Bruno

Discussion (11) ¬

1. 
   ronald

   February 12, 2018 at 12:12 pm | #

   I’ll try again:

   Peter Rogan: Kids are becoming teenagers younger and younger all the time now

   I’m sorry but I genuinely have no idea what that means. Kids become teenagers when they turn thirTEEN. Prior to that, they’re pre-teens. That’s kind of how time works.
2. 
   M.A.

   February 12, 2018 at 3:20 pm | #

   This is a semantic argument. i think what Peter Rogan is talking about is the cultural image of “teenage”: volatility; sharp, definite (and ever-changing) opinions; general bad attitude; contempt for adults; and like that. It’s descriptive of a developmental stage, related tangentially to the number of birthdays a person has had. You are talking only about the number of birthdays, without the cultural connotations. (I took a basic semantics class in college; it Changed My Life.)
3. 
   Peter Rogan

   February 12, 2018 at 4:30 pm | #

   At the risk of sounding pedantic…. thirteen ain’t thirteen any more, as any casual observer at the local mall and food court can attest. I could go on about how the invention of adolescence in the 20th Century put a new stage of development in American youth (there’s no middle step in a bar- or bat mitzvah, notice; you’re a child and bam! you’re an adult), and how the expansion of this period into ‘the tweens’ has pushed the entrance age lower…. but I think I’ll just lay it on you that the average age of menarch has been dropping the last fifty years and now stands at eleven. Make of that what you will.
4. 
   ronald

   February 12, 2018 at 10:04 pm | #

   >>>At the risk of sounding pedantic…. thirteen ain’t thirteen any more

   You’re not being pedantic, you’re being incomprehensible. To me, anyway.

   Thirteen years equals 676 weeks equals 4749 days equals 1 decade + 3 years. That’s immutable.

   >>>but I think I’ll just lay it on you that the average age of menarch has been dropping the last fifty years and now stands at eleven

   Okay, I know what that MEANS but since that’s a strictly physiological phenomenon which has always varied from girl to girl (and which I hardly need point out has no bearing whatsoever on males, age thirteen or otherwise) that AFAIK has demonstrably nothing to do with anything under discussion, I don’t know what you’re using that fact to SAY. I can make nothing of it because it’s an objective fact that has no inherent meaning beyond itself. Kind of like 13 = 10+3 = 3+3+3+3+1 = and so on.
5. 
   Regulus

   February 13, 2018 at 7:06 am | #

   I agree with Peter, kids are acting older than their physical age. Chronologically they might not be classified as teenagers until 13, but there is a new stage called tweenagers now for younger kids. Have you gone through this with your children?
6. 
   ronald

   February 13, 2018 at 9:26 am | #

   AFAIK “tweens” is just another word for “pre-teens” or “pre-adolescents.” But whichever.
7. 
   ronald

   February 13, 2018 at 9:50 am | #

   Wait, is this thirteen-isn’t-thirteen thing supposed to be some sort of reference to it becoming “common” for twelve-year-olds to be sexually active? I heard people making that claim over twenty-five years ago. I saw no reason to believe such a claim at the time and I’ve seen none in the interim. So there’s that, anyway.
8. 
   Peter Rogan

   February 13, 2018 at 7:41 pm | #

   I don’t think it’s wise to continue a discussion with anybody who uses an age as a metaphor and then claims to not understand that the metaphor is not what it used to be. Especially with the unclean suggestion that the topic is all about adolescent sexual license. This conversation serves no purpose.
9. 
   ronald

   February 13, 2018 at 11:37 pm | #

   What metaphor? When did I use age as a metaphor? “Thirteen” is not a metaphor. It’s an chronological age.

   And…”unclean”? Honestly? I mean, it was just a guess, anyway, but….”UNCLEAN”?!

   All I’m taking away from this is that you don’t know how to answer my question. I’m expressing genuine interest in what you’re saying and you’re rebuffing that interest. And that’s okay.
10. 
    ronald

    February 13, 2018 at 11:54 pm | #

    Oh, and if I used a metaphor, I apologize. Seriously. I’d never use a metaphor in casual conversation without clarifying — indeed overemphasizing — that that’s what I was doing.

    BTW, is this “unclean”? It discusses sex, too.

    http://brunostrip.com/wp/?p=463
11. 
    ronald

    February 14, 2018 at 1:59 am | #

    Really, Peter, the more I think about it, the odder it seems to me. I express an interest in being able to understand what you’re saying, and you consider that a conversation without “purpose.” Yet I make a casual remark about “human interaction” and you can’t tell me enough about what an inferior person I am. What “purpose” did you see in conversations like those?

    Is it just that you can’t stand the idea of talking to someone when they actually WANT you to talk to them? That it’s no fun for you unless you know you’re aggravating whoever you’re talking to?

    Because I could totally believe that.

    Okay. Here’s me, giving up. All done. Bye-bye. :-)