The Issue of "Paying Back"

Teresa employed sophistry when she vented:

So, if they demanded that he remain 5'6" tall, he ought to obey them, because they have to buy his pants and shirts? Or if they demand that his IQ remain at a "normal" 100, he ought to just say "okee-doke" because they have to buy the books?

This is an "argumentum ad absurdum" argument which I consider unworthy of answering.

She became more credible when she wrote:

I don't buy the relativist argument that one type of investment is as good as the next squander. A child's value development is as important as his nutrition.

Since I do not know everything about this family, I am giving the parents -- who have more experience and live independently -- more benefit of the doubt than I am their young and less experienced son. It is up to their best judgment how to optimize the "value development" of their son and in what order -- again, with their money.

Post 81

Monday, August 29, 2005 - 4:11pm

Jon teased and flattered:

How can it be that you still can�t seem to see that what happened to you turned out fine because of who you are, but would have amounted to spiritual murder or worse if applied to me, or Adam, or others?

[...]

I sense there are one or two more out there who are not yet sure if they should fight for their lives and values, or roll over. Would you post again, just one more time, please?

Roll over, young people! Dance for your paycheck! Dance for your paycheck! Bwahahahahahaha!

There, does that make you happy? ;-)

In all seriousness, though, this whining about "spiritual murder" makes me roll my eyes.

To young people, I say:

Get real.
Learn to distrust your raging hormones.
Focus on achieving your own financial independence first. All else comes second.

Post 82

Monday, August 29, 2005 - 4:17pm

Luke is conflating two different issues: what do parents have a right to do? and what's a good way for parents to treat their children? They'd be within their natural, inalienable property rights to treat a child in the way he describes, but they'd deserve what they got, most likely some combination of no-initiative dependence and lifelong dislike. If they're willing to pay this price in order to show who's boss, it would be none of the government's business.

Peter

Post 83

Monday, August 29, 2005 - 7:27pm

Wow, looks like you guys were having quite a discussion while I was at work. Theresa had some good points and so did Luke and the others. My personal view is that overly strict or overly permissive parenting both lead to rebellion and self-destructive behavior in children. Forbidding someone to date until they are in their 20s is crazy. Sounds like the kids aren't the only ones with some growing up to do.

These teens are experiencing a strong romantic attraction, which is part of healthy and normal human development . What is unhealthy is total parental rejection and repression. What the kids really need are reasonable limits and realistic expectations, which will increase the chances that the kids will act in their own best interests rather than act out based on rebellion and raging hormones.

The kids naturally want to be trusted and be given a bit of freedom to exercise their free will and become more autonomous. On the other hand, the parents have to be respected. Neither will get what they want by being irrational. The kids have to live under their parents' roof and abide by their rules, at least for a little while. The parents, in turn should not be expected to let the kids do whatever the hell they want. They have to earn their privileges. But rather than trying to work at a reasonable compromise, it all explodes because everyone is so damn hardheaded and wants to be right. Neither side is right. Far from it.

Again, I have no idea of what is typical in India, but I'm pretty sure it is generally much stricter than the typical household in America. Is it too much to ask that the couple be able to spend time together in social settings with others or chaperoned? Am I once again stuffing daisies in the barrel of a gun?

Luke said, "He who has the gold makes the rules." LOL. I heard that one in Disney's Alladdin too. To an extent it is true. But let's not get drunk with power, Lord Buzzkill. Parents certainly do not owe their children a college education or many of the niceties kids have nowadays. It is a privilege, not a right. I certainly had to make my own way and finally graduated from college only about three years ago while raising two kids myself and working full time. Expecting someone to pay your way through life is wrong, but so is raising your kids through fear and intimidation.

Post 84

Monday, August 29, 2005 - 7:57pm

Jon wrote:

I haven�t recovered yet from your interest in what kind of life the parents want for him. Nothing personal, but I�ll leave it to others to answer your question.

I'm interested what the parents want because this is a negotiation. The parents have the money and resources. The child has some sort of agreement with them (by achieving some of their values) in order to receive some of their money and resources. Maybe an agreement hasn't been discussed yet... it should be now.

I agree with Luke that the boy should not deceive his parents-- unless he prefers to deceive over risking some amount of trust and his future. I think the boy is probably capable of being in a responsible romantic relationship-- and even more so if his parents know of it.

Post 85

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 4:32am

Yeah, I guess I support Luke. Financial independence is the key, and it's the prolonged "why isn't mommy taking care of me" that some people never grow beyond, that can contribute to amazing abdications of grown-up responsibility. Like walking onto a gun range during live fire. "Huh?"

However, one does have to carve out one's own happiness, I would be looking for compromises. That, and focusing on independence, which can happen before 18.

J

Post 86

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 5:37am

I basically agree with those who challenge the wisdom of the parents' decision to shun all girls from their son's life and I have already said so on this thread. I also question the wisdom of sticking our noses into their business and making sweeping judgments without hearing all sides. Calling them "monsters" and so forth without learning more about them, their values, their culture, etc. -- i.e., their context -- goes far beyond the bounds of reason. I find the parents' seemingly unusual strictness less disturbing than the scantily informed yet scathing moral judgments conducted here against them.

Post 87

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 7:52am

so, kat, are you promoting some sort of a "middle" path?

luke, I WILL answer your questions soon.

Post 88

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 8:59am

��this is a negotiation.� [Dean]

No, it is not. At this point, negotiation is the wishful thinking of posters here who refuse to pronounce the parents foolish. I would welcome the parent�s openness to negotiation, I hope to hear from Neha that it is now going that way, but that is not what she has presented so far about the parents. They�ve said the girl is �evil�, and they will withdraw college support if he defies them and sees any girl until after graduation. There is no evidence they are open to disussing it�just the opposite.

Edit: If the context moves into a negotiation, then I would agree with you that he will be wise to *understand* their positions, be they right or wrong.

Jon

(Edited by Jon Letendre
on 8/30, 9:30am)

Post 89

Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 7:49pm

so, kat, are you promoting some sort of a "middle" path?

Yup - I think there should be some attempt at working this through, after all, they are family.

Obviously, these overprotective parents, though well-intentioned, don't have a clue. What they do have is the capability of making their son's life a living hell and are fully within their rights to grant or revoke things on a whim. Sure the kids will run around despite the parents' warnings, but doing so will not help their case and may cause the parents to become even more tyrannical. It is better to act responsibly and earn things (like the parents' trust) than to do what you want and be punished severely. Now is as good time as any to learn negotiating skills.

Neha, have you discussed this issue with your own parents? It may be a good idea to know what their views are before you get into a serious situation yourself. Keep lines of communication open, regardless of how much you disagree on specific issues. Maybe they understand the other parents motivations and could offer a different perspective. It probably makes a whole lot more sense to them than it does to any of us over here. I just don't understand people sometimes, especially those who more concerned with rules than results.

Kat

Post 90

Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 8:44pm

Beautifully spoken, Kitten.

Neha, Kitten might swat me, but as practical advice, if the parents are extremely tyrannical and no negotiation is possible, and the love is very intense, then I suggest that they sneak around behind their parents' backs and go for it - but try very hard not to screw up their education.

Michael

Post 91

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 5:28pm

Neha - I am still not clear on why the parents are forbidding this. First you say that they are ideal loving parents--except with this girl because they think she will use the boy, and also that they are not acting on the basis that they think the kids are too young. Later the story changes to the parents saying he is too young and will not let him get involved with any girl while he is under their roof. Can you please clear up the contridiction here?

I know you are simply relaying the story from your friends, but it is best to understand where everyone is coming from so they can resolve the issue. What has happened with the couple since you first relayed their story?

Kat

Purr Alert:
MSK, no swat...but maybe a spanking. ;-)

Post 92

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 4:31am

Kat-
As stated, I'm not too clear either. All I know is that the parents are offering a variety of "reasons", each more irrational than the next.

The couple will, of course, continue to sneak.

Neha

Post 93

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 11:51pm

To sum up: the boy and girl are still sneaking around. What do you think? Should they do it? Answer in yes or no, please.

Post 94

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 11:58pm

Sneak around? Yes.

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 12:12am

Yup.

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 4:54am

Hell, yeah.

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 7:53am

Should they sneak... yes or no?

should they.... nope
will they.... yep

It is totally their choice though. If I was their mother, I would let them see each other and there would not be an issue of sneaking.

If they have considered their values and being together is a higher value to them than the consequences of what they are doing, then it is the right thing for them to do. I am still hesitant to give them a green light though as I still think they have not given us the whole story. I pointed out the contradictions in an earlier post. The only "should" here is that they should be honest to themselves and their long-term rational self-interest. I still see *family versus fling* and I would choose family, and work within that framework towards an acceptable solution.

Kat
aka Luke's Grandmother, Lady Buzzkill

Post 98

Saturday, September 17, 2005 - 6:47am

I never said "yes" or "no" because I do not consider this a decision that should be determined by a vote.

Post 99

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 5:37am