Drugs aren't everywhere, not everybody's doing them and not all teens get drunk: The 'rite of passage' myth!

Earlier in the year I wrote a piece on research that found alcohol use had declined amongst young Australians. Although many readers welcomed the figures and saw them as a reason to celebrate our teens, sadly, some people refused to believe what they read. You only have to look at some of the comments on my Facebook feed to see that there are those who are never going to accept that some teens are going to make healthier choices. Some simply thought the researchers got it wrong and the data was inaccurate whereas others chose to believe that teens were using illicit drugs instead (even though the research does not support this). Here are just some of the comments:

• "I don't know where you get your figures from and I doubt the accuracy of them"
• "I find that a little hard to believe when you drive around on a Saturday night in the Hills Area particularly where there is a party involving 14-17 year olds ..."
• "Drugs. Cheap, easy to get.....I could go on. Any other reason is just simply being deluded"
• "Because they all pop pingers and snort coke instead"
• "Its easier to get drugs"

I also received a 'harsh' message from one mother who believed strongly drinking alcohol (and experimenting with illicit drugs) was simply a 'rite of passage' for young people and so-called research findings that said anything different was ridiculous. Here is just one cleaned-up section of the message (and I mean cleaned-up - this was a rant with a lot of swear words!):

"Drinking alcohol is just what teens do, they always have and they always will. It's a rite of passage. Most of them will also try drugs as well. Drugs are everywhere (more now then ever before) and the peer pressure to drink and take drugs was around when I was a teen and it's still there for my kids."

The one part of this message that riled me was the old chestnut - 'It's a rite of passage'. You see this used in so many statements around teen behaviour, particularly by parents who want to try and explain away potentially risky behaviour their child may be involved in by implying that it's just something that 'everyone' does at this time in their life and there's nothing they can do about it. Going to Schoolies' events is now often referred to as a 'rite of passage', as is attendance at post-formal events for senior school students. If you look at the term, it is defined as "a ceremony performed to facilitate or mark a person's change of status upon any of several highly important occasions, as at the onset of puberty or upon entry into marriage or into a clan." Now by that definition you can sort of see how a Schoolies' event can 'fit' - i.e., an event that marks the transition from high school to the big wide world, but drinking alcohol or experimenting with illicit drugs? Undoubtedly, drinking alcohol and/or experimenting with illicit drugs is a part of adolescence for some young people but can it really be regarded as a 'rite of passage'?

No-one should stick their head in the sand and pretend that drinking and drug use doesn't happen. When it comes to alcohol in particular – it would be true to say that most young people will experiment with it at some time during their teens. However, the same cannot be said for illegal drugs, particularly when we're talking about teenagers. Most school-based young people have never tried illegal drugs, they have no interest in these substances and they never will. Study after study after study confirms this, yet try and get this fact reported in the media and you hit a brick wall.

Interestingly, you often hit that very same brick wall when you speak to the teenagers themselves. Years ago, I had just finished a school presentation, with one of the final slides revealing the percentage of young people who have not tried illicit drugs. One student's response to the low number was particularly interesting ...

"Max was a Year 11 student and an outspoken critical thinker. Instead of whispering to the person next to him about his doubts regarding the figure he stood up and argued his case. "I find those figures very hard to believe," he said. "Everybody I know uses drugs. That slide just doesn't ring true – where did you find those people who you surveyed?"
After informing him and the rest of the group how the data was collected I decided to challenge him. "So everybody you know uses drugs?" I said. "You're in a room full of over 100 of your peers – are you saying that every one of these young people in this room uses drugs?" "No, of course not," he replied. "I don't mean people at school, I mean the people I know out of school. They all use drugs." I then wanted to know what drugs he was talking about and he informed me that cannabis was the drug of choice for 'everybody'.
"Give me a number," I asked him. "I want an actual number of the people that you know for a fact use cannabis. You have seen these people smoke the drug, not simply heard about it, or believe it to be true – you know for a fact. Work it out and give me the number."
It took Max quite a while to respond and for a while I thought my test was going to backfire, but he was an intelligent and thoughtful young man and was taking my challenge seriously. When he finally did give his answer it confirmed my belief that although he believed a considerable proportion (well, actually all of them) smoked cannabis, this was not the case.
"Five," he said!

I love this story! I included it in my 2009 book Teenagers, Alcohol and Drugs and used to tell it at every school I visited and it always got a great reception. Of course, there are many young people who know far more than 5 others who have drank alcohol or taken drugs, but I have yet to meet any student who can honestly say that 'everybody' they know does it! Unfortunately, there is a perception out there that, even amongst young people, that most people have used drugs and that all drink. When you take a few moments to challenge that perception you can get some really interesting results.

There are two words that I really dislike that we tend to overuse when talking about alcohol and drugs – 'all' and 'everybody'. If you just spend a couple of moments to think about it you know that statements like "everybody does it" and "all teenagers go through that stage" just don't make sense. Even if everyone you knew did 'do it' when you were younger (and I don’t believe that that is the case), that was your group and, like it or not, your friends may not have been the norm! 'Everybody' doesn't do it and not 'all' teenagers go through that stage – these generalizations need to be challenged and unfortunately we don't do that enough.

Let's not forget that not all young people are the same, this is particularly true when it comes to attitudes and values around alcohol and other drugs. Even when it comes to alcohol use, you quickly realize that young people are not one homogenous group. Teens can be broken down into three key categories, two of which we rarely acknowledge:

• the first is the loudest and the most obvious, those who drink and often drink to excess. Evidence would suggest that this group is getting smaller but unfortunately are consuming at riskier levels than in the past and drinking at a younger age 
• the next group comprises those who attempt to drink 'responsibly'. They don't drink regularly and when they do they usually consume a small amount. This does not mean there are no risks involved in their drinking behaviour, but we do need to acknowledge that these young people are trying to do 'the right thing' 
• finally we have the abstainers. According to the data, this is a growing group but one we rarely speak about; in fact we often completely ignore them, making them feel even more alienated than many of them already feel within their peer group.

While putting together my book I asked young people I came in contact with to feel free to write to me with their thoughts on the topic of teens and alcohol and other drug use. I used many of these comments but recently found this one that got cut in the final edit ...

"As a 16-year-old, I am constantly frustrated by accusations and generalisations of teenagers. Apparently, we are all alcoholic junkies who spend our time vandalising, watching TV, and terrorising the "innocent, helpless, adult citizens" of our suburbs. I have long hair and a beard, which makes people's reactions to me even more obvious ... I don't steal, and I follow a lifestyle of being 'straight edge', which means I avoid alcohol and drugs ... Although this lifestyle is not for everyone, it is an example of what at least one teenager is like. I'm sick of the image of a "teenager" as being lazy and out of control. If all teenagers represented the mainstream portrayal of an adolescent, then I ask, who is getting the high UAIs? I mean, if we, the adults of the future, are all lazy ragamuffins, then the future looks pretty bleak. A large portion of the people who criticise the kids of today, were criticised for many of the same reasons when they were teenagers. I know this has been an angry, biased, and not particularly well written comment, but thanks for the opportunity to voice my thoughts."

That's a powerful statement and really highlights the whole 'rite of passage' myth. Let's never forget that all young people are different. We need to acknowledge that many young people will drink alcohol at some time during their adolescence and some may experiment with one or more illegal drugs. However, that does not mean that we should throw our arms up in the air and declare drinking and drug use as simply a 'rite of passage' that all teens will go through. That's a cop-out and, I believe, an excuse for lazy parenting. Drugs aren't everywhere, not everybody's doing them and not all teens get drunk - that's an undisputable fact that all parents should hold onto ...

Read More »

Infamous Abuse Cases Have Nothing to Do With Consanguinamory or Polyamory

TRIGGER WARNING: Abuse, domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, slavery, murder

Media sensationalism abounds when it comes to the horrific cases of severe abuse and even murder in cases labeled as "polygamy" and "incest." Any abuse of anyone, especially children, is unacceptable. Unfortunately, there's a "guilt by association" tactic that anti-equality forces tap into to try to smear the cause of full marriage equality, especially to deny rights to people who are ethically nonmonogamous and/or consanguinamorous. What has been presented in media reports about Warren Jeffs, Winston Blackmore, Josef Fritzl, Tim and June Colt, Marcus Wesson, the Alvarez incest case, the Sheffield incest case, the Moe incest case, and the Goler clan, has nothing to do with our cause and what this blog is about.

This blog is about the rights of adults, regardless of their gender, orientation, race, or religion, to share love, sex, residence, and marriage (and any of those things without the others) with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, bullying or discrimination. It has nothing to do with child abuse, domestic violence, or holding anyone captive.

For every one of these horror stories of abuse, there are millions of healthy polyamorous and consanguinamorous relationships between consenting adults, who shouldn't be falsely lumped in with the abusers.

When children are rescued from being abused, especially for many years in isolation, many people assume, and reports are all too quick to insinuate, that whatever health problems the children are dealing with are because of consanguineous parentage. However, a lot of other factors contribute to problems children in those situations have.

Birth defects can be the result of injury during pregnancy, substances ingested during pregnancy, environmental factors, or genetic problems. It is the last one that people tend to be thinking of, usually, when they repeat this myth. That’s because when both genetic parents carry the same genetic problem, it may be demonstrated in the children.

It is important to note that most children born to consanguineous parents are healthy.

Let's look specifically at what was at Wikipedia about the Colt clan case.

The Colt family incest case, dubbed by media as the Colt incest clan, is an Australian family discovered in 2012 to have been engaging in four generations of incest beginning with "Tim and June Colt," a brother and sister who emigrated from New Zealand in the 1970s.^[1] The family grew to nearly 40 members ranging from grandparents to mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, aunts, uncles, nephews, brothers and sisters all engaging in various forms of incest. Many of the children suffered from deformities and medical problems.

They all lived on a farm.

The police ultimately discovered nearly 40 members of the family living under squalid conditions in tents and shacks.^[6]

Squalid conditions, physical abuse, malnutrition, and lack of care, including dental, general medical care, etc. can all deformities and other medical problems.

It is terrible what the children endured.

Children and adults had regularly engaged in sexual activities, resulting in children, some with genetic deformities. They had no access to running water, showers, toilets or hygiene products. Most of the children had fungal infections.

Horrific. The children were apparently abused in so many ways. Also of note that after four generations, "some" of the children (not all) had genetic deformities.

It is more likely that horror cases like these will be prevented if ethical nonmonogamy, including polyamory and polygamy, and consanguinamory (again, between consenting adults) is decriminalized and given protection under full marriage equality. There are multiple reasons why, including victims and witnesses of abuse being more likely to cooperate with law enforcement if their consensual relationships aren't criminalized, and people being able to come out of the shadows and seek professional services such as medical care without being turned over to law enforcement for their consensual relationships. It is easier to people that consent matters when consent is treated consistently. It is far easier for people to recognize abuse when consensual relationships aren't lumped in with it in laws or stigmas.

Read More »

Has Your Partner Experienced Consanguinamory?

I used be active at a certain Big Internet Portal's Question and Answer service, until someone who couldn’t handle me answering questions truthfully when it comes to certain romantic or sexual topics decided to get me "suspended" using a weakness in their automated system. After that, I'd still check to see what questions were being asked there, even though I couldn't participate in any way or even contact anyone there unless they had somehow provided an email address in their question or answer. I will not link to the service, but I will quote it. Someone named Lauren asked this question...

Ok.....complicated one, recently found out my husband and his younger sister had sex for a number of years between the ages of 10-12, this is what he's telling me tho I'm aware this may have more to it? We are a young couple married with two children (boys) my relationship with his family has never been great and this hasn't helped! Can anyone give me any advice or your thoughts on how you would deal with this news? I'm up and down and so confused.....

Questions like this come up more than people might think. Person A is dating or married to Person B and Person A suspects or has found out that Person B has been sexually involved with a sibling or other family member. Person A usually wants to know what they should do.

It is important to clarify the situation by determining the answers to some questions.

1) Is this something that is suspected or has it been confirmed?



Not all families have the same behaviors and boundaries when it comes to physical affection, personal space, joking, and otherwise talking. As such, Person A can look at how Person B interacts with a sibling and think, “I wouldn’t interact with my sibling that way, only a partner” and so think that Person B must have sexual experience with their family member. It isn’t necessarily the case, though. On the other hand, with as common as consanguineous experimentation and sex is, it isn’t unreasonable to wonder.

Unless someone comes right out and makes a clear, credible statement either way, there probably isn’t an easy way to get the truth that will not cause some embarrassment.  One way of handling it could be in expressing needs and negotiating boundaries. Even if someone is monogamous, they should never assume their relationship is monogamous unless that has been explicitly discussed. So perhaps one oblique way of trying to determine if there’s anything current is to say, “I need monogamy. Is that going to be a problem?” Or, if polyamorous, saying “I need to know exactly who else you are going to be having sex with.” Trying to determine if anything happened in the past is going to take being a little less vague. It might be helpful to say something like this, in a nonjudgmental tone: “I was reading that a surprisingly high percentage of people have had sexual experiences with a close family member, enough that everyone knows somebody who has. But I’m not aware of anyone I know who has. Are you?” Depending on how serious the relationship is getting, the questioning can get more direct, because if someone is going to be creating a family with someone else, they should be talking about the dynamics and family history of both families.


2) Was this something that happened in the past or is it ongoing?

If confirmation is obtained, it is important to know whether the sexual aspect of the relationship is likely over for good or if it is ongoing or could easily resume. If it ended, when, why, and how did it end?


3) Was this consensual activity or was it assault/molestation?

I don’t classify assault or molestation as sexual activity or experimentation, as I think those are entirely different things. But as far as abuse or molestation goes, there is a difference between a 12-year-old grabbing his 10-year-old sister once to upset her and realizing it was a terrible thing to do and a 14-year-old forcing themselves on a 7-year-old repeatedly and trying to excuse it with “kids will be kids.” If someone is planning to raise kids with their partner, they should not ignore a history of child abuse.

Some kids engage in mutual exploration or experimentation. Most therapists don’t consider it abusive if minor family members close in age explore by mutual agreement. A 13-year-old and a 12-year-old might be curious. A 20-year-old and an 18-year-old might be in love. And that brings us to another question.


4) If this was a consensual thing in the past, was it a one-time event, a casual family-with-benefits thing, a love affair, or what?

They may have engaged in everything from a one-time instance of playing doctor or some other game, or had an ongoing love affair that they thought was going to last forever. Or perhaps there was something in between. That matters.


Discovering that your partner is cheating on you, deeply in love with a sibling, is a different matter than finding out that your partner used to masturbate in front of a sibling when they were teens, for mutual enjoyment, and both are different than finding out that your partner assaulted three relatives.

Going back to the question that prompted this entry, it wasn’t clear whether both of the siblings were "10-12" or not. Assuming they were close in age, it was not a matter of abuse, and everything ended before they were even teenagers, then there’s nothing for Lauren to do, unless she thinks it is causing ongoing problems in her marriage, in which case she should seek marriage therapy and perhaps individual therapy. If he is a good father and a good husband, she should be happy knowing that he chose to marry her and loves her. That should outweigh what happened in his childhood, even if she thinks what happened is wrong.

All of the above refers to interaction with siblings, cousins or even aunts/uncles who are close in age. There is a different dynamic if the involvement was with an older aunt/uncle, parent, or grandparent (or, in the case of someone who is older, an adult child). Again, abuse is a whole different matter than consensual sex between adults. But consensual adult intergenerational sex does happen, perhaps not as often as intragenerational, but it happens.

If someone is not in a committed relationship, but is rather just dating someone, and they think the other person is “too close” to a family member, they are entirely free to stop seeing them. A casual outsider is not going to change family dynamics, and trying to do so will likely make everyone unhappy. Who wants to be suspicious that their partner is cheating with anyone, let alone a family member? A consanguinamorous bond can be an especially powerful one, and if someone suspects they are dating someone who is has such a bond, issuing an ultimatum will likely mean the dating will end.

Like anything else about a partner’s sexual history, it comes down to knowing what you’ll accept and what you won’t (and what you need to know to begin with). While you may be missing out on a great partner if you “can’t” accept some of the consensual sex in their past or that they will not tell you something, it isn’t a good idea to get in deeper with someone if you’re going to end up holding that aspect of their past against them.

Conversely, if you'll love them and let them know they can be honest with you about their past and whether or not it (still) holds an erotic charge for them, you can have a great time or a great life together, especially if you are willing to sometimes play off of that history in fantasies.

Read More »

Myth: GSA Causes Birth Defects or the Children Will Be Deformed

Reality: If sex between people brought together through Genetic Sexual Attraction results in a birth, GSA does not cause birth defects in and of itself.

Most children born to close relatives are healthy. You know some, whether you know it or not and whether they know their own true parentage or not.

Birth defects can be the result of injury during pregnancy, substances ingested during pregnancy, environmental factors, or genetic problems. It is the last one that people tend to be thinking of, usually, when they repeat this myth. That’s because when both genetic parents carry the same genetic problem, it may be demonstrated in the children. However, this can happen with parents who aren’t closely related, too. A genetic problem may also result in a child if only one parent carries the genetic problem.

Many people who are brought together through GSA don't have children together, due to personal choices, or age, or surgery, or their genders, or some other condition, or even fear of the children being used as evidence in prosecution. See here for more extensive information about this topic.

See Myth: People Who Act on GSA Won’t Be Able to Have Normal Lives

See Myth: There is Only One Good Outcome to GSA

Read More »

Frequently Asked Question: Why Do Polyamorists Get Married?

The question is asked as though the person asking assumes that actual monogamy is a requirement for marriage. It isn’t in most places, even though current marriage laws will only allow monogamy in the legal sense.

For the purpose of this question and answer, I will include any form of honest nonmonogamy, or any label applied, such as open relationship, open marriage, swinging, swapping, polyamory, polyfidelity and polygamy.

Why do swingers get married?

Why do people in open relationships get married?

Why do polyamorous people get married?

The short answer is: For the same reason most other people get married. They want to get married, they think it is the best thing to do at that time in life, or they’re pressured.



There are many reasons to get married, and as I noted, one doesn’t actually need to be monogamous to get married, unless one wants to be ethical and married to someone who needs and demands monogamy. People get married for love, for attraction, for companionship, to solemnize or make official their relationship, for religious reasons, to make a public statement, for sex, for children, for friendship, for benefits, for insurance, to pool resources, to co-parent, for career, for money, as a form of commitment, to apply a legal structure to their relationship, and for other reasons I’m probably forgetting. Nonmonogamists who marry do so for one or more of these reasons, just like anyone else.

Some people cite the marriage vow of "forsaking all others." But that is just ONE vow, not one that all people marrying make. The vow can also mean different things to different marriages.

Some nonmonogamists decline to marry for various reasons. Some, like some monogamists, have decided to decline until everyone can get married. Some decline to marry until everyone in their polycule can marry. Some can’t have a legal marriage for their polycule until there is full marriage equality.

The question can also be asked of monogamists: Why do you get married? Not only is actual monogamy not a requirement, in many places, of our restrictive marriage laws, but one can be monogamous without being married.

Read More »

Jane Returns to Nothing Off Limits

Our good friend Jane has returned to "Nothing Off Limits." 

Go her blog for details.

It is so nice to have some good media representation.

Read More »

Myth: People Who Act on GSA Won’t Be Able to Have Normal Lives

Reality: The only hindrance to having a “normal life” for those who continue together in a Genetic Sexual Attraction relationship is the bigotry of others.

Some who’ve been brought together through GSA lead perfectly "normal," even unusually good lives. This is more likely to be possible with the support of friends and family and will be even more likely with decriminalization of GSA and the arrival of full marriage equality.

Until then, many people in consanguinamorous relationships are somewhat closeted. There may be people you know who seem like the cutest couple, and may be great neighbors, who are actually people who were brought together by GSA.

Please help make it possible for more people who've been brought together through GSA lead "normal" lives.

See Myth: Only Defective People Experience GSA

See Myth: GSA Causes Birth Defects or the Children Will Be Deformed

Read More »

'Pre-parties' and a 'tactical vomit' again! Can parents really provide a 'safe space' for young people to drink?

It's hard to believe that it was four years ago that I first wrote about the 'tactical vomit' phenomenon! If you were around at that time you may remember that I was asked by a Year 10 girl what I thought about the 'benefits' of a 'tactical vomit' ... now, as I said in that blog entry, maybe I had missed something when  I was a teenager but I had never heard of this. It took a little time and quite a few conversations with friends, colleagues and some young people to really get what she was talking about ... As I said then, there were certainly some people who had a vague idea of what she was referring to but almost everybody was surprised about the age of the girl who asked me about the practice.

For the uninitiated, here is a part of an email I received from another Year 10 girl who I asked to describe a 'tactical vomit' and how it was used by young people of her age:

"Before we go out to a party for the night we usually meet at someone else's house and have a few drinks beforehand. Sometimes someone drinks too much and it gets to a point that we know she won't be able to get into the party we're going to because she looks too drunk and the parents or security guards wouldn't let her in ... That's when we would have a tactical vomit - she would go into the toilet and stick her fingers down her throat or drink a glass of salty water to throw up and sober herself up. After a bit of time she'll feel a little better and we can go to the party and get in."

What we are essentially talking about here is 'self-stomach pumping'! As I said at the time, this is not an entirely new phenomenon. In fact, there are a range of definitions describing the practice available on the web, with some websites actually providing advice on how to make yourself vomit. Now, if you're in your late teens or early 20s and surrounded by friends who may have a bit of life experience and you think that this might be a good idea for you, go for it! What continues to concern me is how young some of these teens are and, more importantly, where are the parents who are meant to be supervising them at these 'pre-party' events?

In the past couple of weeks I've been asked about a tactical vomit at least three times, all in the context of drinking too much at a 'pre-party' and then having to try to sober up to ensure that they could get into the 'real party' of the night. So what is it with these so-called 'pre's' and where are the parents who should be monitoring what these very young teens are doing?

I've discussed the 'pre's' phenomenon many times over the years. These began with the 'pre-formal' drinks that some parents host before school events (something I just can't understand - providing alcohol to young people, no matter how small an amount, and then sending them off to a school function where teachers have to supervise - it's so unfair to the staff and potentially, so dangerous!). Unfortunately, these aren't new and have been around for many years. What is new, however, is the whole idea of the 'pre-party'. Some of these are hosted by parents, where those attending are either provided, or bring their own alcohol and drink it before attending a potentially 'dry' party later on that evening. To the best of my knowledge, the parties where parents provide alcohol, or tolerate or 'turn a blind eye' to drinking, usually don't start until around 15-years-old. That said, there are certainly 'pre's' that 14-year-olds attend where alcohol is consumed. That's no surprise when you hear what some parents are doing at even younger ages ... I was recently told by a parent that her 11-year-old daughter was invited to a 'pre-sleepover', where the girls attending were provided with a mocktail at the door as they entered! Why would anyone host an event like this and why would you be giving a mocktail to an 11-year-old?

From what I've heard from young people about the 'pre's' they attend, some of the main features of these events are as follows:

• they are usually quite small, comprising of just their close friendship group
• the main purpose of many (but certainly not all) of these is to preload with alcohol before the main event of the night, particularly if it is a 'dry' event, i.e., security will be present and alcohol is not permitted
• they are much more popular with girls than with young men, often because females often use them to get dressed and 'made-up' (sometimes changing into clothing that their parents would not necessarily deem appropriate)
• some parents do allow alcohol to be consumed but that is certainly not always the case
• although parents can sometimes be there, often a home will be chosen specifically because they won't be there. These events are held early and are short (a couple of hours at most), enabling teens to arrive, do what they need to do and leave - all in the time it can take for parents to see a movie or go out for dinner!
• as they're held earlier in the evening (or in some cases, the late afternoon), teens are much more likely to be able to convince their parents to let them get to the house by themselves, thus avoiding any issues with meeting other parents and the like

I was talking to a Year 11 girl this week and when I asked her about 'pre's' and whether she went to them she said the following:

"I don't drink alcohol so there's no point to me going to them. Lots of my friends go and get drunk before the party but I don't bother anymore. When we were younger in Year 7 and 8, 'pre's' were all about getting dressed up, putting on make-up and getting ready, but now they're all about drinking."

When I asked one of her friends she was with about parent supervision at these events, she said she rarely saw parents when she attended:

"If someone is home, you don't really see them. They kind of leave us alone to do our thing. I've never been to a 'pre' where the parents have given alcohol to us but I don't think we've had to hide our drinking from them since we were in Year 9. They just know that it's safer for us to drink in their house than in the park." 

And there it is again ... that old chestnut, it's safer to let them drink in the home because "at least they're not drinking in a park!" Maybe I could agree with that statement if there was any sign at all of parental monitoring of the drinking that takes place at these events, but there clearly isn't any ... When 14- and 15-year-olds are getting so drunk at 'pre's' that they actually have to put their fingers down their throats and vomit in an effort to enable them to go to where they're planning to go next, you have to doubt there is little, if any, monitoring happening at all!

I am now starting to believe that the 'pre's' are now becoming more dangerous events than the parties they precede. Anecdotally, parents certainly appear to be putting much more effort to ensuring the parties they put on in the home are as safe as possible. It takes a brave parent to host a teenage party and when time and energy are put into planning these events, most go off reasonably successfully. You don't see the same effort applied to the 'pre' and this is why we are increasingly seeing very young teens turning up at the door of a party incredibly intoxicated (i.e., 14-year-old girls too drunk to walk and boys of the same age throwing up on the front garden of a party as they fall out of a taxi). Where are the parents of these young people who are so at-risk? Did they bother to find out anything about the 'pre' that their child was going to? And what about the parents hosting the 'pre's' - did they see these teens before they left their house to make sure they were safe and well?

I'm certainly not saying that you shouldn't let your teen go to these events - please don't use what I say as a 'big stick' and say "Paul Dillon said ...". If your child wants to attend, you should try your best to let them - saying 'no' to them all the time is not going to make it easy for anyone. But do your due diligence and find out more about the events your son or daughter wants to attend on a Saturday night, not just the party but the 'pre-party' as well. Will there be parents actively supervising? Will alcohol be permitted or tolerated? How will they be getting from the 'pre' to the actual party? Based on the information you collect, you can then make a decision on whether they can go or not and what 'caveats' you need to place on their attendance to ensure their safety.

As I've said many times before, if a teen wants to drink, there is very little that any parent can do to stop that from happening. Were your parents able to stop you? That said, parents should make every effort to make it as difficult as humanly possible for them to access alcohol for as long they can. Hosting events for young teens to drink alcohol and then sending them off to someone else's home for the rest of the evening makes little sense and, is in fact, incredibly dangerous (and unbelievably unfair to the host parents of the next party). The concept of tactical vomiting is a great example of potentially dangerous behaviour associated with this idea of providing a 'safe space' for young people to drink.

Read More »

Hate Kills

There has been a long march to achieve civil rights and even basic human rights. It seems that every country goes through their own struggle against the forces of prejudice and bigotry, with the privileged reluctant to give up their powers of discrimination, especially against minorities. Sometimes they even act out violently.

The forces against progress are apparently determined to try to stall their inevitable defeats as long as possible, despite it being obvious to anyone to stops to think that rights for all is our destiny.

The problem is, this is not some friendly little debate over some unimportant matter.

There are people who are literally dying because of the hate and the discrimination it produces.

The haters have blood on their hands.

We really don’t care if you find the love lives and sexuality or gender identity of others to be strange or disgusting, or if your religion disapproves. Does your religion tell you that your god wants people killing themselves? Because there are people driven to suicide due to the senseless hostility constantly directed at them, and for what? For what? Because they love someone! There's no good reason to keep the discrimination going. Finding good therapists and other health care providers and helping professionals, and being honest with them, is difficult for some because of the criminalization of love. Your personal disapproval should not interfere in the lives of anyone else! Don’t want a consanguinamorous relationship, or a polyamorous one for that matter, or a gay one, or interracial one? Then don’t have one!

Stop standing in the way of people being themselves and sharing love and affection.

Be an ally instead.

If you’re facing hate, please don’t harm yourself. Get help instead, and know you’re not alone. You can write Keith at fullmarriageequality at protonmail dot com.

Read More »