I Wouldn't Freak Out, and I Wouldn't Ground My Kid for Life

by Brett Singer

One of my favorite comic book series is "What If?" from Marvel. The stories imagine what it would be like if a particular moment in comicdom went a different way -- for example, what if Aunt May, rather than Peter Parker, was the one bitten by a radioactive spider?

Parenting is a lot like a game of "What If?" -- only without the ability to look back. Or the super powers. Sure, we can try to predict our actions, but we don't really know what we will do when presented with a situation for the first time. Especially when that situation has to do with sex.

My sons are too young to be sexually active. They spend their free time writing and drawing comic strips. So, even though it's speculation, would I punish them if I caught them "in the act?"

I believe my answer would be no.

You might ask, "Aren't there rules in your house?" Of course there are. No eating strawberries on the couch. No touching Daddy's comic books without permission. And, no, I don't plan on allowing my boys to turn their bedrooms into dens of Dionysian debauchery.

At the same time, however, I don't want to send a message that sex is something to be ashamed of. Because it isn't. Sexual activity with someone of an appropriate age is not the same as underage drinking or doing drugs, both of which are illegal and very dangerous. Yes, sex has its own dangers, but I fully expect my children to be aware of them before they actually engage in any "act" I might catch them in.

Since this is, for now, a game of "What If?," try to imagine this scenario:

I come home and hear recognizable noises from my son's bedroom. My first thought is that I would open the door. But would I really do that? Do I really need to see whatever it is that's going on in there? Nope. I don't want to see my kids in the "act" any more than I want them to see their parents "doing it."

Rather than bursting in and traumatizing everyone involved, I would knock loudly and ask what's going on. In my "What If?" scenario, there's a mad dash for clothing, followed by an invitation to open the door. My son says "we were just studying chemistry" or something equally cliché. I tell them I'm home and ask that they leave the door open once they are presentable.

This would accomplish the goal of embarrassing them by making it clear that I know exactly what was going on in there while avoiding a "HOLY CRAP! PUT YOUR CLOTHES ON!" moment.

When the teenager who isn't my child leaves, I would sit down with my son and talk to him about what happened. Ideally, we've had a couple of chats about this topic already, something more advanced than the birds and bees.

But, assuming an already specified rule has been broken -- "Thou shalt not be alone in a room with a girl under my roof until you are married" -- I still wouldn't hand down a punishment.

So "what if" I one day catch one of my sons in the act? It may take super emotional strength, but I won't freak out. Because, to paraphrase Peter Parker, as written by the great Stan Lee, with great parental power there must also come great parental responsibility.

Punishment is Compassion, and I Am a Compassionate Dad

by Tom Henderson

My house. My rules.

If I caught my teenage son having sex, it would likely be taking place under my roof. That is completely unacceptable. As a middle-aged single father, I have one very strict rule: If I can't have sex in my house, nobody can. Especially not a kid.

There will be punishment.

My son sometimes thinks I lie awake at night coming up with new and diabolical ways to make his life miserable. Hee hee. He's right. This is where parenting ceases to be a chore and becomes really, really fun.

But, seriously, I do it out of love. The more creative the punishment, the more likely he'll truly learn the proper lesson. The fact that it's fun for me is just gravy.

So, how to punish a teenage boy for having sex?

When my grandfather caught my father smoking a cigarette, he made him smoke an entire pack. Obviously, that concept wouldn't work with sex.

However, Grandpa was on the right track. In his own evil old man way, he wanted to impress upon my father the logical consequences of his actions.

Modern parents often prefer the term "consequences" to "punishment." Not me. Nonetheless, I appreciate the concept. Culpae poenae par esto. Let the punishment fit the crime.

The problem is that punishments are not always that natural. Sometimes you have to give nature a little nudge.

Take this sex business. Were I to catch my son in the act, it would probably mean he had already committed the sin in my house. He woke me up. I would therefore wake him up in the middle of the night by banging on the wall and moaning in a profoundly disturbing manner. This would go on for at least a week.

Fun fact: Adolescents are easily and deeply embarrassed.

They're also hormonal. They make emotional decisions. They easily confuse feelings of sexual attraction for love. This can lead to all sorts of things they will regret sooner or later.

This is why punishment is ultimately compassion.

Still, no reason not to have some fun. I would also my make son do all the household chores for a month. I mean all of them. Why? Well, frankly, I could use a break. I am a single dad raising a child all by my lonesome. My son should know what it's like. Children -- planned or unplanned -- bring massive amounts of responsibility.

Of course, not all unplanned pregnancies result in a baby. A girl may choose to have an abortion. I believe that is her choice. However, I also believe it is a choice no girl or woman ever takes lightly.

I have many very liberal, very pro-choice female friends who are emotionally scarred from their decisions to have abortions when they were younger, so I would ask some of them to talk with him. He should know what he is potentially putting a young woman through.

Now, don't get all persnickety. I'd be sensitive. Being a recovering teenager myself, I'd listen sympathetically to all his reasons for having sex and let him share all his feelings and opinions. Then I'd punish him anyway.

Better me than the universe. Every action has an oppositive and equal reaction. That's a Newtonian truism that applies to apples falling from trees and teenagers falling in love. Or lust.

My son is a lot better off experiencing a reaction controlled and measured by me. I may take a slight bit of fiendish pleasure in coming up with creative punishments, but, ulimately, I'm a lot nicer than the universe.

Airport Dad Was Wrong.

by Brett Singer

Some people don't mind that an air traffic controller allowed his kids to chat with pilots who were flying planes in and out of one of the nation's busiest airports.

Airplane Kid's dad was just having a little fun, right? As one of our readers put it, "I wish everyone would lighten up!"

Here's what I wish: That people with important jobs would take them seriously.

It's no secret that America has gone crazy for security, especially at our airports. All it takes is one incident for a new screening procedure to be put in place. (If you're annoyed that we have to remove our shoes, blame would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid.)

Despite the legitimate questions on how effective these methods are -- remember the lovesick guy who inadvertently bypassed security at Newark Liberty International Airport in January? -- these screenings are important. It shows we're doing something.

Feeling secure while flying is what gets many of us on a plane in the first place. We might get irritated when asked to throw out our water bottles, take out our laptops and pack sunscreen into insect-sized bottles. But we do it.

So, if the first order of business is actual safety in the skies, what follows is that airport security must be treated seriously. Not seriously in a frenzied, grab-every-person-with-a-head-scarf-and-strip-search-them way. No, we simply want the people who work for the aviation industry to treat us, and the regulations, with respect.

When an air traffic controller let not one, but two of his children direct flights at New York's JFK airport, it's not cute. It's irresponsible.

"Lighten up?" How about, "Do your job." Did the air traffic controller's actions actually put anyone in danger? It would appear not, since, thankfully, no planes crashed. But what if the pilots had been startled upon hearing a child's voice on their headsets that they bumped into the steering column, causing a bit of turbulence? (I am not exactly Captain Chesley Sullenberger when it comes to piloting knowledge, in case you were wondering. Just go with me here for a minute.)

Picture this: One of the overhead bins opens and something heavy falls on your kid. OK, nobody dies. But it's pretty startling. If you say that scenario is unlikely, you are correct. But, you know what makes the possibility of pilots being startled at the sound of a child's voice coming over their headsets while they're flying a plane completely impossible? If a child isn't talking to a pilot.

I hate to be a pill, but as a dad, I know that not every situation is appropriate for children. Taking the kids to work is something all parents should do, if they can. Those last three words are the important ones. Do you want an 8-year-old manning the 911 phone lines? Or tagging along to fight a four-alarm blaze? How about preparing your food? Is that acceptable?

Besides, the official version of this practice is called "Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day." Not "Let Your Kids Do Your Job for You Day."

In response, the FAA has suspended the controller and his supervisor. Should they be fired? A commenter at ABCNews.com writes, "Leave him alone and get back to something important like health care or our failing budget." It's a good sound bite, except that the FAA is in charge of aviation, not health care.

Even though no harm was done, and no harm was likely to be done, letting kids direct flights is at best silly, and at worst potentially dangerous. Whether or not the workers' actions are worthy of a pink slip is up to their employer. But whatever they decide, hopefully other air traffic controllers will think twice before putting their kids on the mic.

At least while my family and I are in the air.

Tom and I want to know whose side you're on. As competitive dads (but perfectly collegial work buddies), we will be continuing this argument at the next staff meeting.

A Lot Of Yammering Over Nothing.

by Tom Henderson

Is anyone dead?

Seriously, did anyone die because an air traffic controller at JFK International in New York let his kids say a few words into a radio in the control tower?

The dad was standing right next to them. He told them what to say. Other highly trained professionals were in the room. It's not like all the adults went out for doughnuts and told the kids to take care of things until they got back.

It's not like the kids improvised what they told the pilots. "Hey, Jet Blue 57, this is New York. Can you do a loop-de-loop? That would be totally awesome!"

None of that happened. All that did happen was that 49-year-old air traffic controller Glenn Duffy brought his son to work on Feb. 17 and his daughter the following day. Now, Duffy and the supervisor on duty have been suspended, and the nation's hens are clucking about the horror of it all.

Those in the hen house, do us all a favor. Take a deep breath.

Think about this. Aren't there better targets for your righteous indignation? If you simply have to pop a blood vessel over something, pick an issue that isn't so astoundingly trivial.

Again -- and I cannot stress this enough -- no one died. No one was in danger of dying. No one risked so much as a hangnail.

That's not just my expert appraisal as a guy who knows absolutely nothing about directing millions of tons in metal through the air. The Washington Post talked with Ross Aimer, a United Airlines pilot with more than 40 years of experience as a pilot. He backs me up on all this.

"I have listened to the ATC tapes [Air Traffic Control] and in my opinion I can assure everyone that at no time was safety compromised," he tells the Post.

Aimer confirms Duffy was there with his finger on the radio, ready to take over. It was a slow time at JFK. But if anything had gone wrong, Duffy would have stepped in immediately. And let's get something else straight. Duffy did not let his kids direct flights.

"Simply repeating words your dad tells you is not directing," Aimer tells the Post. "If it were, we could hire anyone to do this job and just give them a handbook with no training."

In an online chat with Post readers, Aimer talked with a retired air traffic controller who saw a lot of this type of stuff in his 26 years on the job.

"This is far from being the first time that this type of thing was done using either children, female visitors with sexy voices or others," he told Aimer. "Nor is it unique to the folks on the ground. I've known pilots to use flight attendants to handle the radio transmissions."

OK, I grant you, what Duffy did was not terribly responsible. But you know what's really irresponsible? The way we in the media latch on to these trivial but sensational stories and blow them all out of reasonable proportion.

The retired air traffic controller is right. These things used to happen all the time. People just didn't notice because they had lives. They were too busy to huff and puff about every trivial news item. And the stories didn't get reported in the first place. Reporters were too busy covering things like wars and Watergate.

I used to take my son to work. I took him with me to cover fires when he was a preschooler. This would have been a problem if he had squealed, "Whee! Fire fun!" and ran into the burning building. It could have happened. But there is a yawning chasm between what could happen and what will likely happen. People need to learn the difference.

And for all the hens out there, please don't sit near me on the airplane. Your clucking interferes with my naps.