teenager breaking curfew

On Mar 10, 11:28�pm, toto wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:25:17 GMT, Nan wrote:
I don't get the whole "at 18 they shouldn't have a curfew" thought
process as a generalization.

I think curfew depends on the situation. �An 18 or 19 year old who is
still in high school might need one at least on school nights, but I
also think that a senior in high school ought to be mature enough to
realize his or her own sleep needs.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

I think fun comes before sleep for most teens. I don't' think it has
anything to do with sleep needs. lol. I worked 2 jobs from 19-22, and
while I knew my sleep needs, I had to work 2 jobs to stay out on my
own. I exhausted myself even further to squeeze in some "fun." lol.

Nan wrote in
:

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:28:44 GMT, toto
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:25:17 GMT, Nan
wrote:

I don't get the whole "at 18 they shouldn't have a curfew"
thought process as a generalization.

I think curfew depends on the situation. An 18 or 19 year
old who is still in high school might need one at least on
school nights, but I also think that a senior in high
school ought to be mature enough to realize his or her own
sleep needs.

Realizing their own sleep needs is fine. I'm not talking
about setting a bedtime... I'm talking about when I think
they should be home and not out running around late.

are most teenagers really stupid or something? i was 17 when
i went away to college. i did not stay up all night, well,
except for one time a couple friends & i decided that walking
to Newmarket was an interesting idea... that did take all
night to get there & back.
most nights i was in my room before 11pm, & in bed before
midnight (& i'm a night person). a few nights i stayed at the
library until it closed at 1am.
is that *really* so unusual, or is it just that the party
types get more press?
lee
--
Last night while sitting in my chair
I pinged a host that wasn't there
It wasn't there again today
The host resolved to NSA.

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article
,
cjra says...

On Mar 11, 7:51 am, Banty wrote:
In article
,
cjra says...


The rules weren't unreasonable for the most part, mostly it meant
respecting each other - letting parents know when to expect them so
they didn't worry.

There you go.

You can breathe easy - I don't think you really agree with Beliavsky ;-)

Phew! That's a relief.

Although I do agree with the 'my way or the highway" view in terms of
the adult children moving out if the rules are not palatable to them.
I think parents need to be open for discussion, but ultimately if it's
their house, it's up to them to make the final decision.

Oh sure - it's their house.

But let's make sure we're talking about the same thing here - are these
rules so
that people in the household live together amicably, or are these rules to
keep
a strap on the 18 year old? If it's the former (even including a nominal
rent),
it's one thing. If it's to keep the 18 year old tethered ostensibly for
his or
her own good, it makes little sense.



Why nominal? I would not charge a young adult rent. But as they get older, I
don't see why the rent would be nominal.


And I think there's a big difference, for example, between a rule not to
being
sleepover boyfriends/girlfriends, and expecting that an 18 or 19 year old
always
come home by 10pm. One is a rule of the house because it's the parents'
house,
the other is all about restricting the life of the young adult, which has
nothing to do with what happens in the house.


Note that I moved out when I was 17, quite happily with no ill
feelings. I just knew I preferred to live independently and would not
have been comfortable with their rules, whereas at least 3 of my
siblings lived there well into their 20s. Though I disagreed with
them, I don't think they were unreasonable as they reflected their
beliefs.

Me too - moved out when I was 17. Once I broke the curfew when I was 17
and was
grounded. But I had such a wonderful time for a whole night, and the
grouding
was until I was going away to college anyway, I considered it a good
tradeoff.
Still do

Banty

Banty wrote:

But let's make sure we're talking about the same thing here - are these rules so
that people in the household live together amicably, or are these rules to keep
a strap on the 18 year old? If it's the former (even including a nominal rent),
it's one thing. If it's to keep the 18 year old tethered ostensibly for his or
her own good, it makes little sense.

But to be fair, there's a lot of overlap between those
two! Common courtesy and living amicably with other adults often
*does* tether us, sometimes for our own good ;-) So, whether you
call it a curfew or not disturbing or worrying one's housemates,
it still boils down to being accountable for one's comings and
goings to some degree. Heck, we all know that if we were to
move back in with our parents as fully-fledged and independent
adults, our behaviors would likely be limited in ways that aren't
always rational. We'd put up with some quirks in return for the
privilege of having someone else's roof over our heads. It's
these little things that make us all motivated to get our own
roofs ;-) Things aren't always so black and white.

Best wishes,
Ericka

enigma wrote:

are most teenagers really stupid or something? i was 17 when
i went away to college. i did not stay up all night, well,
except for one time a couple friends & i decided that walking
to Newmarket was an interesting idea... that did take all
night to get there & back.
most nights i was in my room before 11pm, & in bed before
midnight (& i'm a night person). a few nights i stayed at the
library until it closed at 1am.
is that *really* so unusual, or is it just that the party
types get more press?

I think both sorts occur in abundance.

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article , Stephanie says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article
,
cjra says...

On Mar 11, 7:51 am, Banty wrote:
In article
,
cjra says...


The rules weren't unreasonable for the most part, mostly it meant
respecting each other - letting parents know when to expect them so
they didn't worry.

There you go.

You can breathe easy - I don't think you really agree with Beliavsky ;-)

Phew! That's a relief.

Although I do agree with the 'my way or the highway" view in terms of
the adult children moving out if the rules are not palatable to them.
I think parents need to be open for discussion, but ultimately if it's
their house, it's up to them to make the final decision.

Oh sure - it's their house.

But let's make sure we're talking about the same thing here - are these
rules so
that people in the household live together amicably, or are these rules to
keep
a strap on the 18 year old? If it's the former (even including a nominal
rent),
it's one thing. If it's to keep the 18 year old tethered ostensibly for
his or
her own good, it makes little sense.



Why nominal? I would not charge a young adult rent. But as they get older, I
don't see why the rent would be nominal.

Doesn't have to be a rent at all when they're young. Just giving an example of
what I'd think reasonable. Reasonable isn't the same as appropriate to the
situation.

Offhand, I wouldn't charge my son rent either at that age, or until later. Like
you're thinking. And, yeah, at some point the grown child needs to be putting
in his or her keep.

Banty

In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...

Banty wrote:

But let's make sure we're talking about the same thing here - are these rules so
that people in the household live together amicably, or are these rules to keep
a strap on the 18 year old? If it's the former (even including a nominal rent),
it's one thing. If it's to keep the 18 year old tethered ostensibly for his or
her own good, it makes little sense.

But to be fair, there's a lot of overlap between those
two! Common courtesy and living amicably with other adults often
*does* tether us, sometimes for our own good ;-) So, whether you
call it a curfew or not disturbing or worrying one's housemates,
it still boils down to being accountable for one's comings and
goings to some degree. Heck, we all know that if we were to
move back in with our parents as fully-fledged and independent
adults, our behaviors would likely be limited in ways that aren't
always rational. We'd put up with some quirks in return for the
privilege of having someone else's roof over our heads. It's
these little things that make us all motivated to get our own
roofs ;-) Things aren't always so black and white.

But then it's a whole different discussion, and IME (lived in a lot of group
situations sharing houses) it wouldn't be called a "curfew".

Instead of "darling, we're worried you'll be knocked up", it's "you're waking up
our grandson who is staying with us while your brother and SIL are deployed, can
you park around the side of the street and use the bottom stairs?" or even "it's
just not working out since you have to park off-street right under the nursery
window; for this to work you'll need to find a dayshift job".

Which is the kind of discussion you have with a grown child with mutual respect?

Banty

In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...

enigma wrote:

are most teenagers really stupid or something? i was 17 when
i went away to college. i did not stay up all night, well,
except for one time a couple friends & i decided that walking
to Newmarket was an interesting idea... that did take all
night to get there & back.
most nights i was in my room before 11pm, & in bed before
midnight (& i'm a night person). a few nights i stayed at the
library until it closed at 1am.
is that *really* so unusual, or is it just that the party
types get more press?

I think both sorts occur in abundance.

The quieter sorts do try to be party types ;-) After awhile, the party types
find they have to cool it, or they're failing/broke.

That's part of the *point* of getting out and growing up.

Banty

Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
Banty wrote:

But let's make sure we're talking about the same thing here - are these rules so
that people in the household live together amicably, or are these rules to keep
a strap on the 18 year old? If it's the former (even including a nominal rent),
it's one thing. If it's to keep the 18 year old tethered ostensibly for his or
her own good, it makes little sense.
But to be fair, there's a lot of overlap between those
two! Common courtesy and living amicably with other adults often
*does* tether us, sometimes for our own good ;-) So, whether you
call it a curfew or not disturbing or worrying one's housemates,
it still boils down to being accountable for one's comings and
goings to some degree. Heck, we all know that if we were to
move back in with our parents as fully-fledged and independent
adults, our behaviors would likely be limited in ways that aren't
always rational. We'd put up with some quirks in return for the
privilege of having someone else's roof over our heads. It's
these little things that make us all motivated to get our own
roofs ;-) Things aren't always so black and white.

But then it's a whole different discussion, and IME (lived in a lot of group
situations sharing houses) it wouldn't be called a "curfew".

My point is that even in a parent/child situation the
reality of the situation could be far from black and white regardless
of the term used.

Instead of "darling, we're worried you'll be knocked up", it's "you're waking up
our grandson who is staying with us while your brother and SIL are deployed, can
you park around the side of the street and use the bottom stairs?" or even "it's
just not working out since you have to park off-street right under the nursery
window; for this to work you'll need to find a dayshift job".

Which is the kind of discussion you have with a grown child with mutual respect?

You have the discussion that fits the individuals and
scenarios involved, which in many cases with a young adult living
at home will likely cover bits and pieces of many different issues.
And frankly, I don't think it's unusual or inappropriate for parents
to insist that adult children living at home conform to some degree
to the parents' notions of what is morally appropriate. It may be
unreasonable, it may be annoying, but it is their home and that's
just life. Now, I do agree that it is ideal to have these lovely
mutual discussions of how to live well together, but not every parent
or every young adult child is so enlightened. If you've got a young
adult living at home whose behavior is worrisome and inappropriate
by your standards, and the young adult isn't willing to come to some
mutually agreed upon set of behaviors, then it's within your rights
to say either get on board or go be worrisome somewhere other than
under your nose. Whether that's the best solution depends on the
individuals involved, but I don't think it's always inappropriate.
Eighteen year olds are all over the map maturity-wise. There is
not necessarily a one-size-fits-all solution to this issue.

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...

Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
Banty wrote:

But let's make sure we're talking about the same thing here - are these rules so
that people in the household live together amicably, or are these rules to keep
a strap on the 18 year old? If it's the former (even including a nominal rent),
it's one thing. If it's to keep the 18 year old tethered ostensibly for his or
her own good, it makes little sense.
But to be fair, there's a lot of overlap between those
two! Common courtesy and living amicably with other adults often
*does* tether us, sometimes for our own good ;-) So, whether you
call it a curfew or not disturbing or worrying one's housemates,
it still boils down to being accountable for one's comings and
goings to some degree. Heck, we all know that if we were to
move back in with our parents as fully-fledged and independent
adults, our behaviors would likely be limited in ways that aren't
always rational. We'd put up with some quirks in return for the
privilege of having someone else's roof over our heads. It's
these little things that make us all motivated to get our own
roofs ;-) Things aren't always so black and white.

But then it's a whole different discussion, and IME (lived in a lot of group
situations sharing houses) it wouldn't be called a "curfew".

My point is that even in a parent/child situation the
reality of the situation could be far from black and white regardless
of the term used.

Sure, nothing is black and white.



Instead of "darling, we're worried you'll be knocked up", it's "you're waking up
our grandson who is staying with us while your brother and SIL are deployed, can
you park around the side of the street and use the bottom stairs?" or even "it's
just not working out since you have to park off-street right under the nursery
window; for this to work you'll need to find a dayshift job".

Which is the kind of discussion you have with a grown child with mutual respect?

You have the discussion that fits the individuals and
scenarios involved, which in many cases with a young adult living
at home will likely cover bits and pieces of many different issues.
And frankly, I don't think it's unusual or inappropriate for parents
to insist that adult children living at home conform to some degree
to the parents' notions of what is morally appropriate. It may be
unreasonable, it may be annoying, but it is their home and that's
just life. Now, I do agree that it is ideal to have these lovely
mutual discussions of how to live well together, but not every parent
or every young adult child is so enlightened. If you've got a young
adult living at home whose behavior is worrisome and inappropriate
by your standards, and the young adult isn't willing to come to some
mutually agreed upon set of behaviors, then it's within your rights
to say either get on board or go be worrisome somewhere other than
under your nose. Whether that's the best solution depends on the
individuals involved, but I don't think it's always inappropriate.
Eighteen year olds are all over the map maturity-wise. There is
not necessarily a one-size-fits-all solution to this issue.

Sure, it's not one size fits all.

Should I put a "YMMV" in my sig line?

Banty