There have been two stories in the past two days on 14 year old girls sending naked pictures to their boyfriends. Reputations were ruined and one girl is actually facing child pornography charges.
So as a parent of a daughter, I am contemplating how I am going to keep my child from making the same mistake.
I can try and keep her from having a cellphone for as long as possible. But once that happens, how much freedom will she have with it?
In my perfect, future world, my child will hand me her phone willingly, since she will have nothing to hide. I will check her texts and see nothing but pictures of friends...with their clothes ON.
Realistically, I know I will need to set ground rules from the beginning. Limit texts and talk times. Monitor their computer use and social media sites. Set up consequences and then follow through with appropriate punishments.
But is that what some parents are not doing? Did the parents of these 14 year old girls just trust them too much? Did they just hand over the cellphone and say "Have fun!" Do they just let their kids stay online for hours without any supervision?
There needs to be conversations. Over and over again. Parents need to give their children the confidence and personal moral code to stand up for and respect themselves.
I want my daughter to laugh in her boyfriend's face if he tries to get her to send him a naked picture of herself. I want her to know that if THAT is what it takes to have someone love you, than you don't want that kind of love.
I know it won't be easy. It will take a lot of talking, patience and prayer. But I'd rather talk for hours on end then be another parent looking down at a naked picture of my child on the internet.
Link to articles: http://nyti.ms/dN8Aax
http://bit.ly/dSfuM6
March 28, 2011
March 24, 2011
Unspoken Love. A mother is kept away from children because she is handicapped.
If you have no voice to soothe your children's fears...if you cannot move or hold them...are you still their mother?
To me, the answer is unequivocally YES.
But Dan Dorn of Southern California apparently believes just the opposite. A year after his wife Abbie is left paralyzed and unable to talk or feed herself after giving birth to their triplets, he divorces her, takes their children and now refuses to give her any visitation.
According to the LA Times, Dorn thinks that since Abbie cannot ASK to see the children, she must not WANT to. His attorney says Abbie's parents are the ones who really want visitation, but they are not legally entitled to it.
Dorn also maintains the now-four year old triplets are too young to understand what happened to Abbie. And he thinks they would feel guilty knowing their mother was injured while giving birth to them.
In my opinion, this legal battle must be a nightmare for Abbie. I cannot imagine what it must feel like to be trapped inside a badly-damaged body...unable to defend my rights as a mother, slap my bastard ex-husband or call out for my children.
I truly believe in most cases, a man fully becomes a father the day his child is born. But a woman becomes a mother while the child is still in the womb. There is a connection formed between a mother and child that cannot be adequately explained. A father can have his own type of connection, but it is not the same.
I believe these children want to know their mother. Who is Dan Dorn to say that they don't? Who is HE to make the decision to keep them away from her? He says the kids would be harmed by seeing their mother in her severely disabled state. But I believe that risk is NOTHING compared to the harm done by making these children believe they don't have a mother at all.
Link to LA Times article: http://lat.ms/bzA9hI
To me, the answer is unequivocally YES.
But Dan Dorn of Southern California apparently believes just the opposite. A year after his wife Abbie is left paralyzed and unable to talk or feed herself after giving birth to their triplets, he divorces her, takes their children and now refuses to give her any visitation.
According to the LA Times, Dorn thinks that since Abbie cannot ASK to see the children, she must not WANT to. His attorney says Abbie's parents are the ones who really want visitation, but they are not legally entitled to it.
Dorn also maintains the now-four year old triplets are too young to understand what happened to Abbie. And he thinks they would feel guilty knowing their mother was injured while giving birth to them.
In my opinion, this legal battle must be a nightmare for Abbie. I cannot imagine what it must feel like to be trapped inside a badly-damaged body...unable to defend my rights as a mother, slap my bastard ex-husband or call out for my children.
I truly believe in most cases, a man fully becomes a father the day his child is born. But a woman becomes a mother while the child is still in the womb. There is a connection formed between a mother and child that cannot be adequately explained. A father can have his own type of connection, but it is not the same.
I believe these children want to know their mother. Who is Dan Dorn to say that they don't? Who is HE to make the decision to keep them away from her? He says the kids would be harmed by seeing their mother in her severely disabled state. But I believe that risk is NOTHING compared to the harm done by making these children believe they don't have a mother at all.
Link to LA Times article: http://lat.ms/bzA9hI
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)