You took a quote out of context and tried to insinuate that the word 'disgusting' was used towards age when in fact it was not. And you're still missing the entire point
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
When my daughter is an adult I have absolutely zero interest in policing her sex life. That will be her business and certainly not mine.
I don’t like how some dads are with regard to their daughters on these issues. They aren’t the same with their sons and it’s creepy.
I don’t agree. That’s allowed, isn’t it. The pejorative was there, saying that it is disgusting because of the age gap. That’s just how I see it. Is that ok?
I was referring to the article, not you.I'm not offended, I'd suggest it's you that seems to be the offended one
Caring for your children does not stop just because they cross an arbitrary line of 'adulthood' (which is different all around the world anyway, just to show how arbitrary it is). One day your daughter is 17 and however many days old, the next day she is 18. Parenthood does not stop just because someone turns 18, caring that your daughter isn't being manipulated or bullied into something or taken advantage of by an older man absolutely should not stop at 18 just because legally she's an adult. This is incredibly bizarre to me and not at all how I've ever heard anyone else describe parenthood.
Nothing gets my back up like the blue-haired badge brigade and their bloody badges. I don't understand why some people need to overshare every single detail about their lives - well, it's all attention seeking, isn't it. But the more people know, the more they use it against you and you become the topic of conversation. I wish people would just be quiet and get on with their work.
It's funny, I never mentioned 'sex life'. You did.
Some aspects do stop. You don’t intervene in the private lives of your adult children without their invitation or unless there is a grave need.
Your point being?
Well then we agree. Surely your child being clearly taken advantage of by a much older man, and through their young age and life inexperience relatively speaking is unable to see it, constitutes a 'grave need'? I would certainly like to think someone I was close to would express concern for me if a relationship I was in was manipulative or unbalanced and I appeared not to have noticed it. Families are generally not this individualistic.
I would very likely express a concern. How many 19 year olds are likely to listen, and what could I practically do about it without alienating my daughter?
My point was not about stopping it, it was that people by and large wouldn't like it. I just thought it was odd that 'sex life' was brought up. You've said yourself you would express a concern so it sounds like you're agreeing with the point of it being odd but are doggedly arguing for some unknown reason
I can't give you tips on how you communicate with your daughter, I know absolutely nothing about your relationship. You've rapidly gone from 'I wouldn't intervene as she's an adult so it's none of my business' to now 'I would likely express a concern.' That was my only point.
I already said I would find it odd!
What is it that I’m saying that you are taking issue with exactly?
Expressing a concern is different from intervening. Isn’t it?
After I express a concern and she doesn’t do what I advise, where do I go from there?
This is really just arguing about semantics now and I have no interest in it. Splitting hairs between 'expressing concern' and 'intervening' is pointless. From the way your posts read (and others feel free to say if I have misunderstood) it sounded very much to me like you were saying once your daughter is 18 her relationships are none of your business whatsoever. That suggested to me you wouldn't say anything in the circumstances we were talking about. I don't think I have suggested at any point that you can 'intervene' in the sense that no, you cannot stop your daughter dating someone older, but that to me is very different to saying her relationships are none of your business. I would also say, given legal boundaries seem very important to you, you cannot practically police the relationships your teenage daughter (as in under 18 so not an adult) has either. Once they are at high school I would say, unless you keep them locked up forever they will vote with their feet. So there is no qualitative value in that distinction if what you're concerned about is when it is and isn't acceptable for you to be concerned about your child's relationships.
They may have been managed by nuns but they were institutions of the Catholic Church. Which is, obviously, partriarchial in structure. The root cause of evil in this case was the Church itself. Which by and large is the domain of men.
(Worth also noting crime stats show men are far more prone to ‘evil’ than women…)
One right I’ve heard they don’t have is if they are married and wish to transition, they need their spouses consent.
If its who I think you mean...
Yes. I thought they were mucking around first off, but they are sounding stranger and stranger.
It's a tricky one. I always wonder how the parents of some of my ex-husband's girlfriends felt about him. After we split up he decided he was some kind of uber-dom and the girlfriends got younger and younger and younger, because the older ones wouldn't put up with his tit. By the time he died in 2019, he was 54 and his girlfriend at the time was a 19-year-old who'd had a couple of lengthy stays in a psychiatric hospital as a younger teenager. I should think her parents were beside themselves, no matter how much he claimed he always got on really well with them. My mother HATED him, but she still managed to put a smile on her face for our wedding day and I love her for that.
It is also illegal and everyone is already protected under the law. Of course, people still break the law and everyone should feel able to report it and be supported in that way.
A lot of this reminds me of the Levinson enquiry. We didn't need more press regulation or new rules for the press. We just needed to enforce all the laws already in place that were being broken (i.e. phone hacking - it's illegal!).
There is a conflict between women's rights and SOME rights trans people want. You simply cannot have female only spaces if anyone can identify as female. It's not possible. I don't understand how people cannot see this. There are solutions to this problem (third spaces, some reasonable accommodations, such as post-op trans women with GRC could have access, etc.) but even suggesting that is transphobic.
Very much so...
No idea what's going on in this thread just now
but I dated a few older men when I was very young, 19-21 kind of age, and only in recent years did I realise that they had no business being near me. I wish my parents stepped in and had a word, although no I probably wouldn't have listened to them. I might have been an adult in the eyes of the law, but that didn't really make it any better.
The Catholic Church has perpetrated some of the worst crimes whenever its been given the power to do so. Magdalene Laundries, mother and baby homes, boarding schools for native people in Canada, the sexual abuse of children by priests.
I don't think it quite works that way - are you talking about the spousal veto? Basically if two people are married and one of them transitions, the non-transitioning spouse has to sign a statutory declaration to say they consent to the marriage continuing after the gender recognition certificate is issued. If the non-transitioning spouse is unhappy about their spouse's transition then they probably would be filing for divorce anyway.
- Status