Dean's World

We appreciate the fact that some partents try to give their kids everything they want, but perhaps this is taking it too far:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - A mother faces criminal charges after she hired a stripper to dance at her 16-year-old son's birthday party.

"I tried to do something special for my son," Pharris said. "It didn't harm him."

Oh. Well, it could have been worse. At least she didn't have ladies flown in from Nevada's Chicken Ranch. MORE:

About 10 people under the age of 18 were at the birthday party in September, including minors who were not related to the family, authorities said.

Police spokesman Don Aaron said minors are not permitted in adult establishments.

"A person shouldn't be allowed to circumvent that law by hiring a stripper, a lady who took all her clothes off and spent a good amount of time dancing around minors," he said.

Anette Pharris took photos at the party and tried to have them developed at a nearby drug store. Drug store employees notified authorities, police said.

Oh. Well, if the mother took pictures and this is how they caught her, surely she now knows that what she did was — to use educators' favorite word — "inappropriate." Right? WRONG:

"Who are they to tell me what I can and can't show to my own children?" the mother said.

Oh.

(link)

Sandi (www):

Who are they to tell me what I can and can't show to my own children?" the mother said.

The point is, apparently they were not all her own children, thats is where she stepped over the line with minors.

5.29.2005 2:46am

Rhianna (aka rmschoon) (mail) (www):

I agree with Sandi. If they try to get her only on her own kids (some screwy 'abuse' charge) I'll have a problem. However, the story states other minors not related to the family. Their parents have a right to be angry and get legal action taken.

As a parent of girls, I wouldn't hire a Chippendale (sp?) for any of their parties, nor would I ever desire to expose other people's children to that.

Strippers aren't the problem, the age of the audience that aren't her's are the problem.

5.29.2005 7:00am

DSmith (mail) (www):

When are we going to give up the quaint delusion that 16 year olds are children? Tell me exactly what any of those 16 year olds saw that they hadn't seen before? I'm with the mother on this one. People should relax.

5.29.2005 9:06am

Tell me exactly what any of those 16 year olds saw that they hadn't seen before?

-DSmith

That is your choice to make for your children. It is not your choice to make for the children of other parents.

5.29.2005 1:20pm

David Mercer (mail):

While I agree that the other childrens parents, in a legal sense, should have consented to something like that, do remember that historically by age 16 most female persons would have been married or had children already, and they are not biologically children in most cases by that age. MOST, which is why a number of States let parents give consent for many things that otherwise would not be legal till 18 or 21 (for instance at least up until the early/mid-90's in CA, the age to buy cigarettes, get tattoos or get married was 18, but 16 with parental consent [they had to personally give you the cigs on top of the written consent required for all 3]).

I'd put 'strippers for 16 year olds' in that category myself if it were up to me as 'benevolent dictator of the world'. :-)

5.29.2005 4:42pm

Dean Esmay:

An interesting measure of how advanced a culture is is how old you have to be before they consider you an adult.

That said: in this culture, if you're overseeing a group of young adults (say age 13-18) you do have responsibilities.

5.29.2005 8:45pm