NationStates Jolt Archive

In England, kids have boyfriends/girlfriends in Primary school, so why do Americans seem so bothered about kids dating even when they get to teenage years? It's not like they're gonna jump into bed with the first person they date before they're ready, and as a little kids it's just playful innocent kissing and hugging that may either lead nowhere or lead to them being together forever... either way, why the worry? I'm sure even ENGLAND IN THE 50'S wasn't this bad...

WHY your OBSESSION with CAPITALISING WORDS?

As Jon Stewart would say....
"Whaaa?"

What have you been reading/smoking?

I was wondering about that too.

But I figure, all that I know about American dating culture comes from American films & TV shows.. and if those films & TV shows reflect the lives of average Americans to about the same degree as they reflect MY life, then there's nothing real going on at all & it's all Hollywood convention.

:confused:

I'm pretty damn sure 99.9% of parents have no problem with their kids dating.

Well, it's a well known fact that dating leads to kissing and kissing leads to pregnancy.


Duh.

WHY your OBSESSION with CAPITALISING WORDS?

IF I REALLY HAD SUCH AN OBSESSION THEN ALL MY WRITING WOULD BE LIKE THIS.

What are you talking about? There are certainly some parents who don't want their kids dating, religious types mostly but you clearly don't realize all the teens out by themselves doing, I don't know, DATING!?!

:confused:

I'm pretty damn sure 99.9% of parents have no problem with their kids dating.

True, but .1% of parents have loud fuckin' mouths and too much free time. :p

can you expand on what you think is going on?

True, but .1% of parents have loud fuckin' mouths and too much free time. :p

Just because you want your daughter to get knocked up doesn't mean we do! WE DEMAND NO GRANDCHILDREN UNLESS THEY'RE ADOPTED! BURN! BURN HEATHENS! BURN!!!

Well, it's a well known fact that dating leads to kissing and kissing leads to pregnancy.


Duh.

I hope you're being sarcastic. Or at the very least you're not representative of the US population. They can't all be that dumb.

What do you expect from a country that developed from a bunch of colonies founded by Puritans? Openmindedness?

Just because you want your daughter to get knocked up doesn't mean we do! WE DEMAND NO GRANDCHILDREN UNLESS THEY'RE ADOPTED! BURN! BURN HEATHENS! BURN!!!

I see. Not sarcastic. Just nuts :P

Knocked up from kissing... yeh and pigeons are actually squirrels in pigeon's bodies

I hope you're being sarcastic. Or at the very least you're not representative of the US population. They can't all be that dumb.

It's Zarakon. That should explain it all.

I hope you're being sarcastic. Or at the very least you're not representative of the US population. They can't all be that dumb.

Yeah...I thought it was fairly obvious I was being sarcastic. I don't think anyone honestly believes that kissing leads directly to pregnancy.

I was wondering about that too.

But I figure, all that I know about American dating culture comes from American films & TV shows.. and if those films & TV shows reflect the lives of average Americans to about the same degree as they reflect MY life, then there's nothing real going on at all & it's all Hollywood convention.

Y' think?

Of course it's a Hollywood convention. It's a vicious cycle. Audience likes X. Hollywood does X+1 because bigger is better, right? Audience goes apeshit for X+1, which makes Hollywood lots of money. Hollywood, never one to miss a chance to capitalize on something, no matter how inappropriate, then makes X^2. Conservatives pitch a huge fit any boycott X^2, thus generating oceans of extra (FREE) publicity. X^2 breaks box office records, and kids across the US are dressing like the main characters and wearing t-shirts with lines of dialogue from X^2 on them. Everyone involved gets rich, and nobody sees anything wrong with that in a capitalistic society. ANd that means the conservative boycott wouldn't make so much as a dent in Hollywood profits, and in fact makes them more money by drawing attention.

Very few movies come out of Hollywod that actually reflect what's really happening. Movies take some time to make (even those crappy ones made for cable), so movies are at least a year behind popular culture. Also, movies and television are made by committee except in some very rare cases. That means any one person's idea or vision has been terminally corrupted by the time it reaches the screen.

Movies and television no more reflect the lives of the average US citizen than any entertainment vessel does. For something to be entertaining, it must necessarily be either larger, weirder or more fantastic than life in some way. Unless it's being played somehow for emotional effect, you'll never see movie/TV characters doing things that don't further the plot or at least serve as a backdrop for the action.

That's why the obsession with dating.

What do you expect from a country that developed from a bunch of colonies founded by Puritans? Openmindedness?

We weren't founded by Puritans, we were founded by slaveholders. Get it right, people. :p

Just because you want your daughter to get knocked up doesn't mean we do! WE DEMAND NO GRANDCHILDREN UNLESS THEY'RE ADOPTED! BURN! BURN HEATHENS! BURN!!!

I don't have a daughter. I have three boys; and one of them is going to knock up your daughter. :)

What is the kid's obsession with dating?

Hormones. I'm glad we had this talk, since apparently your parents never had one with you.

I remember being shocked and dismayed that a 14 year old girl I was at school with had had sex.
...Seriously? You would've been about her age. How could you seriously have been "shocked and dismayed."?


I remember being shocked and dismayed at those on this forum who wanted to actually legalize pedophilia.
Okay, you have a better point here.

There is no moral fibre anywhere.

And now you sound like Pat Robertson. Bitching away for no good reason.

In England, kids have boyfriends/girlfriends in Primary school, so why do Americans seem so bothered about kids dating even when they get to teenage years? It's not like they're gonna jump into bed with the first person they date before they're ready, and as a little kids it's just playful innocent kissing and hugging that may either lead nowhere or lead to them being together forever... either way, why the worry? I'm sure even ENGLAND IN THE 50'S wasn't this bad...

Heh. The first Americans were puritans. Things like that spread down the line. In England, this happens in elementary? (primary for Americans) I mean, at 10 it happened in my school, but Americans can be puritanical occasionally.

What is the kid's obsession with dating?

They always want to grow up fast. Thanks to beef and milk hormone additives, they literally are. Remember that Argentinian 9 year old girl who gave birth?

Kids these days. Humbug. I remember being shocked and dismayed that a 14 year old girl I was at school with had had sex. Now it's no longer shocking and dismaying. I remember being shocked and dismayed at those on this forum who wanted to actually legalize pedophilia. Now it's not shocking anymore. There is no moral fibre anywhere.

What is the kid's obsession with dating?

They always want to grow up fast. Thanks to beef and milk hormone additives, they literally are. Remember that Argentinian 9 year old girl who gave birth?

Kids these days. Humbug. I remember being shocked and dismayed that a 14 year old girl I was at school with had had sex. Now it's no longer shocking and dismaying. I remember being shocked and dismayed at those on this forum who wanted to actually legalize pedophilia. Now it's not shocking anymore. There is no moral fibre anywhere.

So one girl is now representative of all girls? I dunno what news you've been watching, but pregnant preteens don't feature prominently on any of my channels (in a country where dating at 5 is no biggie).

Yes in some countries (usually countries where sex education starts late and is heavily censored, eg. UK and USA - compare with Holland where it starts in Primary School) there are a significant minority of teenagers having sex at under legal age, but preteen kids don't usually do that even in the UK and USA. Of course there's moral fibre. It's just different from your idea of it.

Heh. The first Americans were puritans. Things like that spread down the line. In England, this happens in elementary? (primary for Americans) I mean, at 10 it happened in my school, but Americans can be puritanical occasionally.

Actually, it's elementary in America, where I live at least.

I hope you're being sarcastic. Or at the very least you're not representative of the US population. They can't all be that dumb.

And I hope that you really don't have even the tiniest thought that anything close to a majority of Americans actually believe that.

We weren't founded by Puritans, we were founded by slaveholders. Get it right, people. :p

Hey, the Puritans set foot to find a new home, *then* the slaveholders moved in for business! :p

And I hope that you really don't have even the tiniest thought that anything close to a majority of Americans actually believe that.

Well I do, but it's less than 50% of my thoughts :)

Heh. The first Americans were puritans. Things like that spread down the line. In England, this happens in elementary? (primary for Americans) I mean, at 10 it happened in my school, but Americans can be puritanical occasionally.

See, now, this is the kind of ignorance US citizens are accused of all the time. The first Americans were not just Puritans. More than they came over in 1620. Regardless, the Puritans stayed mostly in the US Northeast. It's very difficult to find too much puritanical crap out West.

Technically speaking, the first human Americans would have been those who hopped the Bering land bridge from Asia some thousands of years ago.

Well I do, but it's less than 50% of my thoughts :)

I know that many Americans can seem prudish about sex compared to people in other nations but with only a few exceptions I can safely say that we aren't complete idiots.

Well, except for those teens who think that oral sex isn't really sex. :rolleyes: :p

One girl is an example of the physiological differences produced by dietary changes in the human population which result in a conflict of physical with mental/emotional maturity.


I...

Wow...

There is just no way to argue with a view as insane as "hormones in the meat cause kids to have sex."



Well, except for those teens who think that oral sex isn't really sex. :rolleyes: :p

Hooray for Bill Clinton!

Hey, the Puritans set foot to find a new home, *then* the slaveholders moved in for business! :p

You fail at American history.

So one girl is now representative of all girls?

One girl is an example of the physiological differences produced by dietary changes in the human population which result in a conflict of physical with mental/emotional maturity.

Yes in some countries (usually countries where sex education starts late and is heavily censored, eg. UK and USA - compare with Holland where it starts in Primary School) there are a significant minority of teenagers having sex at under legal age

Well I live in 'some countries' so I don't dismiss this as irrelevant like you do.

but preteen kids don't usually do that even in the UK and USA.

And you know this... how?

Of course there's moral fibre. It's just different from your idea of it.

Right. My idea of moral fibre is children shouldn't have sex. Yours is...?

Hormones. I'm glad we had this talk, since apparently your parents never had one with you.

Ha. Right. That explains why children act like children in some cultures, and they act like slutty mini-Brittney Spears in ours. Hormones. Culture is nothing yes?

...Seriously? You would've been about her age. How could you seriously have been "shocked and dismayed."?

Maybe because I don't shrug off imorality and pedophilia like most people do.

And now you sound like Pat Robertson. Bitching away for no good reason.

So was the OP. I figured what was good for the goose is good for the gander.

In England, kids have boyfriends/girlfriends in Primary school, so why do Americans seem so bothered about kids dating even when they get to teenage years? It's not like they're gonna jump into bed with the first person they date before they're ready, and as a little kids it's just playful innocent kissing and hugging that may either lead nowhere or lead to them being together forever... either way, why the worry? I'm sure even ENGLAND IN THE 50'S wasn't this bad...

Your lack of understanding of American culture is truly staggering, and your basic premise is quite inaccurate. The vast majority of American parents allow teenage children to date. They even start having school sponsored dances for boys and girls around the age or 12 or 13 in many districts.

I think this thread's topic should change to 'Why are so many people outside the US so terribly misinformed about it?'

Hooray for Bill Clinton!

Yeah, figures that when kids pay the slightest attention to what a political figure says they would hone in on that. I suppose it should be no surprise, its been mentioned before... all those hormones, they are just looking for an excuse to go crazy. ;)

I think this thread's topic should change to 'Why are so many people outside the US so terribly misinformed about it?'

I would support such a thread title change.

Your lack of understanding of American culture is truly staggering, and your basic premise is quite inaccurate. The vast majority of American parents allow teenage children to date. They even start having school sponsored dances for boys and girls around the age or 12 or 13 in many districts.

I think this thread's topic should change to 'Why are so many people outside the US so terribly misinformed about it?'

I was gonna respond to GT's rubbish again, but "EVEN started school sponsored dances for boys and girls [who are at least] 12...". There were dances in my Primary School and it wasn't associated with dating in any way, yet you say I have a lack of understanding of American culture when Americans are apparently THAT prudcish that they think DANCING will lead somewhere and restrict it to only 12-year-olds? WTF?

I would support such a thread title change.

Well as I'm a democratic banana, everyone vote now...

Well as I'm a democratic banana, everyone vote now...

Not too late to put up a poll I'd say. ;)

I was gonna respond to GT's rubbish again, but "EVEN started school sponsored dances for boys and girls [who are at least] 12...". There were dances in my Primary School and it wasn't associated with dating in any way, yet you say I have a lack of understanding of American culture when Americans are apparently THAT prudcish that they think DANCING will lead somewhere and restrict it to only 12-year-olds? WTF?

didn't you know that by law only 12 year olds can dance in the US? not any younger? I mean my daughters and I fear every week when we go to dance class, me even more since I am teaching dance to children.......:rolleyes:

I don't know what America you have been looking at, because there is alot of dating going on here. I remember having a gf in 3rd grade, everyone was like "aww how cute". They never condemed me to hell.:confused:

didn't you know that by law only 12 year olds can dance in the US? not any younger? I mean my daughters and I fear every week when we go to dance class, me even more since I am teaching dance to children.......:rolleyes:

Yes, in elementary school if you start moving in any way that could be regarded as dancing we would be scolded severely by teachers and would threaten to call our parents. All for our own good of course. I mean we have to think of the children after all.

I don't know what America you have been looking at, because there is alot of dating going on here. I remember having a gf in 3rd grade, everyone was like "aww how cute". They never condemed me to hell.:confused:

You must have skipped over the "girls are icky" stage. :)

You must have skipped over the "girls are icky" stage. :)

I had a boyfriend when I was 5, it only took me 3 days to figure out he wanted me for my star crunches.

:(

the rest of my dating situations were similar, guys were always after other things than what I thought in the beginning.

You must have skipped over the "girls are icky" stage. :)

No, that was like 2nd grade, and then oddly enough a short time in the summer of 8th grade...well that was mainly because I saw a vagina...face to face...for the first time, and it wasn't the pretty kinds. So, i was thinking that vaginas where disgustiing, and I was going to remain abstinent until i die. Thank God I changed my mind about that:D

Well, at one of the high schools I looked at (Westminster, if you've heard of it) essentially says that if you have pre-marital sex, masturbate, or have any sexual contact with somebody you aren't married to, you will get AIDS and die. They also said that condoms have a 90% failure rate.

I had a boyfriend when I was 5, it only took me 3 days to figure out he wanted me for my star crunches.


Aww! That made me chuckle..Now I want a star crunch. :D

In England, kids have boyfriends/girlfriends in Primary school, so why do Americans seem so bothered about kids dating even when they get to teenage years? It's not like they're gonna jump into bed with the first person they date before they're ready, and as a little kids it's just playful innocent kissing and hugging that may either lead nowhere or lead to them being together forever... either way, why the worry? I'm sure even ENGLAND IN THE 50'S wasn't this bad...
You underestimate the failure of the sex education system in America.

I'm already planning on having a Louisville Slugger with a rusty nail driven through it resting by the front door when my gf's daughter gets to that age. And I plan on keeping it there -- and using it as I see appropriate -- until she's at least 30.

Aww! That made me chuckle..Now I want a star crunch. :D

up until I was about 8 they all wanted my lunch, from 8-13 they wanted to copy my papers, and from 13 on it was a combo of that or wanting money, or wanting sex......boys are evil.

I still haven't figured out what exactly my husband wants......I think he thinks I am fun.

Five hundred years ago, girls became women the moment they began to menstruate, and were married off like fruits ripe for the picking. They bore many children before they were twenty years old...

People like the Puritans began to change that attitude. People like the Puritans thought that girls should be a bit older before they begin to breed. People like the Puritans thought that girls are more than just breeding machines, that they have some self worth in being themselves outside of just mating and having sex and then children. So, Puritans began to propagate the idea that girls should be older and older before they are exposed to the prick-heads commonly known as men. And over the years, that socially acceptable level got older and older for women, until it was commonly perceived that a woman in her twenties was not an old maid, but only just now budding and beginning to find herself in education and perhaps the career of her choice.

Any attempt today to turn the clock backwards, to return that social expectation to begin 'mating' rituals to a preteen age limit, in my mind, is running contrary to advancement, running backwards. Trying to return to a time when society told women that their self-view of self-value revolved around her having a uterus and using it a soon as possible...

And in that case then, I proudly associate myself with the Puritans. None of my daughters will be 'dating' until she's well past preteens, I can tell you that.

Well, at one of the high schools I looked at (Westminster, if you've heard of it) essentially says that if you have pre-marital sex, masturbate, or have any sexual contact with somebody you aren't married to, you will get AIDS and die. They also said that condoms have a 90% failure rate.

This is in the US?

No, that was like 2nd grade, and then oddly enough a short time in the summer of 8th grade...well that was mainly because I saw a vagina...face to face...for the first time, and it wasn't the pretty kinds. So, i was thinking that vaginas where disgustiing, and I was going to remain abstinent until i die. Thank God I changed my mind about that:D

I'm sure God is happy for your thanks. :D

up until I was about 8 they all wanted my lunch, from 8-13 they wanted to copy my papers, and from 13 on it was a combo of that or wanting money, or wanting sex......boys are evil.

I still haven't figured out what exactly my husband wants......I think he thinks I am fun.

Yeah, we boys are rather evil. We can't help it though. We are controlled by our penises after all.:(

And I am sure mr. smunkee wants just you and nothing else, and he seems to have made a good choice by going with you :)

Aww, the protective Cluich. How cute :p

Shush, you. :p

I'm already planning on having a Louisville Slugger with a rusty nail driven through it resting by the front door when my gf's daughter gets to that age. And I plan on keeping it there -- and using it as I see appropriate -- until she's at least 30.

Aww, the protective Cluich. How cute :p

Any attempt today to turn the clock backwards, to return that social expectation to begin 'mating' rituals to a preteen age limit, in my mind, is running contrary to advancement, running backwards. Trying to return to a time when society told women that their self-view of self-value revolved around her having a uterus and using it a soon as possible...

And in that case then, I proudly associate myself with the Puritans. None of my daughters will be 'dating' until she's well past preteens, I can tell you that.

You know no one is suggesting we turn young girls into baby factories. Do you see anyone making this arguement?

And dating doesn't have to mean that sex will occur. Some do have restraint and despite what they say not everyone is "doing it".

And dating doesn't have to mean that sex will occur. Some do have restraint and despite what they say not everyone is "doing it".

You'd be surprised at some of the scary convos I overheard while I was coaching a U14 girls' football (soccer for US folks) team. :eek:

You'd be surprised at some of the scary convos I overheard while I was coaching a U14 girls' football (soccer for US folks) team. :eek:

Actually, I'm not suprised. It might be suprising to you OLD folk :p, but meh, i have probably said worse than what those girls have done..

Bad me :(

In England, kids have boyfriends/girlfriends in Primary school, so why do Americans seem so bothered about kids dating even when they get to teenage years? It's not like they're gonna jump into bed with the first person they date before they're ready, and as a little kids it's just playful innocent kissing and hugging that may either lead nowhere or lead to them being together forever... either way, why the worry? I'm sure even ENGLAND IN THE 50'S wasn't this bad...

Uh... what the hell?

If Primary is the same as Elementary, this is dating:

You and the other person NEVER talk to each other, are rarely in the same room as each other, must be seated at least 6 seats away from each at all times, and if asked if you and the other is going out, you deny to holy hell. You then have an emissary bring a note to the other person, proclaiming that, you know, like her. Not just any like, but LIKE like. You break up after the longest 13 minutes of your life.

:D Ah, true love there.

You know no one is suggesting we turn young girls into baby factories. Do you see anyone making this arguement?

Yes, that's exactly what I see, boys trying to make excuses why they should be allowed to be alone with little girls...

And dating doesn't have to mean that sex will occur. Some do have restraint and despite what they say not everyone is "doing it".

Exactly right, why risk it. Young girls should be protected from overly aggresive boys, at least until they are older and can better defend themselves from the pressure a hormone filled boy will try to put on her...

You'd be surprised at some of the scary convos I overheard while I was coaching a U14 girls' football (soccer for US folks) team. :eek:

When I was a senior in high school, my Anatomy teacher showed us some notes she had found in the garbage after her 7th grade classes.

Needless to say, they were absolutely attrocious, and I felt like I needed to vomit.

So, I can believe it.

up until I was about 8 they all wanted my lunch, from 8-13 they wanted to copy my papers, and from 13 on it was a combo of that or wanting money, or wanting sex......boys are evil.

I still haven't figured out what exactly my husband wants......I think he thinks I am fun.
He wants a star crunch.

He wants a star crunch.

We do get remarkably simple as we progress, do we not? Almost reverting to our elementary state of wanting lunch.

Yes, that's exactly what I see, boys trying to make excuses why they should be allowed to be alone with little girls...

Jeez, Miss Andrist. (Yeah, bad pun, deal with it)

See, now, this is the kind of ignorance US citizens are accused of all the time. The first Americans were not just Puritans. More than they came over in 1620. Regardless, the Puritans stayed mostly in the US Northeast. It's very difficult to find too much puritanical crap out West.

Technically speaking, the first human Americans would have been those who hopped the Bering land bridge from Asia some thousands of years ago.

Dude, I am American.

I have no clue what you're talking about, since in the US kids start dating in middle school (10-11, which would be the latest years of primary school in England, right?) Hell, I got my first boyfriend at 9. Most others get bfs/gfs around 10 or 11 in the US, so don't go around knockign the Americans for something you clearly don't know jack about.

Five hundred years ago, girls became women the moment they began to menstruate, and were married off like fruits ripe for the picking. They bore many children before they were twenty years old...

People like the Puritans began to change that attitude. People like the Puritans thought that girls should be a bit older before they begin to breed. People like the Puritans thought that girls are more than just breeding machines, that they have some self worth in being themselves outside of just mating and having sex and then children. So, Puritans began to propagate the idea that girls should be older and older before they are exposed to the prick-heads commonly known as men. And over the years, that socially acceptable level got older and older for women, until it was commonly perceived that a woman in her twenties was not an old maid, but only just now budding and beginning to find herself in education and perhaps the career of her choice.

Any attempt today to turn the clock backwards, to return that social expectation to begin 'mating' rituals to a preteen age limit, in my mind, is running contrary to advancement, running backwards. Trying to return to a time when society told women that their self-view of self-value revolved around her having a uterus and using it a soon as possible...

And in that case then, I proudly associate myself with the Puritans. None of my daughters will be 'dating' until she's well past preteens, I can tell you that.


You have a curious version of history. Tell me, what do you call your little world?

In England, kids have boyfriends/girlfriends in Primary school, so why do Americans seem so bothered about kids dating even when they get to teenage years? It's not like they're gonna jump into bed with the first person they date before they're ready, and as a little kids it's just playful innocent kissing and hugging that may either lead nowhere or lead to them being together forever... either way, why the worry? I'm sure even ENGLAND IN THE 50'S wasn't this bad...

So THIS is the kind of ridiculous pseudo-speculative misinformation that counts as General fodder these days? Seriously, what the fuck are you thinking? Do you honestly believe this is how America is? Do you honestly think that there is some singular, unified, distinctly "American" stance on dating? Do you have any connection to reality that isn't a TV set!?! This isn't even stereotyping... this stereotype doesn't exist!

This is in the US?

Obviously. :(

That's what my middle school told me.

Then again, this country *was* founded by Puritans...

what are you on

In England, kids have boyfriends/girlfriends in Primary school, so why do Americans seem so bothered about kids dating even when they get to teenage years? It's not like they're gonna jump into bed with the first person they date before they're ready, and as a little kids it's just playful innocent kissing and hugging that may either lead nowhere or lead to them being together forever... either way, why the worry? I'm sure even ENGLAND IN THE 50'S wasn't this bad...

How terribly misinformed you are.

Obviously. :(

That's what my middle school told me.

Then again, this country *was* founded by Puritans...

*Laughs uncontrollably*

My word, you did get a shite start didn't you?:D

You underestimate the failure of the sex education system in America.

What sex education system?

Anyway, If y'all want the question answered, an American shall answer it.

Fist of all, don't be steo typical. America is a fucking big country. Things vary by region. There are different races and areas that have certain outlooks.

I live in the Mid-Atlantic States, a semi-prudish 'burbs region. Here, it's considered GOOD if parents disallow dating, it is looked upon as a good quality of the kid. Why? Bcause the majority of the NewJersey population is Italian Catholics, with big noses and even bigger mouths. THey tak eproblems like AIDS, teen pregnancy, date rape, and promiscuity, that really don't happen too often here, and exaggerate them in Brooklyn accents.

In the Inland South, the population is Baptists who classify their ancestry as American. Naught else. They have religious things, but dating is very free and open. Sex isn't but no one makes much of a connection between them.

the Pacific is a literal lovefest for teen dating, as are our major cities. the Midwest, Southwest, Border Famrs, all liberal.

We're not as bad as y'all think on this issue, but you won't here about our attitudes on dating until someone gets raped or something bad happens, so of course you'll get a negative shot.

I don't have a daughter. I have three boys; and one or more of them is going to knock up your daughter. :)
Fixed.

Yes, that's exactly what I see, boys trying to make excuses why they should be allowed to be alone with little girls...



Exactly right, why risk it. Young girls should be protected from overly aggresive boys, at least until they are older and can better defend themselves from the pressure a hormone filled boy will try to put on her...

Wow. I feel sorry for your husband, living with a misandrist like you. Poor man.

(shakes head solemnly)

I didn't know the US did have an obession with dating and I've been living here for a while. Odd.

Yes, that's exactly what I see, boys trying to make excuses why they should be allowed to be alone with little girls...



Exactly right, why risk it. Young girls should be protected from overly aggresive boys, at least until they are older and can better defend themselves from the pressure a hormone filled boy will try to put on her...

I like you. You're funny....

Seriously though, could you display you're subjectivity any better than the use of "little" on girls, but not boys, to elicit a pathetic response?

In any case, look at the world around you dear, dispense withe housewife neurosises, and allow your children to live a little.

I didn't know the US did have an obession with dating and I've been living here for a while. Odd.

It's one of those things that are only visible from the outside looking in. American shows and movies, at least the ones that get over here, would have us beleive that children(almost always girls) aren't allowed to "date" until well into their teens.

People like the Puritans thought that girls should be a bit older before they begin to breed. People like the Puritans thought that girls are more than just breeding machines.Nah ..
I dont want them to be breeding machines... I want a few of them (the pretty ones) to be my SEX SLAVES..
I want to live like this (http://media.ps2.ign.com/media/497/497001/vids_1.html) man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Hefner) :D

It's one of those things that are only visible from the outside looking in. American shows and movies, at least the ones that get over here, would have us beleive that children(almost always girls) aren't allowed to "date" until well into their teens.

I'd thought foreigners were able to see past that BS.

I'd thought foreigners were able to see past that BS.

The smarter ones(such as myself :)) are.

Given that the image of the US portrayed in the UK is of a nation of fundamentalist, gun toting regressed nutjobs, or California style vacuosity, I'd say not. Most of the UK NSG contingent, I assume, won't have had the pleasure of meeting "real" americans such as yourself and others before.

Sounds fairly accurate, though there are a few islands of sanity.

Because American attitudes towards intimacy and sexuality are made of fail.

I'd thought foreigners were able to see past that BS.

Given that the image of the US portrayed in the UK is of a nation of fundamentalist, gun toting regressed nutjobs, or California style vacuosity, I'd say not. Most of the UK NSG contingent, I assume, won't have had the pleasure of meeting "real" americans such as yourself and others before.

Yes, that's exactly what I see, boys trying to make excuses why they should be allowed to be alone with little girls...



Exactly right, why risk it. Young girls should be protected from overly aggresive boys, at least until they are older and can better defend themselves from the pressure a hormone filled boy will try to put on her...

Because everyone knows girls are too weak willed to resist a boy's evil advances. And everyone knows that a girl would never initiate sex. :rolleyes:

Given that the image of the US portrayed in the UK is of a nation of fundamentalist, gun toting regressed nutjobs, or California style vacuosity, I'd say not. Most of the UK NSG contingent, I assume, won't have had the pleasure of meeting "real" americans such as yourself and others before.

I've lived in the UK before (never mind that it was form ages 4-6), and every Brit I came into contact with didn't think Americans were evil fundamentalist gun-toting hicks who didn't liek the idea of telling an 8 year old what a testicle was because it made them feel icky.

Of course, there are plenty of Americans like that. There are probably plenty of Brits like that, and Germans, and French, and Swedes, and pretty much in any country on the whole freaking planet. The US isn't the only country with morons, and the way many discussions seem to go on NS, you'd think that it was. :mad:

Because everyone knows girls are too weak willed to resist a boy's evil advances. And everyone knows that a girl would never initiate sex. :rolleyes:

Hell, girls don't even THINK about sex! :eek:
:rolleyes:

(in my experience, I'd say that if boys thought about sex every 7 seconds, girl would think about sex every .7 second.)

I've lived in the UK before (never mind that it was form ages 4-6), and every Brit I came into contact with didn't think Americans were evil fundamentalist gun-toting hicks who didn't liek the idea of telling an 8 year old what a testicle was because it made them feel icky.

Of course, there are plenty of Americans like that. There are probably plenty of Brits like that, and Germans, and French, and Swedes, and pretty much in any country on the whole freaking planet. The US isn't the only country with morons, and the way many discussions seem to go on NS, you'd think that it was. :mad:

That's because the morons scream the loudest and don't when to STFU.

What if I told ya'll that in the town where I go to school it isn't terribly uncommon for parents to forbid their daughter to date until they're 16 and sometimes even 18?

I've lived in the UK before (never mind that it was form ages 4-6), and every Brit I came into contact with didn't think Americans were evil fundamentalist gun-toting hicks who didn't liek the idea of telling an 8 year old what a testicle was because it made them feel icky.

Of course, there are plenty of Americans like that. There are probably plenty of Brits like that, and Germans, and French, and Swedes, and pretty much in any country on the whole freaking planet. The US isn't the only country with morons, and the way many discussions seem to go on NS, you'd think that it was. :mad:

You're fourteen right? After Iraq, perceptions of the US in Britain have changed greatly, and quite wrongly.

As for the US not being the only country with morons, you're quite correct. We have a multitude chavs, and many other delights such as hooligans and essex girls, all of which are equally as moronic as the average fundy.

Because in America, females have turned "dating" into a synonym for "fucking" by way of euphemism.

You're fourteen right? After Iraq, perceptions of the US in Britain have changed greatly, and quite wrongly.

As for the US not being the only country with morons, you're quite correct. We have a multitude chavs, and many other delights such as hooligans and essex girls, all of which are equally as moronic as the average fundy.
1. I'm 15.
2. :):fluffle:
Because in America, females have turned "dating" into a synonym for "fucking" by way of euphemism.

:rolleyes: Yes, because if I tell someone I'm dating a guy, it actually really means I'm having sex with him. Yeah.... :rolleyes:

By the way, I've dated a few guys, still a virgin. You can keep your retarded comments to yourself, thanks.

Because in America, females have turned "dating" into a synonym for "fucking" by way of euphemism.

Stereotypes really do abound in this thread.

What if I told ya'll that in the town where I go to school it isn't terribly uncommon for parents to forbid their daughter to date until they're 16 and sometimes even 18?

Some parents do do that. Most don't... not in North carolina anyway (which, atmospherically speaking, is made of win today :D)

However, your town may have an unfortunately high concentration of fundies.

IF I REALLY HAD SUCH AN OBSESSION THEN ALL MY WRITING WOULD BE LIKE THIS.

BuT iT iS sO mUcH mOrE fUn To CaPiTaLiZe EvErY OtHeR lEtTeR!

BuT iT iS sO mUcH mOrE fUn To CaPiTaLiZe EvErY OtHeR lEtTeR!

AAAAAHHH!!!! No!!!

*cries*

1. I'm 15.
2. :):fluffle:


:rolleyes: Yes, because if I tell someone I'm dating a guy, it actually really means I'm having sex with him. Yeah.... :rolleyes:

By the way, I've dated a few guys, still a virgin. You can keep your retarded comments to yourself, thanks.

Thanks for shooting down the "euphemism" stuff. Reminds me of a comic bit about Dating.
Girl: "Well, we went out, but it wasn't a 'date' date."
Guy: "The hell is wasn't! I spent 'money' money. Didn't even get a 'kiss' kiss."
:D

Thanks for shooting down the "euphemism" stuff. Reminds me of a comic bit about Dating.
Girl: "Well, we went out, but it wasn't a 'date' date."
Guy: "The hell is wasn't! I spent 'money' money. Didn't even get a 'kiss' kiss."
:D

:D

I'm already planning on having a Louisville Slugger with a rusty nail driven through it resting by the front door when my gf's daughter gets to that age. And I plan on keeping it there -- and using it as I see appropriate -- until she's at least 30.

I hope you're joking, or will enjoy having a daughter who wants to become an emancipated minor. Also assault charges, you'll probably enjoy those.

What if I told ya'll that in the town where I go to school it isn't terribly uncommon for parents to forbid their daughter to date until they're 16 and sometimes even 18?

I'd tell you to move.

I hope you're joking, or will enjoy having a daughter who wants to become an emancipated minor. Also assault charges, you'll probably enjoy those.

Dude, it's Cluich. He was once pregnant with Ruffy's two-headed lovechild, remember? :p

Dude, it's Cluich. He was once pregnant with Ruffy's two-headed lovechild, remember? :p

oh i did forget about that

oh i did forget about that

:eek:

:eek:

been busy posting here ,trying to finish off my sign up papers and being my own boss

I'd tell you to move.

In six months, I'll be in Austin.

I hope you're being sarcastic. Or at the very least you're not representative of the US population. They can't all be that dumb.

Once upon a time a young teenage girl came to me thinking she was pregnant because she swallowed. I had a very difficult time keeping my composure on that one.

I don't imagine this example is representative of the US population as a whole, but God does funny things to us here. Masturbation makes us blind after all.

In England, kids have boyfriends/girlfriends in Primary school, so why do Americans seem so bothered about kids dating even when they get to teenage years? It's not like they're gonna jump into bed with the first person they date before they're ready, and as a little kids it's just playful innocent kissing and hugging that may either lead nowhere or lead to them being together forever... either way, why the worry? I'm sure even ENGLAND IN THE 50'S wasn't this bad...

They don't get bothered about it.

They have a really high age of consent, but trust me - american kids date.

They do it about the same as Pommy kids. Though the Poms tend to (in my experience) sleep around a bit more.

I...

Wow...

There is just no way to argue with a view as insane as "hormones in the meat cause kids to have sex."

You're misinterpreting my argument. I am saying hormones in dairy products are lowering the age which physical maturity happens.

And I'm saying that physical maturity itself incourages sex by its very nature - you said it already, 'hormones.'

If you really think there are no hormone injections into cattle... or that mammalian hormones have no effect whatsoever on humans... I would have to say you and not I might have the insane view.

http://health101.org/art_Milk_and_Girls.htm
http://www.immunesystemetc.com/Hormones.html
http://www.babyreference.com/EarlyPuberty.htm

Once upon a time a young teenage girl came to me thinking she was pregnant because she swallowed. I had a very difficult time keeping my composure on that one.

I don't imagine this example is representative of the US population as a whole, but God does funny things to us here. Masturbation makes us blind after all.

Bahaha! :p
We had a whale of a time convincing a girl that a taxidermist was a man who rubbed sandwiches along taxis. She still believes it.

BUT, back on topic....
Multiland, I think you've been getting your views of American society from Hollywood "films."

In England, kids have boyfriends/girlfriends in Primary school...

:eek: Are you serious??? Wtf is primary school. Is that the same as it is here...like ages 6-14ish or 6-11 or 6-10

:eek: Are you serious??? Wtf is primary school. Is that the same as it is here...like ages 6-14ish or 6-11 or 6-10

Yeah, about 6-10. But come on, let the kids have some fun. They'll laugh about it when they're older. The worst they do is kiss on the cheek.


*SHOCK HORROR ZOMG!*

What's funny is that back in the 1960s, when I was in elementary school, and nowadays (I have three kids), there was a lot of "girlfriend, boyfriend" stuff - and no parents got overheated about it.

Mostly, because nothing comes of it - I mean, it's not like the kids hop in the car, and drive off for some heavy petting and sex.

In fact, this seems to continue through elementary (grades 1-6 where I live), middle school (grades 7-8 where I live), and high school (grades 9-12).

The sex seems to make its appearance when puberty kicks in (yes, some, but not all kids start in middle school and it only accelerates from there).

Where people get the idea that we're all Puritans in starched shirts and black trousers is beyond me.

In six months, I'll be in Austin.
Well done.
Once upon a time a young teenage girl came to me thinking she was pregnant because she swallowed. I had a very difficult time keeping my composure on that one.
Ignorance, the world would be so boring without it.

I don't imagine this example is representative of the US population as a whole, but God does funny things to us here. Masturbation makes us blind after all.

Thank Eris I don't live in America

Yeah, about 6-10. But come on, let the kids have some fun. They'll laugh about it when they're older. The worst they do is kiss on the cheek.


*SHOCK HORROR ZOMG!*
In my town I was the first person in my grade to have a boyfriend, a bra, acne, and incessantly low self-esteem. I was like an eight-year-old seventh-grader stuck in a third-grade classroom.

In my town I was the first person in my grade to have a boyfriend, a bra, acne, and incessantly low self-esteem. I was like an eight-year-old seventh-grader stuck in a third-grade classroom.

Oy. I had a crush on a girl at age ten. I told everybody because I was stupid. It failed, and another one for a little while (Dinaverg and Rameria will know) I didn't figure out dating for a while. I got my "education" from watching That 70s Show.

For surviving that, and other things: :fluffle: (Actually, I just needed an excuse)

In my town I was the first person in my grade to have a boyfriend, a bra, acne, and incessantly low self-esteem. I was like an eight-year-old seventh-grader stuck in a third-grade classroom.

I blame the time warps.

Oy. I had a crush on a girl at age ten. I told everybody because I was stupid. It failed, and another one for a little while (Dinaverg and Rameria will know) I didn't figure out dating for a while. I got my "education" from watching That 70s Show.

For surviving that, and other things: :fluffle: (Actually, I just needed an excuse)
:fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:
I blame the time warps.

*cries*

*cries*

Don't worry, at least I didn't steal your life and add a poll to it without your permission.

:fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:

Ah, but in that case:

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Ah, but in that case:

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

:fluffle::fluffle:

:fluffle::fluffle:

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

:fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:

Don't worry, at least I didn't steal your life and add a poll to it without your permission.

:eek:

:eek:

And you might get lucky and time warp some lottery numbers or something.

And you might get lucky and time warp some lottery numbers or something.

Yayz!

:fluffle:

:fluffle:

here we have two Fluffle spamers in there native habitat

here we have two Fluffle spamers in there native habitat

I always wondered what they looked like up close.

I always wondered what they looked like up close.

it's the dark green one's you got to watch out for

it's the dark green one's you got to watch out for

I see. I now know what to look out for.

Shh! Don't scare them off. We're here to observe their habits, after all, and crikey! but they're skittish little creatures.

Now fluffle spammers can be deadly when you sneak up on them from behind, so I'm gonna have to be really quiet.



Crikey, what a beauaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh

I see. I now know what to look out for.
yes
Shh! Don't scare them off. We're here to observe their habits, after all, and crikey! but they're skittish little creatures.

if we lucky we may see the rare red one

What's funny is that back in the 1960s, when I was in elementary school, and nowadays (I have three kids), there was a lot of "girlfriend, boyfriend" stuff - and no parents got overheated about it.

Mostly, because nothing comes of it - I mean, it's not like the kids hop in the car, and drive off for some heavy petting and sex.
....

O RLY? Who needs a driver’s license or a car?

http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=6221722

Parents should have gotten over heated about it... It's not like this stuff started yesterday. When I was in school (the seventies) I know for a fact that kids were having sex as early as sixth grade then too. Perhaps you just weren't in the 'inner circle' of what was going on in the sixties...

Because in America, females have turned "dating" into a synonym for "fucking" by way of euphemism.


You've never actually been to the US, have you?

I was gonna respond to GT's rubbish again, but "EVEN started school sponsored dances for boys and girls [who are at least] 12...". There were dances in my Primary School and it wasn't associated with dating in any way, yet you say I have a lack of understanding of American culture when Americans are apparently THAT prudcish that they think DANCING will lead somewhere and restrict it to only 12-year-olds? WTF?


I will try to type slowly so you can understand. School dances in the US are a sort of institutionalized dating. If American's didn't want their girls to date until they were much older, public schools would not support this. It was one example. Try to keep up, ok?

In England, kids have boyfriends/girlfriends in Primary school, so why do Americans seem so bothered about kids dating even when they get to teenage years? It's not like they're gonna jump into bed with the first person they date before they're ready, and as a little kids it's just playful innocent kissing and hugging that may either lead nowhere or lead to them being together forever... either way, why the worry? I'm sure even ENGLAND IN THE 50'S wasn't this bad...
Because the US has a particularly intense and twisted obsession with sex and sexuality. I think it's probably rooted in the Puritanism and related religious hoo-hah that has been commonplace in this country. Your typical American believes that seeing a woman's boob on the TV is more obscene than seeing a show where 15 people are shot in the head. Don't ask me to explain how this kind of thinking works, 'cause I think it's nuts.

It's one of those things that are only visible from the outside looking in. American shows and movies, at least the ones that get over here, would have us beleive that children(almost always girls) aren't allowed to "date" until well into their teens.

Never really thought about it that way. You've got a point. I can certainly see that impression. By the same token, though, then everyone outside the US should think, based on our sitcoms, that lazy fat guys always get hot wives. ;)

Given that the image of the US portrayed in the UK is of a nation of fundamentalist, gun toting regressed nutjobs, or California style vacuosity, I'd say not. Most of the UK NSG contingent, I assume, won't have had the pleasure of meeting "real" americans such as yourself and others before.

Not just those from the UK. We've all seen that same view expressed by NSGers from just about every country represented here. I find it amusing, then, that we here in the US are called the ignorant and bigoted ones. While it might be fun to lump people together based on the country they are from or inwhich they live ("Whee! All Frenchmen are cheese-eating surrender monkeys!"), one should still look at the individual.

I hope you're joking, or will enjoy having a daughter who wants to become an emancipated minor. Also assault charges, you'll probably enjoy those.

I was only joking about the "until she's 30" bit. I was completely serious about the rest. Having been a teenage boy myself once (I wasn't hatched fully grown in a lab, y'know), I know what sorta things teenage guys are thinking. That baseball bat's gonna be there, and I'll have no qualms about using it if need be.

Dude, it's Cluich. He was once pregnant with Ruffy's two-headed lovechild, remember? :p

Wow! I'm surprised anyone remembers that! :eek:

Bahaha! :p
We had a whale of a time convincing a girl that a taxidermist was a man who rubbed sandwiches along taxis. She still believes it.

When I was in high school, I had a girl convinced that the plural of "moose" was "meese." "You know...'goose' and 'geese,' so 'moose' and 'meese.'" :D

I got my "education" from watching That 70s Show.

You sad, sad little boy, you...

here we have two Fluffle spamers in there native habitat

Where are the poachers when you need 'em?

In England, kids have boyfriends/girlfriends in Primary school, so why do Americans seem so bothered about kids dating even when they get to teenage years? It's not like they're gonna jump into bed with the first person they date before they're ready, and as a little kids it's just playful innocent kissing and hugging that may either lead nowhere or lead to them being together forever... either way, why the worry? I'm sure even ENGLAND IN THE 50'S wasn't this bad...

What were u smoking when u posted that. It's not that bad in US jeez..

What were u smoking when u posted that. It's not that bad in US jeez..

This is NSG. Ridiculous stereotypes of the US and its people are par for the course. Frankly, I'm rather surprised that we haven't seen a "Nosepicking: A US Epidemic" thread yet. :rolleyes:

I was only joking about the "until she's 30" bit. I was completely serious about the rest. Having been a teenage boy myself once (I wasn't hatched fully grown in a lab, y'know), I know what sorta things teenage guys are thinking. That baseball bat's gonna be there, and I'll have no qualms about using it if need be.
And, having been a teenage girl myself once, allow me to terrify you with a single simple statement:

Teenage girls are thinking about THE EXACT SAME SORTA THINGS.

:D

And, having been a teenage girl myself once, allow me to terrify you with a single simple statement:

Teenage girls are thinking about THE EXACT SAME SORTA THINGS.

:D

Oh, I'm aware of that, but I can't really go whomping my gf's daughter upside the head with a bat for it when the time comes (she's only nine now). The guys, on the other hand, though... ;)

And, having been a teenage girl myself once, allow me to terrify you with a single simple statement:

Teenage girls are thinking about THE EXACT SAME SORTA THINGS.

:D

I'm so glad I worked that out when I was a teenage guy.

Some awesome years...

:)

Maybe because I don't shrug off imorality and pedophilia like most people do.



Two teenagers having sex is not pedophilia. Any claim otherwise is just foolish.

Also, thinking about what you said, pedophilia IS legal. It's child molestation that's illegal.

Five hundred years ago, girls became women the moment they began to menstruate, and were married off like fruits ripe for the picking. They bore many children before they were twenty years old...

People like the Puritans began to change that attitude. People like the Puritans thought that girls should be a bit older before they begin to breed. People like the Puritans thought that girls are more than just breeding machines, that they have some self worth in being themselves outside of just mating and having sex and then children. So, Puritans began to propagate the idea that girls should be older and older before they are exposed to the prick-heads commonly known as men. And over the years, that socially acceptable level got older and older for women, until it was commonly perceived that a woman in her twenties was not an old maid, but only just now budding and beginning to find herself in education and perhaps the career of her choice.

Any attempt today to turn the clock backwards, to return that social expectation to begin 'mating' rituals to a preteen age limit, in my mind, is running contrary to advancement, running backwards. Trying to return to a time when society told women that their self-view of self-value revolved around her having a uterus and using it a soon as possible...

And in that case then, I proudly associate myself with the Puritans. None of my daughters will be 'dating' until she's well past preteens, I can tell you that.

Are you retarded or just poorly educated? If there's one thing the puritans cannot be credited with, it's respecting women. You are sexist:

prick-heads commonly known as men.

Have no grasp of history:

Five hundred years ago, girls became women the moment they began to menstruate, and were married off like fruits ripe for the picking. They bore many children before they were twenty years old...

People like the Puritans began to change that attitude. People like the Puritans thought that girls should be a bit older before they begin to breed. People like the Puritans thought that girls are more than just breeding machines, that they have some self worth in being themselves outside of just mating and having sex and then children. So, Puritans began to propagate the idea that girls should be older and older before they are exposed to the prick-heads commonly known as men. And over the years, that socially acceptable level got older and older for women, until it was commonly perceived that a woman in her twenties was not an old maid, but only just now budding and beginning to find herself in education and perhaps the career of her choice.


and, to be honest, just plain stupid.


I apologize for the flames, but if there's one thing I can't stand it's sexism.

In England, kids have boyfriends/girlfriends in Primary school, so why do Americans seem so bothered about kids dating even when they get to teenage years? It's not like they're gonna jump into bed with the first person they date before they're ready, and as a little kids it's just playful innocent kissing and hugging that may either lead nowhere or lead to them being together forever... either way, why the worry? I'm sure even ENGLAND IN THE 50'S wasn't this bad...
What? I was under the impression that the USA had an unhealthy obsession with forcing kids to date at a young age whether they want to or not.

If there's one thing the puritans cannot be credited with, it's respecting women.
It's true that the Puritans did believe "girls are more than just breeding machines, that they have some self worth in being themselves outside of just mating and having sex and then children," though. The Puritans also recognized that girls and women made excellent domestic slaves in addition to being breeding machines!

It's true that the Puritans did believe "girls are more than just breeding machines, that they have some self worth in being themselves outside of just mating and having sex and then children," though. The Puritans also recognized that girls and women made excellent domestic slaves in addition to being breeding machines!

Okay, good point. They did certainly expand the possibilities given to woman.
:)

*Crowd boos*

Now fluffle spammers can be deadly when you sneak up on them from behind, so I'm gonna have to be really quiet.



Crikey, what a beauaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh

Look out Ifreann! Those two stingrays are gonna fluffle...oh, shit. Well, I'm sure as hell not liable.


Thank Eris I don't live in America

I thought s/he was joking! :eek:



If you really think there are no hormone injections into cattle... or that mammalian hormones have no effect whatsoever on humans... I would have to say you and not I might have the insane view.

I didn't say that, now did I?

Once upon a time a young teenage girl came to me thinking she was pregnant because she swallowed. I had a very difficult time keeping my composure on that one.

Okay, I would've laughed. You are a much more composed person then me.


I don't imagine this example is representative of the US population as a whole, but God does funny things to us here. Masturbation makes us blind after all.

Technically, that's somewhat based on science. There's a small amount of...I think zinc in every ejaculation, and you need zinc to see. So, theoretically...
Of course you'd run out way before then, but still.

BuT iT iS sO mUcH mOrE fUn To CaPiTaLiZe EvErY OtHeR lEtTeR!

PEDRO!!!!


You can keep your retarded comments to yourself, thanks.

Have I ever mentioned how awesome you are?

Because in America, females have turned "dating" into a synonym for "fucking" by way of euphemism.

Somehow I think that was more of a joint effort. Which didn't happen, but it still would be a joint effort.

Hell, girls don't even THINK about sex! :eek:
:rolleyes:

(in my experience, I'd say that if boys thought about sex every 7 seconds, girl would think about sex every .7 second.)

...must...not...comment....must...not...comment...must...not...comment

Because American attitudes towards intimacy and sexuality are made of fail.

Well, the loud-mouthed minority's is, at least.

I'd thought foreigners were able to see past that BS.

Just because they don't live in the US doesn't mean they aren't stupid.


In any case, look at the world around you dear, dispense withe housewife neurosises, and allow your children to live a little.

Dude. With a repressive parent like that, any kid she has will probably be a total hellion.

Obviously. :(

That's what my middle school told me.

Then again, this country *was* founded by Puritans...

Benjamin Franklin slept around. A WHOLE FREAKING LOT.


Not Puritans. Slaveholders and guys who grew hemp, sure.

You have a curious version of history. Tell me, what do you call your little world?

Isn't it called Bizarro World?

What? I was under the impression that the USA had an unhealthy obsession with forcing kids to date at a young age whether they want to or not.

No, that's not it either. Where the hell did you get that impression? :eek:

No, that's not it either. Where the hell did you get that impression? :eek:
I thought that the youth culture in the USA was such that if you haven't had sex by 16 you have no life and if you haven't had a girlfriend/boyfriend etc by 12 you're a failure as a person.

I thought that the youth culture in the USA was such that if you haven't had sex by 16 you have no life and if you haven't had a girlfriend/boyfriend etc by 12 you're a failure as a person.

...Wow. What have you been reading?

Never really thought about it that way. You've got a point. I can certainly see that impression. By the same token, though, then everyone outside the US should think, based on our sitcoms, that lazy fat guys always get hot wives. ;)
Well kids not being allowed to date, that makes at least a little sense. The fat guys with wives is just one of those suspension of disbelieft things. Like watching Lord Of The Rings, you know it's all largely impossible, but you don't think about that too much.

(I wasn't hatched fully grown in a lab, y'know)
What?! Those lying bastards...........

I thought that the youth culture in the USA was such that if you haven't had sex by 16 you have no life and if you haven't had a girlfriend/boyfriend etc by 12 you're a failure as a person.
I think teens the world over are pretty much fixated on sex, but I don't see anything particularly remarkable about that.

What the US really excels at is making teens feel shameful and guilty about having perfectly normal and natural sexual thoughts and feelings. Even while kids are being bombarded with amazingly sexualized material 24/7, we've got PTA groups and government bodies insisting that children shouldn't be exposed to dirty words like "penis" and "vagina" until they're 18. Basically, it's the perfect recipe for young people to be having sexual contact while also being completely ignorant about their own bodies and how to respect them.

What?! Those lying bastards...........

Don't believe everything Neesika tells you. ;)

Had to say that just to continue this silly idea that I'm obsessed with her. I find it rather entertaining. lol

I've casually informed my little sisters boyfriends that should anything untoward happen between them, the consequences could be dire. I won't go into exact words, but suffice to say at least one of her now-former boyfriends is terrified of me.

I won't get into what my little brother and I did to one of our older sister's boyfriends once...
http://209.85.48.8/9854/48/emo/Ninja-Invisible.gif

Oh, I'm aware of that, but I can't really go whomping my gf's daughter upside the head with a bat for it when the time comes (she's only nine now). The guys, on the other hand, though... ;)

I've casually informed my little sisters boyfriends that should anything untoward happen between them, the consequences could be dire. I won't go into exact words, but suffice to say at least one of her now-former boyfriends is terrified of me.

I've casually informed my little sisters boyfriends that should anything untoward happen between them, the consequences could be dire. I won't go into exact words, but suffice to say at least one of her now-former boyfriends is terrified of me.
I hope people feel this same protectiveness toward their male siblings/offspring. It always makes me sad when I see a father (or mother) being extremely protective of their daughter while basically telling their son to fend for himself. :(

I'm very protective of my kid brother, and I would have some serious words with any girl (or guy?) who tried to mess with his heart.

I think teens the world over are pretty much fixated on sex, but I don't see anything particularly remarkable about that.

What the US really excels at is making teens feel shameful and guilty about having perfectly normal and natural sexual thoughts and feelings. Even while kids are being bombarded with amazingly sexualized material 24/7, we've got PTA groups and government bodies insisting that children shouldn't be exposed to dirty words like "penis" and "vagina" until they're 18. Basically, it's the perfect recipe for young people to be having sexual contact while also being completely ignorant about their own bodies and how to respect them.

Has it ever occurred to you that discussions like this on NSG are probably better then the sex ed in some states?


I've casually informed my little sisters boyfriends that should anything untoward happen between them, the consequences could be dire. I won't go into exact words, but suffice to say at least one of her now-former boyfriends is terrified of me.

Yeah...

Your sister hates you, doesn't she?

So, Pancake isn't your's and Neesika's illegitimate lovechild?

No comment.

<.<
>.>

*runs*

Has it ever occurred to you that discussions like this on NSG are probably better then the sex ed in some states?
Yes. :(

That's one of the reasons I still participate in the various sexuality-related threads around here. 99.9% of it is old material to me, but there have been times when I've posted something and another person responded to the effect of, "Wow, nobody's ever told me that before."

I have been very lucky in life. I've got two very smart, very educated parents who have no problem talking with me about anything. I've gone to good schools and had wonderful mentors and role models my whole life. I know that I've been blessed with access to honest information and supportive adults. I know that lots of people aren't so lucky.

And, sadly, a great many of my fellow Americans are determined to make sure that no kid is ever as lucky as I have been. They fight day and night to ensure that kids don't have access to information, health care, or good role models. They spend my tax dollars to ensure that kids are kept ignorant and endangered when it comes to anything remotely sexual. They pass laws that enforce policies which increase STD infection rates, unwanted pregnancies, abortion, and deaths of young people. They've got fucktons of funding, too.

Are you retarded or just poorly educated? If there's one thing the puritans cannot be credited with, it's respecting women. You are sexist:

Have no grasp of history:

and, to be honest, just plain stupid.

I apologize for the flames, but if there's one thing I can't stand it's sexism.

You didn't bother to back up a single claim, not one. All you did was flame...

Perhaps you would like to prove that the position of women did not improve over the last five hundred years... Perhaps you would like to prove that the lives and roles and prospects of women between 1500 and 1776 did not improve during the reformation era.

Perhaps you would like to eat crow.

Don't believe everything Neesika tells you. ;)
So, Pancake isn't your's and Neesika's illegitimate lovechild?

Has it ever occurred to you that discussions like this on NSG are probably better then the sex ed in some states?




Yeah...

Your sister hates you, doesn't she?

Somehow, she still idolizes me. Partly has to do with the fact that she's now in one of the top public schools (a magnet school) in our area, that I was in the first graduating class for.

Also partly to do with the fact that didn't actually scare her boyfriend off, just told him in no uncertain terms that if he ever hurt her, I had a shovel and a plot in the backyard waiting for him. She thought it was hilarious.

You didn't bother to back up a single claim, not one. All you did was flame...

Perhaps you would like to prove that the position of women did not improve over the last five hundred years... Perhaps you would like to prove that the lives and roles and prospects of women between 1500 and 1776 did not improve during the reformation era.

Perhaps you would like to eat crow.

It is impossible to argue with something that irrational. ("pricks commonly known as men"? Seriously. Get counseling. Quickly. Before you start shouting "There's no such thing as consent!") Therefore, I did not back up my claims. No matter what I claim, you will make up statistics if you have to, you are one of those people who can't admit to being wrong, as far as I can tell.

I hope people feel this same protectiveness toward their male siblings/offspring. It always makes me sad when I see a father (or mother) being extremely protective of their daughter while basically telling their son to fend for himself. :(

I'm very protective of my kid brother, and I would have some serious words with any girl (or guy?) who tried to mess with his heart.

I don't honestly know how I'd be. I mean I'm only 20, and I've only got one little sibling, so while I'm protective of her (where guys are concerned) I don't know how I'd be with a little bro/son.

You didn't bother to back up a single claim, not one. All you did was flame...

Perhaps you would like to prove that the position of women did not improve over the last five hundred years...

That's a lovely diversion, but sadly it has nothing to do with your claim.

The position of women has improved over the last 500 years. However, it has improved DESPITE groups like the Puritans. Every major gain in women's liberation in the last century runs directly in contradiction to Puritan values, and every step of women's lib has had to be fought for against the very people you claim are champions of women.

The improvement in women's status during the time period we are discussing was due to the tireless efforts of women. Period. Women fought tooth and nail for fundamental recognition as human beings. There were some women who happened to be Puritans who fought for women's rights and status, but Puritanism on the whole did fuckall for women's rights. Indeed, the Puritans kicked out women who refused to submit to the anti-woman dictates of Puritan doctrine (see Anne Hutchinson for an example).

Women were far better off in the so-called "middle colonies," which were refuges for Jews, Quakers, and some other non-Puritan Christian groups (like the German Pietists, for instance). Women were given far more social and economic freedom among these groups, and were far more likely to actually hold authority within religious governing bodies. Within the context of the time period, the Puritans ran some of the most anti-woman churches in North America.

Even the Great Awakening ended up fucking over women. One of the ideas that came along was the notion that women are morally superior to men. Sounds great, right? Except nobody suggested that maybe women should, you know, be allowed to vote and shit because of this. Instead, it became just another way to enforce the same-old same-old. Super-virtuous women were tasked with civilizing the menfolks, who still (for some reason) were the ones who owned and ran everything. Women also were obviously the ones who had to rear children, since men were far too immoral to change diapers and care for babies. Women's education, likewise, was best used to serve her family and the various males she was supposed to be civilizing. She certainly wasn't supposed to use her superior morality to actually lead anything or own property or have a life of her own. That was only for the immoral, beastly menfolks.

Seriously, you don't want to go down this avenue. There are at least a dozen regular posters around here who will take you to school on this topic. Just leave while you still have your limbs attached. :D


Perhaps you would like to prove that the lives and roles and prospects of women between 1500 and 1776 did not improve during the reformation era.

Wait, first it was the last 500 years. Now it's between 1500 and 1776.

The fact that women's lives improved during a time period when Puritanism exists does not remotely constitute evidence that Puritans improved the status of women. I mean, women's status was even better in 1935 than it was in 1600, so I guess that must mean that the Nazis improved women's lives and prospects, right? Hmm...

You must have confused me with your own reflection in the mirror ...

"I'm rubber, and you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you."

Can we get away from the Peewee Herman-like arguments? :rolleyes:

It is impossible to argue with something that irrational. ("pricks commonly known as men"? Seriously. Get counseling. Quickly. Before you start shouting "There's no such thing as consent!") Therefore, I did not back up my claims. No matter what I claim, you will make up statistics if you have to, you are one of those people who can't admit to being wrong, as far as I can tell.

You must have confused me with your own reflection in the mirror ...

Then tell him to make an argument instead of just posting insults. Nice of you to notice :rolleyes:

Didn't mean to single you out. I think you're both being juvenile, frankly.

The position of women has improved over the last 500 years. However, it has improved DESPITE groups like the Puritans. Every major gain in women's liberation in the last century runs directly in contradiction to Puritan values, and every step of women's lib has had to be fought for against the very people you claim are champions of women.

Puritans were the first to allow women teachers and to think women were better off with an education in more than just domestic duties. Like it or not, the first step may be a small one, but it's still the first step.

Anne Bradstreet: American Puritan, works published in England via Puritan men who tried to show the rest of europe (and specifcally the England society that they had left), that a godly and educated woman could elevate the position held by a wife and mother.


Seriously, you don't want to go down this avenue. There are at least a dozen regular posters around here who will take you to school on this topic. Just leave while you still have your limbs attached. :D

Hot air...


Wait, first it was the last 500 years. Now it's between 1500 and 1776.

Exactly right... My post said five hundred years, AND the period that can contain the Puritan era specifically, which part of this are you having the hardest time understanding?

The fact that women's lives improved during a time period when Puritanism exists does not remotely constitute evidence that Puritans improved the status of women. I mean, women's status was even better in 1935 than it was in 1600, so I guess that must mean that the Nazis improved women's lives and prospects, right? Hmm...

Women's prospects were increased by the puritan society specifically because the puritans believed individuals had to be saved with their own personal relationship with God, not by the blessing of some priest. Unlike the church and theology before puritans, women did NOT need to be educated to read or introduced to theology, thus they weren't taught to read on a regular basis or educated at all. But because the puritans believed a women had to understand theology she had to be educated. Some of the first American authors were women, precisely because puritans allowed their women to be educated.

Perhaps you are confusing Puritans with everyone else of that era, like the Pilgrims and the Quakers and orthodox groups...

Perhaps you would like to prove that the position of women did not improve over the last five hundred years...

Less than a minute on wikipedia and we have:
Women's Suffrage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage)
Yep, that's an improvement that happened less than 500 years ago.
The small British colony of the Pitcairn Islands (2006 population: 46) extended suffrage to women in 1838

In 1866 the Isle of Man became the first national parliament to grant equal voting rights to men and women, based on property

In 1869, Wyoming Territory in the United States extended equal suffrage to women. That same year, the legislature in the Utah Territory passed an act giving women in Utah the right to vote, but this right was later revoked by the United States Congress in the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887.

In 1893, New Zealand was the first country to introduce universal suffrage, following a movement led by Kate Sheppard (see Women's suffrage in New Zealand). Women first achieved the right to stand for public office in South Australia in 1894, along with full suffrage in that state (previously granted restricted women's suffrage in 1861).

The first women's suffrage (with the same property qualifications as for men) was accidentally granted (the word "people" was used instead of "men") in New Jersey in 1776 and rescinded in 1807.

The first to grant universal suffrage and allow women to stand for parliament was South Australia, in 1894.

In the years before the First World War, Norway (1913) and Denmark also gave women the vote

Canada granted the right in 1917 (except in Quebec, where it was postponed until 1940), as did the Soviet Union

British women over 30 and all German and Polish women had the vote in 1918 and American women in states that had previously denied them suffrage were allowed the vote in 1920.

Women in Turkey were granted voting rights in 1926. In 1928, suffrage was extended to all British women. One of the last jurisdictions to grant women equal voting rights was Liechtenstein in 1984.

In 1893, New Zealand became the first self-governing country in the world to give women the vote.

Timeline of women's suffrage by country
1893- New Zealand (to vote)
1902- Commonwealth of Australia¹ (to vote and stand for election)
1906- Finland
1907- Norway (to stand for election) ¹
1913- Norway²
1915- Denmark, Iceland¹
1917- Canada* (to vote) ¹, Netherlands (to stand for election)
1918- Austria, Canada* (to vote) ¹, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Ireland¹, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russian Federation, United Kingdom¹
1919- Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium (to vote for municipal elections) ¹, Georgia,United States Of America,Luxembourg, Netherlands (to vote), New Zealand (to stand for election), Sweden¹, Ukraine
1920- Albania, Canada* (to stand for election) ¹, Czech Republic, Iceland², Slovakia (to vote)
1921- Belgium (to stand for election) ¹, Sweden²
1922- Irish Free State
1924- Kazakhstan*, Mongolia, Saint Lucia, Tajikistan
1927- Turkey
1928- United Kingdom²
1929- Ecuador¹, Romania¹
1930- South Africa* (Whites), Turkey (to vote), Greece (to vote for municipal elections)¹
1931- Chile¹, Portugal¹, Spain, Sri Lanka
1932- Thailand (with first constitutional monarchy), Brazil, Maldives, Uruguay
1934- Cuba, Portugal¹, Turkey (to stand for election)
1935- Myanmar (to vote)
1937- Philippines
1938- Bolivia¹, Uzbekistan
1939- El Salvador (to vote)
1941- Panama¹
1942- Dominican Republic
1944- Bulgaria, France, Jamaica
1945- Croatia, Guyana (to stand for election), Indonesia, Italy, Japan*, New Jersey, Slovenia, Togo
1946- Cameroon, D.P.R. of Korea, Djibouti (to vote), Guatemala, Liberia, Myanmar (to stand for election), Panama², Romania², The F.Y.R. of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Serbia, Montenegro
1947- Argentina, Japan*, Malta, Mexico (to vote), Pakistan, Singapore
1948- Belgium², Israel (same year of independence), Niger, Republic of Korea, Seychelles, Suriname
1949- Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chile², China, Costa Rica, Syria (to vote) ¹
1950- Barbados, Canada* (to vote) ², Haiti, India
1951- Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, Nepal, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
1952- Bolivia², Côte d'Ivoire, Greece¹, Lebanon
1953- Bhutan, Guyana (to vote), Mexico (to stand for election), Syria²
1954- Colombia, Belize, Ghana
1955- Cambodia, Ethiopia (and Eritrea*, as then part of Ethiopia), Honduras, Nicaragua, Peru, Greece²
1956- Benin, Comoros, Egypt, Gabon, Mali, Mauritius, Somalia
1957- Malaysia, Zimbabwe (to vote) ²
1958- Burkina Faso, Chad, Guinea, Lao P.D.R., Nigeria* (South)
1959- Madagascar, San Marino (to vote), Tunisia, United Republic of Tanzania
1960- Canada* (Indian Canadians - to stand for election) ², Cyprus, Gambia, Tonga
1961- Bahamas¹, Burundi, El Salvador (to stand for election), Malawi, Mauritania, Paraguay, Rwanda, Sierra Leone
1962- Algeria, Australia² (aboriginals), Monaco, Uganda, Zambia
1963- Afghanistan, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Iran, Kenya, Morocco, Papua New Guinea (to stand for election)
1964- Bahamas², Libya, Papua New Guinea (to vote), Sudan
1965- Botswana, Lesotho
1967- Democratic Republic of the Congo (to vote), Ecuador², Kiribati, Tuvalu, Yemen* (D.P.R.)
1968- Nauru, Swaziland
1970- Andorra (to vote), Democratic Republic of the Congo (to stand for election), Yemen* (Arab Republic)
1971- Switzerland*
1972- Bangladesh
1973- Andorra (to stand for election), San Marino (to stand for election)
1974- Jordan, Solomon Islands
1975- Angola, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Sao Tome and Principe, Vanuatu*
1976- Portugal²
1977- Guinea Bissau
1978- Nigeria* (North), Republic of Moldova*, Zimbabwe (to stand for election)
1979- Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Fed. States), Palau
1980- Iraq, Vanuatu*[4]
1984- Liechtenstein, South Africa* (Coloureds + Indians)
1986- Central African Republic, Djibouti (to stand for election)
1989- Namibia
1990- Samoa, Switzerland*
1993- Kazakhstan*, Republic of Moldova*
1994- South Africa* (Blacks)
1997- Qatar¹, Eritrea* (stipulated by sovereign constitution)
2002- Bahrain
2003- Oman
2005- Kuwait
2006- United Arab Emirites¹
2007- Qatar*

"I'm rubber, and you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you."

Can we get away from the Peewee Herman-like arguments? :rolleyes:

Then tell him to make an argument instead of just posting insults. Nice of you to notice :rolleyes:

In England, kids have boyfriends/girlfriends in Primary school, so why do Americans seem so bothered about kids dating even when they get to teenage years? It's not like they're gonna jump into bed with the first person they date before they're ready, and as a little kids it's just playful innocent kissing and hugging that may either lead nowhere or lead to them being together forever... either way, why the worry? I'm sure even ENGLAND IN THE 50'S wasn't this bad...


Every individual parent should have the right to make whatever rules that they see fit for their children. Dating is one of those things, it is not for us to judge.

Puritans were the first to allow women teachers and to think women were better off with an education in more than just domestic duties. Like it or not, the first step may be a small one, but it's still the first step.

Um, no, they really weren't.


Anne Bradstreet: American Puritan, works published in England via Puritan men who tried to show the rest of europe (and specifcally the England society that they had left), that a godly and educated woman could elevate the position held by a wife and mother.

Like I said: women's rights were fought for by women. Some of them happened to be Puritans. But Puritanism didn't do shit for women.


Hot air...

Now there's a sound rebuttal if ever I've heard one.


Exactly right... My post said five hundred years, AND the period that can contain the Puritan era specifically, which part of this are you having the hardest time understanding?

Oh, with all the straw you're flinging around, it's hard to follow any of your points.


Women's prospects were increased by the puritan society specifically because the puritans believed individuals had to be saved with their own personal relationship with God, not by the blessing of some priest. Unlike the church and theology before puritans, women did NOT need to be educated to read or introduced to theology, thus they weren't taught to read on a regular basis or educated at all. But because the puritans believed a women had to understand theology she had to be educated. Some of the first American authors were women, precisely because puritans allowed their women to be educated.

Darlin', the Catholics were doing that for CENTURIES beforehand.

It's true, Protestants extended the idea that all people needed to be able to have a direct relationship with God, so all people (not just monks and nuns) should learn to read their Bibles. But that's got bugger all to do with women's rights. That was about ALL people.


Perhaps you are confusing Puritans with everyone else of that era, like the Pilgrims and the Quakers and orthodox groups...
Nope. As a matter of fact, the Quakers were much better on women's rights than the Puritans, though (of course) they were still a bunch of cowards who used their faith to prop up lame-ass sexism.

Then tell him to make an argument instead of just posting insults. Nice of you to notice :rolleyes:

"He did it first! Waaaaaa!"

You edited you post since I responded to it... But this part specifically.

Indeed, the Puritans kicked out women who refused to submit to the anti-woman dictates of Puritan doctrine (see Anne Hutchinson for an example).


Anne Hutchinson was not excommunicated because she was a woman teacher. Her bible study group was very popular and included influential men in it. She was excommunicated because of specific teachings that would have gotten a man excommunicated as well. Her being a women had nothingn to do with being kicked out. As a matter of fact, the very existence of Anne Hutchinson proves that Puritans allowed women teachers in a religious setting, something very unusual for the period in european culture, thanks for mentioning her. I'll point at her as proof of women's prospects improving under puritans.

You edited you post since I responded to it... But this part specifically.



Anne Hutchinson was not excommunicated because she was a woman teacher. Her bible study group was very popular and included influential men in it. She was excommunicated because of specific teachings that would have gotten a man excommunicated as well. Her being a women had nothingn to do with being kicked out. As a matter of fact, the very existence of Anne Hutchinson proves that Puritans allowed women teachers in a religious setting, something very unusual for the period in european culture, thanks for mentioning her. I'll point at her as proof of women's prospects improving under puritans.

To give you a Catholic example of the exact same era : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ward_%28nun%29

It was a new trend back then, but to claim that it was merely due to the Puritans is ridiculous at best.

Anne Hutchinson was not excommunicated because she was a woman teacher. Her bible study group was very popular and included influential men in it. She was excommunicated because of specific teachings that would have gotten a man excommunicated as well. Her being a women had nothingn to do with being kicked out. As a matter of fact, the very existence of Anne Hutchinson proves that Puritans allowed women teachers in a religious setting, something very unusual for the period in european culture, thanks for mentioning her. I'll point at her as proof of women's prospects improving under puritans.
Guess it depends on which sources you trust. I'm sure you can find plenty of Christian/Puritan sources that will insist she wasn't kicked out for being a woman who refused to submit. Meh.

One of the main reasons cited for kicking Hutchinson out was for having those men in her classes, you know. She was specifically denounced for holding meetings that were "not tolerable nor comely in the sight of God, nor fitting for [her] sex." She was excommunicated for blasphemy and lewd conduct, which referred to having both men and women in her home at the same time while teaching.

Hutchinson was lucky, though, since the standard Puritan response to women like her was to brand her as a witch or a heretic. All Hutchinson had to face was being kicked out of her home and excommunicated.

To give you a Catholic example of the exact same era : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ward_%28nun%29

It was a new trend back then, but to claim that it was merely due to the Puritans is ridiculous at best.

I don't think I made that claim. The "puritan Americans" were being attacked in this thread, so I defended them specifically.

To give you a Catholic example of the exact same era : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ward_%28nun%29

It was a new trend back then, but to claim that it was merely due to the Puritans is ridiculous at best.
Yep. Women were fighting for expanded roles, and positions within their religious communities were an excellent place for them to start. Puritans didn't invent this, they didn't have a monopoly on it, and they certainly did a good job of squashing any efforts to extend women's role outside of the most minimal and nominal positions of "power."

I don't think I made that claim. The "puritan Americans" were being attacked in this thread, so I defended them specifically.
Well if that's what's got your panties in a bunch, then you can just drop it now.

In the context of this discussion, it doesn't bloodywell matter what Puritans may or may not have been doing in the 1600s. When people bash Puritan Americans NOW, we're talking about people who still hold those values TODAY.

Regardless of how you want to spin the history or skew the context, the fact remains that the Puritan spirit lingering in America today is one of the most repressive, anti-women, and anti-sex threads in our culture. Whether or not the Puritans were great liberators of women back in the day, they sure as fuck aren't liberating anybody NOW. Their values are remarkably regressive and oppressive by today's standards, and are intensely sexist at their core.

Um, no, they really weren't.

I am unaware of earlier ones. Perhaps you would like to substantiate your statement so that we can be educated about it...


Like I said: women's rights were fought for by women. Some of them happened to be Puritans. But Puritanism didn't do shit for women.

Like you said what? That example specifically tells you how puritan MEN made sure her writings were published. It is thought that she didn't even know her manuscript had been swept away to England...


Darlin', the Catholics were doing that for CENTURIES beforehand.

No, the Catholics were NOT educating the women masses. They were educating the rich and the nuns, the everyday church going farmers wife and her daughters were not being educated...

It's true, Protestants extended the idea that all people needed to be able to have a direct relationship with God, so all people (not just monks and nuns) should learn to read their Bibles. But that's got bugger all to do with women's rights. That was about ALL people.

And ALL people include women and women’s prospects were improved through it.


Nope. As a matter of fact, the Quakers were much better on women's rights than the Puritans, though (of course) they were still a bunch of cowards who used their faith to prop up lame-ass sexism.


Perhaps you would like to prove it? Are you comparing 18th century Quakers and 17th century puritans? Or are you comparing contemporaries like you should be doing?

Well if that's what's got your panties in a bunch, then you can just drop it now.

In the context of this discussion, it doesn't bloodywell matter what Puritans may or may not have been doing in the 1600s. When people bash Puritan Americans NOW, we're talking about people who still hold those values TODAY.

Regardless of how you want to spin the history or skew the context, the fact remains that the Puritan spirit lingering in America today is one of the most repressive, anti-women, and anti-sex threads in our culture. Whether or not the Puritans were great liberators of women back in the day, they sure as fuck aren't liberating anybody NOW. Their values are remarkably regressive and oppressive by today's standards, and are intensely sexist at their core.


Perhaps you should go back and read my first post again then... If your going to attack my position, it might as well be the one I actually made. I said the expectations for women have increased, that they are more than just breeding machines and that exposing them to an education BEFORE exposing them to mating rituals was an advancement in society I don't feel obliged to forfeit now. Preteen girls don't need to be acting like adult women looking for boyfriends and spouses, they need to be directed to their education and increasing their options as people.

didn't you know that by law only 12 year olds can dance in the US? not any younger? I mean my daughters and I fear every week when we go to dance class, me even more since I am teaching dance to children.......:rolleyes:

Looks like my less than 50% thoughts were right... America is a heck of a lot more weird when it comes to kids and dating, with even THE LAW assuming something will happen if someone under 12 is allowed to dance. Sheesh there was an official disco in my Primary School when I was less than 10

I'm already planning on having a Louisville Slugger with a rusty nail driven through it resting by the front door when my gf's daughter gets to that age. And I plan on keeping it there -- and using it as I see appropriate -- until she's at least 30.

Well at least I found ONE example of poor parenting in relation to the topic.

Well at least I found ONE example of poor parenting in relation to the topic.

And I found ONE example of people who fail at reading threads in their entirety. :rolleyes:

Looks like my less than 50% thoughts were right... America is a heck of a lot more weird when it comes to kids and dating, with even THE LAW assuming something will happen if someone under 12 is allowed to dance. Sheesh there was an official disco in my Primary School when I was less than 10

:eek: :p

Guys, read some of PootWaddle's other posts. He's quite clearly either a troll or so conservative he seems like a troll. He's over on the "don't ask don't tell" thread as well.

Yes, and you're not calling for flaming of said troll, are you? Just let it drop. Yeesh. :rolleyes:

And when did conservative = troll? So anyone who isn't liberal is a troll? Give it a rest.

Guys, read some of PootWaddle's other posts. He's quite clearly either a troll or so conservative he seems like a troll. He's over on the "don't ask don't tell" thread as well.

In England, kids have boyfriends/girlfriends in Primary school, so why do Americans seem so bothered about kids dating even when they get to teenage years? It's not like they're gonna jump into bed with the first person they date before they're ready, and as a little kids it's just playful innocent kissing and hugging that may either lead nowhere or lead to them being together forever... either way, why the worry? I'm sure even ENGLAND IN THE 50'S wasn't this bad...

Kids want to get laid too!

Looks like my less than 50% thoughts were right... America is a heck of a lot more weird when it comes to kids and dating, with even THE LAW assuming something will happen if someone under 12 is allowed to dance. Sheesh there was an official disco in my Primary School when I was less than 10

Uh... you must have missed the sarcasm in her post... somehow....

The right-wing is more common, as who's going to notice an extreme left-wing troll on NSG? :p


I've noticed one right now.

is it really called dating in the States?

Uh... you must have missed the sarcasm in her post... somehow....

oh, I think it's hilarious that he thinks this about America and then goes on to call us stupid.

Guys, read some of PootWaddle's other posts. He's quite clearly either a troll or so conservative he seems like a troll. He's over on the "don't ask don't tell" thread as well.

Badda bing badda boom... and STILL no actual argument from you but just more personal attacks... how sad. :(

Yes, and you're not calling for flaming of said troll, are you? Just let it drop. Yeesh. :rolleyes:

And when did conservative = troll? So anyone who isn't liberal is a troll? Give it a rest.

I like how we're resorting to searching for hidden meanings in stuff we said already.

I didn't say that. But when we get to extremely right-wing and left-wing views, the typically assumption is troll. The right-wing is more common, as who's going to notice an extreme left-wing troll on NSG? :p

Badda bing badda boom... and STILL no actual argument from you but just more personal attacks... how sad. :(

I see the pot has noticed the kettle has a distinct hue.

Also, I recommend you give up arguing with me until you get some facts. I can keep up an argument where both sides are baseless forever.

Kids want to get laid too!

What a lovely first post. You must be so proud.

What a lovely first post. You must be so proud.
Isn't it?

But really, it's true. Children younger and younger are becoming sexually active every year. It's incredible, my 12 year old sister goes to school with girls who became sexually active in 6th grade. And in my school, there is a pregnant freshmen.

is it really called dating in the States?

Yeah. I don't get what is so strange about this. You could just call it "going out" instead if you don't care for dating.

oh, I think it's hilarious that he thinks this about America and then goes on to call us stupid.

Oh, I can certainly agree with that. I'm seeing sig worthy posts in this thread. :)

What a lovely first post. You must be so proud.

Well, it's true. Kids younger and younger are becoming sexually active. My sister goes to school with girls who started when they were in 6th grade. In my school, there is a freshman who's pregnant.
But why? America's youth is just losing there morality. Not that thats a bad thing.

Yeah. I don't get what is so strange about this. You could just call it "going out" instead if you don't care for dating.


Blarg couldn't care one way or t'other. Just interested in the cultural differances. And ya right we call it going out over here, hehe at least we used to in my youth I have absolutly no idea what kids call it nowadays.

Where are the poachers when you need 'em?
they called in sick


Look out Ifreann! Those two stingrays are gonna fluffle...oh, shit. Well, I'm sure as hell not liable.

he knew what he was getting into when he signed up

You sad, sad little boy, you...

My parents never gave me the talk.

here we have two Fluffle spamers in there native habitat

Quoted for lolz.

Five hundred years ago, girls became women the moment they began to menstruate, and were married off like fruits ripe for the picking. They bore many children before they were twenty years old...

People like the Puritans began to change that attitude. People like the Puritans thought that girls should be a bit older before they begin to breed. People like the Puritans thought that girls are more than just breeding machines, that they have some self worth in being themselves outside of just mating and having sex and then children. So, Puritans began to propagate the idea that girls should be older and older before they are exposed to the prick-heads commonly known as men. And over the years, that socially acceptable level got older and older for women, until it was commonly perceived that a woman in her twenties was not an old maid, but only just now budding and beginning to find herself in education and perhaps the career of her choice.

Any attempt today to turn the clock backwards, to return that social expectation to begin 'mating' rituals to a preteen age limit, in my mind, is running contrary to advancement, running backwards. Trying to return to a time when society told women that their self-view of self-value revolved around her having a uterus and using it a soon as possible...

And in that case then, I proudly associate myself with the Puritans. None of my daughters will be 'dating' until she's well past preteens, I can tell you that.

Again, you are one of the Americans (and I'm told my view was wrong... hmm) associating dating with sex. I don't know how kids think in the US, but here dating doesn't automatically equal sex - at younger ages it's far from the thoughts of kids, even "mingin'/icky". From around 14 there is more pressure, but kids who have been brought up to respect their bodies and make their own decisions generally don't have sex until they really feel they are ready. Those who are not allowed to even DATE until a stupid age like 18 are more likely to have sex in order to rebel against their parents. Again, dating does not equate to sex. If your family thinks it does, this link may help you http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/

Well, it's true. Kids younger and younger are becoming sexually active. My sister goes to school with girls who started when they were in 6th grade. In my school, there is a freshman who's pregnant.
But why? America's youth is just losing there morality. Not that thats a bad thing.

Or maybe it's because their parents are too conservative. Or maybe, just maybe, it's a small example which is not representative of all kids. Or maybe some kids are lying about having had sex with someone. Or maybe Americans really are strange.

Bump.