million* children. These are 4-5 million REAL PEOPLE. _Real, live people._ Let's not trivialize this, it is certainly not trivial to the victims.

65% of the sexual solicitations occurred while in a chat room; 24% came by instant message.

Of those youth sexually solicited, 20% were "very or extremely upset," which the study estimates equals *.9-1.4 million* children.

25% reported receiving "unwanted exposure to pictorial images of naked people or people having sex," which the study estimates equals *5.4-6.4 million* children. By the time I was 12yo, and very sexually aware, I had seen many pictures. Nude pictures, playboy type. Hard core, fetish porn was very underground then........ I hope my children aren't exposed to a man having sex with a dog until they are adult. Somehow I don't think that my children need to be greatly aware of that form of sex.

71% of "unwanted exposures" occurred while the youth was searching or surfing the Internet, and 28% happened when opening e-mail or clicking on links in e-mail.
I would hope that "net nanny" software would lessen this number.

67% of the unwanted exposures happened at home, but 15% happened in schools, and 3% happened in libraries. Based on the estimates supplied by the authors, this would translate into between 814,000 and 970,000 children exposed in schools, and between 162,9000 and 194,100 exposed in public libraries. [Ed. Note: These numbers are drastically different from the findings of the 1997 On-Line Summit in Washington, D.C. which found that 70% of children's exposure to on-line porn had occurred in schools and libraries.]

For the youths who encountered the material while surfing, it came up as a result of searches 47% of the time, misspelled addresses 17%, and links in websites 17%.

Prior to ending I will say (in response to a question asked me) that I do not _condem_ chat. I have repeatedly said I don't find it necessary to my life and I don't feel my children will wither without it. I liken it to not being allowed to talk on the phone for hours, at my whim, when I was a child. It is a time waster, and coupled with the real danger, no-chat is a no-brainer for me.


----------



## LaLa (Nov 18, 2001)

Thank you El for showing that their is another side.

As for statistics in general, I've read the book, How to Lie with Statistics, too many times to buy into the numbers with utter faith.

Sorry kids...I'm a skeptic. Read that book and you will be too.


----------



## laralou (Nov 27, 2001)

Slightly OT but related to the first post:

Princess Post-a-Lot is taken, but you can be Prince Post-a-Lot.
To get a name instead of Senior Member, you just email or pm Cynthia and tell her what to change it to. After it is set up, you can change it at will.

Not having a teen, I don't have a strong opinion on the topic. I don't begrudge any parent restricting internet usage or anything else that they deem potentially harmful, but think that teaching a teen to make reasonable decisions for his/herself would probably work better, if that is possible.


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

Amen Nursing mother!!!
Just like every baby crawls, walks, cuts teeth and talks at a different age....so teens are different as to what ages they are able to deal with different things. Too often young people think they can handle more than they can. I think NM's daughter was a good example of that....she was grateful when her parents took control of a situation she had gotten herself into over her head. My kids have used me as the bad guy more than once to get themselves out of something they knew they weren't ready to handle. Parents need to be a safty net when our fledegings aren't ready to fly solo.
Chat rooms being dangerous or not is really a moot point when we consider the issue of maturity. Stairs aren't dangerous if you know how to walk down them or avoid falling....but for a crawling baby they are dangerous! Only the parent can judge if a baby can handle the stairs. Some parents will lean toward letting them try it a little before they are ready, and some will be overportective and keep them from the stairs long after they may be able to navigate them. But each parent will make the decision about readiness that they feel is in their child's best interest, and in the long run they really do know that child and their readiness better than the casual onlooker.


----------



## sarahwebb (Feb 12, 2002)

Umm, against my better judgement, here I go, wading in to the morass--

Els' 3 Ones writes:
And as for NM's action. If you read the original post again she says that dd seemed relieved to be discovered. And probably relieved to have parent's
irrational act to fall back on as an excuse to not chat. It may have got beyond where she was comfortable and she (at 15yo) needed help getting out.

Dan writes:
And ime, kids rarely 'want to be caught'

I've spent a large portion of my adult life working with teenagers--as a big sister, as a house adult at a boarding school and as a Unitarian Universalist youth advisor. My experience, the experiences of my colleagues and a fairly extensive body of literature all support the idea that children and youth need boundaries to feel safe and will act out, push the limits and try to get caught in order to establish that an adult cares enough to protect them from things that they are not ready for or find unsafe. When a teenager leaves a letter about her sex life open where a parent can see it, or a box of condoms on his dresser, they are asking for a parent to set some boundaries...

It's a constant challenge for parents and adults working with youth to set appropriate boundaries and to know when to allow their children to make their own mistakes. Both are crucial for a child or teenager to develop independence and self reliance. A solution that works for one youth will not work for another.

My experience working with Unitarian Universalist youth was both extremely rewarding and extremely heartwrenching--I served some wonderful, responsible youth but also some very troubled youth. In my opinion, many of the troubled youth that I served (as chaplain of a 300 plus national youth gathering and as youth coordinator for 32 congregations in five states) were struggling because their parents were unwilling to set firm boundaries for them with respect to morality, sex and other activities. They were longing for an adult to step in and help them create some safety in their lives.

Respectfully,
Sarah


----------



## daylily (Dec 1, 2001)

All right, I'm jumping in late, but I have 2 pre teens,(almost 9 & almost 10) so this subject interests me. I'm surprised that such a lengthy debate is occurring here. Like El said, it's a no-brainer. (IMO) No chat at our house.

I'm wondering if some of you have any idea what it is like to be a child and have an adult hit on you. This happened to me and so I'll tell you what it feels like: horrifying, distressing, terrifying. And nothing terrible happened to me: I was NOT fondled or molested or raped. No. I was in a shoe store when I was 10 and a man approached me and talked in a suggestive manner. Since I was raised to avoid strangers, I walked away and the man didn't follow. But here's the thing: *I was with my father at the time!* My dad was at the counter paying for a pair of shoes and the man who hit on me was one of the shoe salesmen. I was too ashamed to tell my father what happened. I blamed myself: my shorts were too short, I was wearing a tank top, I felt there must have been something wrong with *me* to attract that adult to me. It was years and years later that I realized he was a pedophile. I avoided that shoe store for the rest of the time I lived in that town. It was a deeply distressing experience.

What I'm trying to say is: parents can teach their children to be responsible, but that's only half the equation. You also need to do what you can to keep the pervs away from your kids. You can't do this 100% of the time, but eliminating chat is one way. Also, as I think my experience illustrates, a virtual sexual come on can be traumatic even if the agressor never touches or is even in the same city with the child.

Also, I don't see why a parent forbidding chat *in their own home* seems so threatening to some. I can guide my children away from books I think are too mature for them, but that's not the same as demanding that those books be removed from libraries. (And before anyone jumps on me, I don't censor my children's reading. But if ds wants to read a book I feel might be distressing for him, I'll just say, "I think you should wait until you're older to read that.") Years ago (again when I was 10) my class read exerpts from "Julie of the Wolves" I enjoyed them and checked the book out of the library so I could read the whole thing. There's a rape scene in that book! (Maybe attempted rape, I can't remember.) What I DO remember is feeling shocked and distressed and a bit betrayed that no adult had warned me about what was in that book.


----------



## laralou (Nov 27, 2001)

NM, I know it doesn't always work. That is why I said I would never begrudge a parent the right to limit something that can be harmful. I also agree that your daughter was probably relieved to get caught. My mother was a lot like I imagine you are, and frankly, it took a load off my brother and I to be able to use her as an "excuse" for not doing a lot of stuff we really didn't want to do in the first place, kwim?

I didn't read the original thread, but from what I read here, I would agree with you.


----------



## Dan Frank (Apr 3, 2002)

Dagnabbit!
Go away a day, and look how much I have to catch up!









I'm suppressing my urge to respond to every little part of every post, because, well, I'd be here all night. (edit: Since El posted a great deal of information of her own, however, I seem to have ended up doing just that)

Let me first say that this post is about the statistics. I would _hope_ anyone reading this would also read (or read instead) the post that shall soon follow this, because it is, to me, perhaps even more important.

*El's*, as always, you challenge me to defend my argument, and provide a cohesive argument of your own. For that, I thank you.









I had not intended this thread to somehow be a consolation the families of victims... that is simply not it's purpose. I certainly feel a great deal of sympathy for them... but I fail to see why that sympathy should affect my opinion.

Quote:

Keep in mind - these stats are nearly 2 years old. Do you suppose the numbers have gone up or down now that so many more are online?
I suppose the solid numbers would have increased slightly. Why do you think I provided significantly more static percentages?

Quote:

19% reported getting an unwanted sexual solicitation in the past year 1, which the study estimates, equals 4-5 million children. These are 4-5 million REAL PEOPLE. Real, live people. Let's not trivialize this, _it is certainly not trivial to the victims._
I disagree with the italicized part of the statement, as that percentage is very misleading.

As I posted, the much more telling statistic is the 5% of _distressing_ solicitations... solicitations which pissed off, scared, or just plain freaked out the victim.

I shall draw analogies to real life... but then, any such analogous situation is by definition more dangerous, because such a situation can not be resolved by a few clicks of a mouse.

The 20%... the 'unwanted sexual solicitation', in effect amounts to a vulgar catcall as one walks by a construction site. Certainly unwanted, undoubtedly annoying and perhaps, depending on the situation, a bit scary.... but likely trivial. Not something to lose sleep over.

The 5%... _this_ is the category in which to place the stalkers, the constant harassers, etc.

But even 5% of the teens on the net being harassed comes to a large number, easily thousands. But then, here are some stats I got from a survey conducted by Louis Harris and Associates for the American Association of University Women.

This poll, unfortunately, only covered 8-11th graders... nonetheless... 85% of girls and 76% of boys reported being sexually harassed.... in person. That's a pretty big step up from 5%, no?

This was way back in '93, but I don't know of anything that's happened since then to drastically increase or decrease the number of teens harassed.

The poll may well have been biased.... much the same way "Safeguarding Our Children" might post a slightly biased poll. I accepted the potential bias against me, because even with it the facts aren't particularly bleak.

Quote:

25% reported receiving "unwanted exposure to pictorial images of naked people or people having sex," which the study estimates equals 5.4-6.4 million children.
This is extremely misleading.....and here is why.

Quote:

71% of "unwanted exposures" occurred while the youth was searching or surfing the Internet, and 28% happened when opening e-mail or clicking on links in e-mail.
My math isn't very good, but I do believe 71 and 28 add up to 99... *which means 99% of the exposure had nothing to do with chatrooms!*

How Youth Was Exposed
• Surfing the Web 72%
• Opening E-mail or Clicking on an E-mail Link 30%

Within surfing the web they have this section:
How Web Site Came Up
• Link Came Up as Result of Search 36%
• Misspelled Web Address 18%
• Clicked on Link When In Other Site 24%
• Other 18%
• Don't Know 3%

Of course, some kids have been exposed to unwanted material through chatrooms... so why didn't the poll get it?

It did.

The thing is, this poll counted chatroom exposure as a sexual solicitation, because it was a person showing another person a specific picture.

Therefore... all the kids who were traumatized by pictures in chatrooms... are already counted in the above *5%*

It seems to me that 5% is extremely important. According to El, the survey lists that as 9 hundred thousand to 1.4 million kids... a lot of kids... of course, it is a small percentage (I think it just might be 5) of the total kids on the net...

Some will say "if it can happen at all, then that's too much! I don't want to put my kid in danger!"

For you (and for everyone else who posted and hasnt gotten a reply), see the below posts. This one is long enough.


----------



## Dan Frank (Apr 3, 2002)

*LaLa*, no one needs an apology









I'm just curious (assuming this topic has any significance to you), if you don't go by stats coupled with a sound argument (yes, I'm arrogant, I think my argument is sound)... what will you go on? Statistics certainly aren't fact, but, imo, they're at least a little more reliable than the personal account of someone you happen to know.

*Barbara*, it's happening again!








I read your post, and I just go nodding along "yep, mmhm, right on, yeah..." and then suddenly pause, and realize I still have something to disagree about. Don't take it personally... I'm a very disagreeable person









Basically, I agree with everything but that which the following statement disagrees with:
Just because the parent knows the kid better than an onlooker, the kid knows himself better. The parent has the right to help their kid, but is
_not_ justified (imo) in suppressing the child's own opinions just because the parent thinks he or she "knows best".

I think the parent should help their kid to know when the kid is ready for something. The parent should just tell the kid.

*Sarahwebb*, I don't know any kid who would want their parent oppress them from their needs just because the kid left a box of condoms or a stack of porn on his dresser. Certainly, as NM says, sometimes kids want to use their parents as an excuse, to avoid uncomfortable social situations.... but that is not the same as being forgetful.

(edit:This next bit kinda became a rant. Not aimed directly at you sarah.)

No offense, but it really annoys me to hear people say, in effect, "oh, yeah, your kid _wanted_ you to ground him, that's why he left that bag of weed in his sock drawer... he knew you'd go snooping and knew what he was doing was wrong!"
Or maybe he A) trusts you, or B) was stoned when he hid it.








Instead of excusing yourself for oppressing kids, maybe a better solution would be to talk to your kids and let em make their own darn decisions.

-end rant-

There is a difference between ignoring your kid (likely what happened to the troubled youths you worked with, sarah), and being involved with your kid without being oppressive. it is indeed an incredibly delicate balance... but I think it is good for parents to at least _strive_ for that balance.

*Dailylily*, I'll keep this brief, because I've already posted too much tonight.

*1)* you were 10... there is a big difference between 10 and 11, or 12, or 13, or 14, or 15, and so on. Still gonna ban chat during those years? (not that I am for banning 10 year olds... but I've been focusing more on teens)

*2)*

Quote:

Also, as I think my experience illustrates, a virtual sexual come on can be traumatic even if the agressor never touches or is even in the same city with the child.
But in your experience, you _were_ in the same city as the person... the same room, even! In person, as a rule, is scarier than online, because it is simply more real.

*3)*

Quote:

do what you can to keep the pervs away from your kids. You can't do this 100% of the time, but eliminating chat is one way.
As is locking your kid in a closet.

*4)*

Quote:

Also, I don't see why a parent forbidding chat *in their own home* seems so threatening to some. I can guide my children away from books I think are too mature for them, but that's not the same as demanding that those books be removed from libraries. (And before anyone jumps on me, I don't censor my children's reading. But if ds wants to read a book I feel might be distressing for him, I'll just say, "I think you should wait until you're older to read that.") Years ago (again when I was 10) my class read exerpts from "Julie of the Wolves" I enjoyed them and checked the book out of the library so I could read the whole thing. There's a rape scene in that book! (Maybe attempted rape, I can't remember.) What I DO remember is feeling shocked and distressed and a bit betrayed that no adult had warned me about what was in that book.
THis proves my point. What's wrong with censoring what they read? Why is it so much different that censoring what they do online?

As for the book... that is a perfect analogy!








I'm not advocating ignoring what your kid does, as your reading of that book was ignored. I'm in favor of someone _telling_ you "you sure you wanna read that? it's got some stuff you might not like, such as..." etc. I'm not in favor of someone telling you "You can't read that, it's got bad stuff!" and snatching the book from your hand.


----------



## Dan Frank (Apr 3, 2002)

Laralou... (no, I didn't ignore you







)

Cynthia already told me I couldn't have Princess Post-A-Lot...
But I'm not one to give up. When the time comes (i.e. in about a billion more posts







), I shall wrest the Title from your hands. To draw an analogy to a the loathesome sport called 'professional' wrestling.... I'll take the Belt!!









If I can't usurp your place.... I'll just be Emperor Post-A-Lot


----------



## LaLa (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Dan Frank_
*LaLa, no one needs an apology









I'm just curious (assuming this topic has any significance to you), if you don't go by stats coupled with a sound argument (yes, I'm arrogant, I think my argument is sound)...
[*
Well, you said a mouthful, didn't you









teehee


----------



## Dan Frank (Apr 3, 2002)

Last post here tonight, just wanna say...

I wish someone would read and address, instead of just my stats, one of my analogies. The sushi one is my favorite. Either A) do you support a parent's right to ban Sushi for their kids, or B) do you think it isn't similar at all?

How about walking down the street? A or B?

NM... I know you do. I gave up long ago trying to convince you, or those who make this decision in a similar way, because I can't argue with you and don't want to browbeat. THe only reason I still post here is for anyone who's still undecided.... i.e. lurkers.... (sigh) that wasnt meant to offend but it probably will... sorry...


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

You know Dan, I feel like I'm talking to one of my own kids with you.....I can't disagree with you when you say that Kids should be making thier own decisions. I think kids who have parents that don't allow them to make choices and learn from their mistakes end up having a pretty hard time as adults...if they ever do grow up. Ok, I know that is a generalization, but I have worked with youth and seen some pretty handicaped discission makers.
So...in theory, I agree that teenagers should be making their own decisions, but as a parent I know that in reality they are not always ready to make wise and informed choices. You see I don't think there is a black and white answer here. There are too many variables.....the maturity of the child, the history of the child's past choices, the relationship the parent and child have with one another, the danger of the situation and the consequences of a poor choice on the child's part.
Now for the sushi analogy.....YES I would feel perfectly justified in banning sushi from my house. Now if the child wanted to have sushi elsewhere....well, I would make sure they were well educated about sushi so they could make an informed choice. And btw, my son recently tried some shusi and found it wanting! Such a discerning child


----------

