Bransom, TX

a discussion place for our web site


You are not connected. Please login or register

9 June 2015 - Does It Fit the Punishment?

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 9 June 2015 - Does It Fit the Punishment? on Mon Jun 08, 2015 5:19 pm

Jack


Admin
Does It Fit the Punishment?
A Jack Production

You have two sons - 15-year old, Brandon and 18-year old Kieth.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Right now, when Kieth wants to go someplace, he uses your extra car. You and your significant other have decided to give it to him. Your SO prefers to drive the SUV, so giving up the car isn't a huge problem. However, he's been having trouble following some of the rules, and he's been griping about helping with the maintenance and care of it, so you've held off.

One problem you frequently have is that Kieth is supposed to bring the car back with the same amount of gas it had when he took it. Your SO is very good about tracking usage, so you have a good idea of how much Kieth drives it. He did okay for a while, but in the past two weeks, he's brought it back without refilling it three times. One of those times, it was almost empty, and your SO was late to work from having to stop for gas.

The first time it happened, you just reminded him of the rules. The second time, you gave him two swats with the paddle to 'help' him remember. But when the last time it happened, you decided that doing without wheels for a few days might stimulate his memory.




Brandon and Kieth are close and get along well. They have a pair of close friends who are also brothers. Those brothers are about to leave for a large part of the summer. They were able to get everything taken care of, and they now have a free day. One of them suggested a trip to the water park before they left.

The problem is, Kieth is the only one licensed to drive right now. He asks, but he can tell you're hesitant to break his grounding for something that isn't groundbreaking.

"Hey!", Kieth says, suddenly brightening up. "Brandon has his learner's permit, and I'm over 18. He could drive us."

Does that swing, would it be violating Kieth's restrictions, or do you have another alternative to offer?


_________________
"In the end, it's just a story. But if you ask me, it's all true."
http://bransomtx.forumotion.net

2 Re: 9 June 2015 - Does It Fit the Punishment? on Mon Jun 08, 2015 5:22 pm

David M. Katz


Marshall
I think Keith has approached it properly.

I think we can exchange a couple of swats and lift the driving restriction.

I DO NOT want a student driver driving with and 18 year old and 2 other teens in the car.


_________________
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
http://www.malespank.net/listAuthor.php?author=David+M.+Katz

3 Re: 9 June 2015 - Does It Fit the Punishment? on Mon Jun 08, 2015 6:21 pm

Iconoclast


Trailboss
Yet another reason not to do grounding! So I will just tell Kieth to drive, his 15 year old brother can learn when only 2 are in the car!

No additional punishment.

Iconoclast

4 Re: 9 June 2015 - Does It Fit the Punishment? on Mon Jun 08, 2015 8:13 pm

Y Lee Coyote


Cowboy
The proposed solution is a no brainer for this eastern boy.  Back here there are lots of restriction on teen driving with other teens as passengers, especially non-siblings, even for school.  So the proposed solution is certainly not an option.

But there something unfair about keeping the other three at home because of Kieth's failings.  The implication is that there is not any public transportation which (even if inconvenient) would have been a good alternative.  The setup indicated that the restriction was no driving not no anything.  I say let them go and defer the non-driving time ban.

Also, it would be a test to see if he learnt anything.  If not gassed up then the no driving ban is extended.

Y.

http://www.asstr.org/~YLeeCoyote/

5 Re: 9 June 2015 - Does It Fit the Punishment? on Tue Jun 09, 2015 1:14 am

ivor


Marshall
I tend to agree with the YLC solution, although I'd add that if the car isn't gassed up this time then not only is the driving ban re-imposed/extended but he'll be feeling the paddle again as a reinforcement.

http://www.malespank.net/listAuthor.php?author=Ivor+slipper

6 Re: 9 June 2015 - Does It Fit the Punishment? on Tue Jun 09, 2015 2:10 am

kalico


Sherrif
Ditto Ivor




Hugs kal

7 Re: 9 June 2015 - Does It Fit the Punishment? on Tue Jun 09, 2015 2:53 am

MemoryMan


Sherrif
This appears to be a non-problem looking for a solution.  Kieth has had the point made rather forcefully to him and of course I'll bend and allow him to drive for a special occasion like this.

It appears that Kieth was virtually "given" the car, he is the principal driver of that car anyway and therefore the one most likely to be inconvenienced by a near empty tank. I don't understand why my SO didn't notice this on starting it up and take his/her preferred SUV to work as usual instead.

By the way I hate the use of the term SO.  Whilst it may be politically correct and applicable to spouse/partner of either gender it rings to be so dismissive and unloving; merely describing a sort of business relationship.  Thankfully it doesn't appear to have spread to this side of the Atlantic.........yet.



Last edited by MemoryMan on Tue Jun 09, 2015 4:13 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : extra time for a little rant)

http://www.malespank.net/listAuthor.php?author=MemoryMan

8 Re: 9 June 2015 - Does It Fit the Punishment? on Tue Jun 09, 2015 3:27 am

squarecutter


Sherrif
Ok we defer the grounding for this trip. I think Kith should also pay over the full cost of a tank of gas to his spouse or lose the equivalent from his allowance.

9 Re: 9 June 2015 - Does It Fit the Punishment? on Tue Jun 09, 2015 4:32 am

Jack


Admin
MemoryMan wrote:
By the way I hate the use of the term SO.  Whilst it may be politically correct and applicable to spouse/partner of either gender it rings to be so dismissive and unloving; merely describing a sort of business relationship.  Thankfully it doesn't appear to have spread to this side of the Atlantic.........yet.

I'm not sure if it was David or Skater (or someone else writing a scenario that was posted by them) who started using 'spouse' or 'significant other'/SO, but it makes sense. For one thing, gay marriage is illegal in Texas, which means that Kat is not living with his husband (though if he used the term, I would certainly honor his wishes). On the other hand, while most of our members are male, we have some who are married, some who are single, and some in a committed, same sex relationship. On the third hand, we also have female members. Now that I'm writing this, I think the use of spouse or significant other actually started with Kittykat, who pointed out that she doesn't have a wife.

So in this case, yeah - the term might be 'politically correct', but that's not a reason to dismiss it. I'm sorry that you find the term 'dismissive or unloving', but I don't see any reason to be dismissive, rude, or exclusionary to a large part of our members when a reasonable term is available to avoid it.


_________________
"In the end, it's just a story. But if you ask me, it's all true."
http://bransomtx.forumotion.net

10 Re: 9 June 2015 - Does It Fit the Punishment? on Tue Jun 09, 2015 7:57 am

MemoryMan


Sherrif
Jack wrote:
MemoryMan wrote:
By the way I hate the use of the term SO.  Whilst it may be politically correct and applicable to spouse/partner of either gender it rings to be so dismissive and unloving; merely describing a sort of business relationship.  Thankfully it doesn't appear to have spread to this side of the Atlantic.........yet.

I'm not sure if it was David or Skater (or someone else writing a scenario that was posted by them) who started using 'spouse' or 'significant other'/SO, but it makes sense.  For one thing, gay marriage is illegal in Texas, which means that Kat is not living with his husband (though if he used the term, I would certainly honor his wishes).  On the other hand, while most of our members are male, we have some who are married, some who are single, and some in a committed, same sex relationship.  On the third hand, we also have female members.  Now that I'm writing this, I think the use of spouse or significant other actually started with Kittykat, who pointed out that she doesn't have a wife.

So in this case, yeah - the term might be 'politically correct', but that's not a reason to dismiss it.  I'm sorry that you find the term 'dismissive or unloving', but I don't see any reason to be dismissive, rude, or exclusionary to a large part of our members when a reasonable term is available to avoid it.

I have no problem with, spouse, partner, husband or wife.  It just that for me the term SO is so casual that it demeans a loving relationship.

http://www.malespank.net/listAuthor.php?author=MemoryMan

11 Re: 9 June 2015 - Does It Fit the Punishment? on Tue Jun 09, 2015 8:14 am

Kat


Editor Extraordinaire
I'm going with Ivor's solution, but very soon I'm going to give Keith his own vehicle, for which he will be responsible; that way, if his negligence inconveniences anyone, it will just be he. (Lord, correct grammar sounds wrong sometimes.)

Kat

12 Re: 9 June 2015 - Does It Fit the Punishment? on Tue Jun 09, 2015 11:39 am

Jack


Admin
MemoryMan wrote:
Jack wrote:
MemoryMan wrote:
By the way I hate the use of the term SO.  Whilst it may be politically correct and applicable to spouse/partner of either gender it rings to be so dismissive and unloving; merely describing a sort of business relationship.  Thankfully it doesn't appear to have spread to this side of the Atlantic.........yet.

I'm not sure if it was David or Skater (or someone else writing a scenario that was posted by them) who started using 'spouse' or 'significant other'/SO, but it makes sense.  For one thing, gay marriage is illegal in Texas, which means that Kat is not living with his husband (though if he used the term, I would certainly honor his wishes).  On the other hand, while most of our members are male, we have some who are married, some who are single, and some in a committed, same sex relationship.  On the third hand, we also have female members.  Now that I'm writing this, I think the use of spouse or significant other actually started with Kittykat, who pointed out that she doesn't have a wife.

So in this case, yeah - the term might be 'politically correct', but that's not a reason to dismiss it.  I'm sorry that you find the term 'dismissive or unloving', but I don't see any reason to be dismissive, rude, or exclusionary to a large part of our members when a reasonable term is available to avoid it.

I have no problem with, spouse, partner, husband or wife.  It just that for me the term SO is so casual that it demeans a loving relationship.

I was thinking about this again, this morning. Maybe I should have pointed out that I don't use the term SO or significant other, except as a general term. If I know whom I'm addressing, then I'll use the term they prefer.

On the other hand, do you seriously mean that you have no problem with 'partner', but SO sounds too businesslike? I think it really comes down to each persons history more than anything else, at least in this case.


_________________
"In the end, it's just a story. But if you ask me, it's all true."
http://bransomtx.forumotion.net

13 Re: 9 June 2015 - Does It Fit the Punishment? on Tue Jun 09, 2015 12:54 pm

ivor


Marshall
I have no desire to turn this into a battle, but........

Perhaps this a difference between USA & UK

Perhaps it is an age thing

But I am pretty much in agreement with MM over this.

"Partner" implies a relationship and (to me) one which is mean to last - perhaps because of the business usage of the word over here which may not apply in the US.

"Significant other" appears to be one of these modern phrases that has been created for no real reason and (to me) has very little meaning.

http://www.malespank.net/listAuthor.php?author=Ivor+slipper

14 Re: 9 June 2015 - Does It Fit the Punishment? on Tue Jun 09, 2015 2:48 pm

Jack


Admin
You could be right, Ivor.

My question of 'partner' is because of MM's original comment that significant other was 'merely describing a sort of business relationship,' which partner actually does.

Also, I think it might very well be an age thing, since I see significant other as a term that's come into use to describe all the different types of relationships that have come into being during my lifetime, that are beyond husband/wife.

But I don't see it as a battle. It's both a discussion, but especially an explanation of why I use the term, and why I will probably continue to use it - as a generic term to describe many types of relationships among all our readers.


_________________
"In the end, it's just a story. But if you ask me, it's all true."
http://bransomtx.forumotion.net

15 Re: 9 June 2015 - Does It Fit the Punishment? on Tue Jun 09, 2015 2:58 pm

MemoryMan


Sherrif
ivor wrote:I have no desire to turn this into a battle, but........

Perhaps this a difference between USA & UK

Perhaps it is an age thing

But I am pretty much in agreement with MM over this.

"Partner" implies a relationship and (to me) one which is mean to last - perhaps because of the business usage of the word over here which may not apply in the US.

"Significant other" appears to be one of these modern phrases that has been created for no real reason and (to me) has very little meaning.

It seems to be a matter of perception and perhaps we must agree to disagree.  Over here partners are perceived as human beings and folk in unmarried liaisons are unfazed when introducing each other as "my partner"  

........... but "Significant other" is grammatically meaningless ........ significant other What?

http://www.malespank.net/listAuthor.php?author=MemoryMan

16 Re: 9 June 2015 - Does It Fit the Punishment? on Tue Jun 09, 2015 3:01 pm

Jack


Admin
I think 'agreeing to disagree' is the best idea.


_________________
"In the end, it's just a story. But if you ask me, it's all true."
http://bransomtx.forumotion.net

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum