TV and Movies

[gertrudecloset]

---

@manny2 wrote:

---

@DJs mom wrote:

@manny2 I don't know, maybe to make it seem as though she was driving? As a mother that photo upset me, I can only imagine how Kanye felt. You don't have your daughter sitting on a grown man's lap. What was Kim thinking? If I was Kanye, that would have been the moment Pete & I had a "man to man" talk. Some things you do not do.

---

The problem here @DJs mom is allowing anyone to get close to your children.  Especially knowing them for only a few months. Read the statistics on children and violations when they live with a single parent, and there is a male (non parent) either in the home, or has access to the the home and children. 

I'm not saying Pete Davidson has any other motive getting close to the children. I am saying don't allow any man access to your children. Your job is to protect them. 

---

I agree with this too.

[gertrudecloset]

---

@manny2 wrote:

Once again look at the statistics of a male in the household that is not the biological father. Anyone out there wondering about the clergy. Lets use common sense. We don't have to stay away from church. We make sure our children know and understand they are not allowed to be alone with anyone. You also make sure you take that up with your church. If your child has to be seen by a member of the clergy you have to be present. 

We are not discussing relatives right now. That is an entirely different conversation. Relatives have access to your children. We have to educate our children and teach them it is never OK for anyone to touch them in a private place. That starts with us. When we help shower or bath them we let them wash those areas. We also tell it is OK to say no if an adult tries to touch them there. Most of all it is OK to tell!

---

I agree with this too.

[gertrudecloset]

---

@lgfan wrote:

@manny2 "Once again look at the statistics of a male in the household that is not the biological father."

Some men specifically target single moms so they can have better access to children.

---

Yepper!

[Tinkrbl44]

---

@JamandBread wrote:
Thousands abused by clergy too. Would you suggest keeping children away from church. Should Kim keep her children away from any man who is not an immediate family member? Even that's a risk since a large percentage of children are abused by relatives. Hmmmm. What to do?

---

@JamandBread 

Excellent point, and I'm really surprised by some of the comments .... Kanye is the kids' father, but he doesn't OWN them, for goodness sakes.

What tatoos Pete does or doesn't put on his body are none of Kanye's business.  Good grief. 

Kanye is doing this for attention .... he needs to get his life back on track, take his meds regularly, and shut the hell-o up!   

[Tinkrbl44]

---

@manny2 wrote:

---

@Bri369 wrote:

I'm sure each one of those kids has a nanny.  I doubt Pete Davidson would be alone with any of her kids.  

---

I don't know what Pete Davidson's motive is one way or the other. @Bri369  What I do know is molestation crosses all lanes rich and poor. Even kids that have a nanny. Protect your children.

---

@manny2 

OMG, what strange assumptions you are making!   

That whole family has 24/7 BODYGUARDS all around .... and I'd be very surprised if "someone" didn't do a discreet background check on Pete, looking for anything hinky in his past.  (Especially after Kanye's craziness during their marriage and divorce).

Although I'm no fan of the K-family, you have no reason to think Kim is being careless about protecting her children.  

And, no, Kanye has no right to be "mad" about Pete's tats.   It's really none of his business, and is not "disrespect" but I doubt he gets that yet. 

[gertrudecloset]

---

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:

---

@manny2 wrote:

---

@Bri369 wrote:

I'm sure each one of those kids has a nanny.  I doubt Pete Davidson would be alone with any of her kids.  

---

I don't know what Pete Davidson's motive is one way or the other. @Bri369  What I do know is molestation crosses all lanes rich and poor. Even kids that have a nanny. Protect your children.

---

@manny2 

OMG, what strange assumptions you are making!   

That whole family has 24/7 BODYGUARDS all around .... and I'd be very surprised if "someone" didn't do a discreet background check on Pete, looking for anything hinky in his past.  (Especially after Kanye's craziness during their marriage and divorce).

Although I'm no fan of the K-family, you have no reason to think Kim is being careless about protecting her children.  

And, no, Kanye has no right to be "mad" about Pete's tats.   It's really none of his business, and is not "disrespect" but I doubt he gets that yet. 

---

If they did a discrete background on Pete, they'd know he has had drug and mental health problems.  He's a just a hometown boy that got lucky.  He is like many of his peers in his hometown, Opiod addiction and really in a bad place.  He is better now though, which is a good thing.  If someone had done background information on Pete, that's what they would find @Tinkrbl44 

I am of the firm belief that he can wait to show his affection toward Kim and Kanye's children.  Of course he can do what he wants with his body, it's his.  It's not about that.  It's about respecting another man's place as their dad.

[Buffalogal47]

@Tinkrbl44 Uh, sorry, dear. Kanye will never be history in his children's lives. He is their father, not merely a co-parent. Children aren't inanimate objects to be given to whomever Mommy is currently making boing-a-boing with. No matter how many men Kim Kardashian has in her life, no one will ever be their children's father. They have his DNA as well as hers. That can never be changed just because the new man in their lives has their names tattooed on his body. Kanye should be more than angry. That is the ultimate slap in his face.

[lgfan]

@Buffalogal47 "Kanye should be more than angry. That is the ultimate slap in his face."

I agree that it is a slap in his face.  Kanye doesn't even have his children's initials tattooed on his body.  I don't know why Kim and Pete are doing this but it is going to backfire on them.

[Cakers3]

---

@manny2 wrote:

Once again look at the statistics of a male in the household that is not the biological father. Anyone out there wondering about the clergy. Lets use common sense. We don't have to stay away from church. We make sure our children know and understand they are not allowed to be alone with anyone. You also make sure you take that up with your church. If your child has to be seen by a member of the clergy you have to be present. 

We are not discussing relatives right now. That is an entirely different conversation. Relatives have access to your children. We have to educate our children and teach them it is never OK for anyone to touch them in a private place. That starts with us. When we help shower or bath them we let them wash those areas. We also tell it is OK to say no if an adult tries to touch them there. Most of all it is OK to tell!

---

@manny2 

A 2010 analysis of the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) found that a majority (80%) of perpetrators—those responsible for the abuse and/or neglect of a child—in 2009 were parents.[4]

 Of these, 85% were the biological parents, 4% were stepparents, and 1% were adoptive parents.  Four percent of perpetrators were the unmarried partners of the biological parent. 

Though the report did not gather data on whether the biological parent was the father or mother or whether the parent was a single head of household, the data do show that 45% of all perpetrators were male, while 54% were female (1% were unknown).

A 2005 analysis of child maltreatment in 18 states funded by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had a similar breakdown by sex: it found that of 192,321 perpetrators of abuse and/or neglect, 46% were male and 54% were female.[5] Of the male perpetrators, 51% were biological fathers.  The second largest group of male perpetrators was nonparents (26%) who included male relatives (12%), male nonrelatives (13%), and those with a combination of nonparental relationships (1%).  Boyfriends accounted for 10% and stepfathers for 8%.

Among female perpetrators, 86% were biological mothers, 10% were nonparents, and the remaining 4% were stepmothers, adoptive mothers, or fathers’ girlfriends.

SOURCE:  NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH RESEARCH

I find your broad stroke painting of non-bio males in homes with children (without including non-bio females) makes women who have non-bio men in their lives and the lives of their children as non-thinking entities.  As though having the man matters more than the children.

And as usual, it is always the abusive man with the clueless woman.

[Buffalogal47]

@lgfan  Things like this are the main reason so many celebrities' children are so messed up. So many of them end up on drugs, or commit suicide. Whether rich and famous or not, some people should never reproduce.