Topix Chitown Regulars

[edogxxx]

Mister Tonka wrote:

Mom hires strippers for 16 year old son's birthday party. WHOOOOOOOO!!!!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-575700...
Now I'm not gonna say that was the best parenting move, but she's being charged with child endangerment. Say what? I'm GUESSING that these were not even nude dancers considering this all went down at a bowling alley. Not exactly sure what danger these kids were in. I call foul.

What is the matter with you? If actions don't directly result in a bloody corpse, you don't think people should be charged at all.

Children cannot consent to strippers, tattoos, or sexual activity. An adult who engages children in such is committing child endangerment our worse.

[Mister Tonka]

edogxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
What is the matter with you? If actions don't directly result in a bloody corpse, you don't think people should be charged at all.
Children cannot consent to strippers, tattoos, or sexual activity. An adult who engages children in such is committing child endangerment our worse.

As I said, this went down in a bowling alley, therefore I doubt fully nude. So they saw pretty much the same thing they can see at the beach. And explain to me what danger the kids were in because every parent that allows their 16 year old boy to get on the internet is contributing to the same "endangerment". Or worse!

I agree she did not use the best judgement, but no one was in any danger unless their vigin eyes would burn from the hellfire raining down because they saw a scantily clad woman.

[RedheadwGlasses]

If she thinks it'sokay to higher strippers (even non nude strippers) for her underage, teenage son and his friends in apublic place and thinks nothing's wrong that, what does she allow at home?

I think she sounds like a horrible mother.

[squishymama]

Mister Tonka wrote:

Mom hires strippers for 16 year old son's birthday party. WHOOOOOOOO!!!!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-575700...
Now I'm not gonna say that was the best parenting move, but she's being charged with child endangerment. Say what? I'm GUESSING that these were not even nude dancers considering this all went down at a bowling alley. Not exactly sure what danger these kids were in. I call foul.

Child endagerment seems a bit excessive. That charge should be saved for parents who put their kids in cages or lock up the food.

The boys probably thought that was the best.party.ever.

[Toj]

RACE wrote:

You have so little faith in me. By your account it's amazing I have not gotten drunk, driven into a bridge and shot myself all at the same time.
<quoted text>

...yet.

[Mister Tonka]

I tried to look up a legal definition of "child endangerment". I found this:

"Child endangerment is a criminal offense that involves the subjection of minor children to inappropriate or dangerous situations. It is not the same as child abuse, which involves direct harm to children, but carries a similar penalty in the American judicial system."

By that definition, I agree with the charge, but only because of the inclusion of the word inappropriate. However, if this charge carries similar penalties to child abuse, then I feel this is a bit heavy handed.

Getting your 16 year old kid a stripper?
Unwise? yes.
Inappropriate? Yes
Deserving of punishment? Maybe. Actual nudity, yes. No more revealing than what's on the beach? No.
Deserving of a punishment similar to what child ABUSERS get? Oh, hell no.

But I suppose the law needs to be broad enough to cover some molester that's showing his pecker to the 8 year old at the bus stop but not laying a hand on her.

[Toj]

Mister Tonka wrote:

<quoted text>As I said, this went down in a bowling alley, therefore I doubt fully nude. So they saw pretty much the same thing they can see at the beach. And explain to me what danger the kids were in because every parent that allows their 16 year old boy to get on the internet is contributing to the same "endangerment". Or worse!
I agree she did not use the best judgement, but no one was in any danger unless their vigin eyes would burn from the hellfire raining down because they saw a scantily clad woman.

There you go. Answered your own question: Their vigin eyes would burn from the hellfire raining down because they saw a scantily clad woman.

Either that or all the kids were endangered by their own parents once they got wind of it.

[Toj]

Mister Tonka wrote:

I tried to look up a legal definition of "child endangerment". I found this:
"Child endangerment is a criminal offense that involves the subjection of minor children to inappropriate or dangerous situations. It is not the same as child abuse, which involves direct harm to children, but carries a similar penalty in the American judicial system."
By that definition, I agree with the charge, but only because of the inclusion of the word inappropriate. However, if this charge carries similar penalties to child abuse, then I feel this is a bit heavy handed.
Getting your 16 year old kid a stripper?
Unwise? yes.
Inappropriate? Yes
Deserving of punishment? Maybe. Actual nudity, yes. No more revealing than what's on the beach? No.
Deserving of a punishment similar to what child ABUSERS get? Oh, hell no.
But I suppose the law needs to be broad enough to cover some molester that's showing his pecker to the 8 year old at the bus stop but not laying a hand on her.

There you go. "Inappropriate". Look, I agree with you. They turned the crank on this way up to what needs to be done. I don't think the law needs to be in on this one but maybe someone called it in.

[PEllen]

squishymama wrote:

<quoted text>
Child endagerment seems a bit excessive. That charge should be saved for parents who put their kids in cages or lock up the food.
The boys probably thought that was the best.party.ever.

"Child endangerment" is no doubt legal-speak for "What the H*ll were you thinking, lady?"

[Mister Tonka]

PEllen wrote:

<quoted text>
"Child endangerment" is no doubt legal-speak for "What the H*ll were you thinking, lady?"

Yes. Problem being that whe I read an article, I don't have my english to legalease translation book sitting next to me, so I take words at their dictionary meaning.

[NWmoon]

squishymama wrote:

<quoted text>
Child endagerment seems a bit excessive. That charge should be saved for parents who put their kids in cages or lock up the food.
The boys probably thought that was the best.party.ever.

Yeah, I'm figuring they probably see more in a season of "How I Met Your Mother".

[Mimi Seattle]

edogxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
What is the matter with you? If actions don't directly result in a bloody corpse, you don't think people should be charged at all.
Children cannot consent to strippers, tattoos, or sexual activity. An adult who engages children in such is committing child endangerment our worse.

There are many states where a child (16 I think) who wants a tattoo and all they need is a parent to sign the ok. Many states set the age of consent for sexual activity at 16. So yeah they can consent. Oh and then there's the 17 year old "children" who can go into the military.

So all of that's legal, all that consenting being done by those aged 16-18...

[edogxxx]

Mister Tonka wrote:

But I suppose the law needs to be broad enough to cover some molester that's showing his pecker to the 8 year old at the bus stop but not laying a hand on her.

This is it, exactly. If you think it's okay for a non-nude stripper to shake it in your child's face, then it should be okay for me to shove my non-nude crotch in your young daughter's face, right?

Yeah, didn't think so.

[RedheadwGlasses]

I do not have arthritiS!!!

Doctor (Univ of Iowa! Go Hawkeyes) was cool. Said it looks like RA on paper, I had the five major symptoms, but the fact that it was just my hands/fingers, nowhere else (shoulders, elbows, back), no internal issues (blood in stool and urine--I had understood those to be more serious symptoms that develop later on), AND when he usedh is hands on my knuckles and felt the bones and how the edges felt, moved things at certain angles and bent them, squished the knuckles, he said it's not RA, most likely carpal tunnel (which RA does cause). Said we could run different tests, get more info, do xrays, etc.

Then when he found out how I sleep -- with my wrists bent, we're just starting with wrist braces at night or when doing heavy lifting/physical work to keep them straight, use ibuprofen for pain and inflammation, and made an appointment for mid-April, and if it's better by then, cancel the appointment.

I am THRILLED and he was happy that I was THRILLED!

:D :D :D

I'm going to celebrate with homemade sloppy joes and cocktails and Law & Order reruns.

[RedheadwGlasses]

squishymama wrote:

<quoted text>
Child endagerment seems a bit excessive. That charge should be saved for parents who put their kids in cages or lock up the food.
The boys probably thought that was the best.party.ever.

You know, I agree. And should it be a crime to be a parent with poor taste? Probably not.

[squishymama]

RedheadwGlasses wrote:

I do not have arthritiS!!!
Doctor (Univ of Iowa! Go Hawkeyes) was cool. Said it looks like RA on paper, I had the five major symptoms, but the fact that it was just my hands/fingers, nowhere else (shoulders, elbows, back), no internal issues (blood in stool and urine--I had understood those to be more serious symptoms that develop later on), AND when he usedh is hands on my knuckles and felt the bones and how the edges felt, moved things at certain angles and bent them, squished the knuckles, he said it's not RA, most likely carpal tunnel (which RA does cause). Said we could run different tests, get more info, do xrays, etc.
Then when he found out how I sleep -- with my wrists bent, we're just starting with wrist braces at night or when doing heavy lifting/physical work to keep them straight, use ibuprofen for pain and inflammation, and made an appointment for mid-April, and if it's better by then, cancel the appointment.
I am THRILLED and he was happy that I was THRILLED!
:D :D :D
I'm going to celebrate with homemade sloppy joes and cocktails and Law & Order reruns.

Yay! Yay! Yay!

That was sounding like some scary sh!t. Glad to hear it's not.

[RedheadwGlasses]

Thanks, squishy! And thanks to people here (AS was one, I think?) who pushed me to get things checked out!

[RedheadwGlasses]

And thanks to voice of reason PE.:)

My doctor was so happy when I said I was THRILLED to be told it was carpal tunnel.:)

I'm in a great mood. Gonna game now.

[PEllen]

RedheadwGlasses wrote:

I do not have arthritiS!!!
Doctor (Univ of Iowa! Go Hawkeyes) was cool. Said it looks like RA on paper, I had the five major symptoms, but the fact that it was just my hands/fingers, nowhere else (shoulders, elbows, back), no internal issues (blood in stool and urine--I had understood those to be more serious symptoms that develop later on), AND when he usedh is hands on my knuckles and felt the bones and how the edges felt, moved things at certain angles and bent them, squished the knuckles, he said it's not RA, most likely carpal tunnel (which RA does cause). Said we could run different tests, get more info, do xrays, etc.
Then when he found out how I sleep -- with my wrists bent, we're just starting with wrist braces at night or when doing heavy lifting/physical work to keep them straight, use ibuprofen for pain and inflammation, and made an appointment for mid-April, and if it's better by then, cancel the appointment.
I am THRILLED and he was happy that I was THRILLED!
:D :D :D
I'm going to celebrate with homemade sloppy joes and cocktails and Law & Order reruns.

Good. Glad we were wrong. Tells you how much you can trust on line diagnoses.

[RedheadwGlasses]

Well, he did say that I did have the five primary symptoms. Good thing I thought "shit, beter see a doctor." 'cause you neverk now.