Looks like misbehaving kids aren't only on Carnival

[BNBR]

Strophic: Not many (even here) will argue that "kids have always been doing dumb things", but I'll disagree that it isn't getting worse. I'll even call it "immorality creep" -- but using the construct of "morality" very loosely, i.e., don't anybody go all literal on me. Not trying to be sanctimonious -- I raised two kids, both of whom developed their own highly personalized self-discipline problems, and I was once a kid myself, and I grew up with brothers, a couple dozen close cousins and hundreds of class/church/funmates. There wasn't a perfect kid in the whole bunch. I'm just saying, nobody can convince me that the problem of self-discipline (and dirth of good sense) isn't growing at least a little more widespread and more extreme than it used to be. And I won't draw any line at the year 2000, because I know a heckuva lot of very sensible and responsible millennials (etc), people I'm proud to call friends (and relatives). I'll just refer back to the "creep" on which I opined up front. And I might also opine that the "creep" is accelerating. (Stressing "opinion", just my two cents.)

 

I would suggest a sense of entitlement is certainly growing with younger generations. But morality? Kids getting worst? The declining crime rates over the last decades would suggest kids are possibly growing up better than ever.

[kc58ab]

In my view with recent/current teenagers and exposure to many friends, shocker both of my children had friends that I didn't allow them to go to their house but they came to ours, I agree entitlement is definitely off the charts rising.

As for morality, I have to agree there as a whole society as well. Without jumping on the religious train there are many things as a society we tend to accept now that was very tabu when I was growing up. That being said it isn't like I'm 80 comparing the 40s to now.

There are also seemingly more parents making excuses for their children doing wrong. In addition it isn't rare to see adults with the woe is me, I had it rough, I wasn't loved enough so that is an excuse for all the deplorable things I d as well.

[Jeff From NC]

I might be in the minority, but I would have said something to the kid. Between being a parent of three grown boys and a high school teacher there is no way I could have kept my mouth shut!

 

I see buffoonery like this all the time at school. Kids are a direct reflection of their home life; if they are knuckleheads chances are their parents (or guardians) are probably knuckleheads too.

[Warm Breezes]

You can't stop kids from doing stupid stuff. We don't know all the facts in this case. It appears the parents had a curfew and the kids knowingly snuck out and broke the rules. The kids followed up this stupidity by posting it on-line. IMHO how the parents handle the discipline of these kids now that they have been caught would shed light on whether they are good parents or not. If they excused the behavior as kids being kids and didn't punish them in some way then I would say that is bad parenting. If they held the kids accountable for their actions by giving them some sort of punishment and accepted any penalty from the cruise line to show that they (as the responsible adults) are taking responsibility for the actions of their kids, then I would say that is good parenting.

 

You can bring you kids up right (even helicopter them if you are so inclined) and still have them pull a stupid stunt on you....it is how you react to their stupid stunts that determines parenting skills. Using their stupid stunt to show them how and why they wrong and enforcing consequences and even laying on the guilt trip (showing them respect for rules) is much more effective than blowing it off as kids being kids and letting them go with no discipline (showing them that it is ok to disrespect the rules).

 

I don't believe in helicoptering kids. I believe in increasing their responsibility/freedom based on their maturity along with giving them the tools they need to be independent (ie cell phones, self-defense, rules of being cautious, setting meeting times and rules on knowing where each other are). You start them slowly and build them up as they build confidence in themselves and you build confidence in them.

 

Having said that I don't think a layered curfew for kids unsupervised (either without a parent/guardian with them or not in the kids club) is inappropriate in a cruise setting. My suggestion would be under 10 should always have a parent/guardian around or be in the kids club, 11-15 have an unsupervised curfew of 11 pm, 16-17 an unsupervised curfew of 1 am. Any thing less than that should be set by the parent, not the cruise line, based on the kids maturity and the level of trust between the parent and child.

[FLSteve11]

What I can agree with you on is majority of crimes like murder and sexual abuse are done by family, friends, aka people u know. I doubt bc someone lives or frequents good areas that means they have almost no risk. Surely you know some of the infamous serial killers/rapists evaded by being well spoken and dressed. It's wrong to give false security that if u stay out of bad neighborhoods nothing bad will likely happen to u.

 

I don't know your daughter's age, but based on the bicycle example I'm betting young enough there is no way I'll let mine wander a cruise ship or even my "good" neighborhood and town with low crime rate. Beauty is it is your child so u decide what's best for her. I sincerely hope she is never subject to any horific event where you are like the mom in that article or likely every parent in a similar situation regretting they weren't more cautious.

 

It's fine, we just think differently on it. I know statistically it is very safe to be out for a child for major crimes. Much more so then when we were kids. The safest in most people's lifetimes. I do know about serial killers, I also know that those people were also a very rare event (not that many big serial killers in history, which is why they're famous). It's a perceptual thing. For example, did you let your child drive before they were 18, or ride in the car with an under 18 driver. If so, they were in far more danger doing that then walking around on their own. Yet people generally have no problem getting their child their license at 16 and letting them drive where they wan to be, even if it's one of the riskiest things they're doing. Yet we don't think ourselves bad parents or selfish for letting them do so (instead of driving them around to everything at that point). I'm not saying you jump in the car with a stranger or walk around at 3am, but going around the neighborhood, or ship, in normal hours is safe from major crimes.

 

She's 13, and basically we've been letting her do it for about a year now (on her own in the ship), more then that with riding her bike to school or her friends house (less then a mile for either) in an above average neighborhood. She's also a seasoned cruiser so we've let her do more as time goes on. By the way, speaking of the article, 62 sex assault cases (of all people, not just minors) in the entire cruising world, out of 24 million passengers, or .0003% I would put that at rather safe (even if we significantly increase it for unreported cases) and puts the odds at about half of being killed by a lightning strike at any point in your life. Is it zero, no, but pretty darned low. That doesn't mean I warrant a minor wandering around at 2am on the ship either.

[FLSteve11]

Strophic: Not many (even here) will argue that "kids have always been doing dumb things", but I'll disagree that it isn't getting worse. I'll even call it "immorality creep" -- but using the construct of "morality" very loosely, i.e., don't anybody go all literal on me. Not trying to be sanctimonious -- I raised two kids, both of whom developed their own highly personalized self-discipline problems, and I was once a kid myself, and I grew up with brothers, a couple dozen close cousins and hundreds of class/church/funmates. There wasn't a perfect kid in the whole bunch. I'm just saying, nobody can convince me that the problem of self-discipline (and dirth of good sense) isn't growing at least a little more widespread and more extreme than it used to be. And I won't draw any line at the year 2000, because I know a heckuva lot of very sensible and responsible millennials (etc), people I'm proud to call friends (and relatives). I'll just refer back to the "creep" on which I opined up front. And I might also opine that the "creep" is accelerating. (Stressing "opinion", just my two cents.)

 

I don't know, since we don't have anywhere near as much documented cases (ie social media) from when we were young, but it's probably worse now. I will say the extreme end is probably worse on some people. I would say social media, and the desire to post greater and greater outrageous acts is probably the biggest culprit of it (as someone else mentioned, those raised watching shows like "*******", or trying to ring up "likes" on videos). In a case like this, it's a totally dumb act, and the kid should be punished (by parents if not cruise line), but goes along with the stories of people jumping of balconies into hotel pools as well (which has happened forever, and still wrong), or off bridges into rivers and lakes. Now they do it mainly to get their videos posted and wrack up more likes and viewers, rather then just impress their friends at the time on how daring they are.

[Moonarino]

I would suggest a sense of entitlement is certainly growing with younger generations. But morality? Kids getting worst? The declining crime rates over the last decades would suggest kids are possibly growing up better than ever.

 

In truth they only "suggest". Crime stats reported from local law enforcement all over the country to the FBI, etc (https://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/data_and_statistics_ucr.html for example) are specifically defined and tightly categorized. I've helped agencies automate that kind of thing, served on IT-related committees toward that purpose, etc, and in fact there are holes. Not to mention, formal Uniform Crime Reporting is a fairly new thing, almost all having been developed (massaged, improved) in the last 15-20 years. So trying to compare the 2000s and 2010s to the '90s or any other decade before, almost borders on irrelevant, because the reporting processes and requirements of today are very different from what they used to be.

 

But this also isn't about crime per se, it's about behavior which might or might not be "criminal", and which very often is not criminal. As you and others have said, and I very much agree, permissiveness and entitlement have expanded to the point that, it can be and is being argued, "immoral behavior" (aside from "criminal behavior") encompasses considerably less than it used to. But there are simply no stats at all (that I know of) to "prove" that. So here we are. :rolleyes::)

 

{Edit} And this:

 

... There are also seemingly more parents making excuses for their children doing wrong.

 

I thoroughly agree.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Moonarino

[FLSteve11]

You can't stop kids from doing stupid stuff. We don't know all the facts in this case. It appears the parents had a curfew and the kids knowingly snuck out and broke the rules. The kids followed up this stupidity by posting it on-line. IMHO how the parents handle the discipline of these kids now that they have been caught would shed light on whether they are good parents or not. If they excused the behavior as kids being kids and didn't punish them in some way then I would say that is bad parenting. If they held the kids accountable for their actions by giving them some sort of punishment and accepted any penalty from the cruise line to show that they (as the responsible adults) are taking responsibility for the actions of their kids, then I would say that is good parenting.

 

You can bring you kids up right (even helicopter them if you are so inclined) and still have them pull a stupid stunt on you....it is how you react to their stupid stunts that determines parenting skills. Using their stupid stunt to show them how and why they wrong and enforcing consequences and even laying on the guilt trip (showing them respect for rules) is much more effective than blowing it off as kids being kids and letting them go with no discipline (showing them that it is ok to disrespect the rules).

 

I don't believe in helicoptering kids. I believe in increasing their responsibility/freedom based on their maturity along with giving them the tools they need to be independent (ie cell phones, self-defense, rules of being cautious, setting meeting times and rules on knowing where each other are). You start them slowly and build them up as they build confidence in themselves and you build confidence in them.

 

Having said that I don't think a layered curfew for kids unsupervised (either without a parent/guardian with them or not in the kids club) is inappropriate in a cruise setting. My suggestion would be under 10 should always have a parent/guardian around or be in the kids club, 11-15 have an unsupervised curfew of 11 pm, 16-17 an unsupervised curfew of 1 am. Any thing less than that should be set by the parent, not the cruise line, based on the kids maturity and the level of trust between the parent and child.

 

I agree with pretty much everything in here. I like the 1am curfew on RCCL for all minors who are unsupervised. Minors can be out after that, but must be with a parent/guardian. For us, once it gets into the evening, our daughter can now go do things, but we want to know where she'll be if not in the kids club or heading back to the cabin. We all have dinner together, so she'll give us a rundown on what she wants to do. Most of the times it will be for things like movies under the stars, or going to get some pizza, or one of the evening parties on deck or in an atrium (depending on the ship/line). I'm usually the one who likes to go out and do different things in the evening (see a show, comedian, casino, live bands, etc), my wife is more the type to do dinner, the show and go back and read. It does depend on the kid a lot. Some are quite capable of handling themselves at a younger age, while others are in college and still cannot manage themselves maturely. They just can't make that the requirement as parents will just say "my kid is..."

[Strophic]

Jacka*s ran for all of three years and ended in 2002. Their most recent film came out over six years ago. I think there is a tendency of older people especially to blame the media for what they perceive to be negative behaviors in their kids, but numerous studies have shown that consumption of violent books, movies, video games, and tv don't actually lead to increased violent behavior. Before the Jacka*s boys were even born, kids were jumping off their garage roofs trying to fly or having fireworks explode in their hands. Extreme sports have existed long before there was a YouTube around to post your sick flips on. Humans naturally seek an adrenaline rush, and no amount of hand-wringing over TV shows is going to change that.

[Organized Chaos]

Before you go twist my words Chaos (you seem to enjoy that), I did say the under 18 crowd can stay out as late as they want....AS LONG AS THEY ARE WITH THEIR PARENTS OR IN A CARNIVAL CAMP....continue on with your stalking of my posts [emoji16]

You're not hard to figure out, Ten. You enjoy trying to deflect and redirect the negativity you create. No one's twisting your words, you do a good enough job of that yourself. Since you're going to ask me to prove it, here's an example. In one post, you said the curfew age should be under 18. That's a definitive statement. When A&Jfamily questioned you about your age limit, you backpedaled and said things like, "...there should be some type of age limit curfew and used 18 as the general rule for adulthood. I used 18 as an example..." No, you didn't say, "some type of age limit." You didn't say, "18 is a general rule." And you didn't say, "18 is an example." You specifically stated that 18 should be the rule, and instead of owning it, you twisted your own words. Want another example? You said you don't generalize that all kids are like the kids in this video, yet you want to set a curfew for all minors. So, in fact, you are generalizing all underage kids to be so irresponsible that they shouldn't be allowed out of their cabins after 10pm without a chaperone.

 

No one's stalking your posts, you just don't like it when people here refuse to tolerate your rude behavior. But you say that about me because you want others to believe it in an attempt to redirect the negativity you create. This isn't the first time you've tried to make someone else look like the bad guy and it won't be the last. I have disagreements with people all of the time and we still manage to have perfectly civil discussions and debates about a wide variety of topics. It's only the special ones who deserve a little more of an aggressive approach. :D I welcome anyone to go through my posts and try to find an instance where I attacked someone unprovoked for no good reason or a post where I insulted someone out of the blue. You won't find anything like that. Just times when I've stood up to unnecessarily rude behavior. The same cannot be said for you. ;) Now, would you like to discuss the topic at hand or would you rather continue with the smoke & mirrors baloney?

[Organized Chaos]

I might be in the minority, but I would have said something to the kid. Between being a parent of three grown boys and a high school teacher there is no way I could have kept my mouth shut!

 

I see buffoonery like this all the time at school. Kids are a direct reflection of their home life; if they are knuckleheads chances are their parents (or guardians) are probably knuckleheads too.

The problem with kids like this who have no problem breaking the rules and even think it's a social achievement to make it publicly known, they are probably not going to care what any other adult has to say about their actions.

 

You can argue that kids are a direct reflection of their home life, but a single instance of bad behavior isn't always going to accurately reflect the home life. Earlier in this thread, I used myself as an example. I was a good kid, followed the rules a vast majority of the time, hated the feeling of getting into trouble, and my parents raised me right. But I still did some stupid, dangerous stuff. Even much more dangerous than what this kid did. Those instances weren't a reflection of how I was raised. I'm not defending this kid.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Organized Chaos

[firemanbobswife]

My boys have been on quite a few cruises since they were 7 and 5. They know what behavior is appropriate and what isn't. I showed my younger son the video and asked him what he thought. He said the kid is "lacking brain cells". I also asked who is responsible. He said he does blame the parents, but also some of it lies with the kid. I then inquired if he would have ever thought of doing such a thing and his exact words were "No way! I'm not stupid. I could break my neck! And if I didn't, I would be more scared of what you would do to me when you found out!" I'll take that as parenting success.

I would also be in favor of a curfew. I actually didn't like when they had activities late at night for the kids. 1AM was a little late in my book for them to be doing things in the kids club but they enjoyed it so much, that I let them. I never went to sleep until they were back in the cabin because I worried. They had strict instructions that they always traveled together and any incidence of poor behavior would result in them being attached to our hips the remainder of the cruise. I am one of those parents that would welcome someone telling me they were acting up as I have a zero tolerance policy for doing things you aren't supposed to (in case you didn't know [emoji39]). If that were to ever have happened, I would nip that right in the bud. It's been my experience that those that don't want to hear of their precious little angel doing wrong and cop an attitude including threatening physical violence on the person bringing it to their attention are the problems. It does start at home and I would say the overwhelming majority of the times the children are a direct reflection of their upbringing.

[Organized Chaos]

Having said that I don't think a layered curfew for kids unsupervised (either without a parent/guardian with them or not in the kids club) is inappropriate in a cruise setting. My suggestion would be under 10 should always have a parent/guardian around or be in the kids club, 11-15 have an unsupervised curfew of 11 pm, 16-17 an unsupervised curfew of 1 am. Any thing less than that should be set by the parent, not the cruise line, based on the kids maturity and the level of trust between the parent and child.

I think that's a very reasonable approach to the whole curfew debate. Some suggest anyone under 18 shouldn't be out past 10pm without a chaperone, but I think that's taking it too far because I think 16 & 17 year olds should get a little more freedom than that. One person said in their state, curfew is at 10pm, but bumps back to 1am on the weekends. Well, vacation is kind of like one big weekend. It's vacation, I think they deserve a break. After all, parents get to cut loose on vacation. They're kids should too. I'm not trying to say it should be no holds barred, total anarchy, but just a little leeway given.

[kc58ab]

It's fine, we just think differently on it. I know statistically it is very safe to be out for a child for major crimes. Much more so then when we were kids. The safest in most people's lifetimes. I do know about serial killers, I also know that those people were also a very rare event (not that many big serial killers in history, which is why they're famous). It's a perceptual thing. For example, did you let your child drive before they were 18, or ride in the car with an under 18 driver. If so, they were in far more danger doing that then walking around on their own. Yet people generally have no problem getting their child their license at 16 and letting them drive where they wan to be, even if it's one of the riskiest things they're doing. Yet we don't think ourselves bad parents or selfish for letting them do so (instead of driving them around to everything at that point). I'm not saying you jump in the car with a stranger or walk around at 3am, but going around the neighborhood, or ship, in normal hours is safe from major crimes.

 

She's 13, and basically we've been letting her do it for about a year now (on her own in the ship), more then that with riding her bike to school or her friends house (less then a mile for either) in an above average neighborhood. She's also a seasoned cruiser so we've let her do more as time goes on. By the way, speaking of the article, 62 sex assault cases (of all people, not just minors) in the entire cruising world, out of 24 million passengers, or .0003% I would put that at rather safe (even if we significantly increase it for unreported cases) and puts the odds at about half of being killed by a lightning strike at any point in your life. Is it zero, no, but pretty darned low. That doesn't mean I warrant a minor wandering around at 2am on the ship either.

 

As I said before I agree it's a smaller risk but any risk that I can easily avoid by just having my young child with me as I feel they should be anyway in a situation like a cruise ship is too much of a risk for my child.

 

I let my child drive when it was legally designated age to do so. At 16 it makes total sense to learn how to drive as in a couple short years that will more than likely be a necessity in life. I don't see that it's a necessity in life in a couple years for a 13 year old to be able to go to a highly populated place and be able to function on their own. I'm sure we can agree there's a huge difference in maturity and many other things between 13 and 16. I doubt you let your 13 year old go on dates or drive a car or at least I hope not.

[geckoaz]

Princess again. Now there is a report a woman died after a domestic dispute on a princess alaskan cruise. Emerald princess. Bad things happen on all ships. Watch out for the ones you love.

[FLSteve11]

As I said before I agree it's a smaller risk but any risk that I can easily avoid by just having my young child with me as I feel they should be anyway in a situation like a cruise ship is too much of a risk for my child.

 

I let my child drive when it was legally designated age to do so. At 16 it makes total sense to learn how to drive as in a couple short years that will more than likely be a necessity in life. I don't see that it's a necessity in life in a couple years for a 13 year old to be able to go to a highly populated place and be able to function on their own. I'm sure we can agree there's a huge difference in maturity and many other things between 13 and 16. I doubt you let your 13 year old go on dates or drive a car or at least I hope not.

 

Well we look at risk differently then, or at least we look at the likelihood of an event happening verses what else happens with it differently. I feel my child is fine going around a cruise ship on her own to some events (not wandering aimlessly in the middle of the night) as such a miniscule risk that the benefit of her enjoying herself and getting to do things on her own like she does normally at home is worth it.

 

Saying it's legally designated age doesn't mean much, as legally any child can walk around a cruise ship. There's no reason that a 16yo needs to drive, and can quickly learn that skill in a very short time before they become an adult and need to (there are adults who can't drive, and you could drive her until she's 17 and say 9 months). Yet driving is by far a riskier thing for a teenager to do then an early teen/late tween in a decent neighborhood or on a cruise ship. There are many more deaths and injuries. The difference is we perceive it in a different way, and don't feel it's more dangerous. Of course I wouldn't let my 13yo drive, she's not ready yet to do that. I'm sure she will be when she's 16 and taken appropriate classes and learned. She is ready to walk around on her own though, order some drinks, do activities she enjoys doing. She's learned how to do that and is comfortable with it. We just see it differently in when they're ready for it, that's all.

[FLSteve11]

Jacka*s ran for all of three years and ended in 2002. Their most recent film came out over six years ago. I think there is a tendency of older people especially to blame the media for what they perceive to be negative behaviors in their kids, but numerous studies have shown that consumption of violent books, movies, video games, and tv don't actually lead to increased violent behavior. Before the Jacka*s boys were even born, kids were jumping off their garage roofs trying to fly or having fireworks explode in their hands. Extreme sports have existed long before there was a YouTube around to post your sick flips on. Humans naturally seek an adrenaline rush, and no amount of hand-wringing over TV shows is going to change that.

 

I think extreme sports back when we were young were a bike, a mound of dirt and a wooden plank. And no helmets or anything like that. I think it does depend on the kids though. Some kids are the type to push the envelope and always be trying to break (or at least push) the rules or do outrageous things. While other kids are happier being conservative and just enjoying where they are and what they're doing. It's the first ones who end up on the videos. Those are the same ones who would do it, whether it's today or 30 or 60 years ago.

[kc58ab]

Steve,

 

I have to disagree because kids at 16 likely may need to drive. For example, my eldest was very involved in High School. Many clubs and extra curricular activities. She at 16 had 7 am dance practice and cheer practice after school daily. There wasn't a cab service or school bus to get her to these places and her father and I were working 45 mins away. My son choose to get a job after school to save for enhancements to his car. Again he needed a way to get there after school before we were home. So he needed to drive.

 

Let me make sure I'm following you: Driving is dangerous and not necessary, but they can easily learn this skill quickly right before it is needed. Yet a 13 year old must learn to do be alone and function on vacation amongst adults and adult situations likely many years before that will be an actuality if ever? You lost me on that.

 

I doubt I'll ever understand the concept of my child wants to do their own thing on a cruise as a preteen, and younger for certain, and I think I should allow that on a family vacation. I guess our idea of family vacation is different. My family knows it is time to be together and have a hopefully nice, relaxing time. We all do things we might not choose first so everyone can enjoy some things they want to do. If I wanted a romantic vacation or a partying one I would go with my spouse or other adults and leave my kids at home with family.

 

I don't trust the many adult situations on board and many intoxicated adults are something my young child needs to encounter without supervision and protection. You feel different and that is okay. Again it is your child, your call.

[Crusingdiva62]

The fact that people actually believe the world is safer today is kind of scary to me. We have news reports of disappearing kids and bodies being found daily. The thought people live with rose tinted glasses and think it's perfectly find for minors to be left unattended to their own devices on a cruise just astonishes me

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[kc58ab]

While I think a child's behavior can be an indication of the parenting, I agree with the post above that the parent's reaction to their child's misbehavior is a more accurate representation.

 

I know my two children come from the same genetics, environment, parenting, expectations, and discipline and are very different. My son would do things my daughter never would. It boils down to personality. I believe they have much of that predetermined from a young age (of course environment can change that). A strong willed child will question you more. Will definitely push the limits more. You add in more adventurous with that and you can have some situations that the child knows you will not approve of and still does. Sometimes we determine an action is worth the consequences. The same could be said of myself and my brother. We were very different kids. If you were to rate my parents based on me you would likely said they did a good job when we were younger kids. On some days with my brother being the only comparison maybe not as much. :)

 

I think the best parenting advice I read said you have to parent with relationship, not just power. Some day the parent will not be bigger, stronger, and will not be able to completely force every move the kid makes. If you don't have relationship where the child respects you and values your opinion you likely won't get a child that does everything you taught regardless of what you require when you have the power to enforce it easily. For me my son by the time he was a preteen was taller and stronger. You have to have the relationship before that hits.

[First and Ten]

You're not hard to figure out, Ten. You enjoy trying to deflect and redirect the negativity you create. No one's twisting your words, you do a good enough job of that yourself. Since you're going to ask me to prove it, here's an example. In one post, you said the curfew age should be under 18. That's a definitive statement. When A&Jfamily questioned you about your age limit, you backpedaled and said things like, "...there should be some type of age limit curfew and used 18 as the general rule for adulthood. I used 18 as an example..." No, you didn't say, "some type of age limit." You didn't say, "18 is a general rule." And you didn't say, "18 is an example." You specifically stated that 18 should be the rule, and instead of owning it, you twisted your own words. Want another example? You said you don't generalize that all kids are like the kids in this video, yet you want to set a curfew for all minors. So, in fact, you are generalizing all underage kids to be so irresponsible that they shouldn't be allowed out of their cabins after 10pm without a chaperone.

 

 

 

No one's stalking your posts, you just don't like it when people here refuse to tolerate your rude behavior. But you say that about me because you want others to believe it in an attempt to redirect the negativity you create. This isn't the first time you've tried to make someone else look like the bad guy and it won't be the last. I have disagreements with people all of the time and we still manage to have perfectly civil discussions and debates about a wide variety of topics. It's only the special ones who deserve a little more of an aggressive approach. :D I welcome anyone to go through my posts and try to find an instance where I attacked someone unprovoked for no good reason or a post where I insulted someone out of the blue. You won't find anything like that. Just times when I've stood up to unnecessarily rude behavior. The same cannot be said for you. ;) Now, would you like to discuss the topic at hand or would you rather continue with the smoke & mirrors baloney?

 

 

 

OC, you have to calm down....don't let me agitate you so much....deep breaths....you good? [emoji38]

 

Yes, I did say I would like a curfew on ships and used 18 as the age. You can disagree, but because my opinion should differ from yours, that doesn't mean I am insulting or attacking you or anyone else. Now, I am not into the happy-happy joy-joy behavior like you apparently are. If you find me rude, ya know what, that's a you problem, not a me problem. As far as the topic of if there should be a curfew for those under 18....YES, there should. I gave my reasons in previous posts that you have gone over already because that is what you do.

[Snuckles]

@Organized Chaos save your keystrokes. I admit I was taken aback by the rudeness of this board but appreciate the decent responses from folks like you. So, save your keystrokes for those that can appreciate them.

[FLSteve11]

The fact that people actually believe the world is safer today is kind of scary to me. We have news reports of disappearing kids and bodies being found daily. The thought people live with rose tinted glasses and think it's perfectly find for minors to be left unattended to their own devices on a cruise just astonishes me

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

Because it IS. The only difference is now they plaster the news over the internet so you know about anything going on in the country. Fear sells, tap into a persons fear and you'll get them to spend money to cover it (hopefully, to them, by buying their news coverage or those of their advertisers). Every statistic shows the US (not saying anything about other countries) is twice as safe as it used to be during it's high point, which was about 25 years ago. When many of us were kids and thought nothing of going out. Why? Because we had maybe 10 television channels and no internet, so we knew nothing of what was going on. That and the dozens of serialized television shows dramatizing works of fiction over hundreds of cable channels (because, fears sells and you'll watch it). Is it perfectly, zero proof safe? No, but it's definitely safer then it used to be. The vast majority of disappearing kids are runaways, followed by custody disputes. Yet we fixate on every story as the boogeyman has come to get them.

[FLSteve11]

Steve,

 

I have to disagree because kids at 16 likely may need to drive. For example, my eldest was very involved in High School. Many clubs and extra curricular activities. She at 16 had 7 am dance practice and cheer practice after school daily. There wasn't a cab service or school bus to get her to these places and her father and I were working 45 mins away. My son choose to get a job after school to save for enhancements to his car. Again he needed a way to get there after school before we were home. So he needed to drive.

 

Let me make sure I'm following you: Driving is dangerous and not necessary, but they can easily learn this skill quickly right before it is needed. Yet a 13 year old must learn to do be alone and function on vacation amongst adults and adult situations likely many years before that will be an actuality if ever? You lost me on that.

 

I doubt I'll ever understand the concept of my child wants to do their own thing on a cruise as a preteen, and younger for certain, and I think I should allow that on a family vacation. I guess our idea of family vacation is different. My family knows it is time to be together and have a hopefully nice, relaxing time. We all do things we might not choose first so everyone can enjoy some things they want to do. If I wanted a romantic vacation or a partying one I would go with my spouse or other adults and leave my kids at home with family.

 

I don't trust the many adult situations on board and many intoxicated adults are something my young child needs to encounter without supervision and protection. You feel different and that is okay. Again it is your child, your call.

 

No child NEEDS to drive. You determined the risk of them driving on their own and felt that it was worth it, rather then not working and driving them around yourself. I happen to agree with you on that. While driving (or riding in) a car is much more dangerous for a minor (teen/tween whatever) then walking around on your own. It's still a generally risk free item. Like I said, it's balancing the risk, and the likelihood something is going to happen versus letting them get to do things.

 

I do think driving is a good skill, and should be learned. My daughter certainly will when she's old enough for it. (In age and maturity, though I'm not really worried about that). Just like being independent and getting to do things on their own around a neighborhood or ship. Both have a level of risk. The risk is higher in driving, but the reward is better, so you do it. I don't think one is right or wrong, we just have different ideas of what the risk (or reward) is.

 

We cruise a lot. We do excursions together, we do dinners together, we mostly see shows together and do a lot of activities together. The majority of the time we spend together. That doesn't mean my daughter wants to spend every second with us, doing the same things we want to do. From my side, I can't understand the concept that a 13yo wants to do the same thing a parent wants to do ALL the time. While we do a lot together, we don't see why I would need to be dragged to every children oriented activity or scrapbooking class, while then taking the child to an adult oriented show or activity. I certainly don't hang out with a bunch of 13yo girls when she's with her friends, and she would be hate to hang out with a bunch of adult guys. Why would it be different on a cruise? We have different interests, and each get to enjoy them. That's just how we do it.

 

Like you said, we just do things differently. Nothing outright wrong with either of them, since we come from different circumstances and places we'll see some things differently.

[FLSteve11]

While I think a child's behavior can be an indication of the parenting, I agree with the post above that the parent's reaction to their child's misbehavior is a more accurate representation.

 

I know my two children come from the same genetics, environment, parenting, expectations, and discipline and are very different. My son would do things my daughter never would. It boils down to personality. I believe they have much of that predetermined from a young age (of course environment can change that). A strong willed child will question you more. Will definitely push the limits more. You add in more adventurous with that and you can have some situations that the child knows you will not approve of and still does. Sometimes we determine an action is worth the consequences. The same could be said of myself and my brother. We were very different kids. If you were to rate my parents based on me you would likely said they did a good job when we were younger kids. On some days with my brother being the only comparison maybe not as much. :)

 

I think the best parenting advice I read said you have to parent with relationship, not just power. Some day the parent will not be bigger, stronger, and will not be able to completely force every move the kid makes. If you don't have relationship where the child respects you and values your opinion you likely won't get a child that does everything you taught regardless of what you require when you have the power to enforce it easily. For me my son by the time he was a preteen was taller and stronger. You have to have the relationship before that hits.

 

Definitely agree. You need that relationship to parent well, particularly as they get older. If you don't lay some kind of foundation when they're younger on what is appropriate and not, you'll have a lot more trouble trying to get that later on in life. My daughter is the stubborn type, but not an envelope pusher. She'll dig her heels and complain and complain, but when the final word comes she'll accept it. She's not the risk taker type in general. For us, I learned the best thing to do is give her a chance to come up with a valid reason if she wants to do something I might not agree with initially in many cases (some things are just "NO" of course, and sometimes there just is no time or place to do so). I in turn try to explain why I won't let her. This gives her a chance to at least feel like she has been given a chance. And sometimes she does come up with very good reasons and I'll change my mind (depending what it is of course). Of course, being married to a lawyer, I'm used to this *grin* In the end though, I get the final word and decision. It's a relationship, but it's still not a Democracy.