Why the double speak? "Thank God!" shouts the agnostic, "We only had boys to raise. Let others supply the world with slut-puppies." We have shot through the taboo barrier and are not slowing. Beyond that Dudley Moore saying in the movie 10, "When this generation comes of age, their song will be Why don't we do it in the road." Even a decade has passed where a Shirley Temple looking ninth-grader wanted to see how many boys she could screw on the band bus riding home from a football game (The answer was 3. She got caught.) Whatever happened to the good old days when high school boys just went to a carnival side-show to see naked women. Granted, not near as expensive as a copy of 50 Shades of Grey but money and principles are often the same thing because only a fleeting glimpse was just wrong. Silly carnies, thought they wanted to fight with future national championship football players and to compound their problems, called sheriff deputies who were related to the boys. So much fodder in life... Years ago I went with my wife who was on call at the hospital. A young man was brought into the ER with a tiny hole in his chest. As the pandemonium of preparing the room was under way, I was left alone with the patient for maybe 20 seconds. I spoke, "What happened? He answered, "I shot myself." The man was my age, late twenties and almost as handsome. We could have been mistaken as brothers and we just looked at each other. Had to ask, "Why?" "Couldn't live with myself after what I did with 2 women." My 20 seconds were up and the ER team descended on him to no avail. Not the best placed shot but it did the job and he was gone in just minutes. No doubt religion screwed him up more than a football bat and if he had lived then I would have heard my first story of a threesome. Damn it Man! It's the little things in life that count. As for the darling little ninth-grader, years later one of her boyfriends recognized me although I had no idea who he was. Told me Shirley (That was her last name and it became a joke during class. "And don't call me Shirley.") put a 38 to her head and pulled the trigger. It's a conundrum since religious school offer a safe haven for many children. Only place around that offers morals these days. Maybe Hamletish would work..."Get thee to a nunnery then quit before it's too late."
[MENTION=54840]IronPalm[/MENTION]: I'm still not sure if I should dignify your comments with an answer -- it might be a huge waste of time -- because you act like a troll, haven't disclosed much information in your profile, and haven't posted a lot to this forum, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. For now. Especially because I understand that I may have come off too harsh. He does come off less of a sexist in his writing than his contemporaries. I didn't say we should discount it. I'm just wondering how come you have these type of experiences while I have very opposite ones. How do our experiences differ? Is it, again, a cultural thing? Perhaps Fitzgerald himself had a few changes of heart in his lifetime? The Great Gatsby has horrible female characters, and of course things go bad for the frivolous woman. I agree to a degree. Unfortunately there is a world of evidence that Fitzgerald's female characters were also products of different times when patriarchy was yet to be challenged the way it is nowadays. And? You know the answer to that. The Great Gatsby? Yes, she is sympathetic (of course she's also depicted as shallow and overdramatic, but she is 16). Myrtle Wilson could also be considered sympathetic. And I don't deny that, to a degree, Fitzgerald may be taking a Henry James -like stance, criticizing how society treats its daisy millers. We can't really do much else but ask questions and answer them based on our interpretation. Why did the author write these characters the way he did? For example, to me this type of characterization is hilarious: "I’ve decided not to kiss any more boys, because I won’t have anything left to give the man I really love" “It’s true. There’s been too much talk around Chicago about me. A man certainly doesn’t respect a girl he can kiss whenever he wants to, and I want to be respected by the man I’m going to marry some day.” (Josephine) "She would be a good girl now forever, see less of boys, " Was that how they measured good girls back then? What was the measure of a good man? Why doesn't Fitzgerald write there a character or make the narrator comment how ridiculous this is? Why did Fitzgerald write Josephine this way? Is this an ideal woman, chaste, preserving herself to someone she really loves? Can't a woman differentiate between physical and emotional needs? She seems to be constantly undermined and belittled by her lover Anthony, who thinks she's silly and childish. And why is she blamed and punished for Anthony acting like a tool? Why does Fitzgerald choose to portray women petty and jealous? These are some questions for me (or us) to think about. I don't think my claim was baseless and absurd but, again, you are entitled to your opinion.
Oh please, don't do me any huge favors. I wasn't sure whether it made any sense to reply to you, either; you're a name-calling ("troll"), arrogant, ignorant poster who dismisses great writers without any evidence. I ignored one of your replies towards me, but you suckered me in with your trollish nonsense about Fitzgerald. As for me not "disclosing much information in my profile" or "you haven't posted a lot to this forum", are you that desperate to come up with insults? Both riddles can be answered by looking at my join date. And the best way to rectify that error is to start off your reply sounding like an insufferable ass. Got it. Horrible female characters? Maybe for you. In my opinion, his female characters are excellent and realistic in that book. Perhaps you're one of those people who believe any female character depicted as flawed, and not a shining beacon of virtue and perfection is "horrible"? In that case, you're a sexist yourself. Ah, there is a "world of evidence", yet you haven't presented one iota of it, except more unsubstantiated, subjective claims. Also, my eyes glaze over when I read/hear the term "patriarchy". Yes, there is a vast conspiracy of men working together, all trying to keep women down. They're all out to get you, like the boogeyman. Enlighten me. Care to be more specific? Way to take that one line about "good girl" out of context. It doesn't refer purely to Josephine being a "speed", but also to aspects of her petty and unkind behavior (particularly towards other girls) during the story. Where is there anything about her being either an "ideal woman" or a necessity for her being chaste? Something you made up? She often is. Because most of them are.
[MENTION=39851]E. C. Scrubb[/MENTION]: Actually, this is incorrect or at best, arguable. And what does 'physical ability to think through consequences' actually mean? It doesn't reflect the actual way brain and psychological and sexual maturation work at all. Also, very small children will sexually experiment with each other, toddler age. it is completely normal, developmentally speaking, but imagine the reaction of a religious parent to something like that. The the age of consent for medical treatment is 12, as is for a lot of legal decisions. This was actually researched quite well and it was found that children as young as 8 can make perfectly competent and informed decisions that require a lot of forethought and involved much more complicated issues that sex. Legal age of consent for sex with an adult, in most countries, is anywhere between 16 and 18. But the age of consent or sex with a peer isn't legally regulated. I think that in conservative societies, people often forget that laws regarding sex aren't necessarily based on valid research of when children are 'ready', but more on the agreement that children need to be protected from sexual predators which are usually adults. Also, morals come into it heavily, if we consider that in some places it is routine to expose children to violence but not to sex. Which makes no sense, psychologically, and that is widely acknowledged, and yet, it continues. [MENTION=18047]TerraIncognita[/MENTION]: I couldn't agree with you more. I too stopped buying magazines (I only look at pictures from fashion shows because I love fashion, just not all the context Cosmo and Glamour put it in) I don't watch the news and I too record everything, thank you SkyPlus box It's the only way to breathe in this society of ours. Otherwise, the onslaught is constant.
Haha same here. I do love fashion. It's definitely an art. Sadly I've heard statistics that say the average person sees 3,000 ads a day. I also don't watch the news all that often. The thing is people are not programmed to be able to handle that much emotion or info that comes with watching every horrible thing that happens on the news. It's easy to get burned out if you constantly watch things going on and on about everything wrong in the world. It's good to be informed there's just limits to what a person can handle. I have people who keep me informed of major events I need to know about and I can always google and be selective about what news I take in. A lot of the time there's nothing you can do about so why stress over it? Concentrate on your corner of the world because that's the part of the world you can change.
What I find interesting here is that one of the reasons I probably feel the way I do about this is the culture and country I was brought up in (Finland). Of course there's always some slut-shaming going on in high schools, girls are dubbed sluts for having several boyfriends, boys are dubbed asshole players for changing the skirt every weekend, judgment is thrown left and right. But on the other hand, there are also many young people who run into no trouble even when they don't settle down and wait till they're 20 or whatever age is considered "mature enough." I'd also like to point out that sex-ed is pretty good and comprehensive, and the way we were taught entailed more encouragement than judgment and warnings concerning the moral or emotional side of it. The importance of protection is stressed, of course. Every year a famous Finnish artist gets the honor of writing the "Summer rubber" song which promotes protected sex. You get free rubbers on summer festivals. From healthcare centers or school nurses, you get birth-control pills. From pharmacies, you get morning-after pills without recipe. You even get your "accident" aborted without jumping through hoops if you want --- and I know the last one is something that's too much to many people (understandably, and I don't mean from the religious POV but rather the emotional standpoint, what it can do to your head). I can't remember anyone saying it was a bad thing or harmful to experiment and learn about your sexuality with your peers (which doesn't mean there wouldn't be problems in a relationship that entails sex). On a sidenote, Two friends of mine came out all right even though back in school they dated older guys; while not academically inclined, they do have husbands, kids, and houses and jobs and summer cottages and pets now like any "normal" person. That is not to say some wouldn't turn "absolutely fractured," as AV pointed out. I certainly didn't know every girl in our school! [MENTION=38553]chicagoliz[/MENTION]: I think you were really onto something with this: Well put. But indeed, we're all individuals, and to some it's "a bigger deal" than to others, or maybe not bigger, just a different deal. Anyway, mine is just one story among many. And I steered off-topic a bit, sorry.
[MENTION=18047]TerraIncognita[/MENTION]: That statistic seems impossible until you think about it. I can imagine that just an average sitcom contains advertisment-type concepts, let alone the news and then, of course, commercial breaks, and billboards and packagings, supermarkets etc. Very scary indeed [MENTION=53403]KaTrian[/MENTION]: You see, to me, the way you described how things work in Finland is a perfect model of how it should be. And I bet you don't heave nearly as high a percentage of teenage pregnancies (or abortion) as in some conservative countries that promote zero tolerance. If Finland and Norway (and Iceland) weren't so cold, I'd have moved there a long time ago because Scandinavian outlook and values about the society as a whole seems to suit mine really well. Alas, I'm addicted to the warm weather and I suffer in the UK as it is As for 'spending yourself too young' some people are too young, some aren't. I also have a friend that got married at 18 to a guy who was 23 at the time and is a very happy, stay at home mum to 4 kids, and she is a nice girl. I can't say she is any more messed up than a lot of my career-chasing friends. As for me, I was an ice-queen in school, a bit (very) sadistic to boys who were falling over around me, just because they couldn't have me. I was into mind games, but I was messed up. I'm not that way anymore. But it resulted in me being monogamous most of my life, year+ long relationships as well. Just a few episodes of drunken one night stand type sex, and I didn't like it. But then, I'm a Taurus, very faithful to the partner I'm with. I leave only when I fall out of love or fall in love with someone else
We have our problems, too, but weirdly enough, this type of freedom and openness is something our tiny, obscure country prides itself for; people say it's the sauna culture, it's normal to go into a small, hot room with naked strangers Though Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland aren't that much different. Secretly I always wanted to be the ice queen, but I was too uncool for that :redface:
I'd love to jump in ("Oh really? Well, you're a dickless cunt who's nothing but... yadda yadda ad infinitum"), but how about we take it down a notch and refrain from ad hominems (and this goes for everyone) because nobody gives two shits about who has the biggest internet cock. Now, if we were talking face to face, personal attacks and insults would actually have some point to them, but as long as it's done from behind computer screens, it's just pointless, self-indulgent wankery. So far you haven't produced any more evidence to the contrary. Less, in fact. And your dozens of irl examples don't mean much because it's unsubstantiated: I can say that I know dozens of examples to the contrary, but as long as we can't verify anything, we come to a status quo, so it'd be a good idea both sides of the argument would dig up some scientific data regarding the matter if we want to find some consensus leaning towards one side or the other. I'll have to look for research about the subject, but if my memory serves me right, the materials used in a course I took at the uni a few years back indicated that a lot of the girls who get miserable after having lots of one-nighters suffer from guilt stemming from how the society around them views them: they are treated like sluts while their male counterparts don't get nearly as much shit for fucking around. The world is moving in the right direction, but equality in this matter is still far away. Are you saying women weren't subjugated back then? That western societies were not patriarchal? If not, what's your point? Most women are petty and jealous? Or most of Fitzgerald's women are petty and jealous? Because I can? To mention another fairly common point of veiw among the more... sexually challenged folks? And labeling an argument a strawman or any other fallacy is also, in itself, a strawman if it's used in that fashion. This is fun.
I think what E.C. was referencing were some recent studies such as this one: http://brainconnection.positscience.com/decision-making-is-still-a-work-in-progress-for-teenagers/ They have recently shown that brain development is not complete until about age 25, which is older than previously thought. Over here (in the United States), the age of medical consent is 18, as it is for everything else. This is what leads to a lot of the arguments about sexual health issues, and age-requirements for certain medications, including birth-control pills, and "morning-after" pills. Another complication is that prescription drug coverage is part of health insurance, which is most often provided via an employer, but in the case of people under 18, also through a parent. So in many cases, it would be extremely difficult for a 17 year old to obtain these medications without a parent finding out about it or without paying a very large amount of money. Different states have different ages of consent to sexual intercourse, and most of them have some exception for partners within a year or two of age difference. (This has not always universally been the case, which also has led to problems. There have been cases where a boy who is one or two years older than his girlfriend has been charged with rape for having consensual sex with the girlfriend.) And as far as laws about sex -- there are some crazy ones over here. We have fifty different state legislatures, and there are pockets of the country with really backward views. Many states have laws on the books, and some laws have been introduced even very recently that outlaw things like oral sex. I really wonder what some of these legislators are thinking, especially since most of them who introduce this stuff are male. So, over here we really lack the ability to thoughtfully deal with public policy that is in any way related to sex, and scientific research on the topic is completely irrelevant to a significant portion of state legislators. A few years back we had a Surgeon General who suggested advocating masturbation as an alternative to sex for teenagers. You would have thought she'd advocated murder with the public outcry that ensued.
[MENTION=38553]chicagoliz[/MENTION]: thanks for the link to studies. They are quite interesting but I'd say not entirely conclusive with regards to competence. It more illustrates that teenagers are still more vulnerable than adults, rather than not being capable to weigh risks and benefits etc. I'm a bit astonished that medical consent age is so high though. In Australia, parents can consent on behalf of the child, but, depending on the state, the child can too. This has been very helpful for reducing std's and teenage pregnancies, because, say, in Melbourne, 16 year olds can go to GU clinics and even to their GPs by themselves. A lot of kids have poor relationship with their parents can't rely on them to educate them or keep them safe. It's sad that the US has such a problem with prudishness. Especially since we all know that the most conservative ones usually turn out to be most perverted (at least in Britain they do, the whole ultra-conservative MPs having nazi role play sex with prostitutes in their work chambers) [MENTION=53403]KaTrian[/MENTION]: and I secretly wanted to be kind and more relaxed. But I had tough childhood and was really wound up, also, very cerebral, the best student, tennis prodigy, singing prodigy, bla bla. I balanced it out with hard partying since I was 14, but it was us 4 girlfriends keeping each other safe. Any boy who wanted to date us, had to go through months of trials and tribulations. A few made it through, but not many The 'sauna culture' is a great point! Of course that'll help reduce any stigma about naked bodies etc.
[MENTION=38553]chicagoliz[/MENTION]: Thanks, that's interesting. I was left wondering about the article and I think I'm with jazzabel here. I'm not sure how to apply this research to real life. I mean, a parent can jokingly refer to some study when their kid protests... But does this justify us controlling certain impulses like sexual behavior? (and I don't mean criminal sexual behavior like rape etc.) This is kind of weird. I mean, it's evident many adults can't make that decision either and they are often under peer pressure as well. Maybe they just used a bad example to illustrate the findings, and it's so full of mays, it's difficult to make a solid connection between this study and telling teens to wait with sex. Nonetheless, very interesting. By the way, this is really incredibly off-topic
I actually, weirdly, kind of like how this thread seems two have two conversations going on at the same time. One is very civilized and respectful, to all of those users I'm giving rep points, and then there is a second conversation which is just a bitching match. Those of you in this second conversation, can you please dial it back a bit please?
Well, I don't know that we will ever conclusively know everything there is to know about the brain. It is astonishingly complex, and we'll never find one simple thing that can explain something as specific as how one makes a decision. I remember hearing some things about this study last year on a listserv I'm on, and another member who is a child psychologist made reference to the research. I also have a friend who is a child psychiatrist, and he sometimes posts about this sort of thing on facebook. I sometimes wish I bookmarked every single article I ever read, because so often I'll get involved in some kind of online discussion that is relevant to something I read months or even years earlier. I'm sure you could find a lot more info on this. Here's another reference, that's very short but hints at these issues: http://www.academic.marist.edu/mwwatch/fall05/science1.htm The whole point of all of this was to illustrate that teens aren't adults, similar to the ways in which children aren't adults. Within the thread, the point was made that it would be a good idea for teens to have sex. The counterpoint was that it was not a good idea to encourage them to do so. Part of the reasoning for not encouraging it is that teen decision making skills and the ability to deal with the issues raised by sex are not as well-developed as those who are older. There is scientific research that shows that certain connections are not as well developed, so it's not just a matter of teaching or informing teens about certain facts, but that their ability to really process those facts is not the same as for those who are older. There will always be anecdotal incidents of young folks with good reasoning skills and older folks who lack them. There are some adults, who are well past their teen years, whom I would not trust to make any decisions that affected me. It's impossible to capture every single human on earth with respect to almost anything about how we work. We know, for example, it would not be a good idea to sit for an entire day with a mouth full of sugar. This would raise the chances of tooth decay. There will always be someone who could do this and not experience tooth decay. But that doesn't mean that we should suggest it as a rainy day activity. When we talk about something even more complex, this gets more difficult. But we shouldn't completely discount what we have learned about the physiological aspects of what happens within our bodies.
I noticed that, too. Scandinavia overall is often pointed to as an example of a utopia regarding numerous social and educational policies. Summer cottages for everyone really puts you guys over the top! I really would like to visit one day.
I think this illustrates the logical fallacy we all learned to accept. Because we (adults) go from 'teen brains aren't the same as adult' to 'teens aren't adults' to 'therefore teens aren't ready to have sex until they are adults'. This assumes that sex is an exclusively 'adult' activity, but that in itself is an unverified assumption. Since we know that since toddler age, humans engage in some form of sexual exploration, and they definitely become completely obsessed with it as teens, it definitely does not suggest that sex is reserved for an administrative age of consent and above. I think this is the core of the erroneous thinking that has to do with young people and sex. Teens might not be ready for adult sexual relationship, but that's not the only type of sexual relationship that is out there. Perhaps teen sex is supposed to be uncommitted, care-free (and safe) whilst adult sex becomes more about commitment and procreation, family etc. I'm just theorising, I know it would take a huge paradigm shift for people's perceptions about this to change.
Visiting Norway is truly epic. My father moved from there when he was four, and we've visited as much as possible since then. Scandinavia's undergone an interesting transformation since the Viking Age.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, Jazz. Yes, there are various types of sexual relationships, and yes, even children engage in forms of sexual exploration, but self-exploration isn't what we're talking about here. I don't know that there is even a standard definition of "adult sexual relationship." I actually think that in many respects your observations about teen sex versus adult sex could be reversed. I think older adults are more likely to have a sexual relationship that is not about commitment, and that they are more capable of doing so. I think sex is only about procreation in a very small percentage of cases. Sometimes it IS about procreation for teens, though -- there are cases of teen girls who want to become pregnant, for bad reasons, but nonetheless are doing it for that reason. All four of your mentioned factors are relevant for both teens and adults. My whole point is that all of them are more perilous for teens.
Yup, most families do. Mine didn't 'cause we were on the poorer side when I was growing up, but now my mom has one and both of KaTrian's parents have their own summer cottages. Btw, I found this interesting: http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/1487 It seems comprehensive sex-ed is more efficient than programs that promote complete abstinence which, to me, is a sign that teenagers may well be capable to think for themselves even if the same amount of responsible behavior cannot be expected of them as of adults. ETA: [MENTION=2124]Lemex[/MENTION], sorry, sometimes I get a bit carried away. :redface:
Yes, it has been shown that abstinence-only programs are not effective and that the areas where that curriculum is used have the highest rates of teen pregnancy. Again, giving teens information about sex isn't the same as saying that they should do it.
There's more whaling nowadays. Norway is my favourite country, though they really have to tone down the whaling, man, like, whale jerky isn't even nice. Brown cheese and their plethora of micro-breweries makes up for it though... Well, probably not in the whale's case, mammals or not, I doubt they drink beer. Do you still have relatives there, Mith? anywhere in particular you like?
[MENTION=38553]chicagoliz[/MENTION]: I never said just self-exploration. Children as well as young people, on either side of latency period (6-12) but increasingly it's shown that it occurs during the latency period as well, engage in sexual exploration. Both with each other (same and opposite sex) and by themselves. It is a well documented, normal developmental fact. I understand everything you are saying and I am not advocating that children should be in any way sexualised deliberately. In fact, extraordinary amount of that is happening already through unhealthy obsession with sex in adult society, that they are a part of. Perhaps, if they weren't so hung up about sex through all the guilt, shame, fear, lack of safety, once they grew up they wouldn't be so affected (not everyone, obviously, but enough of us) and future generations of children could grow up in a less perverted world? In the current belief system, set of values, call it what you will, that prevails in my society and yours, such statements as you make are logical. But the original premise all this is built upon is the statement that sex is somehow supposed to be an adult-only activity which is perilous in some way to anyone under 18 by default. What I am pointing out is that sexuality is a continuum, and it starts in infancy. Our moralising has stood in the way of a lot of people understanding that sexuality, in one form or another, IS in fact a normal part of teenage existence, and perhaps trying to scare them against it, and being so apprehensive ourselves, isn't producing the results we hoped for. Also, is our attitude to it, through demanding abstinence (this is what it boils down to, sex ed or not, this is the only 'right thing to do' as far as most parents are concerned) actually more perilous, because it results in increased rates of teen pregnancy, stress and even illness, all of which are indeed more damaging when they affect the young?
Last things first . . . on the link, I was mainly linking it for the book mentioned in the article, rather than the article itself. Sorry, should've been more specific about that. I think we might have found common ground now. I don't dispute at all the idea that sexuality was formed and channeled to the nth degree in the Puritan world, though there was a whole of sexuality, including sex with servants and the like. And since you aren't disputing that sex was talked about an awful lot in laws and regulations, as well as from the pulpit, I think we've found common ground. I disagree with it being the prime-mover of society's sexual ills today (and that's an unfair portrayal of your argument, I just can't remember how you phrased it. Sorry), but that's a different point than the one you're making above. Former things last. Foucault: it was more than sanctioned marriage. It was countering the idea that Victorianism hushed up any discussions about sexuality and instead, argued that discussion of sexuality exploded during that period of time. He then moved it into the US and presented the same kind of evidence, showing how bathrooms were separated in schools which identified and highlighted sexuality, the government pushed population explosion by paying families (which is, I think, where you were probably reading), and even moved into the late 19 early 20th century with women visiting doctors to be sexually satiated, not to mention the psychological world getting into the mix. I was just taking those ideas and applying them back to the Puritan period, rather than arguing that Foucault was making my arguments for me. Sorry if I was unclear on that. BTW, interesting thesis. I may take this into PM to continue the discussion on a different level (more academic and interested in methodology, methodological assumptions and internal controls used to limit them, etc). I'm fascinated by sociological discussion and modeling, and have used it in my own academic writing.
EDIT: I wrote this before I realized that ChicagoLiz provided a few more links and you looked through them and the conversation progressed from there. So the rest of the post below is probably a little behind the conversation. Sorry about that! I'm not sure you read through my link. It is not arguable that the frontal lobe of the brain begins its real development on after a person becomes an adult (18 years, for the most part give or take a year). It is not arguable that the frontal lobe is the place where gray area thinking, long term planning and ability to foresee long term consequences of actions, etc., occur. Those are all medical facts. Thus, "Physical ability to think through the consequences" means that, according to the latest research, someone that is a teenager does not have the biological and biochemical connections in the brain between the frontal lobe and the rest of the brain developed enough to use the frontal lobe in decision making in those types of situations, or in most types of situations. Again, that's medically undeniable at this point in the research, as MRI brain studies have confirmed. Thus, it reflects exactly how the actual brain and psychological maturation works. It does not however, deal with sexual maturation, nor was I saying it did. What I was saying is that the younger a person is, the less ability they have to think long term about how their sexual choices and actions will affect them, and also, the more susceptible they are to impulse sexuality based on the same MRI studies and knowledge of the frontal lobe's functions. Small children experimenting on each other has nothing to do with my discussion. I'm not talking about two kids playing doctor. I'm talking about the sixteen year old and the fifteen year old who are sexually mature making choices about their sexuality that might have life long effects, without having the fully ability to discern those effects because the brain has not yet fully developed. Age of consent again, doesn't have anything to do with my discussion, and even if it did, those laws were put into place years before MRI studies of the brain showed frontal lobe development only starting in late teenage/early adult life. On your last paragraph, I agree with almost all of it, except for the last two sentences, but exposure to violence is a completely different topic for a different time.
