>>Yes, I know, but weighing the two evils of that vs what might happen to her in a place like Toronto, I'd opt for the first. I know that 12 is the new 15, but I guess I'm too much of a worrier.
>
>FWIW, I think 12-year-olds today have far less personal freedom than they did when we were growing up. At 12, I'd get on my bike and ride a mile or so to the 7-11 for a Slurpee. At 9 or 10, I took the bus to the Y for swimming lessons. And I didn't grow up in a small town; I grew up in Philadelphia, albeit in a nice, middle-class neighborhood.
>
>I read an article recently about people trying to raise "free range children," kids who are allowed to go outside without supervision. Kids (at least middle-class and upper-class kids) today are mostly terribly overprotected.
>
>Tamar

It is because criminals are overprotected.

If there was a child molester in your neighborhood in the 1960s, there wouldn't be as soon as anyone found out (they likely would become deceased rapidly one way or another).

Now there can be repeat child molesters in your neighborhood and they are protected by law.