List of PURE programs

[Anonymous]

LOTTS LEGACY (not Lost Legacy)

Probably in Utah?

[Anonymous]

Nil....

It may be inevitable it is not excusable, which is what Ken Kay did. His excuses in court were pathetic. The jury was appalled.The sexual predators in Jamaica have been running rampant for yrs at TB. Anyone remember the young girl who had gotten pregnantby staff.They know and do nothing about it....CRIMINAL

[Nihilanthic]

If this is the only post youve read of mine then let me spell it out: Its NOT excuseable, period. EVER.

However, one of the flaws with that modality of 'treatment' is the almost inevitability of it happening. If the ENTIRE point is to establish dominating adults and submissive children this is what you run into.

I wont even go into how ridiculous it is as anything other than torture, or the psychological impact down the road, because its all been said before so much. Its anachronistic, and inhuman.

For the most part we inherit our opinions. We are the heirs of habits and mental customs. Our beliefs, like the fashion of our garments, depend on where we were born. We are molded and fashioned by our surroundings.
--Environment is a sculptor -- a painter.

[chi3]

Sex with a minor is NEVER excusable! Not in a program, not in a public school, not in a church, club, or any other organization!! Sex with a minor is disgusting, depraved, immoral and illegal. Black and white issue, no gray area. In our state, if a minor has sex with another minor consentual or not, said minor can be charged with rape. If anyone says it's excusable, or o.k., they should never, ever have any contact with any children, including their own. I see no difference from the one who has the sex to the one who allows it. All should rot.

[Anonymous]

It seems to me that if PURE really refers to Whitmore and tells its customers that it wants regulations and licensing and stricter standards for all these facilities then it should explain without using words like awareness and trust and good feelings - all of which WWASP supporters use about awful WWASP- what the specific criteria it used to make Whitmore a PURE school.  What were the eductational, licensing, background, therapy criteria that it met?  Did it know about the association of the owners with the bad eggs in the industry and the animal abuse conviction?  Did it meet any criteria other then that it convinced PURE it was anti WWASP.
    Maybe its marketing program was like what PURE's seems to be.  "We are not WWASP.  They are bad. We are sincere. Because we are against WWASP and believe in putting families back together again you should trust us. We care about you and your children."
   That is not nearly enough!

[Anonymous]

On 2005-02-02 03:09:00, chi3 wrote:

"Sex with a minor is NEVER excusable! Not in a program, not in a public school, not in a church, club, or any other organization!! Sex with a minor is disgusting, depraved, immoral and illegal. Black and white issue, no gray area. In our state, if a minor has sex with another minor consentual or not, said minor can be charged with rape. If anyone says it's excusable, or o.k., they should never, ever have any contact with any children, including their own. I see no difference from the one who has the sex to the one who allows it. All should rot."

Chi3---minors having sex is inexcusable.

You're right.

But sometimes it happens despite parents' best efforts.

When it does, if the kids having sex are within 5 years of each others' age, it is considerably *less* psychologically damaging than when one partner is 5 or more years older than the other.

Because when you have a 5 or more year age spread, the difference in power and maturity between the older person and the younger kid is so large as to do additional damage to the kid.

Two kids near the same age having sex is not okay.  It's just that with a big age difference it's worse and does more damage to the younger kid.

If they're near the same age, the adults who find out need to stop it for all the obvious reasons.  If it's "consensual" (yes, I know they can't "consent" but you know what I mean)--then stopping them from doing it and explaining why is probably enough corrective action.  What you have there is two kids messing up.

If it's not consensual or there is a five or more year age spread, then one of them is a predator and needs to be prosecuted.

When two minors of about the same age have consensual sex, you do more damage to both of them if you prosecute either one.  Which one's the "predator" and which the "victim"?  They're both "victims" of their own bad judgment.  So if it's your kid you put a stop to it to protect *both* kids.  And if your kid is old enough that you know you *can't* stop it, you do the best you can to protect them from damages of their own bad judgment.  It's like buying an old clunker that's a bit of a tank for your teen's first car instead of giving the kid a porsche.  If they get in a wreck, you want them to live to become better drivers.

Anyway, I didn't want to give the wrong impression that I think teen sex is okay.  It's not.  It's stupid.  But there are differences in degrees of harm and who's harming who and therefore in what specific action you take to stop it.

Stupidity and predation with both screw your kid up, it's just that different corrective measures are appropriate in the different cases.

That's my position, anyway.

Timoclea

[Anonymous]

er...stupidity and predation *will* both screw your kid up.....

typo.  sorry.

[Nihilanthic]

I might as well chime in here too, lol.

I'm not staunchly against sex at a specific age or think imposing a cutoff date of consent.

I know a 20 year old girl about as mature as your average 12 year old; and a 15 year old more mature than me.

Obviously 12 is too young for anyone, period, Even another one. And, the age difference of 5 years timoclea came with, or that 'rule' about your age / 2 + 5 (or +7, I forget, 7 makes more sense though) seems to be another good one. The older you are the less an age difference matters. The point here is to prevent predation and psychological damage upon the 'victim', if there is one.

Now, I'm not condoning this statement, but I am going to present it because it made me think: One time I was complaining to my Canadian friend that I cant seem to find women my own age. At the time the only ones into me were... 12, and 40. One was a innocent crush and the other was a case of sexual frustration. I wont go into any more specifics. Anyway, I ask her, what would you do? Flip a coin? or go for the 40 YO becuase its leagal? She told me that shed take the 12 year old, and I asked why:

(Toe-stepping-on-time) She said its not inherantly wrong for someone to have sex just because of their age. I go we have stat. rape laws to protect people from being abused or manipulated. She says: So everyone is automatically a predator if there is an age difference? Would YOU be one? Naturally, I said I wouldn't be. And I really don't think that I would either. She says that if people are mature and have had proper sex ed then the age doesnt matter its when you mature. She claims at 12-14 she was with people my current age, 20. She also said it was not a bad experience for her (but obviously I wondered if she was being literal or just trying to pull on my strings here). Just FYI, she was the victim, later on in life, of rape, so shed know the difference between a positive experience and a not-so positive one.

Then, another comment she made, is that the lack of sexual awareness and sex-ed she sees in the USA seems to make the stat. rape laws a necessity. I'm inclined to agree. I'd refer to my 20 year old friend whose naive as hell. Her parents *SUCKED* and kept her home too much, and she absolutely FAWNS over anyone who simply treats her nice, because apparently nobody did, including in her home. Naturally, shes head over heels for me.  :lol:

Now, dont get me wrong, and dont let some baghead come out and twist my words, I'm not out here trying to start some inter-generational or underage sex thing, but I am saying that strict #s on age are unnecessary if people are actually educated and made aware - they'll be able to make decisions for themselves. Peoples sex drives kick in far before 18 and in years past people WERE adults before 18 anyway. The victorian method of preventing interaction or segregation obviously isnt going to work anymore, so a little education could go a long way.

Yeah, abstinance would avoid a lot of problems, but lets be realistic here, not everyone can do that. Part of growing up is learning how to interact anyway, so why not give some guidance instead of restriction?

People who are willing to give up freedom for the sake of short term security, deserve neither freedom nor security.

--Benjamin Franklin

[Anonymous]

But the situation we have here is one in which a staff member was having sex with a "student". A staff member who had power and authority over the "student". The ability to be helpful or hurtful. This can easily be sex under duress; even when and if the "student" thinks it is "voluntary".
This is the very situation that Ken Kay described as not necessarily abuse, as it is consensual.

[Nihilanthic]

In that situation, yeah, its wrong.

And Ken Kay is a twisted fuck. Hes a fatass rich man who loves to shit on teenagers who feel 'entitled' and 'eat fast food'. Well, gee, I wonder what he shoves down his gullet to keep his weight above 300?

And another thing, if students were having sex OUTSIDE of a program I'm sure he'd say its wrong and you need to send them to one.... where they'll have sex with their WONDERFUL staff!  :roll:

Guard with jealous attention the public Liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that Jewel. Unfortunately, Nothing will Preserve it but downright Force. Whenever you Give Up that Force, you are ruined.....The Great Object is that every man be armed.....Everyone who is able may have a gun.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1888952229/circlofmiamithem' target='_new'>- Patrick Henry

[Anonymous]

***And another thing, if students were having sex OUTSIDE of a program I'm sure he'd say its wrong and you need to send them to one....

On Nih, that was good... classic. For one who hasn't had direct experience, you've got their number.

[Nihilanthic]

Theyre one-way hypocritical controlfreaks. And by one way, I mean they can do things, but the 'teens' are not allowed to do the things they do themselves.

Anyway, I want to try something. I should come up with some benign 'problem' that could be twisted (that I know a real psychologist would not think is wrong at all) and call one of those numbers for a program and ask if I should send my child in.

If I record it in accordance with my state laws, can I use that as evidence? Or would it just be a funny soundbite on AnonAnon?

Speak gently! 't is a little thing Dropp'd in the heart's deep well; The good, the joy, that it may bring Eternity shall tell.
-- G. W. Langford: Speak gently.

[Antigen]

Well, it would be a funny sound bite on Anonanon. And, if someone wanted it, I suppose they might be able to use it too. But it would probably be worth it just for the comic relief and truth of it.

BTW, my brother's sponsor once had him convinced that his sense of humor was a part of his "disease". So the poor sob went around for awhile trying not to be funny.  ::noway::

so long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would neither be created nor destroyed it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?
--stephen Hawking, English scientist

[Nihilanthic]

I've thought of posing as a teenager and trying to send myself... how would that work?

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.  
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0136374069/circlofmiamithem' target='_new'> Andrew Tannenbaum

[Antigen]

Hmm, I dunno. But what the hey! So many edcons, so few schticks!

The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive.


--Thomas Sowell