Fornits

Fornits Home for Wayward Web Fora
An open discussion about the troubled parent industry

From sunny Hawaii!

Been a looong time since Ive been on the board, I was just thinking how great it was that Fornits has come so far, and in general when you google Straight Inc now, there are tons more websites and loads more information about the program.  Way to go Survivors!

C :twofinger:  :twofinger:  :twofinger:

I was just reading through the documents that OTN has posted, the "guidelines' book specifically and its reminding me of so many things.

Do any of you remember "days being called in"?  Basically, if the group "wasnt in a good place", 3rd and 4th phaser's permissions were revoked indefinately.  Which interests me specifically here because in the bullshit guideline book it says that these things are essential parts of 3rd and 4th phase therapy.  So I guess our "therapy" was put on hold at the whim of peer staff?  I remember days got called in when I was still on 2nd phase and stayed that way throughout the rest of my program and on to third phase.  I never got to do anything on third.

Not to mention my asshole host sister never even let me have time at home to do anything either.  I was for all purposes a 1st phaser who could watch newcomers....for the entire 9 months.  Fucking unending T&R.

 :flame:  

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Over the past two years, drug violence in Mexico has become a fixture of the daily news. Some of this violence pits drug cartels against one another; some involves confrontations between law enforcement and traffickers.

Recent estimates suggest thousands have lost their lives in this "war on drugs."

The U.S. and Mexican responses to this violence have been predictable: more troops and police, greater border controls and expanded enforcement of every kind. Escalation is the wrong response, however; drug prohibition is the cause of the violence.

Prohibition creates violence because it drives the drug market underground. This means buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits, arbitration or advertising, so they resort to violence instead.

Violence was common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after.

Violence is the norm in illicit gambling markets but not in legal ones. Violence is routine when prostitution is banned but not when it's permitted. Violence results from policies that create black markets, not from the characteristics of the good or activity in question.

The only way to reduce violence, therefore, is to legalize drugs. Fortuitously, legalization is the right policy for a slew of other reasons.

Prohibition of drugs corrupts politicians and law enforcement by putting police, prosecutors, judges and politicians in the position to threaten the profits of an illicit trade. This is why bribery, threats and kidnapping are common for prohibited industries but rare otherwise. Mexico's recent history illustrates this dramatically.

Prohibition erodes protections against unreasonable search and seizure because neither party to a drug transaction has an incentive to report the activity to the police. Thus, enforcement requires intrusive tactics such as warrantless searches or undercover buys. The victimless nature of this so-called crime also encourages police to engage in racial profiling.

Don't Miss
Violence sparks talk of decriminalizing drugs
Miron: Bailing out homeowners is a mistake
In Depth: Commentaries
Prohibition has disastrous implications for national security. By eradicating coca plants in Colombia or poppy fields in Afghanistan, prohibition breeds resentment of the United States. By enriching those who produce and supply drugs, prohibition supports terrorists who sell protection services to drug traffickers.

Prohibition harms the public health. Patients suffering from cancer, glaucoma and other conditions cannot use marijuana under the laws of most states or the federal government despite abundant evidence of its efficacy. Terminally ill patients cannot always get adequate pain medication because doctors may fear prosecution by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Drug users face restrictions on clean syringes that cause them to share contaminated needles, thereby spreading HIV, hepatitis and other blood-borne diseases.

Prohibitions breed disrespect for the law because despite draconian penalties and extensive enforcement, huge numbers of people still violate prohibition. This means those who break the law, and those who do not, learn that obeying laws is for suckers.

Prohibition is a drain on the public purse. Federal, state and local governments spend roughly $44 billion per year to enforce drug prohibition. These same governments forego roughly $33 billion per year in tax revenue they could collect from legalized drugs, assuming these were taxed at rates similar to those on alcohol and tobacco. Under prohibition, these revenues accrue to traffickers as increased profits.

The right policy, therefore, is to legalize drugs while using regulation and taxation to dampen irresponsible behavior related to drug use, such as driving under the influence. This makes more sense than prohibition because it avoids creation of a black market. This approach also allows those who believe they benefit from drug use to do so, as long as they do not harm others.

Legalization is desirable for all drugs, not just marijuana. The health risks of marijuana are lower than those of many other drugs, but that is not the crucial issue. Much of the traffic from Mexico or Colombia is for cocaine, heroin and other drugs, while marijuana production is increasingly domestic. Legalizing only marijuana would therefore fail to achieve many benefits of broader legalization.

It is impossible to reconcile respect for individual liberty with drug prohibition. The U.S. has been at the forefront of this puritanical policy for almost a century, with disastrous consequences at home and abroad.

The U.S. repealed Prohibition of alcohol at the height of the Great Depression, in part because of increasing violence and in part because of diminishing tax revenues. Similar concerns apply today, and Attorney General Eric Holder's recent announcement that the Drug Enforcement Administration will not raid medical marijuana distributors in California suggests an openness in the Obama administration to rethinking current practice.

Perhaps history will repeat itself, and the U.S. will abandon one of its most disastrous policy experiments.

Ive been reading about the litter of 8 that this woman just gave birth to, and I just need to express my thoughts on the whole fertility treatment thing and how I perceive that it effects us as a species.

I have had three children of my own, and I understand the importance of a woman wishing to beget her own natural offspring, however....I do feel that the level of entitlement women feel these days about whether or not its acceptable to force that particular issue has crossed way over several ethical boundaries...not to mention natural ones.

Firstly, women are generally not being responsible in listening to their natural body rhythms and addressing the issues of bearing children at a biologically optimal age.  Theres this new thing about waiting until they are 40 and at the brink of life-change before having the commitment necessary to share their lives with a child.  This has its own special circumstances in many ways Im sure, but I think its borne of a poor world climate on taking accountability.  Not to mention a horribly skewed idea called "feminism" which has been taken completely out of context (but thats another thread).

Secondly, once women do decide they wish to concieve, its often times very difficult due to 1) the consumption of chemical birth control for an inordinate amount of time, and 2) advanced age and stalling biological cues.  Enter the handy dandy fertility doctor.

I dont get the impression that fertility professionals are adequately guiding their clients in the ethical possibilities of extreme measures of conception and the resulting consequences, i.e. unnatural multiple births, fetal risk, maternal risk, and what I think is the most important issue...

THE EFFECTS OF POOR PROLIFERATION ON THE HUMAN GENETIC POOL

We must consider the idea that there may be very valid REASONS why a particular woman cannot conceive or should not attempt to concieve at a given period in life, or if her body exhibits marked reluctance to do so.  Its also important to take into account the traits being passed on by less than optimal examples of humanity due to unfettered reproduction and sub-standard fetal completion.  What is the general level of health and vitality going to look like in 100 years after generations of forced conception and inadequate develoment?  I think that is a HUGE ethical consideration when talking about infertility.

I was just reading a womans posting on whether or not she felt society should have say in the limitations on multiple fetal conception from infertility treatment....and after a lengthy diatribe about the painful and horrific process she endured via fertility treatments and hormone therapy, she was incensed at the idea of "interferance" from an outside agenda.  What is it exactly that she thinks she's been doing all this time?

Put very simply, instead of wonder if we could make this a possibility, we are not even considering if we SHOULD.

Thoughts?

 :soapbox:

Ok, so I think I've ranted about my mother on here a few times, but I dont think I have about this....

My mom has what I refer to as selective reality re-invention.  We can be having a discussion and she will say one thing and if it turns out she might be wrong or inaccurate, she will immediately change her perspective to reflect the correction and then insist that she was right all along.  Its almost unnerving.  For example, we will be driving and she yells at me to get into the far left lane (which turns out to be a turn only lane) and then when i get stuck turning she asks why I didnt stay in the center lane because thats what she told me to do.  Today I hit a pothole on the road and she was mid-sentence and jumped like a cat when we hit it.....and then insisted that she had seen the pothole all along and was wondering why I hadnt seen it too.....SHE NEVER EVEN KNEW IT WAS THERE, but for whatever reason feels like she has to make herself superior over something that doesnt even matter.

IT DRIVES ME INSANE.

She re-invents the details of millions of things from my childhood, things I know werent true, and when I tell her they arent she says immediately that "thats what she meant" or thats what she said to begin with and why am I arguing?  We will even drive by a building and she will make up a story about how she remembered when they first built it and how she went there for this or that function.....AND THE PLACE HAS BEEN THERE before we even lived in the city it was in.  Its like random invention for the sake of god knows what.  She says shit like, "Well, I didnt know what I meant at first but then half way through I knew what I meant so now I know and you are wrong".

Does anyone else get this from parents?

She also tries to relate to me now about being in Straight as if she suffered it right along with me.  Forget that she put me there and that it was mostly my shit-assed family life and her beloved husband (my stepdad) who fucked me all up to begin with.  And if I mention that, she insists that no, she was against what straight did all along, and that she knew something was wrong and that she tried to change it.......how about trying to TAKE ME OUT OF THERE?  Theres a change for ya.  And she will bring up issues about cults and brainwashing and try to discuss them as if we were both vicitms of the abuse....its make me ill.

Anyways, i could go on....but I was just really wondering what this comes from or if you all get this from your 'rents.

Last night I went to dinner with my mom here in Austin.  Nice place, good food.  About the middle of our meal the manager came up to us and asked if everything was to our liking and so forth.  I kept looking at him, as he looked SO familiar.  I sort of forgot what he was saying and just blurted out "Whats your name?"....My sense of decorum had blown out the window and it was a very interrogatory tone I took with him, it was almost instinctual.

Turns out he was exactly who I thought he was, a guy who was on fifth when I went into the program.  He told me his first name, and
I tagged his last onto it.  He didnt recognize me right away, so I pulled him across the table and whispered "I was in Straight with you".  Weird realization ensued....and he just smiled and started telling me about how he was doing these days.

My clearest memory of him was standing me up at the very begining of an OMR which almost exclusively was dedicted to ripping me and my sanity to shreds.  Frankly, I wasnt too concerned with how he was doing lately.  He was courteous and all, but I spent the rest of the meal paranoid about being in the room with him.

That being said...mom and I started talking about Straight on the way home. Something that always ends up unsettling.  I was telling her about some of the abusive things I witnessed and encountered....of which she tried to counter with her horror stories of being in the convent for 14 years (mom was a cloistered nun from age 18-32).  She says to me,  imagine how it was to go through it for 14 years!  I got a little angry and told her that it really wasnt fair to say that, as she had the choice to leave at any time while in the convent.  I was incarcerated and under duress.  Of which she replied that no, that wasnt the case because her "therapists" all told her later on that she was stuck there "emotionally".  Effectively saying that she wasnt responsible for herself while in there because she was too brainwashed.  I dunno about you guys, but I reallly hate it when mom tries to justify her behaviors with the old "I didnt know any better" routine.  She applies it to most everything these days...and lately has begun even making things up about certain painful incidents that are so far from the truth I wonder if she isnt losing her mind.  I talk to her about traumatizing incidents when I was young that she exposed me too, and her answers are always sprinkled with how she knew it was wrong, but for whatever reason, usually someone elses influence...she didnt stand up for me.  That or she insists that she never screamed at me for certain things at all, and in fact tried to comfort me about them.....I almost slapped her once when she did this, I was so angry.  She had bullied and yelled at me so horrificly once because I accidently dropped a new doll and it broke (it was glass).  Only now to tell me that she never even got angry at me, and in fact tried to "comfort" me.  I was traumatized by that incident for the better part of my childhood....and she insisted she was never cruel.

Anyone else get this?

Im posting from work right now, however, I can no longer post from home because I keep getting a message saying that malicious activity was detected from my IP address at home.  Ive never posted anything like spam, and I dont have viruses or spyware on the machine (I have a mac, so this is most probable).  Can we get this lifted?

Thanks!