In a week when teen sex is on everyone's mind come these two stories: Daniel Radcliffe (you know, Harry Potter) tells Details magazine that he lost his virginity at 16 to an older woman (the age difference, he says, "would freak some people out"), while Britney Spears' mother dishes on Britney's deflowering at 14, not by Justin Timberlake but by a hometown football stud.

Well okay then.

The sex lives of celebrities -- even child celebrities -- are always fascinating, but here's what's so interesting about these two stories: while Radcliffe has only good things to say about his family ("I've got a great family. We're a very tight-knit group-we work very well as a team and as a tribe"), Britney's story of childhood lost is being marketed by her mother, Lynne, in a new book, one which appears to cash in on the fact that Spears and her siblings had little in the way of good parental guidance. According to the New York Daily News' Page Six, "Lynne Spears, 53, confesses her regret of losing control of Britney's career to handlers who promoted her as a sex object and put her in raunchy videos."

I suppose that what strikes me the most about these stories is not that Spears and Radcliffe both had sex young (after all, teens are curious and kids who work in show business are tossed into a very adult world) but that their stories are being told in such different ways. Radcliffe, who is never in the tabloids and is universally regarded as a good kid, gets to tell his own story of losing his virginity, while Britney's saga is being recounted by her mother, in an attempt to make Lynne Spears look like less of a horrible parent.

At the same time, though, I wonder if stories like these -- especially Radcliffe's, which has a kind of romantic nerdy-guy-gets-older-girl twist -- encourages kids to have sex young. You know, because Harry Potter did it and look where he is now. And Britney, well, she wouldn't be such a mess if it weren't for her mom.

What say you -- should we be hearing about the sex lives of teen stars? Or no thanks?

I'm not at all inclined to believe any of the flotsam floating around out there about the state of Angelina Jolie's twins' health. I am inclined to believe, however, the bits about Angelina suffering from post partum depression (PPD). Ange is a mom just like the rest of us, and, like most new moms, she is probably experiencing it on some level.

According to reports, Angie is in a tither over the health of twins Vivienne Marcheline and Knox Leon and is depressed. She is crying throughout the day and exhausted from sleepless nights. Well, welcome to early motherhood! Birth is a big deal, however you do it. Between the act of giving birth and all the pregnancy hormones flowing in and out of your body, crying is probably the least of it. Some women get PPD so badly they impart harm to themselves, their spouses and their children. Ange will be lucky if she gets away with just crying.

Having been through a milder form of PPD myself, I can say that sometimes the crying seems as if it will never end. The sadness seems insurmountable and the lack of control overwhelming. But, hope is around the corner--women and their doctors are more aware of PPD and how to treat it. Even superwomen/supermoms like Angelina Jolie are not immune to PPD or other post-natal symptoms. Let's hope that's all it is, and that she is able to get the help and understand--and support, especially from Brad--she needs in order to get better!

Source

Don't mess with the material mom. I think we all know the consequences of that. But what about when you're her daughter? Lourdes is probably just as headstrong as her mommy and may even like to follow in her mother's big footsteps someday. Says Madonna, though, Lourdes is forbidden from acting.

Nevertheless, the acting bug has allegedly bitten little Lola. Many celebrity kids either attempt or succeed at following in their famous parents' footsteps, especially when it comes to acting. And many of those celebrity parents have said they don't want their kids acting or being in the profession at all. The stress, the drama, the lies of the media and the unbelievable pressure to be perfect are too much, they feel, for their kids to go through (yet they continue to do it).

Madonna is no exception. She is a mom, after all, and she wants to protect her family. According to a "source" Madge has banned her daughter, 11, from being in a new movie and has nixed Lola being involved in the craft until she finishes high school. I wonder how she feels about Lourdes going to college--Madonna dropped out, and it didn't seem to bother her career aspirations in the slightest!

Source

Ok, who knows if this is really true, but it's certainly cute. According to Victoria Beckham herself, she cooks for her family. Many moms accomplish this task, but I'd wager few are as busy as Posh Spice, who spends her time running her fashion lines of jeans and clothes as well as modeling and being a fashion plate in general. Posh also recently released yet another fragrance she's been promoting.

Posh, who is vegetarian (perhaps that is how she keeps her trim figure?) says she makes a good mincemeat pie though. Posh also says she cooks dinner every Sunday for her family, which consists of husband David--international soccer star and megahottie--and three sons, Romeo, Cruz and Brooklyn. The menu includes Yorkshire pudding and Dora the Explorer cakes--I'm guessing those are David's favorite???

Victoria was under recent speculation that she might be adding to her family but has done her best to quell those rumors by wearing tight fitting clothes and telling everyone she is too busy to consider another child at this time. Part of the reason she is so busy is spending some time suing magazines for claiming she takes dieting pills. Maybe she just doesn't like mincemeat pies!

Source

For many kids, the day they receive a jersey or uniform with their name printed boldly on the back is proud one. They are on the team and everyone who goes to the games will know exactly who they are!

Which is precisely what worried one parent enough to lobby for the removal of children's first names from the jerseys of the Carmel Dads Club. "She raised the concern about someone coming up to a kid and saying, 'Hi, Mary' or 'Hi, Jimmy,' and that might lead the youngster to believe that they knew them," said Mike McKinley, president of the organization that involves 12,000 kids in nearly a dozen different sports.

While some support the change, others feel it's catering to a culture of paranoia. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children cautions parents that kids wearing clothing or carrying personalized items could put strangers "on a first name basis with the kids", but also acknowledges that in the majority of cases, children are abducted or exploited by someone the child or the child's parents knows not by a stranger.

We've never been on a team where first names were used on uniforms, only last names. Maybe I'm just naive, but my biggest worry was that someone with "Felton" across their back would do something embarrassing like scratch their butt or pick their nose in front of everyone. For me, having names on the players helps me figure out who is who on the field better than just a number. However, plain jerseys have the economical advantage of being reusable and reducing the cost of sports for parents.

Also, removing names from uniforms may make parents feel safer, but it doesn't completely remove the danger. There are enough people yelling out kids' names during sporting events to make it pretty easy for a profiler to figure out who is who if this ism information they really want to know.

What do you think is this a prudent preventative measure or just parental paranoia?

Source

For many, BC could easily stand for "Before Cellphones," so unimaginable is life without these handy devices.

And while giving a child his or her own cell phone is now nearly as common a ritual as buying them a bike, the age cellphone ownership is appropriate for children is still rather uncharted territory. The allure of GPS tracking capability has parents of children as young as three considering a cell phone a worthwhile investment in safety, in the even of the child being separated from them in a crowd.

While giving a toddler their own cell phone seems rather extreme, the age at which a child is given a cell phone is rapidly plummeting. The Center on Media and Child Health web site states that 54 percent of 8- to 12-year-olds will have a cell phone in the next three years.

In our house, we didn't feel the kids needed cell phones until they were old enough to be involved in after school activities. Having a cell phone meant they could call when the bus was returning after an out of town game and save us from a forty-five minute wait in the school parking lot. And with pay phones practically on the endangered species list, a cell phone means they can get 911 assistance where ever they might be.

But kids and cell phones also have downsides. For one thing, there's the money issue. Kids are notorious for losing items and cell phones are not cheap. Nor are most cell phone plans or the overage charges when kids get a little too chatty or succumb to the allure of downloading. There's also the back-of-the-mind worry on what the long-term effect radiation waves from a device held so close to the brain might have on developing bodies.

Does you child have a cell phone? If so, how did you decide when they were old enough to have one?

Source

OK, is it me or is a national convention no place for a baby? As was widely covered (yet not as much as the Democratic National Convention, interestingly), the Republican National Convention showcased many of Sarah Palin's children (and a would-be teenage groom). Among them, Palin's infant son, Trig. I thought it was a lot to take my newborn to the local diner when he was born!

Now, while the Republicans seemed a little more calm and collected than their boisterous Democratic opponents, they were still a relatively rowdy bunch. The whole point of a convention is to get people riled up for the cause, and there was a lot of that going on, especially from Palin herself. It was a loud, crowded, noisy place, which, to me, is no place for a baby. Babies need stimulation and interaction with the social world, I'm sure, but the RNC is a far cry from what good old Doctor Spock imagined. I am sure that kid was terrified. He seemed ok in the arms of family members as the rest of the RNC wailed on, but I couldn't help but think he should have been home with a nanny or a sitter.

Of course, the whole point of having her family there was to drive home the point that she's a mom and that she is a working mother, too. And, naturally, rather than focusing on real issues that truly matter to the election, the focus was all on her family. Trig has down syndrome. Bristol is pregnant. Levi will we her. Both Palin and the press have done their best to constantly remind us of these things--things which matter, sure, but they shouldn't be a part of the race for the White House. Should they? Palin and her people say keep the children out of it, yet there they were, even the littlest one, at the convention. Obama was no better--he trotted his kids out for the cute factor, no denying that.

Thoughts? Should we keep candidates' kids out of the political spotlight? If so, shouldn't they NOT be on television?

Source

Many of you will be saddened to hear this, or at least slightly nostalgic. Bill Melendez, who voiced the Peanuts character Snoopy, has died. Melendez, who was also in charge of most of the animation, was ninety-one! He is survived by his wife of sixty-eight years and two children.

The mustachioed man may not have been known by many in person, but we all knew the voice of our beloved Snoopy. Whether portraying the Red Baron or Charlie Brown's best friend (besides Linus), Snoopy was honestly the most adult of the Peanuts characters. He also lent his talents to the Met Life insurance company.

Melendez was a true talent, being both Oscar-nominated and an Emmy winner. He was set to celebrate his ninety-second birthday in November. He is responsible for animating A Charlie Brown Christmas, and my personal favorite cartoon ever, It's The Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown.

Source

Wipes. Once you have a child, it seems impossible to get away from using them. They're everywhere and made to use for everything baby related. And there are so many different kinds to choose from, you find yourself sampling until you find the "right" wipe for your family. Some prefer the all-natural variety, some prefer antibacterial. Others prefer the sensitive skin version, and some just go for whatever is cheapest. Heck, you can even make your own baby wipes at home.

But, are wipes all they're cracked up to be? Are they really safe for all the uses for which they are available? I use them to wipe up during a diaper change. And I use them to wipe my hands. And I use them to wipe down the table after my son has his meal. And I've been known on occasion to use them to wipe his face after said meal. I've used them to wipe his nose instead of traditional tissues because they keep the skin on his nose from drying out.

My husband came home from Costco with a box of 700 wipes. Yes, 700. And all for the low cost of like $17. But are they good for the environment? Do they disintegrate or pile up in a landfill somewhere like everything else? Is it worth it for the convenience? And what about the organic versions versus the regular kind? Is there any real advantage to using chlorine-free wipes as opposed to generic ones? So many questions, so many wipes. They're invaluable when it comes to diaper changing duties, but other than that are they really worth it? I come from the cloth napkin world where little is thrown away or not reused, but I love the cleanliness and simplicity of the wipe. Is there any middle ground?

What is your favorite type of wipe, or have you found a way to get things (and your kids) clean without them?

Source

According to a new report, actress Leighton Meester was essentially born in prison. The Gossip Girl star's mother was allegedly in prison serving time in federal prison in Texas for drug-related charges when her now-famous daughter was born.

Mom was allowed to live in a half-way house until little Leighton was three months old, but then had to serve out the rest of her sentence behind bars. The report appears in the questionable if anything Star magazine, where it is noted Leighton was raised by a relative until mom was released.

The magazine also claims other members of Meester's family, including her grandfather, spent time in the slammer, again for drug-related charges. Do we believe it? Sure, why not--plenty of women have had children while in prison. Can't stop mother nature. Do we care? That I'm not so sure about. With Gossip Girl's second season opening to its largest audience ever, I doubt the show needed such a publicity stunt, but they got one anyway!

Source

Kate Moss seems to have a few tricks up her designer sleeve when it comes to getting her daughter to eat her vegetables. The supermodel tells Glenn O'Brien in September's Interview magazine that she bribes her child into eating the less desirable foods by promising her access to her wardrobe when she's older. Seems ironic for the woman who was constantly at the center of a rumor tornado surrounding her alleged eating disorder.

Moss freely admits she "blackmails" daughter Lila Grace, 5, into eating the vegetables by telling her she'll get what Kate no longer wears when she's older. Can you imagine what this woman's closet looks like? I'd eat broken glass to get even a fraction of it! Moss tells her daughter if she doesn't eat her vegetables and finish her dinner she won't grow and she won't get the clothes. It's a deal I guess Kate can easily afford, being one of the most famous of the supermodels out there. I certainly couldn't promise my children much more than a couple of hairy dogs and a lot of well-loved maternity wear.

Both bloggers and commenters have long debated whether or not it's appropriate to bribe children into doing things that are good for them or that we want them to do. Eating vegetables is no exception. I'll tell you right now that, if I could, I would immediately bribe my seventeen-month-old into eating his vegetables--well, into eating anything other than fake sausage links and pirate booty. I can easily see how parents give in to it as a last resort. Question is, if it starts out as a last resort, how long before it becomes the standard?

Source

Television and film star Rebecca Romijn has opened up about her pregnancy cravings. The Ugly Betty actress recently announced she and husband Jerry O'Connell are expecting twins, and the cravings brought on by them can't be ignored.

According to Romijn, she is craving lemonade and, of all things, soy cream cheese. Says Romijn, it can't be regular cream cheese--it has to be the soy version. This makes total sense to me only because I am pregnant too. The things your body desires when you're with child have no bearing on rationality! At least lemonade and soy cream cheese are relatively healthy options, compared to, say, cupcakes and pork rinds.

Romijn is among the latest celebrity parents expecting twins. Perhaps she can get in touch with Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Lopez and Julia Roberts to figure out whether it's best to fight the cravings or just give in to them! I say give in, especially with the lemonade. In fact, there is some lemonade in my fridge right now. I have that SAME craving.

Source

A recent article regarding birth order and relationships on AOL's Personals site got me thinking of a conversation I'd recently had with my mother. We were talking about how many kids I wanted (I have one with another one on the way). I'd said ideally I'd love to have three someday, and then the topic of the middle child--and middle child syndrome--came up. Is it really true that middle children behave a certain way? They're neither the oldest, firstborn, nor are they the baby in the family. And, just perhaps, that birth order of being in the middle has an affect on their relationships when they get older.

According to the article, written by the folks at eHarmony Advice, firstborn children make good mates because they're reliable; of course, they can also make poor mates because they're not given to spontaneity and like to maintain control. Middle-born children are more likely to be laid back, which everyone enjoys, but they're also not inclined to deal well with conflict, avoiding it at all costs. This can be both good or bad for a relationship. And the youngest, the baby of the family, can be the most fun and exciting in a relationship, but that can also translate to not being accountable for actions and abuse of power.

What about the only child? According to the article they act much like the oldest child, and make great communicators who've been around adult relationships their whole lives. Expectations are the downfall for the only child, as is moving too slowly. Is this a load of hogwash, or is eHarmony on to something here? Does birth order really affect how an adult treats his or her mates in a relationship? Or is it more a matter of nature AND nurture--how the parents treat a child regardless of birth order? I'm going with the latter on this one, as it seems to easy to pigeon-hole someone into a type of behavior based on his/her birth order. Still, some say it's as real as anything else psychology has to throw our way. What do you think?

Pic by dsearls.

Source

Recently we all got a good laugh, intentional or not, from a mom who posted on Craigslist looking for a nanny. For those of you unfamiliar with Craigslist, it's a now international site where one can post or look for anything from a job to household goods (used baby clothes too!) to a hot date, and everything in between. Hence, it should come as no surprise that someone would post looking for a nanny.

Finding a good nanny, especially in a city as big as New York, can be daunting at best. Sure, there are many to choose from, but they're expensive and trolling through their credentials can be arduous. All the good ones seem to have been snatched up by a neighbor uninterested in doing a nanny share. Finding affordable daycare, however, can be twice as hard. There are waitlists and questionnaires long enough to boggle the mind. All the good ones are very expensive, and few if any actually provide a discount for siblings (often they will give your child preference over another if you already have a child in regular attendance).

I find myself in this very situation right now. To live in New York, I have to work full-time, so childcare is a necessity for me. I am a Brooklyn mom so things in my part of New York should be less expensive than, say, the Upper East Side (from whence the poster looking for a nanny hailed), but it's still eyepoppingly absurd how much everything costs. If I were to put both my kids in daycare it would cost more than my new mortgage. Yep. So a nanny seems like a good idea, if I could just find a good one that wasn't too expensive and that didn't need to live with me. I, too, have thought about posting on Craigslist. Perhaps not in quite the manner in which the other mother posted, but it's certainly crossed my mind. After all, folks post for everything else so why not?

Would you post for a nanny on Craigslist or any other site or is that a crazy idea? Also, if you happen to be a nanny or know of a good one in the New York area, please let me know. My kids are NOT a pain in the ass. They're cute.

Source

With my first pregnancy, everything was done by the book. My OBGYNs were staunchly against inducing until a full two weeks after my due date. They were also against scheduling a C-section barring there was no medical reason to do so. In other words, they viewed pregnancy and birth as a natural thing that should happen when good and ready, not something that needed to be scheduled in time for a tennis match or dinner plans (theirs or mine).

This time around, nearly twenty months later, I received a slightly different tune. My child is due relatively near Halloween (my father's birthday and my favorite day of the year). I'd inquired if the two-week rule still applied as I thought there would be a slight possibility my child could be born on Halloween. My OBGYN wanted to know if I wanted to schedule an induction. She noted that a woman had recently done so because of childcare issues--she had to have the baby at a certain time in order to find someone to watch her other child.

So the message was a little different this time around. Have we gotten so busy and our lives so scheduled that we need to induce our labors in order to fit into them? Sure, no one likes the thought of not knowing when the baby will arrive--you could be in the middle of a subway ride or something--but isn't that half the fun and excitement, too? Some would say that fun and excitement have their place, but not when it comes to having a baby. They want to know exactly when and where (usually they've got the why and how figured out).

What about you? Would you or did you schedule an induction for something other than medical reasons or that it was two weeks past your due date? If so, why?