Strollerderby : teenagers

No Hugs For You At Some High Schools

Brett Singer — Fri, 29 May 2009 16:30:00 GMT

According to this New York Times article, hugging is very popular among high school students. A video on the site mentions Hug High School, and calls teenage hugging a "sociological phenomenon." (Hey, whatever floats your sociological boat.)

But at some schools, the big bad grown-ups decided that enough is enough. The Times tells us that "schools from Hillsdale, N.J., to Bend, Ore., wary in a litigious era about sexual harassment or improper touching — or citing hallway clogging and late arrivals to class — have banned hugging or imposed a three-second rule."

First of all, a quick personal note. I'm not that young and when I was in high school boys and girls kissed each other hello. Boys tended to slap hands, either as a high-five or as a slap-into-handshake. I don't remember boys hugging, but boys and girls did, and girls hugged other girls. So I'm not so sure that this "phenomenon" is terribly significant.

Now, back to the issue at hand. If the kids are hanging all over each other in the halls, that could be problematic I suppose. But the problem isn't the hugging, it's that they're standing in the halls. The three-second rule is nuts and won't work. At summer camp, I remember a "6 inches rule" (which now that I type it, sounds vaguely pornographic). Boys and girls had to be that distance from each other at all times. The rule was even enforced by some (though not all) couselors and especially the camp owners, who felt very strongly that the sexes should remain at opposite sides of the room at all times. Because as we all know, closeness leads to touching, and touching leads to... well, you know. More touching.

My children aren't old enough yet but I don't think I would be in favor of a "no hugs" rule. What would be better is teaching kids about boundaries and personal space. Maybe someone doesn't want to be hugged. Maybe it makes them uncomfortable. Maybe you need to stop hugging and get to math class already. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that if you tell a teenager not to do something, especially something that seems to be very much a part of their daily lives, all you're going to do is make them want to do it more.

What do you think? Is banning hugs a good idea? Or should the grown-ups just, well, grow up?

Source: New York Times

Brett Singer is the editor-in-chief of DaddyTips.com. You can follow his tweets at Twitter.com/brettsinger.

American Apparel Leggings - Crass or Cute?

Morning News - Mike Tyson's Daughter Injured

Dad Charges Daughter With Grand Theft Auto

Is it a Lucky Boy Who Dates Obama's Daughter?

JeanneSager — Thu, 21 May 2009 17:24:00 GMT

The president is nervous.

Not about the economy (well, probably) or swine flu (OK, maybe that too).

But President Barack Obama is a dad after all, and he can't help but think about what will happen when daughters Sasha and Malia start dating.

Can you blame him? I wrote a piece a few months ago about Jamie Foxx stressing about his daughter dating and earned a ration of comments about my need to buy into patriarchical nonsense. But come on, folks, dads worry about their daughters. Heck, I worry about my daughter!

So why is it so inappropriate for dads to stress about the day their daughter brings a boy home?

The president told a reporter recently, "dating I think will be an issue because I have men with guns surrounding them at all times, which I'm perfectly happy with, but they may feel differently about it."

He was laughing when we said it, and minus the guns, I can her it coming out of the mouth of almost any dad I know. Those poor, poor prospective suitors.

Dating is a fun time for kids, but with hormones high on both sides, it's wrought with challenges. Broken hearts. Nights spent crying in bed because he didn't call when he said he would (and it doesn't make it much better that he simply forgot because that's what teenagers DO!). It isn't just a "Ohmigod, sex," thought that runs through a parents' mind when they think about their kids dating. We don't want them to get hurt.

And yeah, there's the sex thing too. None of us want to be grandparents tomorrow. And we remember what it's like to be in lust, right? We can't tell our kids WHEN to have sex, how or where. But we can worry about protecting their hearts and their bodies.

And let's face it, dads with daughters have an especial worry chiefly because they know what HE is thinking (or at least have an inkling of it). When my husband gets a look on his face about our daughter's little boyfriends, I don't worry that he's spending too much time thinking up ways to exert his patriarchical thumb over her femininity. He's just a dad who doesn't want his daughter to get hurt.

He may not be surrounded by guys with guns and access to his FBI file, but let me put it this way - the boy who messes with our daughter is no luckier than the boy who has to come face to face with the leader of the free world on prom night.

Image: DenverPost

13 Year Old Alfie Definitely Not A Dad

Brett Singer — Tue, 19 May 2009 01:56:00 GMT

It's official -- Alfie Patten is not the father of baby Maisie. Biologically, at least.

Alfie thought that he had impregnated 15-year-old Chantelle Stedman when he was just 12 years old. Although I admit that science is not my strong suit, that didn't seem possible to me. I guess I was right. (Take THAT Mr. Knauer! He was my bio teacher a long time ago. But I digress.)

This news isn't completely new, but it has just now been released after a ban on the info by a British court was overturned. A judge had previously ruled that "the rights of the teenagers took precedence over the Press's right to report the case." Well, I guess not.

This is an interesting point, one that I've thought of a few times over the past few years. Maybe minors' names should never be released to the public. What possible reason is there for us to know their full names? Does it really enhance our ability to understand a story? I don't see how it could. In my opinion the idea the "the press has a right to know" or report or whatever is very suspect when it comes to matters like this. Why does the press have more rights than a kid?

Source: Daily Mail

FEMA Coloring Book Features 9/11 Image

10 Year Old Author Alec Greven Is Back

12 Year Old Knocks Em Dead On Britain's Got Talent

Australian Kiddie Show Star Appears In Laddie Mag

When Mommy Becomes Mom

JeanneSager — Fri, 15 May 2009 15:04:00 GMT

I never thought I'd be that sappy kind of mother. You know the type. She buries her face in old onesies when she finds them at the bottom of the closet and doesn't come up coughing from the scent of mold growing on super-old spit-up stains.

OK, I'm NOT that kind of mother.

But I am the kind who hates being called "Mom." I prefer "Mommy," thank you very much.

I just realized it recently, when my three- (almost four-) year-old stopped, looked at me and said "Moooom" in a voice that sounded almost teenaged. No, I decided, Mom is not for me. At least not yet.

As long as she is still saying "Mommy," we are pre-pre-menstraul, pre-pull that skirt down so it covers SOMETHING and pre- Lady, you may have been on earth for several decades, but you know nothing about life.

My colleague Madeline laid out the Mom, Mommy, Mama, Mother and all their male alternatives discussion last week, but I realized there isn't just one in most families. If yours is anything like mine, you went through at least two names for your parents, maybe three or four.

I'm still on the first name, and I'd like it to last a good bit longer. Call it a little girl desperate to grow up and a mommy desperately trying to hold on to time.

Image: Amazon

Parents Enraged by Emergency Contraception Commercial

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Thu, 14 May 2009 22:30:00 GMT

British parents are up in arms about a commercial for Levonelle, an over-the-counter emergency contraception pill. After the commercial was aired on three TV channels, hundreds of parents called radio shows to express their outrage.

"Even though it was shown after 9pm my teenage daughters were watching,” one father said. “The worst thing is it makes it seem normal to go and get this pill. We've crossed a moral line with this."

The commercial depicts a casual sex encounter gone wrong—a girl lies in bed next to a slobby musician; a bubble over her forehead, creased with worry, says, “The ‘condom split’ one.” Her worries are intensified by a screaming baby on the bus next to her—then assuaged by a friendly pharmacist.

There is something undeniably off-putting about the commercial—the cheesy, upbeat music, the cuteness of the animation depicting an event that is the opposite of cute. But it’s a 30-second commercial, not an informative, honest discussion of what constitutes a healthy sex life, since that kind of talk is, uh, the parent’s job.

Unsurprisingly but nonetheless idiotically, anti-choice advocates have argued that the pharmaceutical company is promoting abortion, to which a spokesperson for Bayer Schering responded, "Levonelle One Step is not legally or scientifically an abortifacient. It is not effective once the process of implantation has begun and will not interrupt an established pregnancy."

Although most of the parents who complained about this ad focused on its allegedly casual message about sex rather than on abortion, it seems to me that if you support access to emergency contraception, you support allowing TV stations to air this ad.

What would you do if you were watching TV with your kids and this commercial came on?

Image: Brand Republic

Families Still Spending Big on Prom

JeanneSager — Wed, 06 May 2009 17:01:00 GMT

If you have watched a teen movie from any of the last few decades (pick one, any one), there's one lesson to be learned. Your kids have to go to prom.

If they don't, apparently, something dasterdly will befall them, and they will regret it for the REST of their lives. Like, totally, forever and ever and ever, along with their BFFs.

Not buying it? Me neither. But parents across the nation are.

Because with the economy tanking, parents are still apparently going hog wild on prom spending. According to a New York Times report, spending may even be up this year.

And that's not just on the gowns. The tuxes too. And the limos. And the tiaras. Some families are forced to put the finery on layaway and pay down their debt, but they've got their hearts set on making it work.

Why?

Before you write me off as some prom-hating feminist (the latter I'll own up to, but not the former), I attended two proms. I went to each with very nice boys (yes, they were boys back then), one of whom is even on my Facebook now and reads some of my Babble posts (hi Tim!). We had fun. You might even say we made some fond memories. But memories that I couldn't have lived without?

Let me put it this way - I was recently doing a thorough cleaning of my attic and chucked a never burned blue candle coated in dust with the words "Remember Me This Way" inscribed on the glass holder. I can't believe I still had it. I wasn't going to hold onto it for a minute longer.

My first time around, my dad put out at least $200 on the gown, the alterations, the shoes. The only thing I still have? A pair of earrings he bought me as a daddy/daughter special thing, which I still wear for special occasions. The dress itself was donated to a Project Cinderella group - a non-profit effort to put prom dresses in the hands of girls who don't have a whole lot of cash. They're sold for a very small sum (so the girls can feel pride in knowing they paid for them, instead of feeling like a charity case), and the money goes back into the project.

My second time around, I knew better. The dress was off the rack and under $30. The shoes were even cheaper. I already had a pair of earrings. The most expensive piece of the evening would have been the price I'd have paid if my parents learned I'd let him drive my car.

Compare the two evenings, and I can't say which one was better. The second, cheaper night, because I was actually dating the guy? The first, more expensive night, because my date for the night is someone I still talk to today? In other words, a prom on the cheap was perfectly acceptable, and a whole lot of fun. I wasn't being cheated by going cheap.

Neither will any of these kids. Send your kids to prom - if they want to go - or don't. If they don't want to, don't pressure them into doing it, and yourself into making the finances work. And for Gawd's sake, if you can't afford it, step away from the couture. Your pocketbook will thank you. And in two years, when they're trying to rustle up tuition, they will too.

Image: New York Times

They Say: Kids Who Watch Adult TV Have Sex Earlier

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Tue, 05 May 2009 15:30:00 GMT

Researchers at Boston Children’s Hospital have found a link between the amount of adult television children watch and the age at which teens become sexually active.

Researchers tracked 754 children between the ages 6 and 18 at two stages in their lives, first to see how much adult television they watched over the weekend as young kids, and later to see the age at which they first became sexually active. According to Science Daily, “The study found that for every hour the youngest group of children watched adult-targeted content over the two sample days, their chances of having sex during early adolescence increased by 33 percent.”

It seems to me that this correlation may have more to do with uninvolved parents than with TV. Any six-year-old who is allowed to watch several hours of adult television in a day is not likely to have parents who will talk to him or her about sex later in life.

This point of view is enforced by a comment made by a lead author of the study, who said, "Television and movies are among the leading sources of information about sex and relationships for adolescents.”

That, to me, is far more disturbing than any correlation established between teen sexual activity and television. If parents and educators were talking to kids about healthy sexual behavior, they wouldn’t be nearly as likely to be influenced by the drunken promiscuity portrayed on shows like The O.C. and Gossip Girl.

I’m certainly no fan of the majority of mainstream television—particularly not as entertainment for six-year-olds—but it would be much easier, and perhaps more effective, to raise awareness about the need for parents to openly discuss healthy sexual behavior with their kids than it would be to substantially shift the entire foundation of popular culture.

It’s high time that more studies on teen sexuality activity focused on parent-child relationships, rather than just on the media.

Photo: saidaonline.com

What Burlesque Can Teach Your Daughter

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Fri, 01 May 2009 21:00:00 GMT

Burlesque is not the first thing that comes to mind when I consider how to impart healthy self-esteem to girls. But Deirdre Timmons, the director of A Wink and a Smile—a new documentary about the resurgence of burlesque—thinks her 12-year-old’s exposure to burlesque has helped her have "no body image issues whatsoever." As she recently told Halogen Life, "I'd like to think it has a healthy impact on her being around on these women who are comfortable with their bodies."

Timmons was originally drawn to burlesque as a documentary subject in large part because of its deviation from mainstream standards of beauty. She says, “I think a lot of women started to see burlesque happening and thinking, ‘That’s my body up there. That woman is my age, and I thought I was supposed to stop being glamorous and sexy.’”

As part of her work for the film, 42-year-old Timmons studied and performed burlesque herself, which meant that her daughter became very familiar with the medium. “When I was learning how to dance myself,” Timmons said, “I was making my daughter write down the choreography, and I’d be like, ‘Should I bump here or grind here? Which way are my tassels twirling?’”

Depending on Timmons’ routine (I’m assuming she chose not to share a super risqué, striptease-type number with her daughter), that sounds to me like a wonderful mother-daughter bonding experience. Burlesque aside, it can only be beneficial for daughters to see their mothers fully devoted to and fulfilled by their work—particularly when the mother allows her children to share in her work life.

Not being an avid burlesque connoisseur myself, I can’t make a final judgment on its abilities to empower women. But judging from the movie trailer below (NSFW), the women interviewed certainly seem to be interested in burlesque for reasons I fully support: self-confidence, enjoyment, and embracing their eccentricities no matter what other people think.

Still, burlesque is about sex appeal—it’s wonderful for kids to know that rhythm, stage presence, and talent are not dependent upon having a certain kind of body, but you certainly wouldn’t want your daughter coming home with a feather boa and sequined underwear.

Judging from this trailer, would you let your teens or preteens see this movie?

Photo: Halogen Life

They Say: Kids Who Watch Adult TV Have Sex Earlier

UPDATE: Jamie Foxx Apologizes To Miley Cyrus

Brett Singer — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 03:30:00 GMT

Jamie Foxx issued a mea culpa on The Tonight Show With Jay Leno. EOnline.com reports that Foxx responded with a "Yeah" when Jay Leno asked him "Did you say something inappropriate?" Here's the rest of it from EOnline:

"I so apologize to [Cyrus], and this is sincere...I am a comedian, and you guys know that whatever I say, I don't mean any of it. And sometimes, as comedians, as we do, we go a little bit too far. I have a radio show...We're really the black Howard Stern. We go at everybody. There was a situation with Miley Cyrus, and I just want to say, I apologize for what I said. I didn't mean it maliciously. You know I'm a comedian."

Then, looking at the camera, "Miley, I apologize, so I'll call you. I got a daughter too, so I completely understand."

So there you go. Good enough? I think so. Do you agree?

Original post follows below.

*-*-*-*-*

So, like, hey now.

A little background. Jamie Foxx has a channel on SiriusXM Satellite Radio where he does a show called The Foxxhole. He said some... things about Miley Cyrus (aka Miley Ray Cyrus Hannah Montana Stewart Lipschutz). Someone called in and mentioned Miley's little dustup with Radiohead (she wanted to meet them, they said no, she got pissy and yakked about it on some radio show). The Oscar-winning Mr. Foxx then went off a bit. Here's the audio, which is not safe for work. At all. Seriously. You have been warned.

So yeah. He said it. There are a few other people in the mix, and I'm not sure who said what. I'm fairly certain it was Jamie Foxx who said that Miley should make a "sex tape", and then a female voice added "with your dad." "White bitch" was in there. Also something about doing heroin "like Britney" (I must have missed that headline about Brit nodding out), as well as a suggestion that Miley catch VD from a bicycle seat. (I didn't think that was possible, but hey, what do I know?)

A few things to say here. First, Foxx said this on his radio show this past Sunday. It appears to only be coming out now. That doesn't diminish it, but it does mean that not a lot of people heard the comments. Second, he was trying to be funny. That doesn't excuse the comments at all, of course. But in theory performers get more latitude when it comes to humor.

As for what was said: it was completely inappropriate and in incredibly poor taste. I'm not a fan of Miley's; I think her music is horrible, and the message of her entire persona seems to be that fame is a goal worth trying for, which is something I don't agree with. (That's the short version of a longer thought that I'll share one of these days.) In my opinion you can make fun of anything and talk about whatever you want. But when its an underage person, boy or girl, and you start saying "white bitch" and suggest that she make a sex tape with her dad, that seems unnecessary. He has the right to say it. But why would he? (A commenter at LATimes.com says that the Foxx clip is somewhat out of context, but, like the Rodney King video, I'm not sure that context matters in this case. Maybe it does, but I doubt it.)

There's also plenty to make fun of when it comes to Miley. The Radiohead thing. The fact that she sleeps in her parents bed sometimes, despite being sixteen years old. Her music. Her TV show. Lots of material to work with before you go to "white bitch" who should do heroin and make a sex tape.

What do you think? Should underage famous people be off-limits, at least in some ways? Or did Miley deserve it?

Source: EOnline

Image: Amazon

Miley Cyrus Does It, But Would You Let Your Teen Sleep in Your Bed?

Jamie Foxx Trashes Miley Cyrus On His Radio Show

Man Jailed For Spraying Urine On Food And Children's Books

4 Year Old Brings Pot To School, School Bans Backpacks

Girl Scouts Use Cookie Money For Soldier's Care Package

Abercrombie and Fitch (Finally!) Losing Its Cachet

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:28:00 GMT

Even recessions have a silver lining. Overpriced and oversexed teen clothier Abercrombie and Fitch is feeling the pinch in a big way as teenagers (or their parents) wise up to the fact that it’s just not worth it to pay $58 for a scarf—even if an impossibly dreamy, half-naked hunk is plastered over the cash register.

According to MSNBC, “The company is fiercely protecting its image as a ‘premium’ brand, and, as a result, it's getting snubbed big time by its once cultlike, ever-loyal fan base.” It’s ironic that “premium” means ripped jeans and flannel shirts, but, as Abercrombie sadly found out, if you put enough naked teenagers next to any product, it’ll sell.

That is, until hardly anyone can afford to buy it anymore. Abercrombie was the biggest retail loser in March, posting a 34 percent drop in sales. I wonder how those numbers compare to the drop in teenagers’ self-esteem after looking at an Abercrombie catalogue.

In case you haven’t recently had the joy of getting assaulted by club music and cheap cologne in your local Abercrombie lately, Jezebel has an anecdote to remind you just how abominable the king of preppy is. Writer Hortense remembers sharing in a hospital with a young woman who was being treated for anorexia. She had to be tube-fed around the clock. “The week before she was hospitalized,” Hortense writes, “she told me, she went to buy clothes at Abercrombie & Fitch, and the manager pestered her the entire time, begging her to apply for a job there, because she had ‘the look they wanted.’”

Perhaps the manager was so pushy because of the high employee turnover.

Photo: abercrombieandfitch.com

Judge Sentences Families to Do Puzzles

JeanneSager — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 20:25:00 GMT

Riddle me this: how do you make parents and their teens work together to create something meaningful?

If you're Judge John Sholden, you assign them a thousand-piece puzzle to put together . . . or pay a $500 fine.

I'd be picking the puzzle, how about you?

With recent news about judges who require their parents to spank their children and judges who give the go-ahead for desperate mothers to collect their dead sons' sperm, it was nice to hear about a magistrate whose taking out-of-the-box justice seriously.

So what if it's out of the puzzle box? It's still sound reasoning - if parents and their teens are so disconnected that the kids are getting in the type of trouble that lands them in a courtroom, putting them in a room together to work toward a common goal puts them on an even playing field. And doing so with a pile of puzzle pieces instead of requiring the traditional "sit down and talk it out" method allows for an icebreaker, lets two people who might have been doing a lot of fighting instead of talking to focus on something outside themselves.

Sholden has a second motive - getting kids who are skipping school to understand that they can tackle major undertakings and come out on the other side. "When you open a puzzle up, it's a mess. But you get it in your head that you can solve the problem. Once student have a sense of accomplishment, it transfers to accomplishment at school also," the judge told a Dallas newspaper.

Some judges are hanging judges, but I'd take the puzzling judge any time.

Image: TheCincyBlog

They Say: Bipolar Children Are an “American Phenomenon”

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:56:00 GMT

In a fiery interview with Northwestern professor Christopher Lane, journalist Phillip Dawdy explains his belief that parents need to stop trusting that the doctor knows best when it comes to mental health diagnoses of young children. I offer his arguments here for discussion’s sake, with the caveat that neither I nor Dawdy are pediatric psychiatrists—but he at least has spent many years researching the field.

In 2005, at least 2.2 million American children were being treated for mental health disorders, a number that has skyrocketed in the last decade and a half. And in 2007, 23 babies less than one-year-old were prescribed antipsychotics. “The drugs are known to cause huge problems in adults, so why the heck would a doctor give them to little kids, especially infants?” Dawdy asks. Remember the tragedy of four-year-old Rebecca Riley, who died of an overdose of antipsychotic drugs after she was diagnosed bipolar at the age of two?

Dawdy argues that there is no solid research to support early intervention for kids at risk of psychosis: “[T]he PRIME study at Yale—which sought to identify kids at risk of psychosis and then gave them Zyprexa to prevent psychosis from ever arising—was an epic failure and certainly raised questions about the ethics of giving kids dangerous drugs for disorders that they, at least in some of the cases, didn't even have.”

Zyprexa is a drug used to treat bipolar disorder. Dawdy blames pharmaceutical companies pushing the drug for the marked increase in diagnoses of what’s known as bipolar II disorder. Unlike true manic depression, which involves episodes of extreme mania, anyone who experiences depression with “bursts of energy” can now be diagnosed with bipolar II (and prescribed Zyprexa). That sounds to Dawdy (and to me, someone who has struggled with depression) a lot more like simple depression than manic depression, a serious diagnosis that can lead to social ostracizing and inability to find a job.

Much of Dawdy’s distrust of the increased medication of children and teens is rooted in cross-cultural comparison. “In France and Italy, ADHD is rarely diagnosed and it's difficult to see where French and Italian culture have suffered as a result. As for bipolar disorder in kids (meaning pre-teens and younger), it's simply not an issue in the rest of the world. The bipolar child is a purely American phenomenon.”

Do you have any experience with children who have benefited or suffered from early mental health treatment?

Image: patriciaebauer.com

Teen Sends Over $4,000 Worth of Text Messages in a Month

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 22:13:00 GMT

Last month, Verizon upped the price of text messaging to 20 cents per text. That still doesn’t seem like much money—unless you’re sending and receiving about 300 text messages a day.

That’s how a Wyoming teenager spent her school days, until her parents got a phone bill for $4,756.25. Because her family didn’t have a texting plan, they were charged for each of the approximately 20,000 text messages 13-year-old Dena Christofferson sent and received. A few hours after opening the bill, Dena’s shocked father smashed her cell phone to bits with a hammer.

Her texting addiction didn’t just break the family’s bank account. “She went from As and Bs one semester to Fs in two months," Dena's dad said. What do you expect, Dad? Texting takes time. It’s like haiku, composed of gossip and employing abbreviations for every other word.

I think Dena’s teachers are at least partly to blame for this. It’s disturbing that teachers did not notice—or chose not to discipline—a girl pounding away at her cell phone for nearly every minute of class.

On the bright side, Verizon agreed to lower the bill to a "reasonable" amount, and Dena's grades have gone way up since her phone met its untimely death.

Do your kids have cell phones? If so, do you have rules about texting?

Photo: 9 News

When Mom's a Sex Offender

JeanneSager — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 14:30:00 GMT

Alex Dinkel just wants his mom to watch him graduate from high school. Unfortunately for him, Jeni Lee Dinkel will be arrested if she steps on the high school campus.

She had sex with one of her son's fifteen-year-old classmates in 2007 and is now a registered sex offender.

The boy Jeni Lee had sex with is no longer at the school, but officials are still saying nixing requests for her to attend Alex's graduation. If it sounds cut and dried, it isn't. Although Jeni Lee was convicted and thus is definitely a sex offender, her son is not your typical high school senior.

Alex was diagnosed with Ewing's sarcoma in 2007 (the same year his mother was convicted). He fought the cancer and is in remission, but he's since suffered a heart attack (as a teenager) and now goes everywhere with a defibrillator to keep his heart pumping. When he went into cardiac arrest, it was his parents who brought him back via CPR.

Along with dad Tom, a former NFL player, Alex held a press conference to speak out against the school. He says it's not fair to deny him every kid's dream that their parents will watch them graduate. What's more, he says his Catholic high school is not acting in accordance with church teachings which preach turning the other cheek and forgiveness.

Although I think his mom's a creep, I tend to agree with him. A school staff person can easily keep an eye on Jeni Lee during the two or three hours of a graduation ceremony, and she can be escorted off campus immediately after the ceremony ends (or even just after her son receives his diploma). There never has to be a moment when she is alone with a child. As for whether she's looking "the wrong way" at the kids in the room, let's be realistic - there are sex offenders in grocery stores who might get their jollies by looking at our kids. It's the risk we take by letting our kids out of the bubble.

Do you think the school should give in for just one day? Is this about the parent or the student?

Image: KentuckyEnquirer

School Says No Touching - Ever

JeanneSager — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:01:00 GMT

Want to make a bunch of middle school kids with their hormones a ragin' really crazy?

Tell them they can't touch other. No high five. No bumping fists. No noogies. And definitely no holding hands - nope, not even locking pinky fingers.

Administrators at a middle school in Connecticut have put out a strict no touching policy in an attempt to cut down on "horseplay" among the students.

In theory, I get it. Kids in middle school are rough on each other - and the kid who was kicked in the groin at the school a few weeks ago was in some serious hurting (I'm a girl, and even I think about the kick in the 'nads and cringe).

But middle school kids don't live in a theoretical world. They're at an age when they literally crave touch. They are starting to get an itch for sexual exploration - even though they're not ready for sex (no matter what they think). So they tickle. They hold hands. They hug. And since they're still little kids, they also tussle, slap five, roughhouse.

Some of them take it too far, obviously, which is where discipline comes into play. Lay down common sense rules, and kids respond. If they don't, they face the consequences. Like punishment for kicking a kid in the groin.

If they weren't respectful enough of the rules NOT to get violent, is a no touching rule really going to stop them? Or is it just going to make a roiling mess of pre-teen hormones go beserk?

Part of the socialization of school is learning to respect one another's personal space. When a pre-teen boy gets too close to a pre-teen girl, she should be developing the wherewithal to tell him to back off. Boys too should be learning where the lines are drawn. Because in the real world, there is no "no touching" rule. We walk past our co-workers, and thanks to years of growing up around other kids, now when we can put our hands on their shoulders to scootch past to get a the coffee machine, now NOT to put our hands on their butt when we do it.

You know where the no touching rule is going to put most of these kids? In detention.

Image: VariousandSundry

Why Teen Girls are Taking Drugs Meant for Cows

JeanneSager — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:01:00 GMT

It's rumor and conjecture at this point, but Wisconsin health officials are taking seriously claims that a rash of teenage girls have taking drugs commonly used on cows to force their bodies to abort babies.

The kids allegedly got hold of prostaglandins, drugs used by farmers to regulate cows' heat cycles for breeding, and ingested them as "a cheap and easy way to end their pregnancies without their parents finding out."

According to officials, as many as ten girls ages fourteen to eighteen have owned up to the home abortion practice, and the American Veterinary Medical Association has gotten pro-active, sending warnings to practitioners about the usage and storage of the drug to discourage the practice from spreading.

Though the numbers are still small, that it's happening at all is clearly indicative of the fact that these kids are just that - kids. Shannon reported on the alarming spike in teenage pregnancies recently, pointing to the fact that at least half of American teens are having sex. Throw in kids' fear of being proactive with pregnancy preventions, and it's not hard to imagine how kids end up in this predicament.

They're having sex like adults. But they're still kids. And at the end of the day, they are afraid of how to properly deal with the consequences of their actions. They're afraid of owning up to their parents that they've made a mistake.

What should happen? It's really up to the kids and their families. Whether it's a baby given up for adoption, a baby kept or an abortion (pro-life groups are naturally using the news to once again decry legalized abortions, somehow arguing that legalizing abortions has actually encouraged these types of home abortions despite the fact that the legalized abortions means kids have much better options) is dependent on the family and their situation, but what's important is that these kids get the support of adults, adults who have the good sense not to feed their kids dangerous drugs meant for massive animals with drastically different genetic make-up.

But as Shannon pointed out recently, with abstinence-only education comes a lack of discussion about what happens when. . . and if . . . And pregnancies are happening, have always happened. Shrouding sex in mystery is not stopping it, but it is still putting our kids at risk.

Image: SFGate.com

School Assignment Forces Kids to Buy Birth Control

JeanneSager — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:23:00 GMT

What would you do if your kid was sent out to buy condoms . . . on a school assignment?

If you're Linda Strobl, you take it to the Canadian newspapers in outrage.

The irony? Strobl is a public health nurse, who says it's OK to teach kids about sexually transmitted diseases. She's horrified, however, that her fourteen-year-old was directed by his class to A. buy condoms and B. participate in a contest to see who can put a condom on a wooden phallus.

Strobl told the National Post that her son came home complaining that he didn't want to do his health homework, embarrassed by the assignment.

Part of me is thanking my lucky stars, once again, that my daughter is still a pre-schooler, and I don't have to deal with this. HOWEVER, I'm still shocked that parents will profess how open-minded they are - hey, it's OK to teach about STDs - but in the end how impractical they are. Essentially, Strobl is saying they can teach kids about STDS but not actually help kids prevent them.

It's embarrassing to buy condoms for kids. I get that. Researching a post about actor Zac Efron's mom buying his condoms, I found surveys showing thirty percent of sexually active teens are too embarrassed to actually condoms. But with condoms still leading the pack in prevention of STDs (not to mention pregnancy), that's a hurdle every kid has to cross if they're going to have sex. And if they're not sexually active, I'd like to think that they're figuring out how to properly use a condom before they end up in the dark in the backseat of a car, fumbling with this thing and eventually tearing it because they just don't get it . . . and go ahead and have sex anyway because, hey, they're teens and they're infallible.

Is making a fourteen-year-old buy condoms really that bad? Is making a fourteen-year-old practice putting a condom on a fake penis really something to be horrified about? These are life skills, and skills that most teens still have a harder time taking a lesson on from Mom and Dad than they do an unrelated adult (like a health teacher).

There are a lot of occasions where embarrassing kids is potentially harmful to their psyches, but people get embarrassed. It happens. Sometimes, it's necessary. And until you practice something you're uncomfortable with, you're always going to be embarrassed.

In this case, an ounce of embarrassment is worth the pound of prevention.

Image: The Sun

Why Teens Are Quick to Blame Rihanna

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:45:00 GMT

In the wake of a chilling survey that found that nearly half of Boston area teens believe it was Rihanna’s fault that her boyfriend Chris Brown beat her up so badly she had to be hospitalized, the New York Times has spoken with teenagers around the country and the resulting article is one of the most disturbing things I’ve read in years.

The general feeling amongst Brown’s teenage supporters can be summed up by the comment of one ninth grader from the Bronx. After seeing a photo of Rihanna’s bloodied face, she said, “She probably made him mad for him to react like that. You know, like, bring it on?”

Several teenage girls argued that Brown should not be punished for his brutal attack because Rihanna took him back. “So he shouldn’t get into trouble if she doesn’t feel that way,” another ninth grader said. “She probably feels bad that it was her fault, so she took him back.”

Even those teens who initially supported Rihanna have turned against her since she decided to get back together with Brown. “SHAME ON YOU RIHANNA!!!” one girl wrote online.

I’m flabbergasted that in 2009—30 years after Take Back the Night rallies and rape crisis centers became a facet of college life—teenagers have not learned the fundamental lesson that you don’t blame the victim. Have these kids really never been told that no one ever deserves to get beat to a bloody pulp? Or that women who stay in abusive relationships need compassion, not contempt?

According to adolescent experts interviewed by the Times, girls are quick to blame Rihanna in order to distance themselves from her. “Acknowledging his [Brown’s] attack would make them feel vulnerable: How could they have a crush on someone who could do that?” But this scary possibility is exactly what all teenagers must understand.

The flip side of this desire to protect a rosy idea of Brown is that those teens who are disgusted with Rihanna for taking Brown back don’t want to acknowledge the complex truth that it’s possible to love someone who is dangerous for you. Given teenagers’ understandable eagerness to experience and romanticize love, we adults must teach kids these unpleasant lessons before they learn them the hard way.

Another factor contributing to this disturbing thinking among youth seems to be a false belief in equality between the genders—the idea that feminism happened, so girls no longer have to worry about protecting themselves. “Yeah, men hit women, and women hit men,” said one high school senior. “It was blown out of proportion because they’re celebrities….My best friend got hit by her boyfriend, and I don’t see people making a big deal about it."

The silver lining in this terrible affair is that teens are being forced to openly discuss their beliefs about dating violence. Given what they’re saying, it’s clear that far too many young people are getting the wrong message—or no message at all—about dating violence in their homes. That means that it’s up to schools and educators to teach teens about the harsh realities of abusive relationships, beginning with the fact that it is always a "big deal" to get hit.

Photo: New York Times

Another Country Joins the Ban Against Corporal Punishment

Half of Kids Surveyed Think Rihanna Had It Coming

UPDATE: Chris Brown's Skipping the Kid's Choice Awards

Teens Talk Back to the Media on Dating Violence

Oprah Gets It Right On Chris Brown

Mom Buys High School Musical Star's Condoms: Would You?

Can Facebook Cut the Apron Strings?

JeanneSager — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:28:00 GMT

While we adults are caught up in catching up on our past on Facebook, there's a possibility our kids are going to miss out on one of the great joys of late teenagehood. Escaping.

An interesting piece by Peggy Orenstein in the New York Times this week ponders whether kids will be able "to get busy with the embarrassing, exciting, muddy, wonderful work of creating an adult identity" with four hundred of their old high school buddies watching over a T-1 line.

She's got a point. While I kept up with several of my high school friends when I left for college, it was mostly via e-mail and AOL's Instant Messenger, maybe the sporadic phone call. Although more technologically advanced than Orenstein (who admits she grew up in the "postage stamp" age of college communication), the advantages to all these forms of communication were clear - I could start . . . and stop . . . them at my will.

Facebook is non-stop action. Change your relationship status, and everyone knows . . . now (and trust me, those shockwaves can resonate - ask the cousin who accidentally erased her husband when she was trying to update her favorite books list.). As long as they're your "friend," anyone can and will see - and can and will comment.

Orenstein posits kids will remain tethered to home much longer via technological apron strings, tied to the kids they were forced to spend time with in high school and might otherwise naturally distance themselves from come college. Except, thanks to Facebook (and to be fair, Myspace), now they're tied . . . for good.

I think she might be crediting Facebook with a little more power than is warranted, however. Surveys have found that even users with a friends list in the thousands traditionally only interact with a solid core of "friends." I'd hazard a guess that's the same core today's kids will take to college with them - like the high school friends we kept contact with back in the day. She's also overestimating kids' fidelity. The teenagers I know "friend" and "un-friend" one another with the speed of an eyeroll, to an extent I doubt will change much in the early days of college.

The truth is that old saying, "you can never go home again," will never die. Because leaving your parents' house, even if your friends follow, changes you. Often for the good, sometimes for the bad. But kids grow up - even kids with a Facebook.

Liar, Liar - iPod Sets Kid's Pants on Fire

Amber Alert Now an iPhone App

Mamas Don't Let Your Kids Grow Up to Drink and Party

How to Find a Job in This Economy: Let Your Kid on YouTube

JeanneSager — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 15:47:00 GMT

Things were looking bleak for the former vice president of marketing at the Tampa Bay Lightning - until his son got involved.

Mark Gullett lost his job the Florida hockey team on Thursday. That night, his fourteen-year-old posted a heartrending video on YouTube and job offers started pouring in.

By this weekend, "Mark By Ben" had already been seen by more than thirty six hundred people, and dad Mark has a few promising leads to keep the family alive. I'll let the video speak for itself, which it does in an understated way. There's no speaking - just Ben Gullett, fourteen, holding cue cards for you to read off the story of his father's life. He bought his kid a drum set. He makes 'smores. He has a Stanley Cup ring.

Oh yeah, and thanks to "restructuring," he doesn't have a job. The younger Gullett shares all the reasons his father will make a good employee again some day, but his best quality? "Most importantly, he is my dad," Ben spells out in a series of cards.

The whole thing was Ben's idea - although he did ask his father for help and checked in to make sure it was OK to broadcast his story across the world wide web. The teen says he wanted to do it to show his dad he loved him, and his dad was sufficiently touched. I don't see how anyone watching WOULDN'T be touched. This is one of those stories that reminds you the bad economy may hurt families, but it doesn't break them.

Did this one break your heart?

Amber Alert Now an iPhone App

The Girls Scouts Are Old School – Stop Cyber Cookie Promoting

Big Retailers That Offer Big Sales for Families

Girl Sends 6,473 Texts in One Month, Fingers Don't Fall Off

KeriF — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:01:00 GMT

In my busiest texting month, the month prior to the birth of my daughter Molly last June, when my friends were often texting me with messages like, "still pregnant?", I only sent about 50 texts ("yes."). Then again, I'm ever-so-slightly older than the average teenager, who seems to be permanently attached to his or her cell phone, which, I might add, should more precisely be called a text phone. Do teenagers even talk on the darn things?

Julie Zingeser, a 15-year-old from Rockville, MD, doesn't seem to have the time. That's because Julie texted her friends 6,473 times in one month. With all that texting, who has time to talk?

That's more than 215 texts every day. Is that possible? This reminds me of those blasted AOL CDs the company flooded the market with back in the 1990s, discs that offered 1200 free hours of Internet for 30 days, even though there weren't that many hours in a month.

How can a girl send that many texts while still going to school, bathing, and (hopefully) doing homework?

According to Julie, she does not text while performing on the pom squad (whatever that is), playing on her lacrosse team, or at dinnertime, because her parents don't allow it (thank goodness). But that means that basically any other time, she's texting nonstop.

"If I really look into it, I think it is affecting my focus and my closeness with my family," says Julie. "I'm not 100 percent present," when texting, she says.

Pam, Julie's mom, pays $30 per month for unlimiting texting, so isn't worried about the financial cost, but rather the psychological toll. "I'm concerned that in the long run they will be addicted to instant communication and gratification," she said, and thinks maybe kids of Julie's generation are uncomfortable with face-to-face conversation.

This article in The Washington Post doesn't say what, if anything, Pam plans to do to limit Julie's texting habit. I'm not sure what she really could do, other than take away the phone.

Would you limit the amount of texting your kids do in a month?

Photo: The Washington Post

I'm Not a Brat, I'm Autistic

Bedtime: Does Your Kid Have One?

Kate Tuttle — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:01:00 GMT

Do your kids have a regular bedtime, like Sasha and Malia Obama? (The first kids, aged seven and ten, are in bed by eight p.m., according to reports.) Or do they just keep going and going, exhausted little energizer bunnies, till late into the night? Growing up in the freewheeling 70s, I remember being smug about my family's lack of set bedtimes -- and I remember falling asleep in school all the time. In fact, my bedtime-free childhood seemed less and less fun as I got older, leading to mornings of scrambling out of bed, late as usual, and arriving at high school (college, work) with wacky hair and bleary eyes.

Most research now indicates that kids -- even tweens and teens -- need far more sleep than they get, and that their sleep needs don't change much as they grow up. Most adults, too, are chronically sleep-deprived, getting far less than the eight recommended hours (the number for school-aged kids is ten hours, for young teenagers at least nine).

As one pediatric sleep expert said in a recent column in the New York Times by Dr. Perri Klass, the problem comes when people underestimate their own sleep needs, and those of their kids:

“It’s a bell-shaped curve,” she said, with just 2.5 percent of the population needing significantly less sleep than average. “The problem,” she went on, “is that 95 percent of us think we’re in that 2.5 percent. You should assume until proven otherwise that your kid needs that much sleep.”

It's these night owls who end up nodding off during circle time, first period math class, and, later, morning meetings. So how to fix the problem? Set bedtimes, such as in the Obama household, are a good idea, according to researchers. And we all know, or should, to keep the TV out of the bedroom (for kids especially, but it's good for parents as well). Beyond that, simply understanding and trying to account for a child's changing sleep needs and routines can be extremely helpful. Teenagers' sleep needs scarcely change, but their circadian rhythms undergo a shift that pushes them -- biologically, not just through their lifestyle demands of homework, facebook, etc. -- toward later and later bedtimes. Some researchers are now calling for later high school start times to allow these weary teens to at least get some decent sleep -- but it seems unlikely to happen, especially in an era when many are pushing for more and more schooling, period.

Having grown up in a household bereft of healthy sleep habits, I'm trying to instill a slightly more organized routine for my kids -- the toddler's asleep by eight, the teen by eleven (still not enough sleep, but better than she would do on her own). What do you do in your house to ensure that everyone gets enough rest?

More by this author:

Think Your Baby's Car Seat Is Safe? Think Again

California Daycare Closed; Worker Was Mocking Kids' Genitals

"Angels in Waiting" Apparently Still Waiting

Bad Science: How The Autism Vaccine Scare Snowballed

Mamas Don't Let Your Kids Grow Up to Drink and Party

JeanneSager — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:36:00 GMT

The secret to teetotalling kids may have been discovered by a teen with a taste for the straight life.

Chelsea Lynn Jurman, a seventeen-year-old from New York, is one of forty finalists in the new incarnation of the Westinghouse Science competition, with her social science study of what influence talk of parents' wild party days has on their teen's drinking habits.

The news, Jurman found, is not good. If you talk about teenage indiscretions in front of your kids, her survey of one hundred twenty-three teens shows they're more likely to believe that it's acceptable to do so themselves. If the kids didn't hear much about their parents drinking as kids, they were more likely to just say no.

I'm divided on how I feel about this study. I've always felt there's a delicate balance between lying to our kids and revealing too much. It's my problem with kids and parents meeting on Facebook - not everyone in the family needs to know EVERYTHING about each other. Telling kids about your youthful indiscretions, then instructing them not to copy you, is literally the "do as I say, not as I do" model of parenting - which works, um, never.

On the other hand, if my now three-year-old daughter one days asks if I had any alcohol as a child, I don't think I can lie to her. "No, Mommy waited until she was twenty-one and in perfect accordance with all laws" is A. a lie B. not realistic and C. likely to make a teenager roll her eyes and walk away. I'll lose that "teachable moment" we're always searching for. I'd like to think I'll divulge the bits that are most important for a growing teen - "Yes, I drank, but I never drove with any alcohol in my system," or "Yes, but I never drank at a party where I didn't know everyone, and trust everyone."

My colleague Shannon discussed the interesting theory that some parents think they need to drink FOR the kids, but this isn't a matter of how you model drinking behaviors today (which I do think is an important part of developing appropriate attitudes toward alcohol). Parents have to decide how much of their past they can edit. Is there anything you'll be holding back?

Image: Scientific American

Bye Bye BPA: Bottles Will Go Bisphenol Free

Mom Buys High School Musical Star's Condoms: Would You?

How to Tell if Your Tot's Gonna Gamble

A Safer Space for Kids Online: Hope or Hype?

Kate Tuttle — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:01:00 GMT

Concerned about the dangers of online predators, mom-of-five Mary Kay Hoal launched a social networking site that she hopes will provide a safe space for kids aged 9 to 18 to interact. But can places like Yoursphere -- which charges a monthly access fee and checks to make sure nobody on it is a registered sex offender -- really serve as alternatives to Facebook (or to MySpace, the Sodom and Gomorrah of Hoal's press release, although nobody really uses MySpace anymore)? And is an alternative even needed?

If you read Hoal's site or her press release (or watch the Nancy Grace Show), you are probably pretty worried about your child's Internet safety. You know that there are sex offenders on MySpace (even though that number, widely disputed, is only about half what you would expect, given the general population on MySpace), you know that "sexting" and other technologically-enhanced forms of teenaged sexual expression can get you killed, and you know that you want to protect your kids.

Well, I agree with you about the last one. As for the other two, it's fairly clear that the dangers of sexual predation online are vastly overstated and exagerated, both by shows like Dateline's "To Catch a Predator" segments and by the marketing for alternative sites like Hoal's. And when it comes to teenaged cruelty around issues of sex and reputation, technology hasn't changed things one whit: girls have been harrassed for sexual activity for centuries in our culture, which continues to both demonize and deny teen sexuality. The medium makes very little difference (except that now, if your teen is engaged in thoroughly consensual sexual flirting using cellphone pictures, she could get charged with child pornography).

As a new study out of Harvard's Berkman Center for the Internet and Society points out, worried parents are barking up the wrong tree here. It's not Facebook, MySpace (does anyone still use MySpace, seriously?), or the Internet at large that hurts kids; the dangers kids face online are the same as they face offline -- dating violence, sexual harrasment, social ostracism, bullying, and yes, sometimes (but very rarely) sexual predation by adult strangers. How to protect them? Funny enough, it's not from banning them from the Internet, or stealing their passwords, or spying on them. Just as in the offline world, kids are protected by having caring adults who talk to them, who make it their business to know where their kids are and what they're doing, who know their friends and are involved in their activities, and who let them know every day that their kids can always come and talk to them about anything. Those of us who have babies, toddlers, and preschoolers right now have no way of knowing what kind of technological advances and devices will flavor their world. All we can do is try to keep up, understand what they're up to, and remember that the more things change, the more they stay the same. It turns out that trust and respect -- not spying, forbidding, or trying to scare them (or their parents) to death -- is what really keeps kids safe.

More by this author:

Think Your Baby's Car Seat Is Safe? Think Again

California Daycare Closed; Worker Was Mocking Kids' Genitals

"Angels in Waiting" Apparently Still Waiting

Bad Science: How The Autism Vaccine Scare Snowballed

Mom Buys High School Musical Star's Condoms: Would You?

JeanneSager — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 17:16:00 GMT

If your first reaction to news that High School Musical star Zac Efron's mom buys his condoms is a grimace, don't worry. I don't like thinking of my three-year-old one day having sex either.

But Efron is twenty, and his mom wants him to be safe. Wouldn't you?

When photos of Efron and girlfriend Vanessa Hudgens surfaced, showing them at what appeared to be a sex shop, Efron says his mom confronted him. But she admitted she knew already that he was sexually active - and she showed it by stocking his Christmas stocking with an economy-sized box of condoms.

I don't know that I'd be quite that showy. A box slipped under the pillow or left on the bedroom desk, maybe. Shoved in the Christmas stocking? Er, reserve that for socks and underwear Ma!

But it's nice to see a mother who understands you need to set the squeamishness aside if you want to protect your kids. Remember - I'm not talking about a three-year-old, but if a teen is having sex, and you know it, ignoring it is not going to make it go away. Neither is screaming, yelling or riding them about it. Once it's happened, you have to get cracking.

The problem? A 2000 survey by the Kaiser Foundation showed thirty percent of sexually active teens are too embarrassed to actually condoms (although eighty-seven percent said they believed they were somewhat or very effective at preventing pregnancy, followed by eighty-four who believe they can protect against HIV/AIDS and seventy-two percent against STDs). That's nearly a third of all sexually active kids.

Would you really want to run the risk that your kid is one of the three in ten who won't buy them? Is it worth saving yourself the embarrassment to have to have someone call you Grandma?

So would you follow Mrs. Efron's lead? If you already knew your child was sexually active, would you buy them birth control?

Image: LA Times