shakran

Funny you should say that, 'cause I have my undergraduate in psychology. Pop psychology - the kind of crap you read in Psychology Today - is all about the "feel good" psychology. Don't tell little Johnny he can't color on the wall because that will stifle his creativity. Don't tell Suzie not to scream her lungs out in the store because that might damage her feelings of selfworth. Don't catch your teenager in the act of breaking rules because that'll scar her for life. I've heard it all and it's all bullshit. Unless there's something that wasn't included in the original post, mom didn't beat her daughter. She didn't tell her daughter she's a slut, or a whore, or any other derogatory term. All she did was catch the daughter in the act of having sex when the daughter was specifically told not to have sex in the house.

Children have no expectation of privacy, nor should they. As another example, maybe if Dylan Kliebold's parents had "invaded his privacy" by going into his room from time to time, he would have been caught building his arsenal and the Columbine tragedy could have been averted.

If the kid's breaking the rules, then the kid should accept the consequences. Arguing that mom had no right to come into her room is crap. 1) yes, mom did have the right to go into the kid's room. It's mom's house. Not the kid. If the kid moves out and buys her own house, then the kid can tell mom which rooms mom is not allowed in. 2) now that we've established that mom has the right to enter the kid's room, then the kid should not expect to have privacy when she's blatantly flaunting the rules.

Quote:

Last time I checked USA had signed the UN's universal decalaration of human rights, which means that it is a valid right for everyone.

Last time I checked the Universal Declaration of Human Rights said nothing about whether children should be allowed to have sex in their mom's house. It also said nothing about whether moms have the right to go into their kids room. Please don't take a document meant to keep people from being tortured and try to apply it to parenting.

Quote:

What you seem to miss completly here is that children, no matter how young, are still HUMAN BEINGS! Which entitels them to the right of, among other things, privacy. Just because someone is paying the bill doesn't give them the right to do what they please with one who is forced (by society and it's demands) to live under her roof.

OK, first off are you saying that the daughter wants to and has the means to leave mom's house, but is being held back by society? I didn't get that at all from reading the post.

Quote:

If children weren't protected under the law it would be pedophile heaven in the US now wouldn't it??

They are protected under the law. Child molestation is illegal. Parenting your child is not. Parents have the right to parent their child, which is what mom was doing in this case.

You seem to be arguing that children can and must enjoy the same freedoms and rights as adults do. According to that, 5 year olds should be allowed to buy and smoke cigarettes. They should be allowed to buy and drink alcohol. They should be allowed to drive cars. They should be allowed to vote, and to hold political office. They should have final say in all medical decisions regarding them (no mom, I don't want braces, so you can't get them for me. No mom, I don't like shots so you can't allow the doctor to give me penicillin to cure my strep throat. And no vaccinations either.) They should be allowed to make all life decisions for themselves (I don't want to eat anything but chocolate and you have to feed it to me.) That argument is patently absurd. The girl is a minor. She therefore is still being rasied by her parents and what they say goes. No-sex-in-the-house is not an abusive rule, nor is it abusive to enforce it.

Quote:

What I'm saying is that her mother has no right to terrorise her childs privacy, but she has the right to set the rules. She has a right to enforce these rules but not the right to violate her daughters privacy to do so.

OK, so you're saying that any time the kid's in her room she can do anything she wants because in order to stop her, mom has to come in the room, which is violating her right to privacy. That's crap. As I've said, it's not HER room, it's mom's room. Mom is letting the daughter use the room. the daughter isn't paying for it. Mom is. Mom has the right to do anything she wants in that room, including opening the door. If the daughter doesn't like it, she should either move out or stop having sex in it.

Quote:

Her daughter is neither a slave, nor a pet, she has her rights and she has her obligations.

Chief among those obligations is to obey her parents, which she wasn't doing. Children do not automatically become slaves just because their parents look at what they're doing. BTW, according to your argument, parents who suspect their 10 year old of using crack can't check the kid's room to see if there are drugs there.

Quote:

The issue is not wheter her daughter has any right to have sex in her mothers house (that was just me expressing my personal view on her mothers rules) it is wether her mother was right or wrong in the way she handled it. As I see it she overdid it bigtime. Thereby showing her daughter that she doesn't respect her. If the mother doesn't respect her daughter why the he*l should the daughter respect her and her rules?

Because the daughter is living under mom's roof, eating mom's food, going to mom when she gets in trouble, and generally being fully supported by mom. That is why the hell the daughter should respect her and her rules. As for overdoing it, you're wrong, plain and simple. Parents have the right to raise their kids, and they have the right to catch their kids when the kids are breaking the rules.

Quote:

I did not appreciate your personal attack, it was very rude but says more about you and your capacity to think than any response I could ever give you.

It wasn't a personal attack, it was a fact. If you as a parent don't discipline your child for fear of damaging them, then the child will be a monster. It's been proven time and again.