Lies and lack of remorse

[Jinkers01]

Small bit of background...13 year old son is chronically forgetful, but has been trying harder thus school year to be organised. On Monday he told me that he'd been to music lesson at lunch time at school, which he has frequently forgotten before. Lots of praise from me...last night I found out from friend that music teacher is off and that he'd therefore lied. He had apparently gone to play football,and laughed in my face about it. I have banned him from internet and Xbox for ONE day, and he's beyond angry. DH clearly thinks I'm being harsh on his darling boy. I think it's a reasonable punishment, but what do others think?

[Palika]

That's a shame, Kleinzeit, that you are backing out now.

You said to me that you would have merely laughed in a situation when I was feeling deeply hurt (which was not very pleasant for me to hear, as you can imagine) and when I ask you why, you say you won't follow up. So, why making that comment in the first place?

I assume your argument is that it matters what has been lied about and if the lie was just about a little unimportant thing, then the lie was not so bad either. Am I right?

But I say, a lie is a lie and it does not matter whether it is about big things or little things - it's a breach of trust and that rocks the foundation of every loving relationship. (Obviously, if it is about big things it makes the whole situation even worse)

Or you may say, they are growing out of it anyway, so why making such a big deal of it.

And I would say to this, that scientifically speaking that statement is not true - at least not according to the scientific research that was described in Nature Shock. They are stating that if children have not stopped lying by age 7 they are growing INTO it and are getting successively worse.

And when I look around me I can only agree. At the moment we are renovating a 300 year old farmhouse and have to deal with numerous tradesmen. I can count the trustworthy ones on one hand - they are a cheating lying and deceitful bunch! (sorry, if any trustworthy tradesmen reads this - it is strictly my personal experience)

And finding a truly trustworthy husband still remains as rare as winning the lottery (again strictly my personal experience)

Now, come on, Kleinzeit, I invite you to finish the debate as you have started it. As long as we do not attack each other personally I find it very interesting and educational.

[Kleinzeit]

You said to me that you would have merely laughed in a situation when I was feeling deeply hurt (which was not very pleasant for me to hear, as you can imagine) and when I ask you why, you say you won't follow up. So, why making that comment in the first place?

Oh, I’m sorry, I did not mean to put down your feelings. It is true that to me and my friends, cheating over a password would not have felt like such a huge painful betrayal. I expect to deal with some dishonesty, in the same way I expect to deal with other teen problems. I don’t like it but I don’t think the most effective way to deal with dishonesty is to leap on a small untruth as if it were a huge betrayal. Laughter can be a way to keep problems in proportion and restore rationality, and sometimes that’s how I use it. I am sorry if that was hurtful instead.

But of course you and I do not have the same backstory. You had the disappointment of seeing your DS lie after a seemingly successful negotiation, which must have hurt a lot. To you it is much more than your son working out a password that he had no business knowing and spending more time on the computer than he was supposed to, it is a whole complex of issues around lies and truth, and I did not mean to dismiss that.

But I say, a lie is a lie

Well now, that’s a place where we do differ. Some lies are obviously bad and a very big deal. Others are not, like trying to avoid offending someone. And in between some untruths are not right but they are borderline or minor, like face-saving or exaggeration, and there’s room for debate about whether it’s better to challenge them and if so, how strongly. And then there’s a self-confessed lie which didn’t lead to any serious trouble…. Some of the lines between different kinds of untruth are necessarily fuzzy. Near the borderlines I could only decide case-by-case, I couldn’t make sweeping rules that always work.

What you say about tradesmen and husbands is more about worldview than childraising. I don’t find the world a terribly dishonest place, equally I can’t turn the whole world into a totally honest place, and I can’t turn my DS into someone who will never lie either. I hope to turn him into an averagely honest person.

Another complication for my DS is that some people on the autism spectrum cannot deal with anything except the literal truth and as a result they have a very hard time managing social and emotional relationships. If my DS is going to function in the outside world he needs to understand some of those shades of grey. I can’t teach honesty by acting as if every untruth is a terrible lie that will undermine our relationship because he might be only too willing to believe it, and that’s not what I want him to learn.

And I don’t think I said anything about growing out of lying. Perhaps I wasn’t clear what I meant about age and development. If parents don’t trust a child with the choices and control that are within his abilities then one possible result is open defiance, and another possible result is – guess what – sneakiness and lying. Which is not to say that all lying is caused in that way, but it would be frustrating to respond to dishonesty by doing something that is likely to make it worse. And there we disagree again. You seem to prefer books and experts who say (or you interpret as saying, I am not sure which) that the answer to misbehaviour is stricter parental control. If that is working for you now, then fine. But the parenting books I use are not so one-way, they do talk about balance, and about the need to change the balance as children change and grow.

But I don’t think either one of us is going to change the other’s mind. What you do works well enough for you and what I do works well enough for me, and other people will make up their own minds about what might work for them.

[Palika]

Ah, Kleinzeit, lovely response! Thank you!

Don't be too sure that I won't change my mind - I am eager to learn from others. And if I understand someone's approach to be superior to mine it is not beneath me to make a radical u-turn and adopt their view.

I think it is interesting that you say that you want your son who is on the autistic spectrum to learn the different shades of truths that are necessary to deal with normal interaction. That of course makes sense and is of course a challenge in your parenting that I do not have to that extend.

We have talked about it, of course. He was taught, for example, that women need to be always complicated on their looks Joking aside, that is an area that he understands intuitively very well.

I don't know much about parenting autistic children but I can imagine that it is a bit of a different ball game than parenting neuro-typical children, or is that not so?

Anyway, Kleinzeit, I do feel I understand you much better now and thanks for your response.

[cory]

What I feel quite strongly is that it is not only my job to keep dc safe while they are still legally under my control: it is equally my job to prepare them for the day when they have to do their own risk assessment because I can no longer do it for them. And to be able to do that, they need to have plenty of hands-on practice.

For dd, that day is fast approaching: another year and she will be of age.

Ds has a few more years to go, but having gone through it once I know how quickly that time passes.

A driving instructor has to keep his pupils safe. He has a responsibility not to let them try things before they are ready. But equally he has a responsibility to let them practise everything they are going to need for the test before they get there. A driving instructor who never let his pupils get behind the wheel because it wasn't safe for someone without a licence to drive wouldn't be doing his job properly. If you don't let them practise they won't be safe to drive on their own.

It's that balance we have to maintain as parents.

[Palika]

Cory,
you are right in principle. The thing that has changed is that our teens are surrounded with FAR more addictive and dangerous things than past generations ever were. (from porn to violence on the internet to buying drugs on the internet and finding 'friends' for any atrocity that may be lurking in their unconscious mind)

Even letting them go to the houses of friends is much more dangerous now because you just don't know what they are allowed in the friends house. I found that very keenly when DS was in primary school and there was new kid who had terrible behaviour problems and made friends with DS. DS wanted to go to his house and was allowed and was exposed to very unsuitable material there.

DS was extremely sensitive as a young child and even the movies shown in primary school (Narnia etc.) gave him sleepless nights with terrible panic attacks.

I find it a terrible time to bring up a child...while schools have become very much kinder the immediate surrounding of each child has become MASSIVELY more dangerous. I don't even want to contemplate what it must be like to bring up a girl with all the sexual assaults on young girls being multiplied compared with our generation...

Don't get me wrong, I am sitting here shivering with fear. But I do count my blessings that DS has been safe so far and hope this will continue. But one thing is sure, I will delay the time that he exposed to dangerous things on the internet as much as I can. I am under no illusion that he will look at horrific stuff as soon as he has an opportunity and I know from scientific research that the older he is the better he will be able to deal with it.

[Palika]

Oh, little Freudian slip - I DO NOT sit here shivering with fear - haha

[cory]

I take your point, Palika, but even in our childhood, and the childhood of our parents there were plenty of risks out there that would be enough to kill you, parents knew this and still took some risks because they weighed them against the need to encourage independence.

My MIL was very nearly abducted as a small child- parents knew this was a risk but still let their children play outside.

There were drug dealers outside my secondary so I wouldn't have needed the internet for that. But a solution whereby my mother took me into school everyday and supervised me at breaktime (when we were allowed to leave the premises) would hardly have helped me to develop my own risk assessment.

Always, it was a balance.

As you say yourself, there is always a risk of children being exposed to unsuitable material whilst visiting the houses of their friends, but what would you think of a parent who dealt with this risk by making sure his dc had no social life?

I have a friend who has dealt with this situation by protecting his ds from everything, vetting everything he sees and reads, encouraging him to watch pre-school television though he is nearly a teen, and always accompanying him to extra-curricular activities. The result is a boy who finds it difficult to relate to his peers and comes across as many years younger than he is. From your pov, this is a logical way of dealing with a world that seems more dangerous than ever. But I can't see how it's going to help him in the long run.

For the record, I am bringing up a teenage girl. She makes her own way to school, she travels into town and even up to London on her own, she uses the internet and Facebook, she has relationships to the opposite sex and in less than two years she will be leaving us to make her own way in the world.

And I am absolutely sure that a great deal of her safety will lie in her own radars: being able to quickly assess when a situation is dodgy, having a plan for getting out of it, having the open relationship with other people that means she can always ask for advice if she feels unsure. The world won't be any less dangerous in two years time, the only difference will be she will be thrown into it on her own.

"I don't even want to contemplate what it must be like to bring up a girl with all the sexual assaults on young girls being multiplied compared with our generation..."

Do we have any reliable statistics for that? Do we really believe that girls were less at risk a generation or five generations ago? Remember that an awful lot of the child abuse we are reading about in the papers now was abuse that took place a generation ago; the fact that we can finally talk about it doesn't mean it's our generation of youngsters that is less safe. And that people in general were far less likely to report rape in previous generations.

[Palika]

quote: "I don't even want to contemplate what it must be like to bring up a girl with all the sexual assaults on young girls being multiplied compared with our generation..." Do we have any reliable statistics for that?"

Oh Cory, do your research - but be warned - you may be quivering with fear....as they say, 'ignorance is bliss'.

The sexualisation (and brutalisation) of childhood (particularly of boys) is one of my pet-worries. As I wrote already - there is a mega study in the US that claims that something like 10% of all young teenage boys had raped a girl. If that does not give you the shiver I don't what will.

I also read a lot of horror-stories in the German press, where there is a lot of downloadable paedophile music (which is of course illegal) and the boys are listening to it and then try to rape girls (all children - horrendous).

It is a time bomb that is ticking...no, it has already exploded and most people do not want to know...

[cory]

I am not ignorant about current risks, Palika- but as a historian perhaps slightly better informed than you are about the risks of previous ages.

If you can find me some reliable research that proves that sexual crime is actually higher than it was in our parents' or grandparents' generation, then I shall be prepared to listen.

Just beware- as an academic I am going to want full details of sampling method, reliability of sources and a full discussion of the inherent difficulties of comparing statistics from different ages with different procedures for reporting rape.

Starting with the statement that 10% of teenage boys have raped someone: are we talking all teenager boys in the US or one particular group? How was the sampling done- clearly nobody has been able to interview every single teenager, so how did they select the group? Who conducted the survey? What questions were put to these witnesses- is there any chance that their answers might not be reliable?

(I remember a questionnaire given to us at secondary school that must have frightened the living daylights out of its originator because they will have thought we were all drug addicts in the making: we all answered truthfully that we would know how to access heavy drugs- but in actual fact, I don't think anyone in my class ever made use of that knowledge. So we were safe- because we chose to be. If the questionnaire had been phrased differently it would have shown that).

And how likely is it that results from the US can be directly transferred to the UK with its very different culture?

As an academic I don't trust experts: I critique them and evaluate them and ask them awkward questions.

[cory]

Palika Sun 17-Nov-13 18:22:10
"quote: "I don't even want to contemplate what it must be like to bring up a girl with all the sexual assaults on young girls being multiplied compared with our generation..." Do we have any reliable statistics for that?"

Oh Cory, do your research - but be warned - you may be quivering with fear....as they say, 'ignorance is bliss'."

Please note that you did specifically state above that the sexual assaults on young girls have multiplied compared with our generation. So you were not talking about time bombs about to explode or attitudes that may lead to trouble in the future: you claimed that the number of girls assaulted now is several times higher than it was in our generation. And I really want to know how you can know that when recent scandals from the past by have made it so clear that it was not the norm to report rape in years gone by.

[amumthatcares]

I totally agree with you here cory Even 30/40 years ago, situations were 'tolerated' or 'accepted' where they are not now. For example, what was considered a bit of harmless fun all those years ago (ie., in the workplace etc) is now considered 'sexual harassment'

It's safe to say that due to the progression of the TV, media and internet peoples opinions and attitudes have changed during this time and they have realised that they do not have to accept or tolerate these things. Consequently, these situations are now reported almost immediately. This would make it appear that todays society is a much more dangerous place. But what about all the children that were abused in church run establishments? All the children that were abused in the recent 'celebrity' scandal. This all happened at least a generation ago.

I would like to think that in some ways, the progression of information availability to our children makes them more aware of the dangers and therefore, we would hope, a little safer.

[Palika]

Cory
I do not have the time to satisfy your rigorous academic needs but here is just one study that really shocked me. I apologise it is from the daily mail but the study behind is real. I am sure you will find it easy to track down the actual study.

I also read about a rise of children attempting to rape each other in Germany but can't provide a study. I am not sure it would be available in English anyway.

I hope the link will be allowed and not removed. See also the comment of Dr Mitchell who point out the connection between the consumption of porn at a young age and willingness to be sexually violent.

Also, be aware that this is a study is about youth who admitted to these acts - the actual number maybe much higher.

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2449026/1-10-young-people-admit-sexual-violence.html

"Dr Kimberly Mitchell of the University of New Hampshire said: 'Links between perpetration and violent sexual media are apparent, suggesting a need to monitor adolescents’ consumption of this material, particularly given today’s media saturation among the adolescent population.
'Because blaming victims appears to be common while perpetrators experiencing consequences is not, there is urgent need for high school and middle school programmes aimed at supporting bystander intervention.'"

While researching I also found evidence that the reported number of sexual assault has actually gone down in recent years. That is of course wonderful and a hopeful sign if it is true.

[Palika]

....and from the wikipedia page called 'child sexual abuse':

"Child sexual abuse occurs frequently in Western society.[159] The rate of prevalence can be difficult to determine.[160][161][162]
In the UK, a 2010 study estimated prevalence at about 5% for boys and 18% for girls[163] (not dissimilar to a 1985 study that estimated about 8% for boys and 12% for girls[164])."

So, not exactly multiplied but still up 50%.
Anyway, cory, I hope you find studies that say exactly the opposite - I would be glad if you did

[Palika]

....and another article about child sexual abuse is rising (not mulitplying)

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2509181/More-half-child-sex-offenders-avoid-prosecution-despite-rise-number-reported-cases.html

Haha, I am outed as a daily mail reader...guilty as charged - it is my guilty pleasure

[cory]

I would be very wary of comparing estimations of child abuse made in an era where few crimes were reported with estimations made now and partly based on what we now know about what went on in that earlier era. I was a child in the 60s and a young adult in the 80s: I know how little these things were talked about. A child who was raped by another child in the 60s probably wouldn't even have had the vocabulary to talk about it, let alone report it. It didn't make them any safer.

I do not doubt the connection between violent porn and dysfunctional sex. I am sure watching violent porn is very, very bad for you.

What I do worry a bit about is the assumption that teens cannot be made to understand this for themselves and self regulate their viewing accordingly.

For me, the analogy with drugs is relevant. You cannot police a teen to the extent where they couldn't get hold of drugs or alcohol at all. Not if they are to go to school and lead any kind of social life. It's out there. There is no doubt that they could develop an addiction which could easily lead to violent crime and death.

So what you have to do is hope that they can be brought to understand the damage this can do and work out a plan for being careful. That is going to be their only hope for longterm safety. And that is precisely how I want them to approach the internet too.

Imho their greatest safety lies in a combination of two things:

a) a strong sense that the ordinary wholesome things in life (friends, a career, interesting hobbies, family affection) are both worthwhile and accessible to them

b) a habit of thinking of themselves as responsible, mature people who have the ability to think up a plan to stay out of trouble

It's not foolproof. But I think it's the best and safest route.

[cory]

Another thing I think we need to be very wary of is the self-fulfilling prophecy.

I know I've told this story before but please bear with me:

When I saw my dd off on the Year 6 residential trip I ended up chatting to the mum of one of her classmates. This was a woman I had never met before but in the 10 minutes before the teachers arrived, she found time to inform me that she would have to keep a close eye on her 11yo dd because she was, and I quote, "a nymphomaniac".

I found this rather odd from a parent I had never met before and afterwards asked dd what she meant. Dd assured me that her daughter was a perfectly ordinary girl who had a perfectly ordinary pre-teen interest in boys: in other words, she giggled and talked about boyfriends, but there was nothing unusual or highly sexualised about her behaviour.

Three or four years later this girl was pregnant.

She obviously knew what was expected of her.

I am very careful not to give my teens the message that I expect them to get into trouble unless I watch them like a hawk.
(and btw not saying getting pregnant always counts as getting into trouble- though it will have made her life harder, at such a young age)

What I do say (regularly) is: I know there are dangers out there, I know you are a very mature and sensible person, but have you thought of a situation like x and how you would handle it? I talk to them about my own life and how I handle things. I talk to them (in a kindly and concerned way) about other people whose lives have turned difficult because of decisions made. I talk to them about questions of morality.

If I kept stressing to dd how very very dangerous it is to be a young woman out there, I could hardly expect her to develop the confidence she needs to travel to interviews, work with new people, explore her own sexuality or generally make her way in the world.

[Palika]

Cory
here is an article that goes right into what I mean:
A boy who raped his younger sister (younger than 10) to re-enact the hardcore porn that he watched on the internet (apparently at school). This kind of abuse is rising and will rise unless something drastic is done about internet filters.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2513690/Boy-12-raped-younger-sister-watching-online-porn-SCHOOL.html

[cory]

You don't get what I'm saying, Palika.

I am agreeing with you that hardcore porn is damaging. How many times do I have to say it? Just like hard drugs are damaging. Just like vodka is damaging.

Where I do not agree that the best way to keep teens safe is to keep them locked up so they would never have the chance to get at either should they want to.

I think the best way (unless you have teens with particular problems with self control) is to teach them and communicate with them so that they recognise these dangers themselves and learn to stay safe by keeping away from these things.

Otherwise, they will only be safe in my own house, while under my own supervision. And I can't keep them there. I can't control every place they go to, not if I want them to learn survival skills. Which I do.
Because soon they will be adults.

I have also read countless newspaper reports where people have murdered and raped other people while under the influence of alcohol. It is a known danger, has been known for millennia. And I still allow dd to go to parties where there is a pretty good chance she will have access to alcohol. Because she has to learn to self regulate. Seems to be working so far.

[Palika]

Hey, Cory, I am not having an argument with you!

I am just trying to discuss a matter that is dear to my heart. It's not that I think you do not understand etc. - it's actually that I think that you DO understand - and I definitely understand you. That's why I like talking to you.

This threat is also read by many others - it's not only you and me here who are having a discussion, we also have an audience. In part what I write is for everybody - I am just airing my issues here - don't take it personally.

[cory]

Well, you have addressed me by name several times, Palika, and suggested that I (mentioned by name) might get a shock if I do my research

I don't think I will. I think I have a fair idea of the kind of world I am sending my dc into. It is a world where they will depend on their own common sense and self control and sense of self worth to stay out of trouble. Perhaps it always was.

The dangers and temptations are slightly different. But the heroin sellers of my childhood, Gin Lane of the 18th century- the opportunities for becoming a victim or a killer were always there. As is the choice of saying "no, I don't want this, I will not click on this link/take this needle/have a slug out of that bottle".

[Palika]

Cory,
I think where we do not agree is your belief in the supremacy of the rational mind over our lower drives (and emotions in general). If it was as easy as thinking rationally and saying 'no', nobody would ever get addicted or make unwise sexual choices when exposed to temptation. (I personally cannot even withstand the temptation of having biscuits in the house )

So far pornography and prostitution was only a problem/temptation for grown men. Now it is a risk that is sitting right in our living room and effects our young children - a risk that the world has not really woken up to.

I shiver to think what exposure to hardcore pornography may do the the minds of young boys and how it may effect (damage) their sex lifes...

[cory]

But, Palika, sooner or later, we do have to trust in the supremacy of the rational minds of our children.

Or to put it differently, I have to hope that dd's rational mind has the same capacity to keep her safe as mine does. Because she has to be allowed to have the freedom to develop the independence she needs.

After all, if my rational mind didn't have any capacity, I wouldn't be safe in charge of her either- and I wouldn't be safe in charge of myself. There must be something in me that means I am not now sitting here reading hardcore porn or downing a bottle of gin, that humans are actually capable of some kind of choice.

And as my children grow nearer to adulthood I have to hope that they have the same capacity for making choices as I had. I could have chosen aquavit and hard drugs, the choice was there. I didn't. I hope they won't either. But sooner or later the choice will be theirs.

I cannot keep dd locked up at home. I can't even keep ds from visiting other homes with other rules and habits than ours. I have to hope that somewhere along the road they have acquired the strength to say "no, I don't want that vodka", "no, that's a disgusting website and I don't want to watch it, that is seriously uncool".

I totally agree with watching small children very closely. But as our children approach adulthood they have to know that they are expected to watch themselves.