Worried Mom

[Rhonda]

I'm sitting here on a Saturday night, worried about my almost 16 year
old son. Maybe it's because I've had a worst nightmare come true when
my mother was killed in a car accident that I worry a lot.

I'm the type of mom who makes my kids feel comfortable about having
friends come over to our house. If they show up with friends after
school or on the weekend, they always know that I'll be okay with
that. I like to know who they're hanging out with and I feel good
knowing that they're safe. If they aren't home, they know that I need
to know where they are, who they're with and approximately what time
they'll be home. They also know what I consider reasonable regarding
hometime.

There's only one thing I don't accept. My older son used to have a
group of friends that were just troubled kids. It got to the point
where I made it clear that I didn't want them around the house and I
didn't want him hanging around with them. I won't go into some of the
things they did or were into but whatever it was was totally
unacceptable.

Anyway, my son has continued communicating with one of the group on
MSN but he knows how I feel about this boy and he knows that I don't
want him getting together with him. This kid smokes (more than
cigarettes as far as I know), drinks, lies and talks in a crude
manner.

There's one thing that I always felt confident about until today. I
always believed that both of my sons were honest with me. But, today,
my older son lied to me and told me that he was going out with a
certain friend and it turns out he's with this kid I disapprove of.
He felt that lying would be better than telling me the truth. I went
out for about an hour. Before I left, I asked him what his plans were
for the day...I asked him if he was planning on just staying home and
he said he was. I came back and he was out and he left me a message
telling me that he'd be with a different friend. Later on, I called
that friend and he told me that he wasn't with him all day. Now, it's
going on 10 pm and he's not home and I know he's with that boy. I
found out. So, here I sit....worrying. I just want him to come home.
I'd rather know the truth even if I don't like it, than be lied to.

[Joelle]

>There's one thing that I always felt confident about until today. I
>always believed that both of my sons were honest with me. But, today,
>my older son lied to me and told me that he was going out with a
>certain friend and it turns out he's with this kid I disapprove of.

>He felt that lying would be better than telling me the truth.

Yea, that's a problem at this age. You really can't dictate their friends.
You can't really dictate anything can you? They can go out and do pretty much
whatever they want, and short of locking them up, what are ya gonna do?

I'm dealing with this with a 13 year old to a lesser extent. I don't like all
the girls she hangs with. They too, smoke and cus, I don't think they are
drinking yet. I worry about what she might be up to when I'm not around.
What I've come to is that I don't have control. I've given her my values, my
opinion. Now comes the time, less of my opinion, more listening. If they get
disapproval, of course they aren't going to be honest with you. I think this
is the hardest part of parenthood, preparing them for adulthood, accepting that
you don't have control. We want them to grow up and learn without having to
make the mistakes we made or others made but the sad fact is, we don't much of
what we want and maybe we shouldn't.

So have a talk that is mostly listening on your part. Let him tell you why he
still wants to see this boy. You can be honest about your feelings about it.
But he's heard enough of your side. He'll tell you he can be friends with him
without smoking and drinking and cussing, though the truth may be he is doing
some smoking, drinking and cussing. I guess I'd say, "I can't control you when
you are out of my sight, I have to trust you - but if you get picked up for
DUI, you are spending the night in jail."

Good luck

Joelle

[CME]

"Joelle" > wrote in message
...
> >There's one thing that I always felt confident about until today. I
> >always believed that both of my sons were honest with me. But, today,
> >my older son lied to me and told me that he was going out with a
> >certain friend and it turns out he's with this kid I disapprove of.
>
> >He felt that lying would be better than telling me the truth.
>
> Yea, that's a problem at this age. You really can't dictate their
friends.
> You can't really dictate anything can you? They can go out and do pretty
much
> whatever they want, and short of locking them up, what are ya gonna do?
>
> I'm dealing with this with a 13 year old to a lesser extent. I don't like
all
> the girls she hangs with. They too, smoke and cus, I don't think they are
> drinking yet. I worry about what she might be up to when I'm not around.
> What I've come to is that I don't have control. I've given her my values,
my
> opinion. Now comes the time, less of my opinion, more listening. If they
get
> disapproval, of course they aren't going to be honest with you. I think
this
> is the hardest part of parenthood, preparing them for adulthood, accepting
that
> you don't have control. We want them to grow up and learn without having
to
> make the mistakes we made or others made but the sad fact is, we don't
much of
> what we want and maybe we shouldn't.
>
> So have a talk that is mostly listening on your part. Let him tell you
why he
> still wants to see this boy. You can be honest about your feelings about
it.
> But he's heard enough of your side. He'll tell you he can be friends with
him
> without smoking and drinking and cussing, though the truth may be he is
doing
> some smoking, drinking and cussing. I guess I'd say, "I can't control you
when
> you are out of my sight, I have to trust you - but if you get picked up
for
> DUI, you are spending the night in jail."
>
> Good luck
>
> Joelle

What excellent advice, I'm going to save this post for when my children are
that age and re-read it, because I know I'll have a hard time with letting
go.

Christine

[Paul Fritz]

"Rhonda" > wrote in message
om...
> >
> There's one thing that I always felt confident about until today. I
> always believed that both of my sons were honest with me. But, today,
> my older son lied to me and told me that he was going out with a
> certain friend and it turns out he's with this kid I disapprove of.
> He felt that lying would be better than telling me the truth. I went
> out for about an hour. Before I left, I asked him what his plans were
> for the day...I asked him if he was planning on just staying home and
> he said he was. I came back and he was out and he left me a message
> telling me that he'd be with a different friend. Later on, I called
> that friend and he told me that he wasn't with him all day. Now, it's
> going on 10 pm and he's not home and I know he's with that boy. I
> found out. So, here I sit....worrying. I just want him to come home.
> I'd rather know the truth even if I don't like it, than be lied to.

Seems to me they are just showing the learned behavior from you.

[Dennis Here]

Rhonda wrote in message

snipped

> It got to the point
>where I made it clear that I didn't want them around the house and I
>didn't want him hanging around with them

and

> I'd rather know the truth even if I don't like it, than be lied to.

Here is the reality. You have put your son in a position where he has to lie
to you. There could be a number of reasons. He can't be bothered anymore
with the hassle of the ensuing lecture if he says he is meeting this guy or,
it could be that son is trying to spare your feelings on the basis that what
you don't know you can't worry about. Hopefully it's the latter.
At 16 you should have instilled the basics into your son long ago. He will
know right from wrong and he will choose his own friends with that
knowledge. Just because you do not like them does not mean that he should
not be friends with them. They may well have virtues you know nothing about
as you have never given them the time of day or, they could be a "bad 'uns"
through and through. Either way it is your sons call not yours. Your son
will work it out for himself.
The biggest danger for you now is to try and cut it out altogether. You will
fail and in so doing will cause a family rift that will last for years. Your
son will close up altogether and treat you with contempt. He will probably
try and disturb your friendships too. He will be thoroughly obnoxious.
From a previous post of yours I recall that you are not totally honest
yourself in the way you conduct your own friendships. Your son will know
this.
Perhaps you could use the opportunity that has presented itself to "come
clean" all round. If you wish to demand total honesty then you have to give
it. If you wish respect from your son towards your friends then you have to
show some to his as well.
Dictatorial parenting to a 16 year old is a non starter. Total openness is
the way to go. Acceptance that your son will make some errors of judgement
has to be acknowledged to yourself.
Time to let go of the apron strings.

Dennis, two boys in their twenties and one of 7

[Dennis Here]

Joelle wrote in message
>
>I'm dealing with this with a 13 year old to a lesser extent. I don't like
all
>the girls she hangs with. They too, smoke and cus, I don't think they are
>drinking yet. I worry about what she might be up to when I'm not around.


Heh heh! Think the worst and double it ;-)

Dennis

[Paul Fritz]

Yeppers ;-)

<'Kate> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 08:50:03 -0500, "Paul Fritz"
> >
> >
> >"Rhonda" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> >
> >> There's one thing that I always felt confident about until today. I
> >> always believed that both of my sons were honest with me. But, today,
> >> my older son lied to me and told me that he was going out with a
> >> certain friend and it turns out he's with this kid I disapprove of.
> >> He felt that lying would be better than telling me the truth. I went
> >> out for about an hour. Before I left, I asked him what his plans were
> >> for the day...I asked him if he was planning on just staying home and
> >> he said he was. I came back and he was out and he left me a message
> >> telling me that he'd be with a different friend. Later on, I called
> >> that friend and he told me that he wasn't with him all day. Now, it's
> >> going on 10 pm and he's not home and I know he's with that boy. I
> >> found out. So, here I sit....worrying. I just want him to come home.
> >> I'd rather know the truth even if I don't like it, than be lied to.
> >
> >Seems to me they are just showing the learned behavior from you.
>
> Which part? Lying about relationships with others?
>
> 'Kate

[Rhonda]

Last night, my son walked through the door at almost 11 pm on the
nose. We had a long talk and he thought I'd be angrier than I was. I
knew that being angry would get me nowhere. I let him know how I feel
but it was all non-threatening and very open. I listened to him tell
me why he did what he did and I explained that I can't be there all
the time and that he's going to do what he wants when I'm not around.
I told him that no matter what, it's better to be honest and I'll
always be there for him. He plunked himself on the couch beside me
and we sat for a long time next to one another. Yes, I once stopped
him from hanging around a group of kids and he did, but I really think
it's because it made sense to him, not because I said so. He
obviously sees something in this kid that makes him want to hang out
with him. I realize that the important thing is that he's aware of my
feelings and reasons behind them and then the rest, I have to leave up
to him. All in all, I believe he's sensible and responsible but I'm
just being a mother and having teenage growing pains a little.

Thanks for your responses....especially, Paul Fritz...I find your
advice most thoughtful and helpful. :P I hope you're enjoying
yourself.

[Paul Griffiths]

"Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
...

> Just keep wearing those blinders.......it will get you so far in life.

The more I think about it, the more I think they should be issued at birth.
Ah well.


--
Paul Griffiths

[Paul Fritz]

Just keep wearing those blinders.......it will get you so far in life.

"Rhonda" > wrote in message
om...
> Last night, my son walked through the door at almost 11 pm on the
> nose. We had a long talk and he thought I'd be angrier than I was. I
> knew that being angry would get me nowhere. I let him know how I feel
> but it was all non-threatening and very open. I listened to him tell
> me why he did what he did and I explained that I can't be there all
> the time and that he's going to do what he wants when I'm not around.
> I told him that no matter what, it's better to be honest and I'll
> always be there for him. He plunked himself on the couch beside me
> and we sat for a long time next to one another. Yes, I once stopped
> him from hanging around a group of kids and he did, but I really think
> it's because it made sense to him, not because I said so. He
> obviously sees something in this kid that makes him want to hang out
> with him. I realize that the important thing is that he's aware of my
> feelings and reasons behind them and then the rest, I have to leave up
> to him. All in all, I believe he's sensible and responsible but I'm
> just being a mother and having teenage growing pains a little.
>
> Thanks for your responses....especially, Paul Fritz...I find your
> advice most thoughtful and helpful. :P I hope you're enjoying
> yourself.

[Paul Fritz]

Not in Rhonda's case, see chooses to remain blind to what she is doing to
her kids by her own lifestyle choices.

"Paul Griffiths" > wrote in message
...
> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Just keep wearing those blinders.......it will get you so far in life.
>
> The more I think about it, the more I think they should be issued at
birth.
> Ah well.
>
>
> --
> Paul Griffiths
>
>

[nancy]

That bad boy reminds me of a loser boyfriend I made the mistake of
dating in high school. Your son's friend might be connecting your son up
with some girls. If so, he will lie to hide he is still hanging out with
him. Sixteen is the age when girls consume boys. Ask your son about it
because getting protection is another problem you might have to worry
about. Troubled girls are the type who might carry it. You'll have to
figure out a way to make not being with those troubled kids as much fun
as with being with them. Kids go where they have fun. Dangerous or not.
Until he has something better to do expect him to lie to you.


Rhonda wrote:
>
> I'm sitting here on a Saturday night, worried about my almost 16 year
> old son. Maybe it's because I've had a worst nightmare come true when
> my mother was killed in a car accident that I worry a lot.
>
> I'm the type of mom who makes my kids feel comfortable about having
> friends come over to our house. If they show up with friends after
> school or on the weekend, they always know that I'll be okay with
> that. I like to know who they're hanging out with and I feel good
> knowing that they're safe. If they aren't home, they know that I need
> to know where they are, who they're with and approximately what time
> they'll be home. They also know what I consider reasonable regarding
> hometime.
>
> There's only one thing I don't accept. My older son used to have a
> group of friends that were just troubled kids. It got to the point
> where I made it clear that I didn't want them around the house and I
> didn't want him hanging around with them. I won't go into some of the
> things they did or were into but whatever it was was totally
> unacceptable.
>
> Anyway, my son has continued communicating with one of the group on
> MSN but he knows how I feel about this boy and he knows that I don't
> want him getting together with him. This kid smokes (more than
> cigarettes as far as I know), drinks, lies and talks in a crude
> manner.
>
> There's one thing that I always felt confident about until today. I
> always believed that both of my sons were honest with me. But, today,
> my older son lied to me and told me that he was going out with a
> certain friend and it turns out he's with this kid I disapprove of.
> He felt that lying would be better than telling me the truth. I went
> out for about an hour. Before I left, I asked him what his plans were
> for the day...I asked him if he was planning on just staying home and
> he said he was. I came back and he was out and he left me a message
> telling me that he'd be with a different friend. Later on, I called
> that friend and he told me that he wasn't with him all day. Now, it's
> going on 10 pm and he's not home and I know he's with that boy. I
> found out. So, here I sit....worrying. I just want him to come home.
> I'd rather know the truth even if I don't like it, than be lied to.

[kim]

But there isn't any greater pleasure than sex for a 16 year boy but more
of it. I dated as many as three boys at a time just because I was
pretty. I learned at an early age nothing controls young men more than
lust. They cause their own problems.

nancy wrote:
>
> That bad boy reminds me of a loser boyfriend I made the mistake of
> dating in high school. Your son's friend might be connecting your son up
> with some girls. If so, he will lie to hide he is still hanging out with
> him. Sixteen is the age when girls consume boys. Ask your son about it
> because getting protection is another problem you might have to worry
> about. Troubled girls are the type who might carry it. You'll have to
> figure out a way to make not being with those troubled kids as much fun
> as with being with them. Kids go where they have fun. Dangerous or not.
> Until he has something better to do expect him to lie to you.
>
> Rhonda wrote:
> >
> > I'm sitting here on a Saturday night, worried about my almost 16 year
> > old son. Maybe it's because I've had a worst nightmare come true when
> > my mother was killed in a car accident that I worry a lot.
> >
> > I'm the type of mom who makes my kids feel comfortable about having
> > friends come over to our house. If they show up with friends after
> > school or on the weekend, they always know that I'll be okay with
> > that. I like to know who they're hanging out with and I feel good
> > knowing that they're safe. If they aren't home, they know that I need
> > to know where they are, who they're with and approximately what time
> > they'll be home. They also know what I consider reasonable regarding
> > hometime.
> >
> > There's only one thing I don't accept. My older son used to have a
> > group of friends that were just troubled kids. It got to the point
> > where I made it clear that I didn't want them around the house and I
> > didn't want him hanging around with them. I won't go into some of the
> > things they did or were into but whatever it was was totally
> > unacceptable.
> >
> > Anyway, my son has continued communicating with one of the group on
> > MSN but he knows how I feel about this boy and he knows that I don't
> > want him getting together with him. This kid smokes (more than
> > cigarettes as far as I know), drinks, lies and talks in a crude
> > manner.
> >
> > There's one thing that I always felt confident about until today. I
> > always believed that both of my sons were honest with me. But, today,
> > my older son lied to me and told me that he was going out with a
> > certain friend and it turns out he's with this kid I disapprove of.
> > He felt that lying would be better than telling me the truth. I went
> > out for about an hour. Before I left, I asked him what his plans were
> > for the day...I asked him if he was planning on just staying home and
> > he said he was. I came back and he was out and he left me a message
> > telling me that he'd be with a different friend. Later on, I called
> > that friend and he told me that he wasn't with him all day. Now, it's
> > going on 10 pm and he's not home and I know he's with that boy. I
> > found out. So, here I sit....worrying. I just want him to come home.
> > I'd rather know the truth even if I don't like it, than be lied to.

[Dennis Here]

Rhonda wrote in message

>All in all, I believe he's sensible and responsible but I'm
>just being a mother and having teenage growing pains a little.


Yeah, it can be difficult to come to terms with little ones becoming adults.
Needs a broader outlook and lots of two way communication. You have to
listen and take on board what he is saying.

Dennis

[Rhonda]

"Dennis Here" oureply> wrote in message >...
> Rhonda wrote in message
>
> >All in all, I believe he's sensible and responsible but I'm
> >just being a mother and having teenage growing pains a little.
>
>
> Yeah, it can be difficult to come to terms with little ones becoming adults.
> Needs a broader outlook and lots of two way communication. You have to
> listen and take on board what he is saying.
>
> Dennis

Thanks for thoughtful advice, Dennis. I think I learned something
that day. There are just certain things that don't work...and my
attempt at stopping my son from hanging around with that guy was one
of them.

Open communication in a non-threatening way is the best bet. My son
was surprised that I wasn't angrier with him than I was.....but I
realize that anger won't stop him, it will just encourage him to do
things behind my back.

He knows how I feel and I've expressed to him that I can't be behind
him to watch his every move. I really do believe deep down that he's
pretty sensible and I hope it stays that way.

Of course he wants to experience sex, however. He's 16 with raging
male hormones. I believe he'd pursue it if the opportunity presented
itself. So, I hope that he doesn't run into any permissive girls in
the near future. :) A couple of years ago, he and a friend went into
the convenience store and bought a package of condoms as a joke....I
guess that means he wouldn't be embarrassed to buy them again if need
be. There are certain things he just won't talk to me about...but,
nevertheless, when I get the opportunity, I bring up the subject in a
non-threatening way. I also know that his doctor asks him personal
questions to keep things in check. I do my best to stay aware of
what's going on and to remain approachable.

Dennis, thanks for being there. It feels good to know that not
everyone is calling me names. I really do appreciate it and I wanted
to let you know.

Rhonda

[Paul Griffiths]

"kim" > wrote in message ...

> But there isn't any greater pleasure than sex for a 16 year boy but more
> of it.

I'd say that depends a great deal on the individual boy.

> I dated as many as three boys at a time just because I was pretty.

???

> I learned at an early age nothing controls young men more than lust.

Oh yes?

> They cause their own problems.

Well this bit I agree with, so far as it goes.


--
Paul Griffiths

[Paul Fritz]

"kim" > wrote in message ...
> But there isn't any greater pleasure than sex for a 16 year boy but more
> of it. I dated as many as three boys at a time just because I was
> pretty. I learned at an early age nothing controls young men more than
> lust. They cause their own problems.
>

I guess that is because you hung out with boys as shallow as yourself

[dorisP]

Paul Fritz wrote:
>
> "kim" > wrote in message ...
> > But there isn't any greater pleasure than sex for a 16 year boy but more
> > of it. I dated as many as three boys at a time just because I was
> > pretty. I learned at an early age nothing controls young men more than
> > lust. They cause their own problems.
> >
>
> I guess that is because you hung out with boys as shallow as yourself


Give her a break will you? I didn't know anyone at that age who didn't
like to party. You never made a fool of yourself over a girl Paul?

[Paul Fritz]

"dorisP" > wrote in message
...
> Paul Fritz wrote:
> >
> > "kim" > wrote in message
...
> > > But there isn't any greater pleasure than sex for a 16 year boy but
more
> > > of it. I dated as many as three boys at a time just because I was
> > > pretty. I learned at an early age nothing controls young men more than
> > > lust. They cause their own problems.
> > >
> >
> > I guess that is because you hung out with boys as shallow as yourself
>
>
> Give her a break will you? I didn't know anyone at that age who didn't
> like to party. You never made a fool of yourself over a girl Paul?

She obviously had not learned from "making a fool of herself" if she is
still painting all 16 Y.O with such a broad brush.

BTW, no, didn't even bother to date in H.S. I was focused on saving money
and getting grades for college. I wasn't the only one either.

[karentpp]

Paul, "BTW, no, didn't even bother to date in H.S. I was focused on
saving money
and getting grades for college. I wasn't the only one either."

You sound all ego to me. Chances are no girls wanted to date you.
'Didn't bother to date in HS' conveys you were somehow above the hormone
urges almost all boys suffer from at 16. I dated the smarter boys in my
class. All had decent grades and all loved making out. She never painted
all 16 Y.O. with the same brush. You may of studied a lot, and might be
book smart, but your intuition of what people are trying to tell you is
missing. And you're not nice, your attitude shows it. A tiny mistake and
you jump on it like a jackal. Were you so above it all Paul? Or did you
reject those who were rejecting you?


Paul Fritz wrote:
>
> "dorisP" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Paul Fritz wrote:
> > >
> > > "kim" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > > But there isn't any greater pleasure than sex for a 16 year boy but
> more
> > > > of it. I dated as many as three boys at a time just because I was
> > > > pretty. I learned at an early age nothing controls young men more than
> > > > lust. They cause their own problems.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I guess that is because you hung out with boys as shallow as yourself
> >
> >
> > Give her a break will you? I didn't know anyone at that age who didn't
> > like to party. You never made a fool of yourself over a girl Paul?
>
> She obviously had not learned from "making a fool of herself" if she is
> still painting all 16 Y.O with such a broad brush.
>
> BTW, no, didn't even bother to date in H.S. I was focused on saving money
> and getting grades for college. I wasn't the only one either.

[Paul Fritz]

"karentpp" > wrote in message
...
> Paul, "BTW, no, didn't even bother to date in H.S. I was focused on
> saving money
> and getting grades for college. I wasn't the only one either."
>
> You sound all ego to me. Chances are no girls wanted to date you.
> 'Didn't bother to date in HS' conveys you were somehow above the hormone
> urges almost all boys suffer from at 16. I dated the smarter boys in my
> class. All had decent grades and all loved making out. She never painted
> all 16 Y.O. with the same brush. You may of studied a lot, and might be
> book smart, but your intuition of what people are trying to tell you is
> missing. And you're not nice, your attitude shows it. A tiny mistake and
> you jump on it like a jackal. Were you so above it all Paul? Or did you
> reject those who were rejecting you?
>

<snicker> Have to love the ASSuming. Jumped on her like a jackal? LMAO
you ain't seen nothing. And your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be
desired. A tiny mistake? Hardly. if she is painting all 16 y.o. with the
same brush, if you cannot understand the meaning of "I learned at an early
age nothing controls young men more than lust" then I suggest remedial
reading comprehension 101. Too bad you appear as shallow as the OP not to
understand that

Now I will make an assumption, YOU dated boys that were only thinking with
one head, and it wasn't the one on their shoulders.......sounds to me like
you made poor choices in life and are on the outside looking in.......to bad
to sad.

AND BTW, there was no rejection or rejecting, I saw no need to squander
money on girls like that at that age. I could make similar broad brush
statements about girls of the same age and what they weer after, but I saw
and knew the whole range.....from ones that would sleep with anything that
moved, to ones that were just as focused on studying and getting ahead in
the world. NOT all (and not almost all)16 y.o. boys are driven by lust,
didn't believe it then, don't believe it now.

>
> Paul Fritz wrote:
> >
> > "dorisP" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Paul Fritz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "kim" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > > But there isn't any greater pleasure than sex for a 16 year boy
but
> > more
> > > > > of it. I dated as many as three boys at a time just because I was
> > > > > pretty. I learned at an early age nothing controls young men more
than
> > > > > lust. They cause their own problems.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I guess that is because you hung out with boys as shallow as
yourself
> > >
> > >
> > > Give her a break will you? I didn't know anyone at that age who
didn't
> > > like to party. You never made a fool of yourself over a girl Paul?
> >
> > She obviously had not learned from "making a fool of herself" if she is
> > still painting all 16 Y.O with such a broad brush.
> >
> > BTW, no, didn't even bother to date in H.S. I was focused on saving
money
> > and getting grades for college. I wasn't the only one either.

[Tiffany]

Paul Fritz > wrote in message
...
>
> <'Kate> wrote in message
...
> > On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:41:06 -0800, "Paul Fritz"
> > >
> > >
>
> > >
> > >AND BTW, there was no rejection or rejecting, I saw no need to squander
> > >money on girls like that at that age. I could make similar broad brush
> > >statements about girls of the same age and what they weer after, but I
> saw
> > >and knew the whole range.....from ones that would sleep with anything
> that
> > >moved, to ones that were just as focused on studying and getting ahead
in
> > >the world. NOT all (and not almost all)16 y.o. boys are driven by lust,
> > >didn't believe it then, don't believe it now.
> >
> > You forgot the girls who were sleeping with whomever, whenever to
> > overcome self-image issues. Or girls who are using sex to get things
> > just because they're "pretty" or developed sooner than other girls.
> > There were always easy girls - the ones who have 3 boyfriends - because
> > they put out. The question is, who had the advantage?
> >
> > 'Kate
> >
>
> And from observing my own H.S. reunions, the ones that had the three
> boyfriends, and the guys that were 'driven' by lust, have ended up in dead
> end jobs, (receptionists, mill worker etc.) the ones that put there
> education as a priority are bank V.P.s, business owners, college
professors
> etc.
>
>

I don't think it matters who had the advantage..... everyone loses out when
they are to consumed with sex to work on goals that are useful in life.

T

[Paul Fritz]

<'Kate> wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:41:06 -0800, "Paul Fritz"
> >
> >

> >
> >AND BTW, there was no rejection or rejecting, I saw no need to squander
> >money on girls like that at that age. I could make similar broad brush
> >statements about girls of the same age and what they weer after, but I
saw
> >and knew the whole range.....from ones that would sleep with anything
that
> >moved, to ones that were just as focused on studying and getting ahead in
> >the world. NOT all (and not almost all)16 y.o. boys are driven by lust,
> >didn't believe it then, don't believe it now.
>
> You forgot the girls who were sleeping with whomever, whenever to
> overcome self-image issues. Or girls who are using sex to get things
> just because they're "pretty" or developed sooner than other girls.
> There were always easy girls - the ones who have 3 boyfriends - because
> they put out. The question is, who had the advantage?
>
> 'Kate
>

And from observing my own H.S. reunions, the ones that had the three
boyfriends, and the guys that were 'driven' by lust, have ended up in dead
end jobs, (receptionists, mill worker etc.) the ones that put there
education as a priority are bank V.P.s, business owners, college professors
etc.

[Rhonda]

I don't know why some people in this newsgroup can't disagree without
turning nasty and defensive on one another.

I fell into the same boat because of my reaction to somebody's comment
on my priorities, placing more importance on sex than on my kids!!!
That hit a major chord with me for reasons that go beyond anything
that was discussed. I stayed in a marriage for over 15 years with a
man who had extremely LSD...or NSD. I didn't stick around because I
placed more importance on sex than my kids either!He was always like
that too...I married him at 24 expecting him to change or not having
an understanding of the long term implications of the situation.

I find there are a couple of people here who just love to start flame
wars. Come on! We're all supposedly here for the same reason...We're
all single parents trying to do our best...whether it be that we're
going through teenage angst or school issues or whatever.....

IMHO, Paul has some major issues there....HOLY ****....That guy'll go
out of his way to create opportunities to flame women!!!

That's why I choose to ignore him.....I won't react to him.... He's
undeserving of any woman's time or energy.

Personally, I hate flame wars...If I knew I was stepping into that, I
would have never approached this newsgroup in the first place...but
then, you sort of get to know the characters and it's sometimes a
little intriguing to check up on those threads that I've contributed
to.

[Joelle]

Rhonda

>I don't know why some people in this newsgroup can't disagree without
>turning nasty and defensive on one another.

Okay I nominate this for the ironic post of the week. Rhonda-"You Killed Your
Husand"is lecturing us on how to behave when someone posts something you don't
like.

Joelle

[Tiffany]

Rhonda > wrote in message
om...
> I don't know why some people in this newsgroup can't disagree without
> turning nasty and defensive on one another.
>
> I fell into the same boat because of my reaction to somebody's comment
> on my priorities, placing more importance on sex than on my kids!!!
> That hit a major chord with me for reasons that go beyond anything
> that was discussed. I stayed in a marriage for over 15 years with a
> man who had extremely LSD...or NSD. I didn't stick around because I
> placed more importance on sex than my kids either!He was always like
> that too...I married him at 24 expecting him to change or not having
> an understanding of the long term implications of the situation.
>
> I find there are a couple of people here who just love to start flame
> wars. Come on! We're all supposedly here for the same reason...We're
> all single parents trying to do our best...whether it be that we're
> going through teenage angst or school issues or whatever.....
>
> IMHO, Paul has some major issues there....HOLY ****....That guy'll go
> out of his way to create opportunities to flame women!!!
>
> That's why I choose to ignore him.....I won't react to him.... He's
> undeserving of any woman's time or energy.
>
> Personally, I hate flame wars...If I knew I was stepping into that, I
> would have never approached this newsgroup in the first place...but
> then, you sort of get to know the characters and it's sometimes a
> little intriguing to check up on those threads that I've contributed
> to.

You are definitely doing the right thing by ignoring those you choice to.
Everyone does have the right to an opinion. Some just don't throw it out
there nicely.

T

[Laura]

(Rhonda) wrote in message >...


> IMHO, Paul has some major issues there....HOLY ****....That guy'll go
> out of his way to create opportunities to flame women!!!
>
> That's why I choose to ignore him.....I won't react to him.... He's
> undeserving of any woman's time or energy.

Why is it that people on Usenet always make a public point of not
talking about people by talking about them?

lm

[Paul Fritz]

"Rhonda" > wrote in message
om...
> I don't know why some people in this newsgroup can't disagree without
> turning nasty and defensive on one another.
>
> I fell into the same boat because of my reaction to somebody's comment
> on my priorities, placing more importance on sex than on my kids!!!

LMAO......time for you to look in the mirror!!!!!

> That hit a major chord with me for reasons that go beyond anything
> that was discussed. I stayed in a marriage for over 15 years with a
> man who had extremely LSD...or NSD. I didn't stick around because I
> placed more importance on sex than my kids either!He was always like
> that too...I married him at 24 expecting him to change or not having
> an understanding of the long term implications of the situation.

HOw typical of a shallow woman......wanting to 'change' a man to fit your
image of what a man should be. Seems to me YOU didn't understand the long
term implications...........and it seems you STILL have not learned from it


>
> I find there are a couple of people here who just love to start flame
> wars. Come on!

You for example

>We're all supposedly here for the same reason...We're
> all single parents trying to do our best...

Except you and a couple of posters trolling around

>whether it be that we're
> going through teenage angst or school issues or whatever.....
>
> IMHO, Paul has some major issues there....HOLY ****....That guy'll go
> out of his way to create opportunities to flame women!!!

<snicker> ROTFLMAO <snicker>
BWHAHAHAHHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....(just couldn't hold that in)


>
> That's why I choose to ignore him.....I won't react to him.... He's
> undeserving of any woman's time or energy.

Seems to me you are reacting now......hypocrite.

>
> Personally, I hate flame wars..

Sure.....and the pope is a methodist.

>.If I knew I was stepping into that, I
> would have never approached this newsgroup in the first place...but
> then, you sort of get to know the characters and it's sometimes a
> little intriguing to check up on those threads that I've contributed
> to.

You've cpntributed? could have fooled me.

[Paul Fritz]

IRONIC? I nominate her for hyopcrite for the year.

"Joelle" > wrote in message
...
> Rhonda
>
> >I don't know why some people in this newsgroup can't disagree without
> >turning nasty and defensive on one another.
>
> Okay I nominate this for the ironic post of the week. Rhonda-"You Killed
Your
> Husand"is lecturing us on how to behave when someone posts something you
don't
> like.
>
> Joelle

[Paul Fritz]

Not many at my particular H.S. but it would be interesting to see some
numbers on it in


<'Kate> wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 13:09:35 -0800, "Paul Fritz"
> >
>
> >And from observing my own H.S. reunions, the ones that had the three
> >boyfriends, and the guys that were 'driven' by lust, have ended up in
dead
> >end jobs, (receptionists, mill worker etc.) the ones that put there
> >education as a priority are bank V.P.s, business owners, college
professors
> >etc.
>
> I wonder how many of the boy users were from fatherless homes.
>
> 'Kate

[Paul Fritz]

<'Kate> wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 14:24:53 -0500, "Tiffany" >
> >
> >
>
> Believe it or not, most things worth having in life involve competition.
> No one simply gives it away. There is a power exchange. If there's a
> power exchange - someone has the advantage. The original poster said
> that she manipulated 16 year old boys because she was pretty and they
> were full of lust - easy targets. If she was dating 3 boys, then was
> she allowing herself to be used. Who got the most out of that deal? Who
> had the advantage.
>
> 'Kate

Better watch it Kate, next thing and you will be accused of starting a flame
war..................personally I am waiting for the "I hate women"
accusation........that would be the next step for those that cannot address
the issues.

[dipper]

'Kate wrote:
>
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 14:24:53 -0500, "Tiffany" >
> >
> >Paul Fritz > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> <'Kate> wrote in message
> ...
> >> > On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:41:06 -0800, "Paul Fritz"
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >>
> >> > >
> >> > >AND BTW, there was no rejection or rejecting, I saw no need to squander
> >> > >money on girls like that at that age. I could make similar broad brush
> >> > >statements about girls of the same age and what they weer after, but I
> >> saw
> >> > >and knew the whole range.....from ones that would sleep with anything
> >> that
> >> > >moved, to ones that were just as focused on studying and getting ahead
> >in
> >> > >the world. NOT all (and not almost all)16 y.o. boys are driven by lust,
> >> > >didn't believe it then, don't believe it now.
> >> >
> >> > You forgot the girls who were sleeping with whomever, whenever to
> >> > overcome self-image issues. Or girls who are using sex to get things
> >> > just because they're "pretty" or developed sooner than other girls.
> >> > There were always easy girls - the ones who have 3 boyfriends - because
> >> > they put out. The question is, who had the advantage?
> >> >
> >> > 'Kate
> >> >
> >>
> >> And from observing my own H.S. reunions, the ones that had the three
> >> boyfriends, and the guys that were 'driven' by lust, have ended up in dead
> >> end jobs, (receptionists, mill worker etc.) the ones that put there
> >> education as a priority are bank V.P.s, business owners, college
> >professors
> >> etc.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I don't think it matters who had the advantage..... everyone loses out when
> >they are to consumed with sex to work on goals that are useful in life.
> >
> >T
>
> Believe it or not, most things worth having in life involve competition.
> No one simply gives it away. There is a power exchange. If there's a
> power exchange - someone has the advantage. The original poster said
> that she manipulated 16 year old boys because she was pretty and they
> were full of lust - easy targets. If she was dating 3 boys, then was
> she allowing herself to be used. Who got the most out of that deal? Who
> had the advantage.
>
> 'Kate


Different people pick up different impressions to suit their own views.
That woman wasn't bragging or felt used. We all know boys tend to chase
the pretty ones. As if cheerleaders or other women don't know it. How
many decent, but ugly women, have trouble getting married? How many
pretty, but bitchy, women don't have problems getting married? Hollywood
and the Fashion Industry feed the men in this world, get the attractive
woman. Look at newscasters today, can you find one ugly woman on TV
giving you the news on any station?

How many women will admit that money and power make a man more
attractive to them?

[Paul Fritz]

<'Kate> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 12:27:33 -0500, dipper >
> >'Kate wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 14:24:53 -0500, "Tiffany" >
> >> >
> >> >Paul Fritz > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> <'Kate> wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> > On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:41:06 -0800, "Paul Fritz"
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >>
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >AND BTW, there was no rejection or rejecting, I saw no need to
squander
> >> >> > >money on girls like that at that age. I could make similar broad
brush
> >> >> > >statements about girls of the same age and what they weer after,
but I
> >> >> saw
> >> >> > >and knew the whole range.....from ones that would sleep with
anything
> >> >> that
> >> >> > >moved, to ones that were just as focused on studying and getting
ahead
> >> >in
> >> >> > >the world. NOT all (and not almost all)16 y.o. boys are driven by
lust,
> >> >> > >didn't believe it then, don't believe it now.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You forgot the girls who were sleeping with whomever, whenever to
> >> >> > overcome self-image issues. Or girls who are using sex to get
things
> >> >> > just because they're "pretty" or developed sooner than other
girls.
> >> >> > There were always easy girls - the ones who have 3 boyfriends -
because
> >> >> > they put out. The question is, who had the advantage?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 'Kate
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> And from observing my own H.S. reunions, the ones that had the three
> >> >> boyfriends, and the guys that were 'driven' by lust, have ended up
in dead
> >> >> end jobs, (receptionists, mill worker etc.) the ones that put there
> >> >> education as a priority are bank V.P.s, business owners, college
> >> >professors
> >> >> etc.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >I don't think it matters who had the advantage..... everyone loses out
when
> >> >they are to consumed with sex to work on goals that are useful in
life.
> >> >
> >> >T
> >>
> >> Believe it or not, most things worth having in life involve
competition.
> >> No one simply gives it away. There is a power exchange. If there's a
> >> power exchange - someone has the advantage. The original poster said
> >> that she manipulated 16 year old boys because she was pretty and they
> >> were full of lust - easy targets. If she was dating 3 boys, then was
> >> she allowing herself to be used. Who got the most out of that deal?
Who
> >> had the advantage.
> >>
> >> 'Kate
> >
> >
> > Different people pick up different impressions to suit their own views.
> >That woman wasn't bragging or felt used.
>
> Whether she felt used or not isn't the issue. I could wipe my feet on
> someone with low self esteem and that person wouldn't feel used but I
> still would have used him or her.
>
> >We all know boys tend to chase
> >the pretty ones. As if cheerleaders or other women don't know it. How
> >many decent, but ugly women, have trouble getting married?
>
> I don't know. How many?
>
> >How many
> >pretty, but bitchy, women don't have problems getting married?
>
> Ya got me again. I haven't got a clue.
>
> >Hollywood
> >and the Fashion Industry feed the men in this world, get the attractive
> >woman.
>
> What is attractive is, as research shows, is the symmetry of a face.
> The more symmetrical, the more perceived beauty. It also seems that men
> prefer women with wider hips than waist... a ratio that appears to be
> universally prefered.
>
> >Look at newscasters today, can you find one ugly woman on TV
> >giving you the news on any station?
>
>
> I'm the first to admit that I don't watch a lot of TV but it doesn't
> surprise me that the media that creates the image of beauty also hires
> people it considers to be beautiful.
>
> It's terribly shallow to define a woman by looks alone. I've also
> noticed that how someone looks at first glance v. how someone looks over
> time and after I include all the other traits of the person can be very
> different. Once I have associated a specific trait to a person I like,
> then from that point on, it changes what I see as beautiful or
> handsome. In this way, ugly people can become beautiful and vice versa.
> I begin to associate behaviors with certain looks.
>
> > How many women will admit that money and power make a man more
> >attractive to them?
>
> It's survival. In this world, the more money coming in the household,
> the easier it is to survive. In earlier days it was stronger, smarter
> men. Does it make women bad? Nah... just lookin' out for their
> interests. Does it make men bad that they want beautiful women? Nah.
> Just shallow (kidding).

Beauty can also defined by ones own self esteem...... I have known more than
one girl who I would not have given a second look, but once they became
involved with someone, not only did their personality jump light years, but
also their physical appearance, because they cared more about themselves.

With regard to the OP, she is simply a tramp or a troll judging from a few
other posts, (and possibly quite the racist) and was using multiple ID's

>
> 'Kate
>

[Paul Fritz]

<'Kate> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:04:10 -0500, "Paul Fritz"
> >
>
>
> >Beauty can also defined by ones own self esteem...... I have known more
than
> >one girl who I would not have given a second look, but once they became
> >involved with someone, not only did their personality jump light years,
but
> >also their physical appearance, because they cared more about themselves.
>
>
> I agree. Confident people attract others. Attraction is necessary to
> want to know someone as a person. But I think that's part of the beauty
> myth too - beauty or handsomness makes people confident because we
> "admire" them and treat them differently - a little better then just
> "ok" looking people, at least at first. Ditto with thin people. I've
> noticed a difference in how I'm treated after losing 30 lbs - I feel
> more confident and competent and I notice that others treat me
> differently. I'm not sure whether that's because I look more desirable
> or just because I feel better about myself - maybe a bit of both.

Hell, that happens to me just throwing on a suit instead of jeans and a
grubby T shirt. Don't get quite as many suspicious stares in the stores
either.

>
> >With regard to the OP, she is simply a tramp or a troll judging from a
few
> >other posts,
>
> It's hard to say. She may very well be an abandoned daughter and hasn't
> realized, yet, the effect it had on her life and how others see her.
>
> >(and possibly quite the racist) and was using multiple ID's
>
> Probably embarassed too.

She should be.

>
> 'Kate
>

[Dennis Here]

Rhonda wrote in message

>
>Of course he wants to experience sex, however. He's 16 with raging
>male hormones. I believe he'd pursue it if the opportunity presented
>itself. So, I hope that he doesn't run into any permissive girls in
>the near future. :)

And he will be thinking the exact opposite!


>Dennis, thanks for being there. It feels good to know that not
>everyone is calling me names. I really do appreciate it and I wanted
>to let you know.


Hey, any more of these kind of thanks and I'll loose my reputation. A lot of
people think I'm the bad guy around here!

Dennis

[Dennis Here]

'Kate <'Kate> wrote in message ...

>What I see most often in reports of studies like this is the headline,
>"Single mother homes are harmful" rather than "Fathers who abandon
>daughters...". The onus is on the single-mother when clearly it is the
>abandonment that does the most harm.... daughters of fathers who have
>died do not have the same issues.


An excellent point 'Kate, I'll use it in my anti stereotyping crusade.
So what happens to Boys if their mother abandons them?

Dennis

[Paul Fritz]

<'Kate> wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 07:53:10 -0500, "Paul Fritz"
> >

>
> Historically, fathers leave the parenting to the mother so some of the
> "leave the parenting to the mother" is learned from having been raised
> in a traditional home. Culturally, fathers are still considered the
> "breadwinners". Mothers, even those who work, do most of the parenting
> and housekeeping - the second shift. Woman's earning income is highly
> correlated with her dissatisfaction with marriage, BTW. I can only
> guess that women who work and earn enough to support the household are
> more apt to divorce... "What do I need HIM for?" Unless fathers step up
> to the plate and become actively involved in raising children, I suspect
> that the divorce rate will continue to rise and more and more of our
> sons and daughters will pay the price.
>
> 'Kate
>

Nope......the fact that women in general can anticipate getting custody (and
the financial gains and power)drives the divorce rate. Fathers are more
likely to be driven from the home than abandon it.

States that have enacted a more presumtive joint custody see a significant
drop in the divorce rate...

[Paul Fritz]

<'Kate> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 00:46:19 -0500, "Paul Fritz"
> >
> >
> ><'Kate> wrote in message
...
> >> On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 07:53:10 -0500, "Paul Fritz"
> >> >
> >
> >>
> >> Historically, fathers leave the parenting to the mother so some of the
> >> "leave the parenting to the mother" is learned from having been raised
> >> in a traditional home. Culturally, fathers are still considered the
> >> "breadwinners". Mothers, even those who work, do most of the parenting
> >> and housekeeping - the second shift. Woman's earning income is highly
> >> correlated with her dissatisfaction with marriage, BTW. I can only
> >> guess that women who work and earn enough to support the household are
> >> more apt to divorce... "What do I need HIM for?" Unless fathers step
up
> >> to the plate and become actively involved in raising children, I
suspect
> >> that the divorce rate will continue to rise and more and more of our
> >> sons and daughters will pay the price.
> >>
> >> 'Kate
> >>
> >
> >Nope......the fact that women in general can anticipate getting custody
(and
> >the financial gains and power)drives the divorce rate. Fathers are more
> >likely to be driven from the home than abandon it.
>
> I know you have your beliefs but what I've said doesn't contradict men
> feeling pushed out of homes. Perhaps women who are working outside the
> home and having to pull the second shift after 5pm are simply not as
> tolerant of others not pulling their weight or believing that they will
> be seen as less manly because they occasionally mop a floor. For some
> reason, housework is women's work and men often want to be thanked for
> any participation in household chores or childcare. What's that about?

Painting with a broad brush are we? The division of household work falls
along gender lines as part of human nature. Womens goups tend to discount
those activities that typically (and naturally it seems) are on the other
side of the gender divide. I.e., washing dishes is considered household
work, but fixing the roof isn't. Changing a diaper is, but teaching them how
to hit a baseball isn't. THere is also the 'impotance' factor. Men, IMO,
are more tolerant of a little grunge than the typcial woman ;-)

>
> >States that have enacted a more presumtive joint custody see a
significant
> >drop in the divorce rate...
>
> It isn't all about the money. If it was, then couples would stay
> together because it's economically better for the woman.

Not true.......women typically end up economically better after divorce then
men. and then your throw in the power aspect to boot

>
> 'Kate
>
>

[Joy]

"Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
...
>
> <'Kate> wrote in message
...

Woman's earning income is highly
> > correlated with her dissatisfaction with marriage, BTW.

<delurk>
Is it just the level of dissatisfaction that is correlated with income, or
is it that the ability to do something about the dissatisfaction - i.e.
leave the relationship - is correlated with income? I see these as very
different things.

I can only
> > guess that women who work and earn enough to support the household are
> > more apt to divorce... "What do I need HIM for?"

This makes sense to me. While this is purely anecdotal, and I have no
statistical data, I can say that I was just as unhappy with my former
marriage *before* I was able to support the household as I was *after*. For
me, it wasn't the income level that led to the dissatisfaction at all -
although it did give me the ability to do something about it. (By way of
introduction, I spent several years as a SAHM, got tired of being dirt poor,
went back to school, got a job, was the primary breadwinner for the family
for several years, some bad [marital] stuff happened and then, as mentioned
above, I thought "I can support myself and the kids....What do I need HIM
for?")

Unless fathers step up
> > to the plate and become actively involved in raising children, I suspect
> > that the divorce rate will continue to rise and more and more of our
> > sons and daughters will pay the price.
> >
> > 'Kate
> >
>
> Nope......the fact that women in general can anticipate getting custody
(and
> the financial gains and power)drives the divorce rate. Fathers are more
> likely to be driven from the home than abandon it.
>
> States that have enacted a more presumtive joint custody see a significant
> drop in the divorce rate...

It is more complicated than that. For example, my ex did *not* want
custody. He did not (and still does not) want overnight visits - he really
doesn't ever want to take our youngest to his house at all (the oldest is an
adult, and not subject to a visitation schedule). He just wants to drop by
at random intervals a couple times a month and say hi to the kids, or have
dinner with them occasionally. He really doesn't have it in him to do more
than that. For a parent like him, a change in the presumption of joint
custody would be irrelevant.

Joy

[Joy]

<'Kate> wrote in message ...
>
> I'm sorry to hear that... for the kids' sake. I think that we need to
> do a better PR job with respect to the value of fathers in their
> children's lives.

My ex grew up without a father himself, and never seemed to get the hang of
it. Even when he lived in the same house as us he chose to spend very
little time with the family. The little time he did spend tended to be
pretty unpleasant. My kids do not have fond memories of life with their
father. They both have told me I should have divorced him years earlier.
On the other hand, they both have had a very good relationship with their
grandfather, which helped to fill that emotional niche.

> And I have yet to see the study regarding joint custody and a drop in
> the divorce rate or a cause assigned to fathers being driven from the
> home.

That phrase "driven from the home" sounds rather inflammatory to me,
although I can understand how some might feel that way. For example, in my
case, when we divorced it was ultimately my decision to do so (with good
cause, by any objective standard). He would never have made that choice - I
was a good wife (even according to him), and, to put it bluntly, he didn't
want to lose my income, my housekeeping, or any of the other advantages of
having a spouse. Staying married was a really good deal for him, but for
reasons I'd rather not get into it was a really, really, really bad deal for
me. As far as keeping the home, it came down to who could make the mortgage
payments - I was able to make the house payment, he wasn't, so I kept the
house. So does that mean he was "driven from the home"? I've run into
people before who implied that somehow I must have done something bad -
somehow screwed my ex - because I kept the house and had custody of the
minor child. I know I didn't, and my ex even says I didn't - but somehow
there seems to be a presumption that any woman who kept the home in the
divorce did so by somehow ripping it away from her former spouse. Somehow
the phrase "driven from the home" has overtones of that to me, although that
may not be how you meant it at all.

Joy

[Paul Fritz]

<Sigh>....when will people learn that personal anedotes are meaningless WRT
statiistics??????

"Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote
in message ...
>

>
> It is more complicated than that. For example, my ex did *not* want
> custody. He did not (and still does not) want overnight visits - he
really
> doesn't ever want to take our youngest to his house at all (the oldest is
an
> adult, and not subject to a visitation schedule). He just wants to drop
by
> at random intervals a couple times a month and say hi to the kids, or have
> dinner with them occasionally. He really doesn't have it in him to do
more
> than that. For a parent like him, a change in the presumption of joint
> custody would be irrelevant.
>
> Joy
>
>
>



>

[Paul Fritz]

<'Kate> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:10:16 -0500, "Joy"
> <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com>
> >
> >
> And I have yet to see the study regarding joint custody and a drop in
> the divorce rate or a cause assigned to fathers being driven from the
> home. But fathers are, as I've recently found, a neglected study group.
> It's a good direction for further research.
>
> 'Kate
>

U.S. states with high levels of joint custody (> 30% of divorces) have
significantly lower divorce rates four years later. Their four-year decline
in divorce rates is double that of states with medium levels of joint
custody arrangements (10 - 30%), and over four times that of states having
low levels of joint custody (< 10%). [Richard Kuhn & John Guidubaldi,
Child Custody Policies and Divorce Rates in the US, submitted at the 11th
annual Conference of the Children's Rights Council, Oct, 1997

[Paul Fritz]

<'Kate> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:39:46 -0500, "Joy"
> <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com>

>
> I was responding, in that, to Paul F's post regarding men being driven
> from the home and that in states that have presumed joint custody, the
> divorce rate has dropped. Those are his claims. I haven't seen
> anything like that in anything I've read. Chances are that if states
> favor joint custody and that's not to one parties liking, that party
> will get the divorce in a more favorable state.
>
> 'Kate
>

They would have to establish residency in that state prior to filing, and
the purpose of the move could not be for establishing a better
venue.......so it would not impact the numbers to any degree.

No gender difference in the number of divorce filings appears for
grounds of violence (6% of filings), "exploitation" (one contributing more
than receiving - 20%), or adultery. "The question of custody absolutely
swamps all the other variables. Children are the most important asset in a
marriage, and the partner who expects to get sole custody is by far the most
likely to file for divorce." Women are much more willing to divorce because
they rarely fear losing custody of the children. Usually it gives them
control over them. "If you remove that distortion, it's apt to change the
way men and women relate to each other and to their kids. Fathers are likely
to spend more time with kids if they can expect to still see them if the
marriage doesn't work out. Women will be more likely to see men as parenting
parnters, and less likely to use divorce as a power play." [Margaret F.
Brinig & Douglas Allen, "These Boots Are Made for Walking: Why Most Divorce
Filers Are Women," American Journal of Law and Economics, July, 2000. Quotes
of Dr. Brinig's conclusions are from John Tierney, "New Look at Realities of
Divorce," The New York Times, July 11, 2000

[Joelle]

><Sigh>....when will people learn that personal anedotes are meaningless WRT
>statiistics??????

Uh this is a discussion group and statistics are kind of boring and personal
anedotes say "HELLOO there are real people behind these numbers and not
everybody's stories conform to your studies"

Joelle
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only one page - St
Augustine
Joelle

[Joelle]

>It is about TREND AND TENDENCIES, not absolutes.
>Relating a personal anecdote does not invalidate the statistics.
>

I never heard anybody say "my experience invalidates the study" They are
saying - Statististics do not invalidate my experience. Frankly you are the
one I often hear saying "Your story doesn't count because it doesn't fit the
statistics"

I think personal anidotes very much need to be part of public discussion and
considered in decision making. Along with the broader picture, of which
statistics and studies are only a part.

Joelle
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only one page - St
Augustine
Joelle

[Paul Fritz]

Unless the study says 100% than of course there will be some that don't
conform to the majority. It is about TREND AND TENDENCIES, not absolutes.
Relating a personal anecdote does not invalidate the statistics.

"Joelle" > wrote in message
...
> ><Sigh>....when will people learn that personal anedotes are meaningless
WRT
> >statiistics??????
>
> Uh this is a discussion group and statistics are kind of boring and
personal
> anedotes say "HELLOO there are real people behind these numbers and not
> everybody's stories conform to your studies"
>
> Joelle
> The world is a book and those who do not travel read only one page - St
> Augustine
> Joelle

[Paul Fritz]

Nope, I've never said that personal anecdotes don't count, simply that they
are meaningless with regard to statistics. Invariably someone will post a
personal anecdote in an attempt to invalid a study, when in fact the
personal anecdote would fit into the minority portion of the study.
Invariably, the next step is to claim the know 'x' number that fit the
minority, and none that fit the majority, so therefore the study is flawed,
when in reality their sampling is both too small and not random.

"Joelle" > wrote in message
...
> >It is about TREND AND TENDENCIES, not absolutes.
> >Relating a personal anecdote does not invalidate the statistics.
> >
>
> I never heard anybody say "my experience invalidates the study" They are
> saying - Statististics do not invalidate my experience. Frankly you are
the
> one I often hear saying "Your story doesn't count because it doesn't fit
the
> statistics"
>
> I think personal anidotes very much need to be part of public discussion
and
> considered in decision making. Along with the broader picture, of which
> statistics and studies are only a part.
>
> Joelle
> The world is a book and those who do not travel read only one page - St
> Augustine
> Joelle

[Joelle]

>Nope, I've never said that personal anecdotes don't count, simply that they
>are meaningless with regard to statistics.

Well duh. And statistics are meanless when it comes to my story - arent' they?
Statistically the chances of me becoming a widow are pretty slim but I say you
can take those statistics and shove them.

> Invariably someone will post a
>personal anecdote in an attempt to invalid a stud

No, they are simply bringing another view to the discussion.

Joelle
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only one page - St
Augustine
Joelle

[Joy]

"Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
...
> <Sigh>....when will people learn that personal anedotes are meaningless
WRT
> statiistics??????

Meaningless wrt what statistic? There were absolutely *no* statistics
present in the post to which I was responding.

As somebody said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and
statistics." Statistics are invaluable when it comes to analyzing trends -
but personal anecdotes are also invaluable for discussion, which is what I
was attempting to do.



>
> "Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote
> in message ...
> >
>
> >
> > It is more complicated than that. For example, my ex did *not* want
> > custody. He did not (and still does not) want overnight visits - he
> really
> > doesn't ever want to take our youngest to his house at all (the oldest
is
> an
> > adult, and not subject to a visitation schedule). He just wants to drop
> by
> > at random intervals a couple times a month and say hi to the kids, or
have
> > dinner with them occasionally. He really doesn't have it in him to do
> more
> > than that. For a parent like him, a change in the presumption of joint
> > custody would be irrelevant.
> >
> > Joy
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> >
>
>

[Andrew]

> I agree that men usually do the hard labor of the household and that it
> is often because they have more muscle mass. Just like women are the
> ones who nurse babies because they have the breasts. It isn't a
> comparison of who does what anymore than do they both eat? If so, then
> why is grocery shopping, cooking, cleaning up after dinner something
> that men need to be thanked for or am I the only one who noticed that in
> my marriage?
>

Hi Kate

No, you are not the only one. I can recall explicitly having to hold myself
back from saying 'hey, look what I did' when I did dinner or cleaning up
(the shopping was a both anyway but I do agree with what you said). I do
have a feeling that once in a while when my wife did something outside the
gender roles current western society has defined as a norm she used to crow
as well but I would be hard put to identify any specifics at the moment so I
could well be wrong. Question though, is it just the way we (men) are or is
it a society thing (obviously I would rather believe that). But to
reiterate, yes, you are right, it happens regularly.

however, there is the dark other side (LOL)

prior to living alone:

'wow, she made me a casserole, thats really difficult, what a darling, she
works so hard and then knocks herself out for us like this, better be
specially considerate to her tonight and for the rest of my days'

after living alone:

'bummer, too tired to do anything dramatic now, i know, chuck everything
into a casserole dish and bang it into the oven. only two things to clean
with the rice pot, no danger of burning if i get tied up with email for a
while and forget, just about any old stuff can go in, can use it for
leftovers tomorrow, o joy'

the casserole conspiracy is not usually publicised by the wives. ; )

Andrew

[Joelle]

>when my wife did something outside the
>gender roles current western society has defined as a norm she used to crow
>as well but I would be hard put to identify any specifics a

Once I shoveled the driveway and boy I don't think my husband heard the end of
that for about 6 months.

Joelle
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only one page - St
Augustine
Joelle

[Dennis Here]

'Kate <'Kate> wrote in message ...

> Housework is woman's work and if a man
>does it

He is far more pleasing in bed to his spouse, according to a survey I read a
week or so ago.

Dennis

[Dennis Here]

'Kate <'Kate> wrote in message ...

>>
>
>Wow.. what an incredibly hard group to find data on! I hadn't realized,
>in comparison, how many studies are generated by single-mother homes and
>nothing on single-father homes. Literally nothing.

That is one of the reasons I spend time on this newsgroup. It is the only
resource I have found where I can be in regular contact with other single
fathers.
I will never forget the lonely, almost desperate times during the first few
years. Just knowing there were others out there seemed to help somehow.

>I found a nice
>article in the New York Times based on US Census info, info that I have
>too.
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/17/national/17FATH.html?ex=1068872400&en=6f7
663cc5ead9589&ei=5070
>
>Note that it says that when fathers have custody, they're asked "What's
>wrong with the mother?"


Yeah, that was a regular question when Freddie was a baby and toddler.
Hasn't been asked for a year or so now though.

>You'll have to log in to get the article (likely) but the subscription
>is free.


Thanks for that. I'll have a good look when I have some time. Life is still
frantic ATM.

>This was on one of the father's rights websites:
>http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:57qeRJMc7dsJ:www.acs.ohio-state.edu/un
its/research/archive/singpar.htm+income+single+father+households&hl=en&ie=UT
F-8
snip

>“People have assumed that the sex of the parent has a major effect on
>children’s development, but we found that isn’t the case,” he said.

Re-assuring, but I think that in my situation, I already new it.

>“Researchers need to focus on other factors, such as family resources,
>which seem to have a real impact.”


Any single parent could have told them that!

Dennis