A disconnect at camp

On 11 Aug 2006 10:24:16 -0700, L. wrote:

user wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 22:42:54 -0700, L. wrote:

user wrote:

Oh, come on Nan, haven't you heard about all of those YMCA-sponsored rape
camps, in which all of the staff members are involved?

All it takes is one rape, and yes, it happens.


What, exactly, does "All it takes is one rape" mean? That children
have been raped? Yes, we know that. No reasonable person denies that.


So joke and laugh all you want but the fact is, kids are at risk when
they attend camp. You might not think it was so funny had it happened
to you, as it did me.

Your biggest problem is that you don't see the forest for the trees.
You have this fixation on never, ever letting your child get beyond
your all-seeing eyes. You're the one who, in months past, was
castigating people who let their children get on school buses with
"strangers", right?

People let their kids go willy-nilly and then wonder why they get
molested, abducted, verbally abused, beat up and bullied. A pinch of
prevention is worth a pound of cure. You don't want your kid to have a
cell phone, fine - don't give him one. My kid will have one and will
use it *if* he needs to. That relates in no way to "never letting [my}
child get beyond my all-seeing eyes" - you're just being an asshole
with that comment. If you don't think so, then learn to read for
comprehension.


Are you, or are you not, the same person signing as "-L" who
was castigating other parents a few months ago for letting their
children ride schoolbuses with "strangers."

Because really, the answer to that question speaks volumes about
your attitude, and responses.

- Rich

--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
http://www.mulveyfamily.com/kids

On 11 Aug 2006 10:25:25 -0700, L. wrote:

user wrote:
.... and in the spirit of this whole thread, an interesting, albeit somewhat
watered down look at paranoid, helicopter parents, and the trend to
raise children who never experience negative consequences and situations:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/artic...12-000010.html

Ironically enough, it was just pointed out to me by a 6th-grade teacher
friend who was complaining about certain of her students who
never have managed to grasp the concept that they are not the center
of the universe.

- Rich

So are you asserting that being ****ed up the ass is some sort of
"caharacter building" exercise?

Speaking of "reading for comprehension..."

Did you even read the articles I
posted?


Indeed I did. They were traumatic for everyone involved, I have no
doubt.

Now, have you learned to seperate possibilities from probabilities,
yet?

- Rich



--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
http://www.mulveyfamily.com/kids

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 21:47:11 -0500, Cyli wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 14:22:25 -0700, "L." wrote:


Banty wrote:
Exactly. The only advantage to a cell phone is immediacy. And it's the
perceived need for immediacy that I question.

Banty

Well if your kid was getting ****ed up the ass then maybe you might get
a clue as to why "immediacy" is necessary.

-L.

Then get the kid an emergency response beacon. Tell the kid what
it'll cost (lots, as in many thousands of dollars) for a non-emergency
response. Then be prepared to pay the bill if the emergency
responders judge it an unnecessary call.


You know, I presume that you're speaking half in jest, but that's a
fascinating approach. A PLB that will work anywhere in the world,
barring the poles, costs about $600 or so - cheaper than a year's
worth of cell phone bills, in many cases. It lasts for a dozen
years. It is absolutely, positively guaranteed to get a response,
even in the most remote area. You can get them pocket-sized, and
not much bigger than a last-generation cell phone.

I wonder how many helicopter parents are now rushing online
to get their own PLB? ;-)

- Rich



--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
http://www.mulveyfamily.com/kids

Is that what happened to you Lyn?

That would explain your brain damage.

L. wrote:



So are you asserting that being ****ed up the ass is some sort of
"caharacter building" exercise? Did you even read the articles I
posted?

-L.

On 11 Aug 2006 06:40:37 -0700, Banty wrote:

He's still the active techie for misc.kids.moderated. I think he's just too
busy for much Usenet stuff.

Banty

Okay, thanks.

Nan

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:51:25 GMT, "toypup"
wrote:

I am not cringing about not being without a cell phone. I am cringing about
the reasoning behind it. Rosalie came up with an explanation which I
heartily agree with. What I disagree with is the reasoning that we did
without it, so our kids don't need it, either. If you read my post, I do
agree with the concept of going cell phone free for a week.

However, the fact that we did okay without a cell phone at camp is
true! There were alternatives, and we used them without issue.

Nan

On 11 Aug 2006 10:18:49 -0700, Banty wrote:

In article , toypup says...


"Rosalie B." wrote in message
. ..
I'm not saying that we have to get along without those things, but I
think one of the points of some camps is to show children that they
CAN get along without them.

That's a very good reason, which I very much agree with. I just don't like
the reasoning of we didn't have it, why should they? That is not a good
reason.



Well, I don't think it was an argument of "we didn't have it, you can suffer
too". Nor was it even an argument like is sometimes heard about seatbelts "we
lived without them, right?". It's more like TV. It's absolutely legit to
consider how people indeed managed to live without TV, even if the conclusion
for any particular family may be to have TV's.

Banty

Exactly my thinking.

Nan

Barbara wrote:
greccogirl wrote:

L. wrote:

greccogirl wrote:


My god, what the children of the world do, before cell phones? I guess
they were just abused by having to go to camp without a phone! ROTFLMAO

A lot of them got in trouble and had no way to contact anyone for help.
I want my child to have the means to contact me anytime, anywhere,
regardless of anyone else's policies.

-L.


A lot of them? Doubtful! I went to camp all my life and never "got
into trouble". I didn't know anyone who did! A child doesn't need a
cell phone at camp, unless they are too immature to be there in the
first place, or possibly his parents are too immature to let their kid
out of their sight.


Well, aren't you lucky! You never met anyone who was bullied at camp.
Or who was placed with a group of kids who smoked/did drugs/were
sexually promiscuous, and really didn't know how to get out of the
situation. Had a counselor who harrassed them, or left the kids on
their own while going out to smoke/yadda yadda. Was abused or
molested. Otherwise faced a situation that s/he couldn't handle on
his/her own. Well, that doesn't mean that those things don't happen,
or that kids should be forced to face those things without parental
assistance.

I don't believe that cell phones are *necessary* for all kids who goes
to overnight camp. Indeed, there's probably a lot to be said for
cutting that cord. OTOH, I don't think that Lyn's position is out of
line, overprotective, or otherwise ridiculous. IIRC, her son is now
about 2 years old, so I don't think that overnight camp is imminent.
However, whomever said that when the time comes -- if it comes -- she
should seek out a camp that permits cell phones (and they do exist) is
correct; that's what I would do.

Barbara

OH come on Barbara - "placed" in a group where they'll be sexually
abused? Is sex is going on it more than likely is the kids themselves
not the counselors.

If you are that concerned about not being around I suggest you never
place your child in ANY situation where you can't be right there.

It's possible, but it would take effort. I wouldn't want my child at
a camp where this type of thing happens, either. It's the parent's
job to find an adequate camp, and to teach children how to handle
situations.

Nan

Exactly. I wonder do kids call their parents everyday if someone gives
them trouble at school?

(We know kids who went to
overnight camp for 8 weeks as soon as they turned 7. The issues they
face are clearly different from 15 year olds. In fact, I'd be less
worried about a little munchkin without a phone than about a teenager.)

Barbara

Why would you be more worried about a teenager than a seven year old?