DEBATE A TOPIC

No news items, or links. Let’s pretend we have no access to information, only our memories or experiences.
Our OPINIONS.

If this doesn’t float your boat then don’t join in.

When the debate seems about done we can choose another topic.

Two rules:

1. No links or references to articles.

2. No going off topic - make another thread.


Remember these are opinions only so really, there’s not always a right or wrong!

Oh, and this thread (nor the rules] is not up for debate.

First topic:


Is the boarding school system beneficial to children?

In my opinion boarding schools are more beneficial to the parents who have the kids, then send them off for months at a time so someone else can bring the kids up as well as tutor them.

RE boarding school question...


It may well be beneficial in some ways... ie, development of independence and focus on academic achievement/better sport PE activities, as well as distancing child from chance of interaction with any local ferrel youth in home area... and maybe better off in future with the social friends/contacts network that they obtain while there...


But I've met a few people over the years who had been to boarding schools... and none of them were happy about it... all seemed a bit damaged/scarred by the whole thing... and displayed a 'distance' or difficulty in being relaxed and interacting with the wider lot of people... all seemed to harbour some resentment towards parents and a sense of having missed out, be it the perceived love/attention of parents or sense of being wanted/unwanted etc, or of have missing out on the normal local stuff/social contact/experiences etc that everyone else seemed to them to have had...


Overall... prob bad thing for kids... causing life long issues...!

No, it's border line Child abuse

if you don't want to raise your kids don't have em, if you gonna send them off for someone else to raise just let a better people adopt them instead

One other side to the topic, not yet covered...

In vast countries like Australia and Canada, many people living in remote areas will send children off to boarding schools --  though in many cases, o ly for years 11 and 12..

Even if they don't utilise boarding schools, a lot of 17 and 18 year olds from remote, country and rural areas will eventually have to move away and "board" somewhere if they want to attend Uni' or college;  (Several of the students I met at Hawkesbury Ag' College (Uni' Western Sydney) had been to boarding schools, for various reasons...)

"Let a better people adopt them" words fail me !

My late wife went to boarding school and absolutely loathed it. My daughter was also educated at a well known public school which was mainly for boarders, but it was run by a genuine educational charity dating back more than 300 years and she gained her day-pupil place as a result of a bursary available on a selection basis for children from the borough and which covered a substantial part of the fees.

She had a wonderful time and made a lot of friends, many of whom were boarders, and I recall her saying how many of them were homesick and were envious of the fact that she was able to be at home with us evenings and weekends and to enjoy a loving family environment while benefiting from a superb education.

So far as the principle of boarding is concerned, it is often forgotten - or not even appreciated - how many boarders' parents are either in the services or work permanently abroad, frequently in places where a good all-round education might be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. That is certainly the case with a famous boys' public school only a few miles from where I live.

veya_victaous wrote:No, it's border line Child abuse

if you don't want to raise your kids don't have em, if you gonna send them off for someone else to raise just let a better people adopt them instead

And if both parents are serving abroad in the military or Diplomatic Corps, for example?

I had one daughter who went to boarding school.  But that was because she was a horse woman, and loved hunters and jumpers.  The school, in the middle of horse country, in Maryland, was idyllic.  Even I was temped to buy a farm for sale, nearby.

She was given a very high-quality education, even travelling to Russia and the Baltic states a couple of times to study Slavic/Teutonic history and culture.  She ended up going to Harvard University, and beyond, received her MBA and Law doctorate from Harvard.  So, she got a great push for it.

Of course, my other daughter stayed at home and received a public school education.  She went to a public university, and did very well.  She is now a physician.

Of course, I'm bragging....but I can only say that exclusive schools tend you set you on the path to more exclusive schools, not necessarily better education.  They each chose their own way.

I had two relatives who went to well known boarding schools one loved it, one hated it but both did well academically and made good lifelong friends and contacts that were helpful throughout their working and social lives. They were both secondary school age when they went though but had been to fee paying day schools for their primary education so were sort of used to the system.
I used to dream of going to boarding school when young and impressionable because of reading various books and the Girl comic which had a series about girls in a boarding school, I would have liked one in a horse environment, as luck would have it though no one thought of it, we wouldn't have afforded it even with a scholarship and I would have been hopeless anyway, very shy to the point of hardly speaking and always on the fringes in my day schools on the other hand it could have got me out of being so shy.

Vintage wrote: I had two relatives who went to well known boarding schools one loved it, one hated it but both did well academically and made good lifelong friends and contacts that were helpful throughout their working and social lives. They were both secondary school age when they went though but had been to fee paying day schools for their primary education so were sort of used to the system.
I used to dream of going to boarding school when young and impressionable because of reading various books and the Girl comic which had a series about girls in a boarding school, I would have liked one in a horse environment, as luck would have it though no one thought of it, we wouldn't have afforded it even with a scholarship and I would have been hopeless anyway, very shy to the point of hardly speaking and always on the fringes in my day schools on the other hand it could have got me out of being so shy.

The Four Marys, that was a great comic series about 4 girls at a boarding school.
They had lots of adventures ....like 4 mini Miss Marples.

Obviously, reading your and Quills posts, some kids settle in and thrive as boarders, I could never have sent my son away, so my view is based on how I feel.

You are right Syl, it was bad enough seeing my daughter onto the bus for her first full day at school, that little face at the window, I knew she'd be looked after, there were chaperones on the bus and the little ones were carefully watched off the bus first and into school and vice versa but that was the longest day of my life I think.

I don’t like the idea of children under 11 going at all.
At the age of 11, I still wouldn’t do it or suggest it to my children, but if they wanted to go, I’d let them.

I think children fare better in a loving home with a family of people who love them. It’s just thst simple.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:No, it's border line Child abuse

if you don't want to raise your kids don't have em, if you gonna send them off for someone else to raise just let a better people adopt them instead

And if both parents are serving abroad in the military or Diplomatic Corps, for example?

they probably shouldn't have kids, if neither has the inclination to put them before their career 

Having read some of the other poster points
I'd make exception for teenagers, but under 12 I stand by my opinion

If your in the Military you can be posted to different countries twice in a year. Over a 22 year service you could be sent to 6 or more bases, some of witch are not suitable for children,it would play hell with the kids education. Of course your Wife could stay put with the kids in one place, but that means she would hardly see her Husband. Not well known, but there are Boarding Schools for the Children of Military serving overseas .

nicko wrote: "Let a better people adopt them"      words fail me !

I know - shocking grammar!

Tommy Monk wrote:RE boarding school question...


It may well be beneficial in some ways... ie, development of independence and focus on academic achievement/better sport PE activities, as well as distancing child from chance of interaction with any local ferrel youth in home area... and maybe better off in future with the social friends/contacts network that they obtain while there...


But I've met a few people over the years who had been to boarding schools... and none of them were happy about it... all seemed a bit damaged/scarred by the whole thing... and displayed a 'distance' or difficulty in being relaxed and interacting with the wider lot of people... all seemed to harbour some resentment towards parents and a sense of having missed out, be it the perceived love/attention of parents or sense of being wanted/unwanted etc, or of have missing out on the normal local stuff/social contact/experiences etc that everyone else seemed to them to have had...


Overall... prob bad thing for kids... causing life long issues...!

I agree about the lack of local stuff/experiences. I didn't go to boarding school but I did go to a school which was some distance away so none of us got the chance to rake around town after school, we had to get on a bus and go home.

I was a fan of the Malory Towers books when I was a kid, and boarding school sounded like a mixture of fun and horror to me.

Depends on the era, I guess

Raggamuffin wrote:

nicko wrote: "Let a better people adopt them"      words fail me !

I know - shocking grammar!

It's not the grammar. It's the point. Did you miss that not-so-subtle barb?

Boarding schools are seriously outdated.

You hear from the horses mouth again & again what unmitigated disasters they were.

Life must be incredibly shitty at home for a boarding school to be any sort of improvement.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I know - shocking grammar!

It's not the grammar.  It's the point.  Did you miss that not-so-subtle barb?

Oh dear ...

Okay, new topic - sex!

My questions are these - okay, so we're supposedly living in a more sexually liberated time, but don't you think most people still have a number of sexual hang-ups and are, to some degree, still a bit shy about it?

Do you think if more people were less inhibited about sex and more open with their partners, you'd see more people breaking up? Or, would more relationships work, as being open is a great way to pull people together?

Discuss.

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:Okay, new topic - sex!

My questions are these - okay, so we're supposedly living in a more sexually liberated time, but don't you think most people still have a number of sexual hang-ups and are, to some degree, still a bit shy about it?

Do you think if more people were less inhibited about sex and more open with their partners, you'd see more people breaking up? Or, would more relationships work, as being open is a great way to pull people together?

Discuss.

Well, as open as I am....always...I can answer this topic, but I’m taking out the fact that you already know me, if that makes sense.

People are mostly afraid of sex, of their bodies and of admitting to the possible “perverted” little thoughts they may have.
Masterbating is a huge part of how people approach sex too and most people are afraid to talk about it and perform it - especially women.

Sex is twofold: there’s sex that’s about play and enjoyment, role play, exploration and enjoying a body for a body’s sake. The. there’s sex that’s deep, soulful and becoming the other person. I guess it’s making love, for want of a better phrase.

It can be hard to find a very compatible sexual partner if you’re not totally honest.

I’m going to leave those points there and elaborate if needed.

eddie wrote:

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:Okay, new topic - sex!

My questions are these - okay, so we're supposedly living in a more sexually liberated time, but don't you think most people still have a number of sexual hang-ups and are, to some degree, still a bit shy about it?

Do you think if more people were less inhibited about sex and more open with their partners, you'd see more people breaking up? Or, would more relationships work, as being open is a great way to pull people together?

Discuss.

Well, as open as I am....always...I can answer this topic, but I’m taking out the fact that you already know me, if that makes sense.  

People are mostly afraid of sex, of their bodies and of admitting to the possible “perverted” little thoughts they may have.  

This. This! I think people are partially raised, partially conditioned by society to feel very self-conscious about their appearance and to feel a strong need to be "normal."

Hahaha..as I get older, I view sex as a chore.

Next subject?

Original Quill wrote:Hahaha..as I get older, I view sex as a chore.

Next subject?

Why?

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Hahaha..as I get older, I view sex as a chore.

Next subject?

Why?

Not much to talk about. It's all rather boring.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Hahaha..as I get older, I view sex as a chore.

Next subject?

Why?

Okay...how can anything, that gives you pleasure, be a chore? I don’t get it.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Hahaha..as I get older, I view sex as a chore.

Next subject?

Why?

Not much to talk about.  It's all rather boring.

Have you always found it boring, or did you like it better when you were younger?

And if you did, what do you think happened?

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Not much to talk about.  It's all rather boring.

Have you always found it boring, or did you like it better when you were younger?

And if you did, what do you think happened?

I was a wild child when I was younger, in LA and Europe.  Sometimes I muse, and wonder if I have spawn in Spain, France, Greece, or Canada...if it was in the US, I probably would have been served by now. lol

I settled down in graduate school and had a family.  I must confess that after my youth, sex was not as big as building something with my wife and family.  That part was great, fun, and very rewarding.  Look at you, and the fun you are having with a step-daughter.  You know exactly what I mean.

I think it depends a lot on your health and genetics.  I've always kept a keen eye, and intellectual interest, on my body and my health (and, of course, both my father and daughter were/are physicians).  My interest in 'tits 'n ass' waned in my early 30's and my interest in people picked up.  I changed, that's all.  (One thing...alcohol -> diabetes -> reduced sex life--I'm told by doctors around me    --so watch out.)

Becky and I have a neat life, her two boys...and my girls are grown, with families of their own.  It's been a great journey.

Sex is a "chore"? your not doing it right !

nicko wrote:Sex is a "chore"?    your not doing it right !

Eh...can't be bothered.  If you're having so much fun, go for it!  

Sex is supposed to be enjoyable like a good meal.
How can you go off something enjoyable?

eddie wrote:Sex is supposed to be enjoyable like a good meal.
How can you go off something enjoyable?

Economics, I guess. When you get too much of something, it becomes devalued and loses its cherished appeal. Lol.

Today, the value for me is peace and quiet, a good book, or another acceptance letter.

When I was young and in my prime,
I used to do it all the time,
Now I'm getting old and grey.
I only do it once a day !

I wish.

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:Okay, new topic - sex!

My questions are these - okay, so we're supposedly living in a more sexually liberated time, but don't you think most people still have a number of sexual hang-ups and are, to some degree, still a bit shy about it?

Do you think if more people were less inhibited about sex and more open with their partners, you'd see more people breaking up? Or, would more relationships work, as being open is a great way to pull people together?

Discuss.

We do live in a sexually liberated age, which is why I imagine many people have hang ups, they thing everyone is more sexually liberated, has it more often and better than they themselves do, one of the drawbacks of living in such sexually liberated times.

Openess about sex with your partner is great, but you have to be on the same wavelength....and even then there are limitations if you expect your love life to last .

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Not much to talk about.  It's all rather boring.

Have you always found it boring, or did you like it better when you were younger?

And if you did, what do you think happened?

I was a wild child when I was younger, in LA and Europe.  Sometimes I muse, and wonder if I have spawn in Spain, France, Greece, or Canada...if it was in the US, I probably would have been served by now. lol

I settled down in graduate school and had a family.  I must confess that after my youth, sex was not as big as building something with my wife and family.  That part was great, fun, and very rewarding.  Look at you, and the fun you are having with a step-daughter.  You know exactly what I mean.

I think it depends a lot on your health and genetics.  I've always kept a keen eye, and intellectual interest, on my body and my health (and, of course, both my father and daughter were/are physicians).  My interest in 'tits 'n ass' waned in my early 30's and my interest in people picked up.  I changed, that's all.  (One thing...alcohol -> diabetes -> reduced sex life--I'm told by doctors around me    --so watch out.)

Becky and I have a neat life, her two boys...and my girls are grown, with families of their own.  It's been a great journey.

But, you know, can you enjoy so much food when you're young that you're never hungry again for the rest of your life?

I don't know, I don't know you and I certainly am not trying to judge you. I'm just saying that if that urge is no longer there, maybe something's wrong.

As far as tits and ass go, you don't have to be revved up by that to be revved up by sex. You say you became more interested in people, well, people are sexual and who a person is can turn you on far more than the shape of their tasty bits.

Not saying your way's wrong, but I'm having a real hard time relating to it, that's all.

Ben wrote:I don't know, I don't know you and I certainly am not trying to judge you. I'm just saying that if that urge is no longer there, maybe something's wrong.

There's nothing wrong, it's very normal.  It's called aging.

The best way to age is to just go along with the ride.  If you try to be something you are not you end up like Trump...trying too hard, and fooked up as a result.  Erik Erikson wrote about stages of psychosocial development:

Each stage builds upon the successful completion of earlier stages. The challenges of stages not successfully completed may be expected to return as problems in the future.

Erik H. Erikson, Joan M. Erikson, The Life Cycle Completed: Extended Version (W. W. Norton, 1998).

A delicate way of saying, live within yourself as you progress.

I'm at that stage where I need not push youth, or my youthful drives.  I've left that stage behind, and still return to it, but not as an obsession.

I'm at a different stage, now.  And I'm trying to live and enjoy it, just as I've enjoyed each previous stage.

Just 53 years old and you'v give up on life ?

Original Quill wrote:

Ben wrote:I don't know, I don't know you and I certainly am not trying to judge you. I'm just saying that if that urge is no longer there, maybe something's wrong.

There's nothing wrong, it's very normal.  It's called aging.

The best way to age is to just go along with the ride.  If you try to be something you are not you end up like Trump...trying too hard, and fooked up as a result.  Erik Erikson wrote about stages of psychosocial development:

Each stage builds upon the successful completion of earlier stages. The challenges of stages not successfully completed may be expected to return as problems in the future.

Erik H. Erikson, Joan M. Erikson, The Life Cycle Completed: Extended Version (W. W. Norton, 1998).

A delicate way of saying, live within yourself as you progress.

I'm at that stage where I need not push youth, or my youthful drives.  I've left that stage behind, and still return to it, but not as an obsession.

I'm at a different stage, now.  And I'm trying to live and enjoy it, just as I've enjoyed each previous stage.

Good for you Quill.
If you are happy and contented with your sex life, and your partner agrees, I dont think it matters whether you are at it like rabbits or celibate......it's what works for you.

I am  older than you, married for 44 years, and we still act like kids together (aches and pains allowing) that suits us both. I know couples  who have a good relationship but they just dont fancy each other much anymore, but they come together on different levels so it all evens out.

There is no 'one size fits all' when it comes to the way people handle their sexual relationship.

Ty for the confidence, Syl. Becky and I live a life of fine wine, no longer beer guzzling.

When I look back I cringe at the many times I exposed myself to STD's and unwanted pregnancies. It was all because of an indiscriminate, profligate youth. There are many reason why I have slowed down, not least of which is extreme caution.

I like sex. I’m a very sensual person and I sort of “live” on my five senses.
Having said that, I have never been the kind of person who can sleep with someone just for the sex - I’d rather watch porn - because sex has to mean something whether it’s kinky games or ‘becoming one’.

It’s hard to find a compatible sexual partner who can simply read your mind and moods like a book, and there’s nothing sexier than that.

I think I’ll be sexually active until I physically can’t do it anymore and my hips are broken and my hands are arthritic...but by then I plan to be on a lot of drugs so that I actually don’t care.

I'm in that place already Ed's !

nicko wrote:I'm in that place already Ed's !

Oh nicko, if only you were younger or I were older.....

eddie wrote:

nicko wrote:I'm in that place already Ed's !

Oh nicko, if only you were younger or I were older.....

Greedy girl......you have allready beguiled one male forumer. 

Re your other post about meeting someone who is totally compatable with you sexually and mentally, I agree if you do you are blessed.

But.....most people believe they have met that special someone at the start of a relationship, it's when the love/lust light starts to change with familiarity that sometimes couples feel they have grown apart over time.

People change and grow, if they are lucky (plus with give and take and hard work) they grow together....and end up happy and contented....and  together for life.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

nicko wrote:I'm in that place already Ed's !

Oh nicko, if only you were younger or I were older.....

Greedy girl......you have allready beguiled one male forumer. 

Re your other post about meeting someone who is totally compatable with you sexually and mentally, I agree if you do you are blessed.

But.....most people believe they have met that special someone at the start of a relationship, it's when the love/lust light starts to change with familiarity that sometimes couples feel they have grown apart over time.

People change and grow, if they are lucky (plus with give and take and hard work) they grow together....and end up happy and contented....and  together for life.

I agree that often, people will fall in love/lust with the idea of someone.
That’s why a lot of people try to change each other in relationships.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:
Greedy girl......you have allready beguiled one male forumer. 

Re your other post about meeting someone who is totally compatable with you sexually and mentally, I agree if you do you are blessed.

But.....most people believe they have met that special someone at the start of a relationship, it's when the love/lust light starts to change with familiarity that sometimes couples feel they have grown apart over time.

People change and grow, if they are lucky (plus with give and take and hard work) they grow together....and end up happy and contented....and  together for life.

I agree that often, people will fall in love/lust with the idea of someone.
That’s why a lot of people try to change each other in relationships.

Yep, and it doesn't work, why try to change someone when you fell in love with what they were pre change.

I also think some people just want to feel that feeling of being in lust all the time.
Inevitably that changes over time, some people continue to search for it by swapping partners every 3 or 4 years.....OK when you are young, a bit sad when you reach middle age.

One of the things you find is that, past 35, a woman has nearly zero chance of marrying.  Studies show that it's not because of looks or demeanor, but because the women of that age become far more choosy and discriminating.  A variant is, women evolve into someone else--more mature, perhaps more sensible.  

Whatever the theory, the fact is--backing up--nature seems to have counted on humans being inexperienced and, yes, dumb about choosing a mate.  Call it 'the phase of stupidity'.  Once in a pair-bonding relationship, forces militate toward staying in it. But beyond that phase, there's little or no chance of making a connection because women--at least--have wised up.

This would also account for why men choose successively younger mates in the serial polygamy game.  Are men perennially trying to recapture the the phase of stupidity, do they never grow up, or do they do it because they can, and women can't?

Myself?  I make no assumptions.  But I am curious.

Original Quill wrote:One of the things you find is that, past 35, a woman has nearly zero chance of marrying.  Studies show that it's not because of looks or demeanor, but because the women of that age become far more choosy and discriminating.  A variant is, women evolve into someone else--more mature, perhaps more sensible.  

Whatever the theory, the fact is--backing up--nature seems to have counted on humans being inexperienced and, yes, dumb about choosing a mate.  Call it 'the phase of stupidity'.  Once in a pair-bonding relationship, forces militate toward staying in it. But beyond that phase, there's little or no chance of making a connection because women--at least--have wised up.

This would also account for why men choose successively younger mates in the serial polygamy game.  Are men perennially trying to recapture the the phase of stupidity, do they never grow up, or do they do it because they can, and women can't?

Myself?  I make no assumptions.  But I am curious.

I think women in the 35 plus age group have a very good chance of marrying Quill, I would like to see statistics that prove otherwise.

I also think many younger men love the idea of being with a woman older than themselves, maturity and self confidence are very appealing to men of every age.

I agree that generally women mature earlier than men do....I do think most men (with a brain) catch up eventually though, they must do, because by the time many reach middle age they act like grumpy old men.