Hey, there! Log in / Register
The Globe and the kissing sex offender
By adamg on Wed, 01/18/2012 - 8:00am
A Globe story about love among the occupods left out an interesting fact about the guy shown kissing his girl at Dewey Square. The Herald helpfully reveals the fact that the guy is a Level 3 sex offender - although not the one who's caused a ruckus at Occupy Boston meetings of late.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Thank God for Elizabeth Warren and the intellectual foundation!
Thank
Godgoodness for Elizabeth Warren and her creation of the intellectual foundation for what they do! Even Nancy Pelosi is now trying to distance herself from these vermin.Thank you OWS
This is a GOP attack ad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedd...
Could you even imagine this being a Dem attack ad a 6 months back?
It's that "intellectual foundation"
that's going to sweep her into office. Scott Brown will soon be nothing but the answer to a Trivial Pursuit question. I can see him now;
"Right this way, Mr. Brown."
"That's Senator Brown."
(chuckles) "Whatever you say."
Oh, you're a senator? And I'm
Oh, you're a senator? And I'm a robot! Beep boop.
Mom, Dad, meet Red, a Level Three Sex Offender!
From the Globe article:
"But they often argue. When he does not answer her texts and phone calls, she feels ignored. He often worries that she is flirting with other guys from home. She sometimes wonders what her life would be like now if she had stayed in Upstate New York."
Yikes.
So ...
They guy seems to now be in a consensual adult relationship.
Perhaps his contact with the judicial system means that he has learned a lesson he might not have learned if he had a hockey coach or football coach or bully-coddling school administrator to cover for his prior behavior ...
Perhaps...
So you would be cool with your daughter dating a level III? Awesome, dude.
Only if he didn't play hockey
Only if he didn't play hockey or football.
She's an adult
The woman in question is legally old enough to ignore advice to the contrary, decide her own risks, make her own possibly stupid mistakes.
Do you consider yourself the guardian and gatekeeper and owner of your daughter's sexuality? Now THAT is creepy, dude!
yes
because it is better that she date a convicted rapist than to offer advice and attempt to steer her into making good life choices. because
Godgoodness forbid that parents take a positive role in formulating their child's character.LIKE, THOSE ARE HER *CHOICES* MAAAAAN
Yes, they ARE her choices
Adult, not child. Her choices, not yours. You suggest things to adults, you reason with adults, you let an adult know that you think this or that is a really dumb idea. Part of being a parent of an adult is saying your piece, advising where asked and backing off. You no longer control them at her age.
If they don't get it by her age? If you don't *think* they are adults yet? Well then, you had your chance to "character up" your kid! Eighteen years of chance to get your job done! If they aren't ready for the world, I guess you didn't do your job of preparing them for adulthood, now did you? An 18 or 19 year old can cut her parents completely out of her life and her parents have nothing to say about it.
"I'm 18, you can't tell me
"I'm 18, you can't tell me what to do. I'm an adult, you don't know anything, blah blah blah." We've heard it all before. 18 year old know nothings taking on the world.
As long as she's living at home (and she is according to our fact checking Globe reporter) and her parents are pulling the purse strings, they do have a lot to say about it. Once she's out of the house and financially independent, then, yes Swirly Girl, her parents have nothing to say about it.
there you have it
judging from what i understand of the goings-on at the late occupation, it was crowded to the very gills with examples of negligent parenting.
many of them are probably victims of just the same sort of hands-off, feelgood "parenting" that is really just irresponsibility, selfishness.
scratch a heroin addict on these city streets and you will likely find a child that has been neglected by just this sort of overly permissive parenting.
disciplining a child is hard. the lasseiz-faire approach is easy. unfortunately, it also feeds into the smug self-satisfaction of so many "progressives" who have never met a social standard they didn't want to undermine and dismantle.
Congratulations, Ciao!
After your latest lecture on "I pay your bills so I own you", your 18 year old daughter packed a suitcase, got on a bus, and married her unemployed homeless level 3 sex offender.
Theory just met reality with a crashing smash. Not that you care, though: Being in control is certainly more important than her welfare, so I guess you won, eh?
One Question
How many teenagers call you "mommie"?
Because I believe the mythic, generic, stereotypic 18 year old that you are describing actually looks like this:
Either that, or you have had the misfortune of being acquainted with some seriously immature people whose parents haven't raised them to be self-sufficient and responsible by the time they can get themselves in serious trouble if they are not.
I have to ask you
Who are you writing that to? The indentation points to a post that doesn't seem to be describing the personality of a teenager. The subsequent ones doesn't exactly fits either. The closest one is the OWS people description, but it still doesn't fit as it was talking about OWS and speculating on their upraising.
Address your question itself, I don't see what you are saying. Currently I'm going to read that you are trying to say that you as a parent, knows how mature teenagers are. Based on the sampling of your kids (and your judgement of your kids)? That kids at 18 years old are pretty mature and someone here is describing teenagers to the point of exaggeration reaching to a strawman fallacy. Those that didn't met the rare misfortune of a few bad apples. I can't agree with that. At the very least, I need a more definite definition of maturity and more collective research. Certain subsets and subculture of kids are very mature. Others groups I cannot vouch for their self-sufficiency and responsibility to avoid serious trouble. A still-not-random-but-at-least-it's-larger sample size is all the people I met in college and high school. I can tell you some stories of some good and not so good people I met and got to know to some level.
This quote
The "they just can't do it yet" or "their brain isn't ready so we can't expect it of them" is a result of baby boomers misquoting science in the popular media (my husband has a cog sci degree) while covering their tracks. Sure, kids do see extended brain development into their 20s, and, yes,that effects judgement. HOWEVER, we are now seeing research that what also affects judgement is what I suspected all along: they will NOT grow those capabilities if they aren't challenged to do so. They do not just wake up one day capable of adult life - they have to have expectations and be trained. Our societal expectation that 18 is the new 15 - like the strawteen quote above - is very dangerous.
Meanwhile, the legal reality is that an 18 year old who has not been given progressive responsibility, schooled in the expectation of self-sufficiency, and taught basic life skills is in serious danger of having that additionally lagging judgement of "magical maturity in future" matter. We have young relatives whose parents bought into the "we can't make them grow up", and they ended up in serious hot water before Mean Old Judge stepped in to school them and their parents about reality.
My kids are not going to be reaching age 18 without the most basic skills. I already find I am doing far less for them than the parents of many of their peers: they get themselves to school, cook, shop, take care of their own homework, do their own negotiation with teachers, etc. Not because I'm lazy - because these are life skills. And that means they can leave if they choose, otherwise, they will be under the same house rules that their father and I observe.
I would hope parents, if they
I would hope parents, if they see their child (son or daughter) doing something perceived as very dumb, try to do all they can to prevent it from happening. Yes, the child can cut out the parents and are free to do so and part of the risk, but it doesn't mean they do as much as possible if it is that dumb (and dating a level 3 sex offender might qualify).
I can agree there's a certain point where one just have to say "this is all I can do." and hope for the best. But your message, considering the context there the original post is whyaduck is saying he/she would not be cool, is if a daughter does that seems to be if the Earth has happened to go around the sun 18 times, they can just go pound sand and merely watch as it unfold. A parent, a relative, or even a friend can be "not cool" while the person exercise their decision. If the "all you can do" is just advise and dissent the intelligence of her actions, then so be it. But this does not imply a creepy ownership over said body as your original cause to take issue.
Wow, Swirly...
I understand what you saying. In truth, yes, the young woman is 18 and in the eyes of the law, she can strike out on her own. And part of being an adult is that the parent's learn to let go.
But, still, as parents, they have a right to be concerned if their daughter is dating a level III sex offender! They might not be able to do anything about it, but I do not see anything wrong with parents showing love, caring and concern for their children...do you?
And other thing, I have a difficult time with your suggestion that parents somehow "blew it" if they did not "character up" their kid by the age of 18. Wow. Parents do the best that they can with the resources they have at the time. Yes, some parents are weak in the parenting areas or downright negligent, but they also have their stories, and most try to do the right thing. Just because their kid sees no worries with dating a level III sex offender, does not mean they did not do their "job of preparing them for adulthood". That is a big assumption on your part, is it not?
The Globe needs a fact checker
Shame on the Globe. This isn't the first time the Globe ate its words. Let's remember back when the Globe printed pictures of Iraqi women supposedly being sexually assaulted by American soldiers. In the end in turned out the photos were from a porn site:
http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/...
?
The Globe should run a CORI check on everyone it photographs or features?
Really.
Google, not CORI
It would seem that 10 seconds with Google wouldn't be an awful lot to ask of a story writer...