Jeanine Ring, Prostitution etc

Byron,

You write: "I said that parents should unconditionally support the child's biological and safety needs (e.g. food, clothing, shelter) until adulthood (for clarity, I eventually said that the law should define adulthood not on age but as when an individual can reasonably support himself financially). Anything above and beyond providng for those needs is conditional."

You are making a very non-Randian distinction between "biological and safety" conditions of normal human development on the one hand; and "anything above and beyond," such as providing for the adolescent's and young adult's normal intellectual and spiritual development, on the other. All of this is very contextual, but when it is the parents' wealth that makes an adolescent ineligible for substantial scholarship support, it is their objective obligation to make up for it. Similarly for the support of the adolescent's spiritual development, including romantic relationships. That includes, as I cited above from Rabbi Gold's book, the fact that "It is a parent's responsibility to make sure that sexually active youngsters have access to adequate birth control."

The adolescent's biological and spiritual development are not two separate processes, but aspects of her integrated development into a fully Human person. The claim that the parents' responsibility is limited to support of the former, and excludes support of the latter, is contrary to the integrated nature of the Man qua Man. It is not a claim that could be in any way compatible with Objectivism.

Post 21

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 2:52pm

Adam,

Do I take it from your citation of Rabbi Gold that birth control is what makes sex between children OK?

If so, doesn't that in itself make clear that sex is NOT for children? If sex is OK for children only if it is rendered impotent, then don't you undercut your argument by advocating that parents restrain their children (through suasion, of course) from engaging in a potent act of sex? If childhood sex is hunky-dory, why shouldn't the fully procreative act be the ultimate good to be pursued by the kids?

Let me know what you think about this after you finish your Diet Coke, Adam.

Pukszta

Post 22

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 3:22pm

Rooster,

With respect to your last two posts, I'd say you should lay off the intrinsicist dichotomies. Romantic relationships do not become "impotent" when practiced responsibly - merely responsible. Responsibility and self-discipline cannot be taught by coercion and repression, only by communication, example, and autonomy, and they must be taught - by communication, example, and autonomy - long before the child becomes an adolescent. I don't know of a single case where one of your "nightmare scenarios" - promiscuity, addiction and so on - actually happened without physical, emotional, or sexual abuse of the child.

You are of course right that the parents are entiled to set rules for the use of their house etc. A violation of house rules is an initiation of force. But parents do not have a right to default on their obligations just because they disapprove of what an adolescent does outside the house, or to lock her up, and so on. That is just abuse.

Post 23

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 3:27pm

Adam,

Yes, my distinction is non-Randian. It's from Maslow. How could it be anything but non-Randian? Rand herself did not write much on the topic of how much support a parent should provide a child. This is new ground.

I think you see me too much as an enemy that you'd be surprised by how much we actually agree on how a child should be raised. There is much in your quote that resonated with me and I would apply much of it to how I would raise my own child. I chose not to have sex as a teenager, but I will understand if my teenagers do and I hope to raise them to be responsible enough to prevent or be prepared for any negative consequences, even if I do approve of their choice to have sex at that age. Again, that's how I'd like it in my family, but we're talking about general moral and legal principles. I will quote Rooster over where I think we essentially disagree with you:

"You state that parents have an unconditional obligation to support their children. You and I agree upon this. We also agree that the child had no choice in this arrangement. However, if a child truly has entered the age of reason, then he does start to have choices in that arrangement. Those choices mostly boil down to making himself independent of his parents' finances."

I think some confusion arises from our use of the word "child". I and I think others interchangeably use child as both the synonym for offspring, and someone who is not yet an adult. That is why I, again, am defining an adult as someone who can support reasonably himself financially. Anyone who is in the "age of reason" can and probably should. I did. If you're so much smarter than me, there's no reason you couldn't have done the same.

At the age of 18, I left my home in a Third World country and immigrated to America with not a single penny in my pocket. I did not have the privilege of going to college. I'm doing well enough on my own. To be perfectly blunt, I think college does a good job of delaying "intellectual and spiritual development". I learnt more living on my own than my people my age did cramming for exams from professors that brainwash them with a liberal agenda. The junior officers who "lead" us (these pukes came straight from college) are proof of this. The experienced sergeants are the ones who really run the show.

Remember when Keating asked Roark if he should go to graduate school or take the job? Roark advised him to take the job for the reasons I gave.

Post 24

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 4:05pm

Byron,

Context, context, context.

How far one needs to continue school depends on what one has decided to do with one's life. If you wish to be an entrepreneur, you should start in your teens (although Francisco, in AS, then does go on to college full time.) If your goal is to be an artist, and you have a field-dependent personality like Peter Keating, becoming independent may be the only way to retain whatever individual creativity you still have. On the other hand, in some sciences if you don't get in at least a few years' postdoc, you will wind up spending your life re-inventing the wheel, re-investigating theories that others have already identified as blind alleys. And if you intend to be a brain surgeon, you will not have had enough practice to go out on your own until you have years of internship and residency.

What about parental support? The parents' obligations are also contextual. If Bill Gates wants to drop out of Harvard and complete his education as he builds his own business, fine. If a woman finds that she has a potential for greatness in a field that requires completion of graduate school, and her parents' wealth will disqualify her from getting a scholarship, the parents have a moral obligation to pay. In a contextual world there is no room for one-size-fits-all directives.

Post 25

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 4:10pm

Adam, it is unfortunate that your intent in your original and poignant article became diverted into many of us arguing against a straw man i.e. allowing children to have sex.

I think the straw man was not created by Luther (though he disagreed with you), nor by Rooster, Byron, nor myself. The straw man was created, and followed with personal attacks, by Jeanine. She repeatedly used the word "child", she spoke of 12 year olds hanging out with escorts, she blamed suicide attempts of "children" on parents. She offered assistance mentioning completely out of context, that she was an "escort" (veiled solicitation). Even when clarity was asked for, as to age of reason etc, and reasonable clarification given by some of us, Tenya for example, she repeated her inflamatory language and attacks. Soon we were arguing against her thesis of unbridled hedonism as far as "children" and sex. I do disagree with your statement that she came here, (to SOLO) seeking a community who took The Fountainhead seriously. I think, based on the evidence of her posts, and the posts on other objectivist oriented boards that she has been "victimized" by, that she came to create chaos, and when confronted, she did the same thing she has done before, cry foul and leave as a victim.

As to the more important discussion, it is grist for serious debate on philosophical, ethical, practical grounds.

Those of us who are parents will have reactions that *may* be extreme. I seek to raise a daughter who lives with her highest values in mind. On the other hand I know that what she expects from a sexual union in all likelihood differs from what a teenage boy expects. There are issues of exploitation, dishonesty, and manipulation, and I ask myself the question: How do I teach her, nurture her growing sense of self and freedom, and NOT want to throttle any boy that comes near her? And why do I not have the same extent of fear about my boys?

John

(Edited by John Newnham on 12/22, 4:23pm)

Post 26

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 4:25pm

Adam,

You are right that in some professional fields, like science, engineering, or medicine, a college education is a plus. I do not know about the rest, but I know in medicine most of the training is on-the-job (I have about as much medical knowledge as a fresh graduate from medical school). Even then, I know the education helps. When I said that, I was thinking more along the lines of a liberal arts or humanities major, which I consider next to useless. You are also right that it depends on context, and it is difficult to define hard-and-fast rules in most cases. Our apparently irreconcilable difference is that I have not foreseen a context wherein a parent should be obligated to pay for college. If a college education is of value to you, find other ways to finance it. As an adult, there is no other area in your life where your parents should have to provide for you, and I do not see how a college education is fundamentally different. I'm taking classes now in my off-time paid for out of my own pocket and without financial aid, so don't tell me it's not possible. Unless you have some new point you can bring up to convince me otherwise, I am sorry to say that there is no point in discussing this issue further.

Post 27

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 4:29pm

John,

Perhaps because boys don't get pregnant.

Post 28

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 4:33pm

If so, doesn't that in itself make clear that sex is NOT for children? If sex is OK for children only if it is rendered impotent, then don't you undercut your argument by advocating that parents restrain their children (through suasion, of course) from engaging in a potent act of sex? If childhood sex is hunky-dory, why shouldn't the fully procreative act be the ultimate good to be pursued by the kids?

This is like saying that paintball and laser tag are not for children, because it was really good for them we wouldn't restrain them from using live ammo instead of paintballs and lasers.

Just sayin'.

Post 29

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 4:41pm

Nature is right that the analogy Rooster uses may not be the best. But there is a point hidden there, and that is that a parent would like their child to behave in a certain way and actively encourages it, i.e. honestly answering the child's questions, and providing for protection if they are going to be sexually active. The parent, then, still has a role to play. Adam is right that the best way to go about it is by open communication and leading by example. No "repression" involved there. I don't think anyone here is advocating the "because I told you so" school of parenting. I suppose the difference lies in what direction the parent should encourage the child (I'm using child as a synonym for off-spring).

Post 30

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 4:52pm

What about parental support? The parents' obligations are also contextual. If Bill Gates wants to drop out of Harvard and complete his education as he builds his own business, fine. If a woman finds that she has a potential for greatness in a field that requires completion of graduate school, and her parents' wealth will disqualify her from getting a scholarship, the parents have a moral obligation to pay. In a contextual world there is no room for one-size-fits-all directives.

No directives, maybe, but there is a need for principles by which a context can be evaluated. You seem to be saying, basically, that the parents have a moral obligation to provide whatever is necessary (in terms of education, at least) for the child to actualize her potential for greatness. But how are they to determine where that potential for greatness lies?

If they rely on their own judgement, and don't agree with the child's (i.e., refuse to pay for art school, because they believe the child has more potential as a doctor than an artist), then they're stifling the child's intellectual freedom. But if they trust the child's judgement without question, then they end up in other undesirable situations. The child might move from career interest to career interest over ten years, never settling on something long enough to complete a degree (in which the parents have to pay for ten years of mostly unnecessary schooling). Or the child might be drawn to a career path which is counter to the parents' own moral convictions, such as a preacher's daughter who wants to become an adult film star, or an Objectivist's son who wants to become a modern artist (in which case the parents are being obliged to finance his moral enemies).

The lack of any objective way to measure �potential for greatness� makes me very uncomfortable with the idea of a parental obligation to finance things at this level.

Post 31

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 4:55pm

Adam,

Would someone who truly grasps and applies the lessons of The Fountainhead make such a statement:

I swear to you, on my honor, that the only happiness in this world has been in existence as a whore, as a sexual creature where I can be my own aesthetic creation.

Perhaps a loose Roark reference could be made to her ability to lead her own lifestyle in the face of widespread disapproval from society at large, but even that might be a reach. Isn't she in fact saying here that her prostitution is the best outlet for her creative and productive abilities? That doesn't seem too Roarkian to me...

Post 32

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 5:18pm

Isn't she in fact saying here that her prostitution is the best outlet for her creative and productive abilities? That doesn't seem too Roarkian to me...

Sure it is�on the basis of her belief that courtesanship is a creative endeavor on the same level as architecture.

Post 33

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 5:20pm

John, I think your post #26 is very astute.

Michael

Post 34

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 5:27pm

NL,

There are, indeed, many principles at work here. If parents and adolescents are moral equals, everything in interpersonal ethics comes into play - and that's many, many volumes' worth.

In the divorce from my ex, we agreed to pay 60/40 for our daughter's living expenses and tuition, for the minimum time required for one undergraduate and one graduate or professional degree. This is what she would likely get full stipends for, if it were not for her parents' financial status. Our obligation is for the minimum of what she would be able to get for free if we were not in the picture. The only condition is that she apply for whatever aid she is, in fact, able to get.

The main principle is that the parents must not hamper the adolescent's development. Beyond the minimum, though, it is up to the young person herself to earn additional resources with part-time and vacation jobs, loans etc.

Post 35

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 5:47pm

Adam,

Let me tackle this from another perspective.

I have a serious question I ask you to consider. Your child has reached the age or reason, as you reckon it. You raised him well, so he's good kid - smart, friendly, responsible, independent, and productive. He's decided that he wants to enter a seminary and become a Catholic priest.

How do you apply to him your principle that a parent is responsible for his kid's well-being up through graduate school?

Pukszta

Post 36

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 5:53pm

It's too bad about Jeanine.

The worst thing is that her absence will be hardly noticed, at least by me. She potentially could have been a rich source of important dissent, but she never made the effort to clearly communicate her unique (and important) viewpoint. In all her tens of thousands of words, she never once made a coherent statement of her fundamental approach and intellectual background, never laid that fundamental mattress from which she could've sprung into myriad topics, on which she could've fallen back when faced with inevitable misunderstanding. A real hearty discussion and debate about the morality of prostitution, etc., would have been really interesting and great to have on this site -- and Jeanine would have been the perfect person to spearhead it.

But she didn't. Instead, she chose the method of self-satisfying "self-expression." Which is fine. But when one gives no regard to the audience to whom one is expressing herself, that's also rude. And, ultimately, annoying. I'm sure Jeanine has emotional reasons -- frustration among them -- for her communicative behavior on this site, but none of that makes this tragic apex any less inevitable.

My first clash with her came a while back when I questioned the implications of a comment she made about abortion. In one post, she refused to engage in debating the matter, and she assumed to know and proceeded to characterize the entire background of my thought and intellectual upbringing, and how it left me incapable of understanding anything. The response amounted to: "You are incapable of understanding my position, so I won't waste my time explaining it, other than to say that you are incapable of understanding my position." You can fill in the adjectives to describe that, but I didn't even take it seriously enough to be insulted, so amused was I by its childish stereotyping. (Not to mention how wrong her assumptions were.)

Jeanine was guilty of the very things she was victim to. She herself showed no effort to understand and comprehend the context of others, or of history. She did not display the respect for reality (including the reality of the perspectives of others) that is mandatory to win an argument from a marginalized position, especially her cultural position. She did not practice objectivity, in the most profound sense of the term. Just look at her final gesture. Based on the actions of some under the guise, she has rejected all philosophy and those involved with it. (Much in the same way that Cordero, based on the actions of some under the guise, has rejected all prostitution and those involved with it.) We are thus reduced to something so blatantly invalid as collective judgment!

Too bad, indeed.

I regret the loss of Jeanine, if only because her sheer presence challenged many preconceived notions. Nonetheless, I can't help but think that she deserved what she got. I think that in spite of my agreement with her on a number, though not a majority, of counts.

Just on the issues briefly raised in this thread (and which should have been its primary focus) I think that line--"Show me the woman a man is sleeping with and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life" (paraphrased)--is quite possibly the most ridiculous sentence Rand ever wrote. Too bad we couldn't discuss why.

And men are defined by Websters as "they who have penises." I don't see any grounds for referring to someone who lacks a penis as "Mr." I see no point other than purposeful brattiness in referring to such a person as a man, whether it is Jeanine Ring or John Kerry.

Alec

Post 37

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 6:07pm

Leseul,

You commented on my exchange with Adam about birth control for minors, "This is like saying that paintball and laser tag are not for children, because it was really good for them we wouldn't restrain them from using live ammo instead of paintballs and lasers."

Well, yes and no.

Paintball and laser tag are for kids because it is harmless. As a parent I am untroubled imposing boundaries upon my children. If they wanted to play with live ammo, I would forbid it for the obvious reason that it is dangerous beyond their ability to control. I have no compunction using my judgment as to how I will restrain the conduct of my children when necessary. (And I hope we can all agree that that is an entirely separate issue from trying to control their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs.)

Adam, however, has stated that it is an abomination for a parent to restrain a child's conduct once the kid has reached the age of reason, as he terms it. Yet, he rationalizes that sex between children is OK if parents intervene to persuade the children to use birth control. In other words, sex is fine for the kids if the parents control the situation to avoid any adverse consequences - e.g., a baby.

The point I wanted to elucidate about making sex impotent therefore OK was that it seems that Adam does accept my principle that parents can and should intervene in the conduct of their "age of reason" children. He just draws a more permissive line than I do. With that in mind, I'll just make sure my girls stay away from his boys!

Pukszta

Post 38

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 6:11pm

Rooster,

Note what I've already said about nightmare scenarios above. When you can give me one example of an adolescent from a Randian family turning out like that, then I'll consider the question. Until then, I'll just keep in mind that men don't live in lifeboats.

Post 39

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 6:11pm