This Generation of Teens

[Carol Al-Ajroush]

An observation...my spouse and I were getting gas this afternoon at the Exxon near Giant. There were a group of about 6-7 male teenagers hanging out and playing with their skateboards. It was so sad to hear that every other word out of their mouths was "f" this and "f" that. I'm sure they all come from good families and they do know better but it is so disconcerting to hear this kind of talk (away from the presence of parents) to be more of the norm these days.

[pamD]

I was the most boring, well behaved teenager. My only rebellion was swearing (a habit which I have unfortunately retained to some degree). Be happy if they aren't doing any real damage to themselves or others.



Pam D.

[hazy]

How funny (well not haha funny) but I was the same way! I was perfectly well behaved and got good grades but my rebellion was saying hell because I knew my mom hated it! Other then that, I didn't do anything wrong...maybe a couple little white lies...but harmless!

[Zansu]

My mother drummed into our heads "Cursing is a sign of a limited vocabulary" True, although now I know that they have a place in the vocabulary, but much more impact when used sparingly.

[brim]

They're just words, they're no different than any other word. Somehow, society has deemed certian words 'vulgar'. If this is the worst your kid does, consider yourself blessed.

[Carol Al-Ajroush]

Sorry...I disagree with the comments that one should be glad and accept kids freely using profanity under the premise that "well they could be doing something worse..." That sounds like a cop out to me! Nope...in any language or location, free use of the "f" word is not appropriate and should not be readily condoned.

Now ya'll can call me the old geezer in the group!

[L0stS0ul]

Unfortunately it's not just words. Teens these days are more violent, more sexually active, and less respectful of their elders. Ask any high school teacher in the public schools.

My mom works as a school nurse for an elementary school down in Fauquier County. At that school there are 12 year old girls working as prostitutes. They have documented evidence of this. They have had serious vandalism at the school. Police are brought to the school regularly for students fighting. From what she tells me it's getting out of hand. And these are elementary school kids.

I know that when I was in elementary school the worst you had to worry about was the occasional rumble in the hall. Not anything on a weekly basis. I did go to school there when I was a kid. Why are kids so sexually active these days? At 12 years old kids should not be thinking about sex let alone prostitution. It's ridiculous.

I hope its not as bad up here as down there but from what I have heard from teacher friends of mine the violence and vandalism parts are pretty common.

[Carol Al-Ajroush]

I attribute a lot of what we see as declining morals and values among the youth due to what is shown on tv as well as today's typical lifestyle of parents working long hours and the kids spending more time unsupervised.

I was a tough mom and if I had young children now, I'd probably be even tougher! (-:

[Dwarflord]

I think the biggest underlying cause of teen issues today is that those young folks have wayyyy too much time on their hands. They are just looking for a way to channel their energy.
When I was 15 years old (and older-even through college) I was working. If I didnt work, I didnt get to keep my car. I made my own car payments, paid my own insurance, when I went on a date I paid for it.........it goes on. Today, especially in this area, kids dont have to work, its all given to them. So now, they have all this time, all this money and the means to go out and cause trouble. Now I hear "Well, I want my kids better off than I was" well, financially they may be, but your only solving a financial issue, and creating others. My opinion and a generalization, obviously not all kids are the same, but you get my point.
I worked 3 nights a week and all day on saturdays so that I could pay my creditors. This kept me off the street 3 nights a week and 1 day a week, as well as taught me the value of things. IF I broke something, I paid for it. Man that was incentive to not break anything. If I got in trouble, my parents took the license, if I lost my license I couldnt get to work and the problems would snowball. Point is, working hard keeps you out of trouble for the most part because you dont have the time to get into trouble, and you learn respect. This is my experience, your mileage may vary.....:D

DwArFlOrD

[T8ergirl]

I totally agree. One day I came home from school (I was 15) and my dad said "come on, let's go for a ride". Five minutes later we were at a local store. He pulled up out front and told me to to get out. I asked him what he wanted me to get for him. "Nothing. Just go inside. You start working here in 10 minutes." I was dumbfounded. We had been having some pretty big battles about stuff I wanted (Jordache jeans were a biggie as I recall!) but that my parents would not buy for me. He said "Sweetie, you want all kinds of things that I don't understand or we can't afford. If you work, you can buy it for yourself. Go inside." Well, I did. And I worked there 2 nights a week and one shift each weekend for the next 3 years. I still managed to get decent grades and had enough time for some great extracurricular activities (student council, marching band). Today, kids are either doing nothing at all or way too much. Frankly, I can't see any of the 15 year old girls in this neighborhood's parents telling her to go work at the CVS-they're all too busy at Cheer Camp! It's a status thing--for the kids and the parents. And its too bad. That job taught me so much about how to
deal with people and how I didn't want my life to turn out. Boy, I was mad at my dad that day. But its one of the best things he ever did for me.

[Chsalas]

I aggree, too much too soon. When I was a teen, if I wanted anything extra, I had to work for it. I cut grass, (in the Southwest that's all you really can do, no snow or I would have shoveled that) washed cars, and worked in a resturant. I would have glady paid someone to shovel my drive for me, but nothing.

[Zansu]

It also makes you learn to handle money. They're finding that lots of college kids today have never had a bank account that they had to balance; this leads to kids getting out of college with THOUSANDS in credit card debt. Not student loans, credit cards.

[southernwalkres]

The worst thing about teens these days is that long shaggy hair. How awful is that? I blame Ashton Kutcher. I say if you want to punish kids for foul language, speeding, or anything else, just sneak into their room at night with a pair of scissors and cut off that terrible mop top. It's our duty as parents! :D

I was also 'forced' to work at 15. I was given a check book, and told I had to buy the things I wanted for myself (music, baseball cards, etc). It is amazing how many kids graduate from high school and college these days and haven't worked a single day in their lives.

[Carol Al-Ajroush]

I think my Dad had a great philosophy. He encouraged all of us to want to work and make a contribution - whether it was assisting him or another job. However, once any of us had graduated and if we were still living at home, he had us give him ten percent of our net pay for "rent." His theory was to start making us learn how to manage money. However once one left home, the rent plus interest was returned to give each us a nice start to setting up being truly on our own.

I was similar with my son in encouraging him to take an interest in looking how he could make contributions. He had his regular chores for me and I gave him his allowance for those. He also mowed lawns, shoveled snow and babysat. He opened up his first checking and savings account at age 14. He is now doing very well and I attribute part of this to providing a good foundation for him to follow.

I'm not by any means saying all teens today are lazy or irresponsible but I will say we are seeing a shift in their outlooks and attitudes. I know if teens were to come to me looking for odd jobs to do, I'd welcome them and be glad to provide them with some kind of tasks.

[poultry]

Y'all missed the target!

Financial responsibility is a tiny, tiny part of keeping your kids out of trouble.

Having way too much time on their hands? Sure, make them work to use up that time. And then what happens when they go off to college? What happens if they do have free time on their hands? You still haven't taught them right from wrong--you've just manually intervened to prevent them from being able to do anything wrong. The baby bird has to leave the nest some time, ya know.

Society is too concerned with money and material things. Instead of telling your kids to get jobs to pay for all the stuff they want, how about asking them if they really want it or not. Isn't it more important to teach them to think on their own instead of working their butts off day and night to buy whatever's in fashion that month?

And paying to do chores? I had chores when I was kid. I was paid nothing and I didn't expect to be paid anything. Why? It's simple. There are things that I needed to do that wasn't rewarded with cash. Mama taught me that responsibilities are a fact of life. Not everything you do is for your own gain...you do things to keep the entire system (family, society, etc.) in smooth motion.

And there was mention about collecting money for "rent" if the child is in the real world and living at home. That's fine, but what's the point of giving back that money later? How does that teach any responsibility? In essence, you're managing a savings account for them instead of letting them do it on their own. And why give back the money anyway? Isn't the whole point to teach them how to budget and handle money?

Money is primarily a means for survival. Substituting it for the real, hard lessons in life is wrong.

[Carol Al-Ajroush]

Poulty,

I see you are a new member...welcome!

I will agree to disagree that chores and an awareness of fiscal accounts do not teach responsibility. I believe that these are among the steps that parents should take for a child to begin learning the art of responsibility and fiscal management.

Of course in addition to this, the parent must be actively engaged with the child as well teaching them other key moral values and issues.

It is an all-inclusive process and requires a number of steps.

I started this thread for what I noticed seems to be a continuing trend - young adults having too much time on their hands and the ease which they routinely lapse into profanity. We, as parents, neighbors, concerned adults need to be aware of and face these issues and do something about in the ways we are able to do so.

[Dwarflord]

quote:Originally posted by poultry

Y'all missed the target!

Financial responsibility is a tiny, tiny part of keeping your kids out of trouble.

Having way too much time on their hands? Sure, make them work to use up that time. And then what happens when they go off to college? What happens if they do have free time on their hands? You still haven't taught them right from wrong--you've just manually intervened to prevent them from being able to do anything wrong. The baby bird has to leave the nest some time, ya know.

I think we did hit the target, but rather you failed to understand what we are illustrating.
Its not all about money, its not all about time, its not all about what they want or dont want and its not all about working. It is ALL about responsibility and the fundamental foundation we instill into their decision making abilities as they grow up to be adults. We cant be there 24/7, we know that, but what we hope happens is that what they have learned from us and by working at a job and developing a sense of responsibility, is that when the time comes, they make that "right" decision instead of the wrong decsion. We must realize that our children are young adults and with that, we also need to realize they will make their own decisions. They just need to realize through a sense of responsibility, that their decision will always have some kind of fallout or may affect others. This is hitting the target....[8D]

quote:
Society is too concerned with money and material things. Instead of telling your kids to get jobs to pay for all the stuff they want, how about asking them if they really want it or not. Isn't it more important to teach them to think on their own instead of working their butts off day and night to buy whatever's in fashion that month?


I agree 100%. This "ME" generation drives me crazy, I hate it.
However, if my child wants something and works for it, who is to say they cant have it (obviously some things they cant have yet). If I want something and work for it, who is to tell me I cant have it? If they make a poor buying decision, they have to live with it.....this is how they learn. They also learn by working for the money to buy the things they make decisions to buy, they learn the value of a dollar and this helps to teach a sense of responsibility. It also shows them that they get NOTHING unless they work for it. This helps with the "I feel that I am owed this or that" mentality I see so much of around here. Its not a one-dimensional deal to teach and raise children. You really shouldnt assume that because we are encouraging our children to work, that we are foregoing other very important factors in the raising of a child (i.e. the ability to make a good buying decision or right from wrong). We just realize that having our children work will teach them many many things that they cant/wont learn at home and that by working, they can learn these things and have less chance to get in trouble because they just dont have as much time to do it. So as you see, there are other intagibles to having your child work other than what you perceive to be only monetary.

quote:
And paying to do chores? I had chores when I was kid. I was paid nothing and I didn't expect to be paid anything. Why? It's simple. There are things that I needed to do that wasn't rewarded with cash. Mama taught me that responsibilities are a fact of life. Not everything you do is for your own gain...you do things to keep the entire system (family, society, etc.) in smooth motion.

I think this would apply for children too young to work. Having some kind of monetary income, or potential therof, will replace the "work" attribute at a young age, as well as addressing free-time issues and monetary responsibility. Keep in mind also, that not all families are the same. Some believe in an allowance, others dont, neither situation is a wrong one, so you really shouldnt be too critical of others' situations, though I know what you are saying.....:/

quote:
And there was mention about collecting money for "rent" if the child is in the real world and living at home. That's fine, but what's the point of giving back that money later? How does that teach any responsibility? In essence, you're managing a savings account for them instead of letting them do it on their own. And why give back the money anyway? Isn't the whole point to teach them how to budget and handle money?

Each family will probably do this differently, I think the poster on this was just illustrating their experience, not necessarily stating everyone should follow that example. Im sure there are different ways of achieving the same goal and this was just one way that happened to work for THEM. I think at the time they child was paying, they had no idea that the money would come back to them. So in essence, they associated the 10% as a regular monthly bill, not as a savings account. They MAY have also had a savings account as well, who knows. Giving back the $$ I think is the right thing to do. Parents shouldnt really charge their kids to live in their home (until a certain age and certain conditions require it), its the parents responsibility to provide a minimal amount for the child. I know when I was done with college, I could have used that 10% being paid back to help with a car, college bills, wedding, new house. I had the responsibility, but not the capacity to save large amounts of $$ at that time in my life and that money would have fit in perfectly with my plans, and I think this is what was being shown in their example.

quote:
Money is primarily a means for survival. Substituting it for the real, hard lessons in life is wrong.


I dont think I follow this one. I dont think anyone talked about subsituting anything for the hard lessons in life? In fact, I think we are trying to prove just the opposite. We want them to experience the hard things in life, in a sense.
What we have posted is concern over children/young adults acting in a pretty foul and disrespectful manner (original post). Our experiences have led us to believe that you can minimize the possibility of having a child act in this manner by having them minimize their spare time, by working, by learning a sense of responsiblity (either financial or otherwise). And that by doing so, you help them learn and absorb better personal characteristics than the ones we are complaining about. We also realize that this is only a foundation for their maturation process and that they will still act out the way they want to. These young adults are not dogs or robots and have the ability to make decisions, we can only hope they make the correct decisions when the time comes. But by teaching them the right things in this basic manner we have laid out, we feel the odds are better that they will make the correct decisions. Hope this clarifies our point a little better.

DwArFlOrD

[poultry]

Dwarflord,

3 of the posts before mine specifically stated that kids should work to keep them from having the opportunity to do anything "bad". It was pretty clear to me that people were focusing a lot on work.

I didn't say that kids shouldn't work--I said that making them work isn't a substitute for proper parenting. I didn't say that kids shouldn't buy things they want--I said that parents should teach them to think on their own and so they don't spend all their time working to pay for the latest "cool" thing.

I honestly don't think that keeping kids busy all the time is going to do anything in the long run. It's just a temporary fix for a much larger problem.

Yes, every family does things differently but I was stating what I thought was right and wrong just like you did about giving money back. The thing is, I'd bet that most kids already know whether they're going to get money from mom and dad. They can figure it out.

I think that giving allowances to do chores around the house is what leads people to grow up to think that they're owed for doing what they need to do. It sounds silly, but that's the mentality that leads people to not return shopping carts (why should they--they're not getting anything for it)...and other things like that (littering, etc.).

[Dutchml]

quote:Originally posted by southernwalkres

The worst thing about teens these days is that long shaggy hair. How awful is that? I blame Ashton Kutcher. I say if you want to punish kids for foul language, speeding, or anything else, just sneak into their room at night with a pair of scissors and cut off that terrible mop top. It's our duty as parents!...


For a moment there I thought I was back in the '60s. Peace.

[Silence Dogood99]

[quote]Originally posted by southernwalkres

The worst thing about teens these days is that long shaggy hair. How awful is that? I blame Ashton Kutcher. I say if you want to punish kids for foul language, speeding, or anything else, just sneak into their room at night with a pair of scissors and cut off that terrible mop top. It's our duty as parents! :D

Yeah because we all know that clean cut guys like Ken Lay, Jeffrey Dahmer, Saddam Hussein and pick your Senator or Congressman never do anything wrong.

God forbid you see my twelve-year-old son...his hair is as long as his heart is good...

[maeve]

This topic seems well rather topical...the Wash. Post ran an article on the rising use of profanity among teenagers. Many of the same causes/issues discussed (reflection of poor vocabulary, permissive parents, etc.) here were raised in the article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44779-2005Apr11.html

[Carol Al-Ajroush]

Maeve,

Thanks for sharing the WP article -- I missed that! It's a good article and brings up in a much more refined way many of the points I attempted to address with the original posting.

[Silence Dogood99]

Ironically, this is what we get when parents choose their own fulfillment above what is best for their kids. By now, the myth of "quality time" has been debunked.

What do we expect when kids come home from school to either an empty house or are shipped off to an after school program? How much real time to kids have to discuss real life issues or see effective modeling when both parents work full-time jobs...you can't cram quality time into a couple hours every night.

So maybe it isn't the kids who are the problem these days...maybe it's us as parents?

[latka]

I like the long shaggy hair. No harm in that.

[Carol Al-Ajroush]

This is one of the realities of today's society that we have to deal with and face. It's a combination of all -- the parents, the young adults, the teachers in the classroom, neighbors...et al.

I don't know if I would agree with your comment about parents choosing their own fulfillment above what is best for their kids. There are single parents who have no choice but to go out and provide a livelihood for their children and themselves too.

Bottom line, instead of everyone either ignoring or wanting to get into a heated debate on what is wrong, let's be proactive and take measures within our capacity to do something!


quote:Originally posted by SilenceDogood99

Ironically, this is what we get when parents choose their own fulfillment above what is best for their kids. By now, the myth of "quality time" has been debunked.

What do we expect when kids come home from school to either an empty house or are shipped off to an after school program? How much real time to kids have to discuss real life issues or see effective modeling when both parents work full-time jobs...you can't cram quality time into a couple hours every night.

So maybe it isn't the kids who are the problem these days...maybe it's us as parents?

[Silence Dogood99]

I admire single Moms who juggle the demands of providing and caring for their kids.

But I know just as many single parents who decided they didn't want to be with their spouse anymore because of incompatibility...so they ditch the spouse and go it alone...and the kids suffer. That's a reality, too.

And in our area, I know plenty of parents who think they need a combined income of $250,000 instead of settling for a mere $125,000. Just witness the rise of after-school programs which cost parents $800/month like Beantree. These aren't for blue collar or lower paid workers struggling to get by on two incomes. If parents want someone else to raise their kids, then don't have kids in the first place.

And if you are expecting government-run schools to have an effect, then good luck. It doesn't really take a village...it's called two involved parents.

[upr_dcker]

quote:Originally posted by SilenceDogood99

I admire single Moms who juggle the demands of providing and caring for their kids.

But I know just as many single parents who decided they didn't want to be with their spouse anymore because of incompatibility...so they ditch the spouse and go it alone...and the kids suffer. That's a reality, too.

So, what's your point? If a woman has a kid out of wedlock, that's admirable, but a woman who chooses to break up with her spouse and end up in the same situation shouldn't be admired? What's the difference?

Being a single parent is demanding, no matter how you end up in that situation. I know of women whose marriage ended because their husbands cheated. In that case, they're not "ditching their spouse because of incompatibility", but rather, they're being put in a position where they have little choice.

Are you a parent? That would give a measure of credibility (albeit a small one) to your assertions. There is a great deal of parental criticism on these forums by people who don't have kids, so I'm curious to see if you fit in that category.

[Silence Dogood99]

I never said that I admired people who have illegitimate children...and I specifically mentioned people who CHOSE to get divorced because of incompatibility. Of course there are those whose husbands have died or cheated on them.

If you read the context of the post, it is very clear who I am addressing: those who either ditch their spouses because they simply don't want to be with them anymore (or find someone they like better)...and those married couples who choose to have others care for their children when they don't need dual incomes.

Whether I have children or not is relatively immaterial. The principle remains the same. You out your kids first, your own needs second. Quality time is a myth and hiring others to raise your pre-schoolers or children of any age is never a good prescription. BUT to answer your question, yes, my wife and I are the parents of a twelve-year-old.

[upr_dcker]

quote:Originally posted by SilenceDogood99

Whether I have children or not is relatively immaterial. The principle remains the same. You out your kids first, your own needs second. Quality time is a myth and hiring others to raise your pre-schoolers or children of any age is never a good prescription. BUT to answer your question, yes, my wife and I are the parents of a twelve-year-old.

Sorry, but I disagree with you. Whether or not you have kids is completely germane to this discussion. Furthermore, your statement that "hiring others to raise your pre-schoolers or children of any age is never a good prescription" is remarkably off-base. What about teachers? Teachers spend more time with your school age kids than you do; are they "raising" your kids? Unless you're home-schooling your children, your kids are going to spend the majority of their working hours being cared for and taught by a county employee, not a parent.

As for parents who both work: if your wife chooses to stay home, great. My wife happens to work; not because we need the money, but because she chooses to. Sorry if that is in opposition with your principles (and sorry if this sounds defensive), but I'm a little tired of hearing the self-righteous statements of stay-at-home parents who denigrate working parents. You choose to raise your kids your way, and my wife and I raise them our way.

[Silence Dogood99]

quote:Originally posted by upr_dcker

quote:Originally posted by SilenceDogood99

Whether I have children or not is relatively immaterial. The principle remains the same. You out your kids first, your own needs second. Quality time is a myth and hiring others to raise your pre-schoolers or children of any age is never a good prescription. BUT to answer your question, yes, my wife and I are the parents of a twelve-year-old.

Sorry, but I disagree with you. Whether or not you have kids is completely germane to this discussion. Furthermore, your statement that "hiring others to raise your pre-schoolers or children of any age is never a good prescription" is remarkably off-base. What about teachers? Teachers spend more time with your school age kids than you do; are they "raising" your kids? Unless you're home-schooling your children, your kids are going to spend the majority of their working hours being cared for and taught by a county employee, not a parent.

As for parents who both work: if your wife chooses to stay home, great. My wife happens to work; not because we need the money, but because she chooses to. Sorry if that is in opposition with your principles (and sorry if this sounds defensive), but I'm a little tired of hearing the self-righteous statements of stay-at-home parents who denigrate working parents. You choose to raise your kids your way, and my wife and I raise them our way.


your kids are going to spend the majority of their working hours being cared for and taught by a county employee, not a parent.

That's actually a pretty scary statement when you put it that way! Actually, we have chosen to homeschool our son and are really pleased with the results. But I have never said it's for everyone.

Don't label other people "self-righteous" unless you'd like to be labeled "selfish." Never said that. But it just seems fairly obvious that the best people to raise kids are, well, the kids' parents...not daycare providers or after school sitters.

That's the beauty of America. We have choices, especially as adults. But kids don't always have choices...I bet if they did, they'd rather be spending more time with their Moms and Dads than strangers.

[upr_dcker]

quote:Originally posted by SilenceDogood99
But it just seems fairly obvious that the best people to raise kids are, well, the kids' parents...not daycare providers or after school sitters.

That's the beauty of America. We have choices, especially as adults. But kids don't always have choices...I bet if they did, they'd rather be spending more time with their Moms and Dads than strangers.

In a perfect world, sure...kids would spend the majority of their time with their parents. On the other hand, we have found there are tangible benefits to having kids spend time outside the house (such as developing socialization skills with other kids). Clearly, there are disadvantages to this approach (would my daughter have had fewer viruses and colds had she not been exposed to dozens of other kids at a young age?).

I agree with you about choices. There's no right or wrong choice, just the one you make. If I thought that our choice was, in any way, harming our daughter, I wouldn't hesitate to make a change. Her health, safety, and well-being cannot and will not ever be compromised.

[T8erman]

SilenceDogood99 - based on your posts, you think parents who no longer love each other should stay together "for the childrens sake". Children are a heckofa lot smarter than most people think and growing up in a probable loveless environment would do more harm than good.

[agnesk]

Okay, this is my first post to this forum. So far I've been a lurker, but I've gotta say that you all are over analyzing this. The reason these kids are using the f-word so much is that it's lost it's shock value. Heard any teen music lately? It's used so much it's become an adjective! Now, I'm not condoning this and I certainly don't let my kid use this term. And since I know some of these kids hanging out, I'll tell you they are mostly in middle school. So, yes, they could mow lawns, but they are a ways from getting a "real job". And because I know them (and their mothers) I have no problem reminding them that they need to watch what they are saying, especially if there are little kids around.

[Silence Dogood99]

quote:Originally posted by T8erman

SilenceDogood99 - based on your posts, you think parents who no longer love each other should stay together "for the childrens sake". Children are a heckofa lot smarter than most people think and growing up in a probable loveless environment would do more harm than good.


"...who no longer love each other."
wow. think about that statement and what it teaches kids about commitments and responsibility. again, comes down to choices adults make to love or not love.

in MANY cases (to which I was referring), the adults have made a choice to give up, to pursue greener pastures, to break their commitment, to choose not to love anymore...i've heard the justification you mentioned above a dozen times...in the end, the kids get hurt.

if you want to look at cold, hard statistics, check out the rates of incarceration, unwed pregnancies, failure to finish school, failed relationships and general instability...and you'll see the correlation with being raised by one parent (and please, please know that I understand there are abusive situations, infidelity, etc.) I am speaking of the all too many instances of cases in which a parent just decides he or she doesn't want to be married anymore.

same obvious principles applies: ask a child and he'd rather spend more time with both his parents together...not in a split family or with daycare providers of afterschool strangers. that's all i'm saying.

[latka]

quote:Originally posted by T8erman

SilenceDogood99 - based on your posts, you think parents who no longer love each other should stay together "for the childrens sake". Children are a heckofa lot smarter than most people think and growing up in a probable loveless environment would do more harm than good.


No longer loves each is bull. Most everyone who has been married a long time knows this. There are times in a lifetime marriage when most people fall in and out of love. Marriage is a commitment for life. I know there are situations where there is abuse or constant dishonesty where despite your best, the marriage cannot continue. I know there are people who would have stuck out a hard patch but their spouses would not, nothing is perfect.

[Carol Al-Ajroush]

This may come as a surprise but I'm finally starting to lose my patience with our HOA forums today! I just want to stand up and yell "CHILDREN -- yeah, that means you... -- TIME OUT!" How come most of the threads start with a reasonable topic and end up in shouting matches and finger pointing? Good grief? Is it because of the anonymity factor...hiding behind your "screen name" rather than stating who you are?

We all know there are plenty of problems around both with children, teens, young adults and the big ones too! We don't have to dissect repeatedly what is wrong with them. I know this neighborhood is not full of dummies who want to moan and groan all the time....I challenge you to take the time and write constructively and positively and motivate folks to want to do something and make a difference.

Furthermore, I challenge ya'll to stop hiding behind the screen names if you're going to moan or be controversial as well!

[boomertsfx]

*points* You started it!!

8)

[Silence Dogood99]

I think this is healthy debate, not a shouting match.

But I'm cool with it. Who started this thread on complaining about today's youth anyway? :)

Peace and best wishes to all the families in the Broadlands. We're fortunate to live in such a kid-friendly place.

[poultry]

quote:Originally posted by Carol Al-Ajroush

This may come as a surprise but I'm finally starting to lose my patience with our HOA forums today! I just want to stand up and yell "CHILDREN -- yeah, that means you... -- TIME OUT!"

That didn't sound very "diplomatic"!

This thread may have gotten off-topic but I think it's good that people are discussing these things. It's important stuff for all of us. Discussions function differently online and in person. So if people want to debate this face-to-face then they certainly can. But remember that there advantages and disadvantages to both approaches.

But back to original topic of profanity. Here's my proposed solution:

Legalize bad words

All the world leaders should get together and sign an agreement that effectively classifies all words as "good".

That's about as silly as the whole premise of bad words.

If you think about it, they're really just words. So if we take away their badness then they'll lose their luster and people won't find it so cool anymore. If kids stop using it, they'll automatically go looking for other ("legitimate") words to use. And it'll take a while, but people will find one less thing to be offended by.

Gangsta rap sales will plummet so rappers will devise new words (like "shuck"--remixed from previously bad words). These will also be immediately considered un-profane so they don't catch on.

[brim]

Right, they're just words. It doesn't matter if you use $hit or poo, you're still describing the same thing...who's to say one noun is more offensive than the other. And if you say something stupid like 'POPPYCOCK!' when you screw up instead of 'FU(K!', whats the difference? You're still expressing rage and displeasure only you're using silly baby talk to do it. It's the emotion/action expressed, not the word used to express it.

[neilz]

I'm giving away my age ... but if you ever heard George Carlin's 7 Words you can't say on TV, he goes on about how there are no bad words ... just bad thoughts and bad actions ...

Take the 4 letter word most heard in teen conversation. At least they're using it creatively ... as a adj., a noun, an adverb ... seems that their courses in grammar took !! [:p]

Neil Z.
Resident since 1999

[brim]

It is a very versatile word...

http://www.twoguys.org/~gregh/fword.wav

And Carlin is a genius...as a test, I'm going to see how many of the seven words will get past the book burning fascist profanity checker here:

****, piss, ****, ****, cocksucker, mother****er, and ****

[Pats_fan]

Sheesh, brim! Are you asking to have your account suspended?

[brim]

Hey, das profanity kontrolleur should have got those...I didn't do anything wrong.

[Pats_fan]

Well, good luck with that argument...

[brim]

One would think that if anything is in the profantiy filter it would be the infamous seven dirty words. If anything, they'll update the filter. While my argument remains that there are no bad words, even if you do believe there are bad words you have to take them with the context in which they're used. Just seeing a 'bad' word by itself can't POSSIBLY offend ANYONE. It's just a word with no context behind it...like the above examples.

If social norms are never questioned and everything remains status quo and homogonized, there can be no advancement of mankind.

[upr_dcker]

I wouldn't necessarily agree that a 'bad' word by itself can't offend anyone. One of George Carlin's seven dirty words might not offend, but a racial or religious epithet would likely cause a different reaction.

Filters are all well and good, but as you can see, they're hardly foolproof. I used to post to a baseball message board, and one of my posts was deleted automatically because I commented on a team's acquisition of Midre Cummings.

[brim]

I agree about the racial/religious slurs, I was mainly commenting on the 'dirty language' you see people up in arms about all the time. I think we can all agree that insensitive racial/religious slurs have no place in society...

[Carol Al-Ajroush]

I believe it ultimately comes down to how things are said. I don't care for the free use of profanity such as using it as easily as one might say "awesome" for example. Call me the fuddy duddy but if we as adults use it(profanity) freely then it appears acceptable to the youth. Not a good example!

Racial/religious slurs are also offensive and can have their own set of repurcussions. Fortunately I've not seen or heard as free use in this regard as I have had to profanity.

[poultry]

I agree with upr_dcker and brim about the racial/relgious slurs.

The reason that racial/religious slurs should be unacceptable is because they only serve to unfairly attack someone else.

"Bad words" on the other hand are merely words. Someone who drops a vase and exclaims "oh $#^&!" isn't out to hurt anyone with those words. Can we reasonably explain to our children (or youths in general) why bad words are bad? If so, I'd love to hear it. The only reason we can give to them is "adults can be offended by it so you might get in trouble for saying it". So now we've given them a free weapon to use any time they want to get an easily-offended adult all riled up.

And as for the argument that swearing limits vocabulary...yes, I believe that it does do that when people (kids and adults) use it in place of just about any word. Then again, swearing is just one of many things that hurt people's communication skills. I've had a lot of professors who were incredibly intelligent yet couldn't communicate worth crap. It wasn't because they were swearing all the time.

[Carol Al-Ajroush]

When one has so many million of words to choose from why is it so easy to digress to profanity? I feel that one can make more of an impact by carefully choosing their words than readily spewing out profanity.

I know the use of certain words is never going to stop but it's at least worth to plant the seed that hey...don't foget...there are a lot of other options out there.

But I go back to my original intent with starting the thread...I dislike seeing how the youth freely use the 'f' word today which I do not find acceptable or tasteful.


quote:Originally posted by poultry

I agree with upr_dcker and brim about the racial/relgious slurs.

The reason that racial/religious slurs should be unacceptable is because they only serve to unfairly attack someone else.

"Bad words" on the other hand are merely words. Someone who drops a vase and exclaims "oh $#^&!" isn't out to hurt anyone with those words. Can we reasonably explain to our children (or youths in general) why bad words are bad? If so, I'd love to hear it. The only reason we can give to them is "adults can be offended by it so you might get in trouble for saying it". So now we've given them a free weapon to use any time they want to get an easily-offended adult all riled up.

And as for the argument that swearing limits vocabulary...yes, I believe that it does do that when people (kids and adults) use it in place of just about any word. Then again, swearing is just one of many things that hurt people's communication skills. I've had a lot of professors who were incredibly intelligent yet couldn't communicate worth crap. It wasn't because they were swearing all the time.

[poultry]

quote:Originally posted by Carol Al-Ajroush
When one has so many million of words to choose from why is it so easy to digress to profanity? I feel that one can make more of an impact by carefully choosing their words than readily spewing out profanity.

I agree with you.

I just don't see why "bad" words are any worse in this sense than, for example, people saying "uh" or "ummmm" too much in regular conversation.

I'm not promoting excessive use of words classified as profanity, I'm just questioning why it's "bad".

quote:
But I go back to my original intent with starting the thread...I dislike seeing how the youth freely use the 'f' word today which I do not find acceptable or tasteful.

It's only unacceptable or distasteful because society has brought us up to fear certain words. The words aren't out there necessarily to hurt you. Why do you really find them unacceptable or distasteful?

[Mearen]

quote:Originally posted by Carol Al-Ajroush

I believe it ultimately comes down to how things are said. I don't care for the free use of profanity such as using it as easily as one might say "awesome" for example. Call me the fuddy duddy but if we as adults use it(profanity) freely then it appears acceptable to the youth. Not a good example!

Racial/religious slurs are also offensive and can have their own set of repurcussions. Fortunately I've not seen or heard as free use in this regard as I have had to profanity.


Isn't the nature of the teen to be rebelious, so the opposite is actually true. The entire premise of this thread is flawed as well, this is not new behavior by this generation of teens, it's been every generation of teens. It's only a perception problem, but the reality is teens have been acting like this, at the very least, for decades.

[Carol Al-Ajroush]

I never stated that the nature of teens is or is not to be rebelious or that use of profanity is a new behavior. I'm stating that we see it too much and would like to see positive measures and actions to improve this.


Racial/religious slurs are also offensive and can have their own set of repurcussions. Fortunately I've not seen or heard as free use in this regard as I have had to profanity.
[/quote]

Isn't the nature of the teen to be rebelious, so the opposite is actually true. The entire premise of this thread is flawed as well, this is not new behavior by this generation of teens, it's been every generation of teens. It's only a perception problem, but the reality is teens have been acting like this, at the very least, for decades.
[/quote]

[Silence Dogood99]

When we lived in the south, we knew scores of men and women whose speech dripped with kindness and never uttered a curse word...but inside their hearts spewed bitterness, judgment, envy and gossip. So in that context, I'd prefer curse words thrown around meaninglessly by a teenager over the gossip of a polite neighbor anyday.

On the related point of whether there really are any "bad words," I guess inherently there aren't...but societies do have certain commonly accepted mores intended to keep discourse on a proper level. To those who say no word is a bad word, would you mind if I came to your house and in front of your 6 or 8 or 10 year-old daughter repeatedly use the F* word to describe what couples do with each other in their bedrooms, or would you prefer I use the term "making love" or "being intimate"?? Because if there are truly no bad words, then you should feel perfectly comfortable instructing your kids that when they get married (or if your mores so dictate, before marriage), they should enjoy F*ing each other.

[Zansu]

Of course, if you want your child (or yourself) to be able to move in all circles, they need to discern the enviroment and recognized that "acceptable" in language is often situational.

[poultry]

quote:Originally posted by SilenceDogood99
On the related point of whether there really are any "bad words," I guess inherently there aren't...but societies do have certain commonly accepted mores intended to keep discourse on a proper level. To those who say no word is a bad word, would you mind if I came to your house and in front of your 6 or 8 or 10 year-old daughter repeatedly use the F* word to describe what couples do with each other in their bedrooms, or would you prefer I use the term "making love" or "being intimate"?? Because if there are truly no bad words, then you should feel perfectly comfortable instructing your kids that when they get married (or if your mores so dictate, before marriage), they should enjoy F*ing each other.

I don't see your point.

I'm saying the [u]words</u> themselves shouldn't be "bad". It's a pretty simple statement. I never said anything about what the words actually refer to--whether you think its subject matter is acceptable is not for me to decide.

[neilz]

quote:Originally posted by brim

One would think that if anything is in the profantiy filter it would be the infamous seven dirty words. If anything, they'll update the filter. While my argument remains that there are no bad words, even if you do believe there are bad words you have to take them with the context in which they're used. Just seeing a 'bad' word by itself can't POSSIBLY offend ANYONE. It's just a word with no context behind it...like the above examples.

If social norms are never questioned and everything remains status quo and homogonized, there can be no advancement of mankind.


It was loosened a bit to enable the phrase cocktail ... however, they should have added the one that passed through to cover that eventuality !!

Neil Z.
Resident since 1999

[Carol Al-Ajroush]

Hi Poultry!

The reason I see the use of "bad" words as less tasteful than one who says "uh" or "ummm" is due to the meaning, implied or otherwise of the word spoken. Individuals who have the habit of using "uh" or "ummm" may not even be aware that they are doing this and in the majority of cases, do not do so intentionally. However an individual who uses profanity chooses to do so in spite of having many other words which they can choose from.

I find the use of profanity as distasteful and unacceptable mainly because I'm just a conservative fuddy duddy :) and feel that using profanity freely makes it an acceptable norm in society and okay for the youth to use it freely as well.

I'm realistic to know that its use will not stop but again, I started the thread just to get folks thinking about the issue and maybe, just maybe, in their own way, attempt to make a difference and minimize the use and spread of tacit acceptance in the free use of profanity and especially the use of it by today's youth.

okay...Mother Hen mode is now off! :D

I agree with you.

I just don't see why "bad" words are any worse in this sense than, for example, people saying "uh" or "ummmm" too much in regular conversation.

I'm not promoting excessive use of words classified as profanity, I'm just questioning why it's "bad".

quote:
But I go back to my original intent with starting the thread...I dislike seeing how the youth freely use the 'f' word today which I do not find acceptable or tasteful.

It's only unacceptable or distasteful because society has brought us up to fear certain words. The words aren't out there necessarily to hurt you. Why do you really find them unacceptable or distasteful?
[/quote]

[Carol Al-Ajroush]

Interesting point...a word is a word is a word...However it is the context and manner in which it is used which infers whether it is in bad taste or insulting.

Above being said, I'm sure we all will agree that in each society and culture there are specific words which are considered vulgar and in bad taste and therefore in polite company, the routine use of such words in avoided.

Speaking as a parent, I've always used "politically" correct words and terminology with my son or other young adults. Additionally with my son I had no qualms during such discussions acknowledging of other terms he may hear but making it clear that in polite society and company they were not acceptable.




quote:Originally posted by SilenceDogood99


On the related point of whether there really are any "bad words," I guess inherently there aren't...but societies do have certain commonly accepted mores intended to keep discourse on a proper level. To those who say no word is a bad word, would you mind if I came to your house and in front of your 6 or 8 or 10 year-old daughter repeatedly use the F* word to describe what couples do with each other in their bedrooms, or would you prefer I use the term "making love" or "being intimate"?? Because if there are truly no bad words, then you should feel perfectly comfortable instructing your kids that when they get married (or if your mores so dictate, before marriage), they should enjoy F*ing each other.

[poultry]

quote:Originally posted by Carol Al-Ajroush
The reason I see the use of "bad" words as less tasteful than one who says "uh" or "ummm" is due to the meaning, implied or otherwise of the word spoken. Individuals who have the habit of using "uh" or "ummm" may not even be aware that they are doing this and in the majority of cases, do not do so intentionally. However an individual who uses profanity chooses to do so in spite of having many other words which they can choose from.

I don't belive that's true.

A person who resorts to profanity a lot does so because they are accustomed to it--not that they go out of their way to do it. It's easy to fall back on some, well, "multi-purpose" words. The same goes for someone who uses "uh" or "um" a lot in speech. It's easy to use them as fillers. In both cases, they are not effectively communicating but they aren't necessarily doing it intentionally.

quote:
I find the use of profanity as distasteful and unacceptable mainly because I'm just a conservative fuddy duddy :) and feel that using profanity freely makes it an acceptable norm in society and okay for the youth to use it freely as well.

But if you take away the fact that they are considered profane, what do you really have left?

I understand that the f-word (in most of its meanings) connotes an inapropriate subject for most/many. But let's look at the word [shizznit]. It means poo. Poo isn't always a "naughty" subject. Yet the word shizznit in itself is a naughty word. It really shouldn't be that way but we've been trained to avoid certain words for no reason.

And if we de-profaned the f-word it doesn't mean that the topic of sex is going to be considered more appropriate. The word has already been there, the topic has already been there, and it's already being used.

Just because Merriam-Webster added "wedgie" to the dictionary last month doesn't mean everyone's gonna give each other wedgies.

quote:
I'm realistic to know that its use will not stop...

...and I'm realistic to know that the "legalize bad words" proposal won't work either. I still think it's the right thing to do (get rid of the whole notion of bad words), but there's no way that society as a whole would accept it. We still can't do anything without worrying about what someone else might think.

[brim]

The 'f-word' (just typing that makes one feel like a baby or a 1950's school marm) doesn't only have sexual connotations...see my other post with all the parts of speech and ways you can drop the f-bomb. Plus, it's all context. Words without context have no meaning, which is why I didn't see any complaints for the stream of obscenity I used in that other post (I think).

Like, just the word sh-t can't possibly offend anyone on it's own...but if you put some context with it like 'Eat sh-t and die' then it becomes an emotional thing. The words themselves aren't bad...quit living in the 50's.

[southernwalkres]

"A person who resorts to profanity a lot does so because they are accustomed to it--not that they go out of their way to do it."

Poultry, I remember as a teen going out of my way to use profanity. Whether it was to 'fit in' with my older siblings, or as a means to 'be cool' with my friends at that time (how silly of me), those were the words I chose to use. I probably didn't even understand what most of the words meant.

I don't think it's much different now than it was, though.

[Silence Dogood99]

Agree, words inherently are not "bad" or evil...but they are always used in some kind of context.

I also do not think kids' use of profanity is worse than during the past. Every generation has its own form of rebellion (drugs, tattoos, earrings, long hair, shaved head, whatever).

The reason I teach my son (trying by example, but tough when the hammer misses the nail and hits my finger!) not to use cuss words is simple: controlling your mouth is one of the most difficult behaviors to master.

There is a measure of confidence and virtue that comes from being able to control your tongue--whether it is choosing not to curse, gossip, lie or only talk about negative things.

It is easy and lazy to spout off curse words...just as it is easy and lazy to talk about other people negatively, or yourself too positively!

Controlling your tongue--whether in public or private--is simply a good virtue.

[Carol Al-Ajroush]

well said...bravo! :)


quote:Originally posted by SilenceDogood99

Agree, words inherently are not "bad" or evil...but they are always used in some kind of context.

I also do not think kids' use of profanity is worse than during the past. Every generation has its own form of rebellion (drugs, tattoos, earrings, long hair, shaved head, whatever).

The reason I teach my son (trying by example, but tough when the hammer misses the nail and hits my finger!) not to use cuss words is simple: controlling your mouth is one of the most difficult behaviors to master.

There is a measure of confidence and virtue that comes from being able to control your tongue--whether it is choosing not to curse, gossip, lie or only talk about negative things.

It is easy and lazy to spout off curse words...just as it is easy and lazy to talk about other people negatively, or yourself too positively!

Controlling your tongue--whether in public or private--is simply a good virtue.

[poultry]

quote:Originally posted by SilenceDogood99
The reason I teach my son (trying by example, but tough when the hammer misses the nail and hits my finger!) not to use cuss words is simple: controlling your mouth is one of the most difficult behaviors to master.

There is a measure of confidence and virtue that comes from being able to control your tongue--whether it is choosing not to curse, gossip, lie or only talk about negative things.

It is easy and lazy to spout off curse words...just as it is easy and lazy to talk about other people negatively, or yourself too positively!

Controlling your tongue--whether in public or private--is simply a good virtue.

That's one of the most insightful posts I've read.

But I still don't see why one word is banned while another word with the same meaning is not. I understand what you mean about teaching your kids to not go nuts with profanity and lose control. But what's really the difference between someone hitting their thumb with a hammer and yelling, "sh-t!" versus someone yelling, "darn!"?

When you distill a cuss word, you end up with just a bunch of letters just like any other word. I think everyone refuses to think about why things are the way they are because they've been taught from a young age to not do so. And it's not popular to think of "bad" words as just another word. We swear as kids in order to be accepted and as adults we admonish the same behavior...in order to be accepted.

[Barbara]

Hear, hear from me too. My mother's point on the subject was that vulgar language indicated a lack of vocabulary, or a certain sludginess of thought process. It demonstrated things about the user that might or might not be true, but certainly made the impression as such. Also, re the hammer and the thumb: if a word is used constantly to reference a variety of situations and emotions, the word becomes meaningless. It loses its punch. There may be a time and place for vividly bare language, but if the time is all times, then there is no emphasis. It all just becomes sludge. Carol and Silence DoGood are right: the habit of self control and precision in language are virtues in themselves. And Lord knows teens are working on a lot of levels to become adults--they will try lots of things on for size, they will succeed at many, and they will have some real messes along the way too.

Barbara Munsey, from South Riding.

[poultry]

My questions still remain completely avoided and unanswered...

[Carol Al-Ajroush]

Poultry,

In answer to your question posted below, it's a matter of context. What image do you see when you hear someone say "$h*t" compared to when someone says "darn?" Under the scenario described, I understand why there was an outburst but I also come away with two different impressions.


[/quote]
That's one of the most insightful posts I've read.

But I still don't see why one word is banned while another word with the same meaning is not. I understand what you mean about teaching your kids to not go nuts with profanity and lose control. But what's really the difference between someone hitting their thumb with a hammer and yelling, "sh-t!" versus someone yelling, "darn!"?

When you distill a cuss word, you end up with just a bunch of letters just like any other word. I think everyone refuses to think about why things are the way they are because they've been taught from a young age to not do so. And it's not popular to think of "bad" words as just another word. We swear as kids in order to be accepted and as adults we admonish the same behavior...in order to be accepted.
[/quote]

[poultry]

brim's right--they're just words, people. We've been raised to not think very openly about it or question the concept of bad words.

Again, I think it's silly to ban certain words.

Remember "Smurfs"? They used the word "smurf" to replace just about any word in the English language. (It really limited their vocabulary and showed that they were very low-class.) Why didn't parents complain about it and why didn't it catch on? And the cartoon was was even intended for a young audience. I guess because "smurf" wasn't considered a "bad" word then it was okay to use and to hear.

I think teaching restraint is fantastic. I can see why you wouldn't want your child to not throw a verbal fit when something bad happens, but I don't see why making some words worse than others really helps anything. I guess yelling "sh-t!" instead of "darn!" will offend people but then you have to wonder why they're offended in the first place. I'm not promoting "bad words" all the time, I'm just promoting thought on why it is considered worse than another word that means the same thing. No one has been able to give me a reason yet (other than their parents told them so).

I'll openly admit that I, like some others here, get uneasy when I hear bad words. I can't instantly practice what I preach here ("legalize bad words") because I, too, am not secure enough to stand up against everything that society tells me is right/wrong. But I at least want to get to the bottom of things and figure out why "bad" words are bad while a word of the same meaning is okay.

It'll take time, but I think hundreds of years from now we won't have the concept of bad words and acceptable words. A lot of things that were taboo for no good reason are common today--not just linguistically (for example, women can reveal their ankles now). Our posterity will look back at us and chuckle.

[Carol Al-Ajroush]

And while we are at it....

Reasons Why the English Language is Hard to Learn:

-The bandage was wound around the wound.

-The farm was used to produce produce.

-The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.

-We must polish the Polish furniture.

-He could lead if he would get the lead out.

-The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.

-Since there is not time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.

-A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.

-When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.

-I did not object to the object.

-The insurance was invalid for an invalid.

-There was a row among the oarsman about how to row.

-They were too close to the door to close it.

-The buck does funny things when the does are present.

-A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.

To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.

-The wind was too strong to wind the sail.

-After a number of injections, my jaw got number.

-Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.

-I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.

-How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?

:D

[poultry]

quote:Originally posted by Carol Al-Ajroush
In answer to your question posted below, it's a matter of context. What image do you see when you hear someone say "$h*t" compared to when someone says "darn?"
I'll admit that that latter makes me feel uneasy. But that's only because I've been taught to feel that way.

I only want to question why I (and others) feel that way toward certain words. There's no reasonable explanation other than society has made us react differently to certain words even though they mean the same thing as another word. If you strip away everything that society tags onto certain words you're only left with a few letters that represent a word that contains some sort of meaning. The "bad" part of it is meaningless fluff.

[poultry]

quote:Originally posted by Carol Al-Ajroush

And while we are at it....

Reasons Why the English Language is Hard to Learn:

:)

...reminds me of the news story about a student who wrote a fake excuse that asked the principal to "please execute" him from school...

[Sunny]

quote:Originally posted by poultry

brim's right--they're just words, people. We've been raised to not think very openly about it or question the concept of bad words.

Again, I think it's silly to ban certain words.

Remember "Smurfs"? They used the word "smurf" to replace just about any word in the English language. (It really limited their vocabulary and showed that they were very low-class.) Why didn't parents complain about it and why didn't it catch on? And the cartoon was was even intended for a young audience. I guess because "smurf" wasn't considered a "bad" word then it was okay to use and to hear.

I think teaching restraint is fantastic. I can see why you wouldn't want your child to not throw a verbal fit when something bad happens, but I don't see why making some words worse than others really helps anything. I guess yelling "sh-t!" instead of "darn!" will offend people but then you have to wonder why they're offended in the first place. I'm not promoting "bad words" all the time, I'm just promoting thought on why it is considered worse than another word that means the same thing. No one has been able to give me a reason yet (other than their parents told them so).

I'll openly admit that I, like some others here, get uneasy when I hear bad words. I can't instantly practice what I preach here ("legalize bad words") because I, too, am not secure enough to stand up against everything that society tells me is right/wrong. But I at least want to get to the bottom of things and figure out why "bad" words are bad while a word of the same meaning is okay.

It'll take time, but I think hundreds of years from now we won't have the concept of bad words and acceptable words. A lot of things that were taboo for no good reason are common today--not just linguistically (for example, women can reveal their ankles now). Our posterity will look back at us and chuckle.

If we do not have things that are taboo, then why should we stop at our ankles?;)
I agree that although it is silly to declare a word "bad", all of these words are associated with strong emotions and they give a certain level to the context they are used in.
And as far as accepting people using these words- I must say that I don't care if I hear them, but I do if my 3 year old does. She is a veritable parrot and will be chiming thelovely words to my in-laws and yes- I do care (at least a little!) about what they think of me.
Furthermore, even if I didn't care if my little one sang her nursery rhymes like Andrew Dice Clay, her friends parents would. I want to teach her to speak like a lady, and like Carol said, there is a time and a place for certain conversation.
Teens OR adults who cuss in the presence of my kids exhibit a lack of discretion, as well as respect.

[poultry]

quote:Originally posted by Sunny
If we do not have things that are taboo, then why should we stop at our ankles?;)
My point was that society tells us what's acceptable and what's not acceptable. There are no absolutes to what is right or wrong in our world (what's okay today wasn't necessarily okay hundreds of years ago), and the same goes for "bad" words. It's all about our social conditioning.

If history shows us anything, things that are considered risque today are going to be more common in the future--whether we like it or not. But we're all going to accept it and not even think about it eventually because it'll be the norm.

So I don't think the acceptance of "bad" words is too far out of the question. It's happening without us even knowing it.

quote:all of these words are associated with strong emotions
Not all of them. "sh-t" means poo. Yet we all go into shock when we hear the former because we've been trained to react that way.

And as for the words that are associated with strong emotions (or inappropriate subject matter), making them un-bad has nothing to do with what they still stand for. We really have to be able to separate the actual, almost physical word itself from what it means. Going in the opposite direction, if we make "sex" a bad word, it doesn't mean that it's gonna reduce teenage pregnancies.

I'm not advocating going around cussing everywhere. I think people are taking it that way because they don't like hearing that what they've been taught is &lt;gasp&gt; unfounded. I'm sure if "sh-t" was considered as acceptable as "poo", we'd all use it in regular speech without thinking twice about it (or getting offended by it, or thinking there's anything bad associated with the actual word itself).

If you want to see my point, just set aside for a moment--in your mind--everything that society tells you about "bad" words and why they are bad. It's not easy to do and I'm sure not everyone will allow themselves to do it.

[Carol Al-Ajroush]

My response is you feel or react the way you do to certain words due to the words definition - implied or otherwise. For example, darn has one definition in the dictionary and $h*t has another, each with its own specific connotation. Same thing if you hear death or happiness - I'm sure given their respective definitions create differing reactions.

That's my two cents worth as a Broadlands armchair psychologist! :D

And yes...that is a joke!! [8D]


quote:Originally posted by poultry

quote:Originally posted by Carol Al-Ajroush
In answer to your question posted below, it's a matter of context. What image do you see when you hear someone say "$h*t" compared to when someone says "darn?"
I'll admit that that latter makes me feel uneasy. But that's only because I've been taught to feel that way.

I only want to question why I (and others) feel that way toward certain words. There's no reasonable explanation other than society has made us react differently to certain words even though they mean the same thing as another word. If you strip away everything that society tags onto certain words you're only left with a few letters that represent a word that contains some sort of meaning. The "bad" part of it is meaningless fluff.

[Silence Dogood99]

Actually, there are absolutes in our world. Some things are right and some things are wrong. To steal, murder, lie, cheat, commit adultery, etc. are wrong. If you live in a world with no absolutes, then you live in a world of chaos and relativism.

I think you are overthinking and trying to intellectualize the whole notion of words not inherently being "bad." In the absolute, you are correct--no collection of letters is inherently bad. But WORDS always have a social context, and it's perfectly legitimate for society to declare some words and their meanings crude or inappropriate.

As I said before, it is prudent and good for people to exercise control over their mouths--whether that means not cursing, lying or gossiping.

[poultry]

quote:Originally posted by SilenceDogood99
Actually, there are absolutes in our world. Some things are right and some things are wrong. To steal, murder, lie, cheat, commit adultery, etc. are wrong. If you live in a world with no absolutes, then you live in a world of chaos and relativism.

Murder, for example, is acceptable in war. So murder being wrong isn't an absolute.

quote:
But WORDS always have a social context, and it's perfectly legitimate for society to declare some words and their meanings crude or inappropriate.

And those classifications change from generation to generation and century to century. So you can't say that a particular word (not its meaning) is absolutely bad--it's what society tells us is bad or acceptable.

quote:
As I said before, it is prudent and good for people to exercise control over their mouths--whether that means not cursing, lying or gossiping.

I never argued against that point. In fact, I think it's a very good point.

My question is simply why do we even have "bad" words? Is it so that we have something on the do-not-say list so we can use it to teach control? Is it so that some people can feel that they are of higher class than others? I'm not making any jabs against anyone. It's just that this thread has really gotten me thinking about why we have bad words at all.

[Barbara]

Poultry, Silence DoGood may be on to something there with overthinking. I've been finding it a bit humorous that your intellectual argument on the inherent neutrality of language (itself an extremely arguable position) is focused on words that are connected with excrement and coarse terminology for lovemaking.

The S word, the F word, and various vulgar body part names are good old fashioned Anglo Saxon words, and hundreds of years ago were part of conversation. Hundreds of years ago. As you say, things evolve.

Overuse of coarse language, if you feel that the feeling that using the words is not indicative of a lack of imagination, can also be compared to various other behaviors. What about nose picking? It is probably just as normal, natural and nearly universally practiced among humans as the grooming behavior that eats one another's bugs is to apes. Does that mean people are somehow less for not wanting to watch the behavior being exercised, since it is natural? What about flatulence? It is from the body, it is natural. Is one lessened by not finding it attractive?

Extreme overuse of "bad" language is not only boring, it can in my mind be equated with lingual flatulence. Sorry if this dodges your question again. There was a thread Carol started some time ago that had to do with concepts and values, and may be what you're looking for in seeking to justify neutrality on any/all words. Carol, care to revive it?

Barbara Munsey, from South Riding.

[Silence Dogood99]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SilenceDogood99
Actually, there are absolutes in our world. Some things are right and some things are wrong. To steal, murder, lie, cheat, commit adultery, etc. are wrong. If you live in a world with no absolutes, then you live in a world of chaos and relativism.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Murder, for example, is acceptable in war. So murder being wrong isn't an absolute.

Two points. Murder is NOT acceptable in war. Killing is. Words have meanings, and killing is different from murder. There are rules of engagement in war. And murder is very different from killing.

Even if I were to grant you that, would you still hold to the belief that there are no absolutes? I find that a foolish statement, but maybe you meant it in a different context.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But WORDS always have a social context, and it's perfectly legitimate for society to declare some words and their meanings crude or inappropriate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And those classifications change from generation to generation and century to century. So you can't say that a particular word (not its meaning) is absolutely bad--it's what society tells us is bad or acceptable.

Never claimed that "words" have absolute meaning--it is simply the context society places on it...and it is legitimate for society to declare certain words and meanings and contexts crude or inappropriate...as it is with behaviors, etc.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I said before, it is prudent and good for people to exercise control over their mouths--whether that means not cursing, lying or gossiping.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I never argued against that point. In fact, I think it's a very good point.
We have agreement!! :D

My question is simply why do we even have "bad" words? Is it so that we have something on the do-not-say list so we can use it to teach control? Is it so that some people can feel that they are of higher class than others? I'm not making any jabs against anyone. It's just that this thread has really gotten me thinking about why we have bad words at all.

I think you are wayyyy overthinking this. I don't think there is some societal dictator out there looking to control people's speech, nor do I think we are trained to "fear" certain words. While some pretentious people may use bigger words (with a false stutter while stroking their beards!) to impress others, I think it's really quite simple.

Certain words have a distinct meaning and context which make them crude or inappropriate (not inherently evil). I think we are focusing too much time on cussing...when the more heinous use of words is to gossip about others, speak falsely or negatively of others, lie to or manipulate people, etc.

Okay, it's been a fun conversation but I think this has exhausted my interest...and if I continue to post on this subject, I may be tempted to let out a string of %^&^(*@& words!

Besides, weather is too nice out! Enjoy spring!
SD

[sonnguyen]

quote:Originally posted by Barbara
The S word, the F word, and various vulgar body part names are good old fashioned Anglo Saxon words, and hundreds of years ago were part of conversation. Hundreds of years ago. As you say, things evolve.

Exactly. And that's why your only classification of what words should be avoided is what you've been told. So if you were back hundreds of years ago, you'd be dropping the "f-bomb" and the "s-word" in regular conversation? You wouldn't be offended by it, right?

quote:
Overuse of coarse language, if you feel that the feeling that using the words is not indicative of a lack of imagination...
(Actually, I never said I felt that overuse of any word is necessarily okay.)

quote:
...can also be compared to various other behaviors. What about nose picking? It is probably just as normal, natural and nearly universally practiced among humans as the grooming behavior that eats one another's bugs is to apes. Does that mean people are somehow less for not wanting to watch the behavior being exercised, since it is natural? What about flatulence? It is from the body, it is natural. Is one lessened by not finding it attractive?
These are just more examples of what we've been trained to find offensive.

I think you're taking my point too far. I only said that society tells us what we should be offended by. People are making it sound like I'm telling people to go out and swear and offend everyone in their path. Sometimes I think people are taking this too personally.

Really, if you sit down and think really hard and break everything down to its most basic component you'll see that all these things are what we're trained to react to in different ways. Everything from cussing to picking our noses in public. I'm not telling you what your morals should be. I just think we should all at least question what's going on around us instead of just taking things as they are.

quote:
Extreme overuse of "bad" language is not only boring, it can in my mind be equated with lingual flatulence.
Not everyone was raised the way you were raised and remember that the way you speak may also be "boring" to others. It doesn't give them the right to tell you to speak differently. What's "coarse" and "vulgar" to you might be perfectly acceptable to them.

I'd bet that if you were raised in a world that regularly used words you presently consider "vulgar" or "coarse", you'd never think twice about them. That's all I'm saying--we use and avoid (and get offended by) words that we're taught to use and avoid.

[Carol Al-Ajroush]

Hi Barbara! If I recall correctly that was the topic about the Samuel P. Huntington book "Who are We." It's a thought-provoking read. :)


quote:Originally posted by Barbara

Extreme overuse of "bad" language is not only boring, it can in my mind be equated with lingual flatulence. Sorry if this dodges your question again. There was a thread Carol started some time ago that had to do with concepts and values, and may be what you're looking for in seeking to justify neutrality on any/all words. Carol, care to revive it?

Barbara Munsey, from South Riding.

[Barbara]

Sonngyuyen, are you Poultry too? Interesting. If I were raised to say F this or S that 30 times per paragraph, I agree that I'd think it was perfectly normal. People do get confused about the norm, in that it is a quantitative judgement as opposed to a qualitative one. Question for you: does that make any way a good way to be raised, simply because it exists? If girl children are sold at puberty because it is the norm (as it is in some places, so the girl children can eat), does that make it a purely neutral and equally interchangeable norm? Again, I think you're arguing a point for the sake of it. Language by itself, reduced to mere sound, is indeed meaningless. Hearing those sounds with comprehension will produce basic judgements. It is an inescable part of comprehension: we will FEEL a certain way about every stimulus in life. Have fun continuing the discussion.

Barbara Munsey, from South Riding.

[sonnguyen]

quote:Originally posted by SilenceDogood99
Even if I were to grant you that, would you still hold to the belief that there are no absolutes? I find that a foolish statement, but maybe you meant it in a different context.

I see your point and I'll retract my "no absolutes" statement. Thanks again.

What I should have said is that the list of bad words and what's considered "bad" changes on a continual basis.

quote:
Certain words have a distinct meaning and context which make them crude or inappropriate (not inherently evil).
Right, but there's a double standard with some words. We don't care when someone says, "Oh, drat!" but we do care when someone says, "Oh, sh-t!"

quote:
I think we are focusing too much time on cussing...when the more heinous use of words is to gossip about others, speak falsely or negatively of others, lie to or manipulate people, etc.
I agree with you 110% on that.

quote:
Okay, it's been a fun conversation but I think this has exhausted my interest...and if I continue to post on this subject, I may be tempted to let out a string of %^&^(*@& words!
You took the smurfin' words right out of my smurfin' head! :D

I, too, had a good time--and learned a lot from you and others on here. I don't think this "debate" is going anywhere--at least not in the direction it's headed.

quote:
Besides, weather is too nice out! Enjoy spring!

If you consider sitting in Northern VA traffic "enjoyment of the outdoors" then I had a blast today.

[Barbara]

Hi Carol, and it was a good discussion! Goodnight for now.

Barbara Munsey, from South Riding.

[poultry]

quote:Originally posted by Barbara
Sonngyuyen, are you Poultry too?
No, I'm using his computer, though. I forgot to login as myself.

quote:
Interesting. If I were raised to say F this or S that 30 times per paragraph, I agree that I'd think it was perfectly normal. People do get confused about the norm, in that it is a quantitative judgement as opposed to a qualitative one. Question for you: does that make any way a good way to be raised, simply because it exists If girl children are sold at puberty because it is the norm (as it is in some places, so the girl children can eat), does that make it a purely neutral and equally interchangeable norm?
No, I don't think that's acceptable at all.

But as I said before, I'm not saying what's right or wrong. I'm only saying that what we say or do or find acceptable is what we're taught is acceptable.

[fidothedog]

What about the substitute F words like freaking, fracking, etc.? Is one more politically correct saying freaking rather than F***ing? You hear freaking everywhere now...but doesn't it mean the same thing.

[brim]

Of course it does...which is the bullsh-t of the whole thing. People substitute words for other words that express the same emotion, it's complete horsesh-t.

And as far as the 'if you curse, it shows ou have a limited vocabulary' argument goes...who sounds more limited in the vocabulary department: the guy using baby talk that says 'I feel like poo today' or the guy that says 'I feel like sh-t today'?

[T8erman]

It is not so much the words we choose to say, it is more what is acceptable by the audience.

[Carol Al-Ajroush]

It is what we say and how we say it. I think one of the most powerful tools available is in fact the written word. Depending on one's choices of words you can paint a vivid picture down to the minute detail and have one feeling, seeing, smelling the picture or you can easily say a few quick words which someone may or may not fully comprehend...why? Because there's a good chance they will simply tune out because you either have not caught their interest or "oh no...more of that samo samo topic again."

However, as one who tries to be a responsible adult and set an example for others, I do try hard to be cognizant of what words I use, especially with youth. Back to the original topic, I think that the casual use of words defined as profanity (especially the "F" word) is not right and should not be viewed as a social norm!

[tigercpa]

quote:Originally posted by SilenceDogood99

I think this is healthy debate, not a shouting match.

But I'm cool with it. Who started this thread on complaining about today's youth anyway? :)

Peace and best wishes to all the families in the Broadlands. We're fortunate to live in such a kid-friendly place.


Just last night, my family was eating at San Vito (yum!) and there were two teenage couples waiting for a table. One couple started showing a little PDA which escalated to as close to sex with your clothes on as you can get.

The boy had his hand in the rear of the girl's pants and underwear so deep, he would have reached China in short order. And the pants were those low-riders that all of the young ladies are wearing these days, so low that if they were an inch lower you could have seen her "doo-dah" (how's that for self-censorhsip?)

The girl returned his affections as she ran her hand across the front of his trousers as well.

I've seen less tongue on a giraffe at the zoo.

Luckily my younger children were seated in such a manner they could not see what was taking place.

Who knew San Vito had burlesque entertainment as well?

[vacliff]

Ahhh.....the good ol' days of youth!!:)

[fire]

The teen steriotypes lately are getting worse and worse. There are plenty of adults who curse just as much as these "bad teens" yet the teens get the fall for it.

Using TV and other mixed media is an all to convenient excuse for the increasing amount of problems with teens. Look who makes the media. Adults make the media, adults control the media, adults sell the media. If you want to get profanity stopped in teens and children and you say media is the problem, go to the source and go talk to the rich adults who make the media that the overwhelming public loves to see.
I'm a 15 year old teenager, a sophmore, and an honor student. I use profanity once and a while when It accidentally slips out. It's not bad, but these teens that spiked the post where just saying those words to draw people around them into their conversation and get things like this post. They where being just being rebellious. While I do agree that profanity is used a lot, it is not a very big problem at the school I attend.
I have been working ever since I was 13, I pay for everything but basic clothes, food, and the house bills. Everything else I want I must pay for. My car, it's insurance, and everything relating to what I do is paid for by me. I am currently saving up for College (Harvard!). The overwhelming majority of teens in ashburn are spoiled, arrogant, and cocky and will most likely never work a day in their lives until after college. That's ashburn for you, live with it. The nonexistent rich parents who throw money at the kids to keep them entertained is the reason for the drugs, profanity, and bad grades in the teens today. The teens assume that the money will be there their whole lives, and just take life and throw it away and get in trouble because their parents can afford the lawyers to sue the school when they do something wrong.
Not all teens are bad, it's the adults who are casting the bad steriotypes. Get to know teens before you make some sort of judgement about their hair or about their lives after school. Just because they have a lot doesn't mean their rich or spoiled; people just assume that my parents hand everything to me, never even considering that it was bought with hard earned money from a job. I am sick of getting treated like a stupid, irresponsible, lazy teen. Next time you see a teen who has a job in ashburn, treat him good because he could have just asked his parents for the money.

[T8erman]

Hey honor student, it is "stereotype". Good luck with Harvard.

[brim]

Hey now, treat him good. :)

[OP_dude]

quote:Originally posted by fire

I'm a 15 year old teenage....... My car, it's insurance, and everything relating to what I do is paid for by me......... Next time you see a teen who has a job in ashburn, treat him good

15 with a car and insurance?
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and treat you "well"

Just bustin' chops here. Keep up the good work. Make your parents proud.

[neilz]

quote:Originally posted by fire

The teen steriotypes lately are getting worse and worse. There are plenty of adults who curse just as much as these "bad teens" yet the teens get the fall for it.

&lt;snip&gt;



Wow ... you sound like I did back in 19xx when I was your age. You are one of the few who sound like they have a level head on their shoulders, realize that their parents aren't made of money, and actually want to help out with the family finances.

Good luck and God bless.



Neil Z.
Resident since 1999

[kholbert]

I think Fire is a prime example of the results of parents who encourage their kids to develop a good work ethic. Sounds like he works hard and probably plays hard too. Even though school should develop the connection between hard work and rewards some kids, teens and even adults don't get it. I have adult friends and family who were great students (advanced degrees) but who are performing poorly in their careers (I suspect)in part because they did not have jobs in their teens.

I was raised in Chevy Chase, MD and both of my parents worked outside the home. They let me know early on that I had to earn any "extras" on my own. From age 13 I delivered the Times every afternoon and weekend morning to my neighbors. When it snowed, some agreed to wait till I came and cleared their drives. I made over $100 every time it snowed. My senior year summer I worked at a McDonalds in NE Washington. After a couple of months, a thug customer physically threatened me and I quit because management feared for my safety. The next month I went to college and worked hard enough to make the Deans list because I knew I didnt want to work in fast food ever again. Those teen jobs taught me how to be responsibile to my customers, entrepenurship, and the value of higher education.

Although now I can afford to give my kids just about anything they want, I try to exchange their work (good grades at school or chores) for the unnecessary goods or service I buy them. Developing a good work ethic in your kids at an early age is good because then they will figure out enterprising ways to spend their free time on their own. Be it a lemonade stand, selling their toy collections on eBay, baby sitting, yard work, or a part time job, parents who raise kids with a good work ethic will increase the likelyhood that their kids will become successful adults.