The kids sound bored to me. If it were my kid and s/he didn't want to be there, I wouldn't force it. These goal can be met other ways, ways that don't inspire one to look for a sharp stick to thrust into their own eye in hopes of dulling the pain the environment inflicts upon an innocent child. Edited to add, Maybe I'm projecting a bit there. But I hope you get the point. :)

Part of the answer is to teach and emphasize critical thinking skills. Question authority. Be skeptical. Identify and pay attention to the details. Learn to think rationally and logically. In the same way we've overcome our natural tendency to assume every event is related to every other event in some superstitious way, we can, as a society, learn to overcome natural desire to oppress that which we think is weak (women and children), and elevate their standing to that of equality with regard to identity, value, respect, and positive contribution. It's a change in paradigm, and sadly, it's being fought against by those who have the means to influence public policy and private behavior. So, in my opinion anyway, we as a society have some Growing Pains to get through.

Literary characters authors scientists world leaders mythological characters Leave a "cheat sheet" in the bathroom or in the car, laminated for strength and durability, so they can familiarize themselves with those people and characters they might not know. I'd have maybe a photo or picture on one side and stats on another, like a baseball card, and put them in a 2" ring per category. If your kids are young, find super hero images of each figure and character to make them a little more memorable. Man, what a fun game! I almost wish my kids were young enough to play this!

That, and, they're not solicited for advice. I tend to think most people who struggle with faith want to hang on to their religious beliefs, so when they ask questions they're really asking, How can I reconcile what I want to believe with what I know to be true? It's why I asked the OP in the beginning if she's looking for information or to maintain her faith. There are different sources to go to for each goal, and that's not accidental.

When I read that, there were a few things that came across my mind. One is that Howard Stern is a shock-jock. He's paid to keep his filter off, to ruffle the feathers of your generally socially conservative population. The other thing is that from what I recall, Stern is an outspoken advocate of equality at every opportunity. I would think it more concerning if he laughed at the brothers for not getting service at a restaurant, for example, than to use a word that is not socially appropriate for the general population. Considering he used the word in context, it suggests he's not entirely ignorant about what he's doing.

I have three teens, but we have no rules. My oldest took care of that idea (rules = well behaved kids). In short, I think the best things you can do is 1) identify your major goals, and 2) learn to work with your child's temperament, and 3) identify when the child pushes you out of your own comfort zone. I personally think that last part is what makes us say certain kids are "easy." I also think this is why people work to maintain control in their homes, which often times results in tension and distrust.

Fascinating. I enjoyed reading every bit. I am amazed, though, at how women particularly are so easily conditioned to protect and continue this control, and encourage their daughters to internalize these very rationalizations, even at the cost of their own autonomy. It speaks more to human behavior than culture, or religion, or political organizations, I think, and why teaching critical thinking skills and rational arguments is so very important. It's not enough to believe something simply because one is surrounded by a particular belief, or one feels like it must be true. There's too much at stake here to just brush it off and hope for the best. Anyway, I'm glad you posted.

.

The idea that fantasies are victimless "crimes" came as a response to I.Dup.'s comment in reply to your post that you "don't think there's true harm in people just noticing that a teenage girl isn't wearing a bra". I agree with that. There is no harm in noticing the lack of bra. Further, there is no harm in mental fantasies that may be inspired by such things being noticed. So, not off topic, just clarification of point.

By these standards, there's no way you would have thought your dress (long sleeves, below knee) was immodest, right? I share Jennifer's confusion as to how this pertains to modesty, but further, I'm confused as to how unbroken eye contact would compel you to sabotage your self-esteem. That's not a correlation generally found between women dressing modestly and men who watch them for a few minutes. It lends more support to the argument that there exists no standard of modesty to which people can agree is appropriate. It also suggests you had issues that were unrelated to the man, that he inadvertently triggered rather than caused. In short, when you got pissed at my mentioning fantasies don't victimize people, I must have triggered an unpleasant memory. I'm sorry for that, I'm sympathetic to being accosted by unexpected, traumatic memories, but it doesn't change my point that *fantasies don't victimize people.* They can't.

Were you raised with a belief system that included the necessity of modesty, and correlated it with respect?

For staring across a restaurant? I'd be interested in hearing cases like this that actually went to court. In any case, my comment was that *fantasies* do not victimize people.

"The Secret" is just woo. Easily debunked like all other woo. Confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, and Haselton and Nettle’s Error Management Theory explain why woo seems to work. KK, it's called a "Law" because it supposedly offers an explanation to an observation (like "Kepler's Law of Planetary Motion" does). Only it clearly doesn't, because there is no such observation to be made, even if it really really seems like it to an individual.

I'm sorry if my comment pissed you off, but there is simply no support for the claim that someone is a "victim" of another person's fantasies. Unless there's more to this situation, your perceived victimization was not the result of one man staring.

You do have the right to walk around half-naked. In some places, you have the right to walk around fully naked. Some people exercise that right with nary a loss of self-respect.

Irrelevant. Your feelings don't determine if a crime has been committed, and a sexual fantasy is not a crime.

Squicking someone out isn't a crime.

Staring does not equal mentally having sex with. Mentally having sex with someone isn't equal to forcing that person to have sex. Fantasies are victimless "crimes." If she was not dressed immodestly, then clearly her choice of clothing had nothing to do with it - it didn't protect her from his noticing her.

It doesn't necessarily say anything about our sexual intent. There is no universal or natural law that follows if a woman exposes umpteen percent of her skin she is seeking sexual attention. This is a learned correlation, and the point is, not everyone has learned the same thing. Consider the use of perfume. Some women like to wear perfume for a variety of reasons. Some wear it because they enjoy the scent. Some wear it because they enjoy the attention when someone else notices the scent. Some wear it to illicit sexual attention from men or other women. Not everyone interprets the use of perfume in the same way. Short shorts, tank tops, high heels, and even red lipstick are all similarly neutral. Their intent is defined by the woman putting it on. Even if that's the intent you may have putting on short shorts, not all women do. Shorts are as neutral as perfume. They don't mean anything outside of the context the wearer determines. Sometimes, people are simply wrong when they assume they know the intent behind another person's actions. If a girl were never taught that visible nipples were problematic, would she still feel self-conscious? Should she? If she were taught, but later rejected that teaching, should she feel self-conscious? Have you ever rejecting something you were taught in childhood was "true" because as you matured, you realized that teaching didn't really explain things as well as it should?

I'd suggest the issue is in determining what variable really does go along with self respect in a girl maturing into womanhood. The "modesty" concept suggests self-respect is defined in part by what one wears, because one's choice of clothing reveals their [sexual] intent. I couldn't disagree more. I think self-respect comes from a great number of variables, including confidence, resilience to frustrations, feeling included and important, and other things that contribute to our sense of self. Clothes can be, but are not necessarily a part of this equation. They don't have to be. They are one of the variables that can be totally scrapped and one can still witness great self-respect in a woman.

Now I have Cat Steven's beautiful voice in my head, "If you want to sing out, sing out! And if you want to be free, be free. 'Cause there's a million things to be. You know that there are." http://youtu.be/DDXCjLRYgMc So thank you. Everyone should have a "most passionate lover."

I think it's called, the "manzier." ;)

I would suggest similarly as Martha. At age 3, I was always near the child who needed friendly intervention. I would have stepped in before he got frustrated and asked him if he wants help asking his cousin for the toy back. Then I would help him get the toy back. In short, I approach behavior differently. I don't like to punish, I don't like to reward. I like to teach my children that each behavior is a solution to a problem, and we can find ways to solve the problem without causing more problems. Of course at age 3 that sounds more like, "Cousin, did you want this toy? Why don't you ask Son if you can have a turn when he's done. I'm sure Son will let you have it when he's done, right Son?" That gives the impression to both kids that asking and sharing is just what we do. That would have been followed by giving toy back to Son to let him finish it in his own good time.

It's not too late for you to reinterpret those memories. Rather than letting your religion convince you to feel regret, you can interpret it as spreading your wings, finding yourself, trying new things, making mistakes, getting messy (wait, was that Ms. Frizzle speaking in my head just now?). The point is, you can enjoy who you were while you enjoy who you are now, more. No one should feel pressure to condemn themselves for a crime they never committed. :)

It's 100+ degrees. I'm not wearing a bra. I'm wearing a cami and a loose tank. I'm not in shape. I'm not perky. It's not a good look for me, but I'm running out of clean clothes. My arms are bare for the whole world to see, and I think, but I can't be sure, they have been recently shaved. I sat with a man for 45 min today, and chatted with another who came to fix my washing machine. In a few minutes I'm going to the grocery store. I feel no guilt. I'm quite sure no one felt any lust.