Would You Let Your Teen's Boyfriend/Girlfriend Sleep Over?
Saturday, January 28, 2012 This past week, I posted an article on my facebook page about some mothers in the UK that have decided to allow their teenage daughters' boyfriends sleep over. Is that shocking? I didn't think so. I found it progressive and refreshing. But not everyone agrees and some find the idea of it irresponsible or morally reprehensible.
I respect the fact that different people have different opinions about sex, ranging from "whoever, whenever, wherever" all the way to "put a ring on her before you sleep with her". I also respect parents wishing to share their values with their children. However, I don't think that forbidding something from happening in your home is the best way to ensure that your teen adopts your values. I think a loving, mutually respectful, open and connected relationship is the best way to do that.
Here are a few things that I know about teens and sex, from first or second hand experience:
- Teens who decide that they are ready to have sex are going to have sex, whether you allow it in your home or not (they'll find somewhere else to do it and that may not be a safe place or with a safe person)
- Teens who are not ready to have sex, will not have sex, just because you allow it in your home
- Teens who give into pressure to have sex when they are not ready are going to do that whether you allow it in your home or not
- If teens of the opposite sex have a sleepover, that doesn't necessarily mean they are having sex
- If teens of the same sex have a sleepover, that doesn't necessarily mean they are not having sex
I reject the idea that "teens are going to have sex anyway, so you might as well allow it in your home", because I don't think that is entirely true. Some teens do opt not to have sex. That said, I also reject the idea that allowing your teen to have opposite sex sleepovers is encouraging them to enter into sexual relationships before they are ready.
These aren't just my crazy ideas. In the book Not Under My Roof, Amy Shalet looks at parents, teens and the culture of sex in the United States and the Netherlands.
For American parents, teenage sex is something to be feared and forbidden: most would never consider allowing their children to have sex at home, and sex is a frequent source of family conflict. In the Netherlands, where teenage pregnancies are far less frequent than in the United States, parents aim above all for family cohesiveness, often permitting young couples to sleep together and providing them with contraceptives.
I haven't read the book yet, but it certainly fits with both my experience and my worldview on parenting and sex.
If you don't want your children to have sex before they are ready and don't want them to practice unsafe sex, I think the best way to do that is:
- Instill self-confidence and a sense of self-worth in your children
- Teach them to respect themselves and to respect others (that means teaching them to say 'no' when they want to say 'no' and teaching them to hear and respect 'no')
- Teach them about safe sex and be open to answering their questions
- Share your opinions about sex with them, but be sure to tell them that they are free to form their own opinions and make their own decisions
- Tell them that they can come to you with any questions that they have, but also make sure there are other people they can go to with questions if they are not comfortable talking to you (doctor, older sister/brother, aunt/uncle, school guidance counselor, anonymous teen help phone, etc.)
- Ensure they have an easy way to get condoms and other forms of birth control if they decide that they need it
Then, after you have done that, trust your child. There really isn't a huge difference between 16 years old and under the shackles of the parental roof versus 18 years old and in a college dorm. If you haven't given them the skills to make good decisions by the time they are 16, then you probably have bigger things to worry about than just this issue.
I hope that if I teach my kids well, that they will make good decisions. But if they don't and if one of them does end up with a revolving door of lovers coming in and out of our house, at least I may know about it and have an opportunity to talk to them about it. The parents who make sex sound dirty and forbid sex at home -- they may (unknowingly) have the same problem, without the opportunity for dialogue.
Photo credit: michi003 on flickr
Reader Comments (184)
I've been thinking about it for a long time. My parents are Catholic, so it was very clear to me that until our marriage, we would sleep separately under their roof. His family is liberal, but we followed the same arrangements with them.
In another post, you talked about the difficulties with the "lightswitch" on the wedding night. I would say that fits our experience. Our wedding weekend was a rushed and stressful event, and a part of me wishes we had allowed ourselves to naturally consummate the relationship, some relaxing time during our long engagement.
As a UU, I'm not convinced that sexuality should be confined to marriage. So I can certainly see making sure that condoms are available. But I struggle with allowing it to take place in our house during high school. I worry that that's too early.
OTOH, I want my son to be safe. You make good points about being able to monitor who he's with, how many people. Another consideration is sexuality and the society we live in. If my son turns out to be gay, he'll need a safe haven.
The unhusband and I have discussed this and we have agreed to allow our children to have sex in our home from the age of 16 on. I think people are just grossed out by the idea that children will eventually become sexual beings. We made these issues because we are concerned with consent and protection. We don't want them to believe that sex is something illicit and we feel that they are far more likely to choose to have safe sex, if they are in a familiar environment and feel safe.
I'm not opposed to letting my child's boyfriend/girlfriend stay over on principle. I agree with what you say about teaching kids how to communicate when they are ready, respect their partners and safe sex. However, I'm not sure how comfortable I would be just at a personal "OMG my baby is having sex!" level. But then, I'll have to get used to it someday.
My mother actually let a boyfriend of mine move in when I was a senior in high school. I'm not sure how she felt about it emotionally, but I know at the heart of it was a feeling that if she said no without exception, it would have driven a wedge between us (mother and daughter). She preferred to keep communication open and allow me to grow and find my way while she could be there with guidance, if needed.
One friend of mine's mother had similar views and she would even allow drinking in her home. The thought was teens are going to party, and if it happens at her home then she can monitor for drunk driving and keep kids safer. I'm not sure how I feel about that either. Sounds like a reasonable idea, but then I wouldn't want to be responsible for other people's children. However, I do feel that kind of attitude helped us teens become more responsible with drinking and sex sooner. By the time we went to college we had no desire to binge drink and I think we were better about safe, consensual sex. We had had a taste of the "adult" things while still being guided by our parents so there was no need to go wild once we left home.
I have heard young adults who want to wait until marriage for sex, "I can't wait to get married so I can have sex." Truly upsetting.
Yvonne:
I think we also need to teach our children balance and self-control, which includes good study habits. When I went away to university, I felt like I was incredibly well prepared and able to balance my social life with my academic requirements.
There were other students, however, who had their daily homework assignments handed to them on a platter by their teacher and supervised by their parents until the time they graduated from high school and they had no idea how to manage it themselves when they were simply told, mid-term Oct 30, term paper Nov 25, final exam Dec 15. They went wild, going out all the time, skipping classes (because no one took attendance) and then trying to cram things in at the last minute and failing.
All that to say that I think boundaries are necessary, but I hope to work with my kids to teach them how to plan their time, budget their money, and be smart in their relationships with others.
I'm from the Netherlands and I really agree on this article.
The first time my boyfriend came to my house, my mother sent him to my room (where I was at that moment). Even I was surprised. :)
Talking about sex was not a taboo and I knew about birthcontrol and where to find it. Because sex was seen as a normal, biological thing, I felt confident about it and was able to make a well-concidered discision about when I was ready to have sex for the first time. My boyfriend was raised in the same way, and although hormones weer flying around, he respected my descision to wait. After 3 months I really felt ready and we had a perfect first time, in my own room. We were using proper birthcontrol (pill and condom) because we knew that we wanted it to be safe.
That boyfriend now is my husband. He is the only one i've had sex with.
I am really glad my parents were this open about sex. Teens are having sex anyway and being open about it means your children are less likely to do it with someone you don't know, in places you don't want them to be.
Even though we only have a toddler (and one on the way), this has been a frequent topic of conversation in my home.
My husband was raised in a sleepover-permissive, condoms available home, and I was raised in a "no boys in the bedroom" home. He remained a virgin until university and had very few sexual partners. I read voraciously on the subject of sexuality, was extremely sexually liberal in my relationships and volunteered as a peer educator at Planned Parenthood and my university. I think we both represented the opposite extremes of our parent's viewpoints on teen sexuality.
Given my history and values, it is very important to me that my children understand sexuality, sexual health and sexual relationships and feel that they are free to discuss those topics with me and my husband. My husband on the other hand feels like it is a non-issue, not to be discussed (and I suspect will feel more restrictive if our one on the way turns out to be a girl). I'm sure we'll find a balance by the time this becomes relevant, as we talk openly about it, but I am just fascinated by the way that we each adopted an opposing position to that of our parents'.
I will say though, that for me, sex is one thing and sleeping over is another. I'm not entirely sure why, but I'm more comfortable with the idea of sex happening under my roof than regular sleepovers. I'm a person who needs a lot of personal space, so I think maybe I'm imposing that on my children in their future.. I want to make sure they feel like they have space to be alone in their homes, without pressure to be with their boyfriend/girlfriends all the time, and sometimes "rules" are an easy out for kids.. you know?
I agree with you about raising confident kids with strong values and self respect. I want to be open with my kids about sex, love and relationships and I plan to teach them all I can, and arm them with knowledge so that they can make smart choices. I will be open to contraception and will help them in any way they let me. BUT I'm still not crazy about sleepovers. I think it all depends on the kid and on the relationship. Whether or not I feel that they are mature and respectful enough to sleep together in our family home. I'm not naive about teenagers (I used to be one!) but I don't think we should just allow them to have sleepovers whenever they want.
I'm not totally sure about letting my daughter's boyfriend (or girlfriend!) sleep over - I will have to wait until we are approaching that issue before I decide. I think even if I let sex happen in my house, it will probably still happen in other places too (car, park, etc.) I know for sure that sex will be talked about a lot in our household. As a doula, I'm usually discussing many topics related to sex at the dinner table anyway :) I plan to have condoms available in our house, and will also teach my children how to use them. I hope to also instill good values/self-worth, so that my daughter or son have the confidence to wait if they want to.
"I’m sure glad I don’t have to try to figure it all out for myself without relying on religious teaching and tradition of centuries of religious thinkers."
Your writing makes it sound like you are intelligent, which makes it especially difficult for me to understand this attitude. "I'm sure glad I don't have to think for myself, but instead have a collection of ancient patriarchal religious texts to tell me what to do". Srsly?
What do you see as the problem with putting a "giant bowl of condoms in the hallway"? If you want to provide your teen with *information* about safe sex and contraceptives, why not the condoms themselves?
That's a good point--I've heard the same argument made for having rules in college dorms against boyfriends or girlfriends sleeping over. I'm not sure where I come down on that but it is a valid consideration.
Hi Annie,
I accepted my daughters' sexuality from their infancy, and we've always been very open about our respective sex lives. It never occurred to me that they would have sleepovers with partners or potential partners when they were growing up - and I don't think it occurred to them to ask. But, of course, it wasn't a topic in the popular press at that time. Were I raising children now, I'd say no. Though we disagree, I believe we all act in good faith when we grapple with parenting issues like this one - the kind that can't really be covered in a how-to manual. And, I applaud you, Annie, for your unflinching honesty and your willingness - in every post - to take on issues that make me check my ego and rethink my position.
Ah, yes, you described my experience! I married the first guy I had sex with because I thought that you were supposed to marry the person you loved--period. And I felt so guilty about the sexual relationship (nevermind that we'd been friends for a year, that I was in college, that we talked it through beforehand, used protection, and had a really mutually appreciative and respectful relationship; it was "slutty" according to my mother). So what happened? I was married at 20 and divorced at 25. And we're still friends. We just outgrew each other. He's now very happy in his relationship, with children, as am I. If we had only avoided the whole marriage thing, we could have simply had a strong, healthy, college relationship, and ended the whole thing when appropriate. Instead, I spent years feeling guilty for wanting out, and he spent years trying to figure out what he did wrong.
Now I've watched all five of my siblings commit to serious relationships in their late teens and marry by 21 (with two exceptions: my gay brother can't marry and has been with his partner for 12 years. Whew! That one worked out. And my youngest brother's fiance just broke up with him. He's CRUSHED, but I think it's the best thing that could possibly have happened to him, even though she's a sweet girl). I guarantee you it's about sex--every time. Making decisions about marriage before your frontal lobe is fully developed, just so that you can meet your biologically-driven sexual needs, is a terrible idea. And it breaks my heart to see how puritanical notions of sex driven by religious restrictions (yup, brought up Baptist here, too) can cause so many problems for these people who are so special to me.
Only have a toddler myself, but my partner and I are already talking about our philosophies on how to help him grow up with healthy attitudes about sexuality. Thanks for the post!
I think that is where we need to know our children and work with them to find a solution that works best. We bought our son have a Nintendo DS and originally we had planned to let him play with it on school nights as long as his homework was done. In the end, it was such a huge obsession, causing temper tantrums each night when it was time to turn it off, that we ended up making it a weekend only activity. If teen sleepovers were causing a similar obsession, perhaps we would limit them to weekends only too.
Totally agree with you about this issue, but wanted to comment on something else in the article - did anyone else find the 'These middle-class mothers' comment in the subtitle really off-putting? Why should the families' social class be worthy of comment? It somehow seemed to imply that there was something surprising about middle-class mothers doing this but, hmph, if these were working-class families we wouldn't be surprised at all, everyone knows what the proletariat is like... Am I just reading too much into it?
That's why it's good to be open about it. Of course you wouldn't let JUST ANYONE in your home to be with your daughter (or son!) and it's not like you should let your child bring random people in, but if they've gotten to know each other and the partner has gotten to know you, then that's a whole other story. It sounds like you are coming at this from a very negative place. Re STDs, pregnancy, hitting...even if my child was having sex in my home, there would still be the teaching and the expectation that the child would be having SAFE sex. The hitting, in my own home, I don't even feel the need to address...
I wasn't "allowed" to date, except people from the church (none of whom I liked) and so instead I snuck out and was with grown men. I would definitely not discourage dating among peers and agree with the PhD post that it is so much smarter and better to have an open relationship with a teen rather than drive them to do things that are much more dangerous.
Hi, Alan - nice to run across you again!
As far as the 'social misfit' thing goes, I think there are enough potential reasons why someone might not end up dating in high school that I really wouldn't want to jump to that conclusion. Sure, it might be because they're a social misfit... or it might be because they just don't want to get romantically involved at that stage. The problem with assuming that it means they're a social misfit is that it implies that dating is something you should do as part of the social norm, which isn't a very healthy message for anyone to pick up.
Good question! It might make more sense if you think of it more like the analogy of math; it would be really difficult to build a computer if you had to think of all of the current mathematical knowledge that exists today on your own. It'd probably be impossible for 99.9% of people, if not more-most of us wouldn't get past algebra, let alone formulating geometry proofs or doing calculus equations. But because we can look at the math theories and formulas developed through the centuries and test them out ourselves, we can move on to more complex math. And we still have to think to do math-we just don't have to figure out why the Pythagorean theory works to be able to use it. And we don't have to come up with it on our own.
I know that I don't actually have time to sit around and ponder every moral issue I'll come across in my life in sufficient depth to reach the "right" answer, and it is nice to have centuries of writings and tradition that I trust and can turn to-thousands of people who were intelligent and with life experiences I don't have who have thought much longer than I have about these things and built upon each others work to develop a coherent idea of what the "best" answer probably is and lots of ideas to back up why they came to that answer. People like St Augustine, who was actually quite sexually promiscuous prior to his conversion and therefore formed his opinions based on life experiences I don't have. And many people way smarter than I am. Because we share a common theology and a belief that there is an objective right and wrong on many issues (a belief I realize many people today don't share), I trust these thinkers. Plus, I can read their writings to see their train of thought if it ever doesn't seem quite right.
Does that make more sense?
No, I think that's a very valid point. This is tricky, though: if it is in fact true that it is nothing new for lower income families to allow their daughters to do this (and I don't know if that's the case or not, but it sounds plausible), then the only newsworthy thing to report would be if it was a new trend among families of a higher socioeconomic class. This would be comparable for instance to a news story in the '60s reporting on the effect of "The Feminine Mystique" in women's moving from being housewives to working out of the home. Since the book describes and is aimed at educated, middle class women, and since low income mothers had already been working out of the home due to economic necessity, it would only be newsworthy to report on the trend occurring among the middle class.
Still, it is a touchy subject and can easily be offputting--I do see that as well. Tricky business all around.
(And hello again to you as well, Dr. Sarah.)
It's an interesting premise, and you argued it well. But it rests on a faulty premise, or faulty analogy. Pythagoras, Newton, Leibniz, et al *proved* their theorems. And the postulates/axioms upon which those theorems rest are not contested by the vast, vast majority of mathematicians. But the majority of people in the world do not believe St. Augustine et al are valid sources to guide contemporary ethical behaviour.
Hi Dr. Sarah,
What's unhealthy about that message? It appears there is some unstated premise there that you consider so obvious as to not even warrant mention, yet I sense that it is not one I share.
Huh? Firstly, dating is not something anyone 'should' do - it is not an obligation. If people are given the message that it is, then there's a greater risk that they'll get involved in unhealthy relationships due to believing that they ought to be dating someone rather than not dating. Secondly, I do not want my children to grow up with the idea that their romantic decisions have to be guided by the social norm, because if they then turn out to be gay, or polyamorous, or happier alone, or in some other way I haven't thought of outside of what's socially normal in our culture, they're going to have a much harder time finding the courage to live their lives in the way that's right for them.
I think your point about gay relationships would be more valid a couple decades ago. These days, being gay is pretty hip, pretty well accepted among the millennial generation.
As for saying dating is not "an obligation": well, no. But neither is having friends, having an attractive hairstyle and looking fashionable...etc. Yet those are generally desirable things. Or maybe you disagree? In any event, whether you like it or not, the message that it's socially expected to date (as well as the things I mentioned) is going to come from one's peers whether or not it comes from parents. And I'd like my kids, if possible, to be something other than social outcasts in the real world that we actually live in.
Haha, yes, good point.
Dear god... I can only hope your last sentence was hyperbole, because if things have really reached such a pass in teenage society that a teen would be considered a *social outcast* for *not dating* then I'm going to start worrying now and keep on worrying regardless of what dating decisions my children eventually make. There is no way that that would be a healthy social environment for anyone. Making harmless butdifferent or unusual lifestyle choices, whatever they are, should *never* be enough reason for someone to be a social outcast.
As for the rather less extreme issue of social *expectations* - well, to a certain extent I will expect my children to fit in with social expectations (eat with your mouth closed, thank people for presents, etc.). But that extent should not involve the choices they make about their personal lives and love lives. Those should *not* have to feel guided by social expectations. When it comes to those issues, my role is not going to be to expect my children to fit in with social expectations; it's going to be to try to give them the strength of will that they'll need to think about what's right for their own lives and to go along with that.
And, no, I don't see 'looking fashionable' as being some sort of good that my children should be taught to strive for. I'll expect them to look clean and neat and not wear anything that would be seen as culturally offensive. That's it. Should I expect my daughter, once she becomes a teen, to wear high-heeled shoes if they're still in fashion if she herself prefers comfortable shoes? If the current fashion when my children become teens is for body piercing or tattooing, should I urge them to go along with the crowd regardless of how they themselves feel? What if the fashion is for tight skirts without pockets and my daughter happens to like pockets and freedom of movement?
I think having friends is a rather different example because it's hard to imagine a circumstance in which someone wouldn't want friends, whereas I don't find it too difficult to imagine a circumstance in which a teenager doesn't want to get involved in dating (maybe at that age my daughter will decide all the boys she knows are silly and immature!)
I agree that being gay is a lot more socially acceptable than it used to be, although I suspect that most gay teenagers are still finding it a lot more difficult than it may look to you from outside that life. However, 'socially acceptable' is not the same as 'social norm'. Being gay is simply never going to be the social norm, because most people are heterosexual. Therefore, I use this as an example of why we should be willing to find lifestyles acceptable even when they are outside the social norm, rather than expecting everyone to conform to the norm.
Ask a teen whether that's hyperbole. For many (I daresay the majority) of adolescents, obtaining peer group approval is more important than anything else. We can sit here as adults and tut-tut that and talk about how it shouldn't be that way until we are blue in the face, but you won't change a thing--you might as well try to empty the ocean with a thimble.
Suicide is one of the leading causes of death among teenagers, and it has only become more common in that age group since I was in high school (when a girl in my school took her own life after being rejected by a boy). And feeling like a "misfit" or "outcast" (even if it seems from our perspective like a minour issue, not worth going to pieces over) is one of the dominant causes of those suicides.
I'm definitely not a fan of high heels by any means, and I would urge my daughter to wear chic alternatives. Nor do I like piercings--not even earrings for girls. But if it came down to it, and it was a binary choice between being sensible and fitting in with her peers (at least among a non-miserable subgroup), I'd support her in doing the annoying and even harmful thing to be fashionable, and hope for some daylight by her college years or mid-twenties.
It just occurred to me that in debating this issue of peer expectations, I've sort of implicitly seemed to buy into the premise that a teenager wouldn't want non-platonic interaction (whether heterosexual or not) just of their own accord, regardless of social norms. I can only truly judge from my own experience, I guess; but I know the hormones that went through me starting around age nine or ten made me *strongly* desire to kiss and touch girls in a way that went far beyond "just friends".
And I tend to suspect the implication that "girls are different" in that respect is a bit old-fashioned and sexist. My sister and her friends were certainly "boy crazy", but as I say I can't really know without being in their bodies whether it was physical lust or just socially conditioned. But logic tells me that it would be unlikely for humans to be the only mammals to go through the physical process of sexual maturity but not have impulses toward mating behaviour.
Honestly, not yet sure what I will do or how I will feel when my pre-schooler / toddler are teenagers. I hope they will feel comfortable in their sexuality and know that sexual desires are healthy.
The one consideration I have to make is for the other parents. It is their choice to raise their child how they see fit so I would want to make sure they supported the sleepover. If they weren't aware of it (i.e. fake sleepover at another person's house), I would definitely not allow it.
I think, SlackerInc, that the main point of contention I have with your argument is the assumption that this extreme dependency on peer approval is an inevitable part of being a teenager and can't be combatted in any way other than fitting in - and more importantly, fitting in with already established social norms. The high rate of teenage suicide has a primary cause of low self esteem, and while peer interactions definitely contribute to that, they aren't the whole story (obviously).
Teaching kids from a young age that they should find their self worth within themselves does a lot to reduce the impact of rejection as a teenager (although I completely agree it won't make it go away altogether - over-reaction really is hard wired into the brain at that age). It makes them more resilient. I agree that it's important to help teenagers find sensible ways to feel like they belong, but it's a fine line between encouraging them to find like minded people & refraining from giving them only smocks to wear, and implicitly buying into the message that self worth comes from other people's approval and the brand (and size) of jeans you wear.
Your post makes me incredibly sad for your two daughters. As a father, it is your duty and responsibility to protect your girls. I come from a completely opposite perspective believing and knowing that sex was created for marriage between a man and a woman. Any deviation from that will only harm your girls. Its sad to me to think that you will actually encourage them as teens to explore their sexuality under the "safety" of your home. This will not promote self confidence and security in them, it will only confuse and hurt them.
SlackerInc, I think some fundamental questions must be answered before the discussion above can be truly be clarified: What is the nature and purpose of sex between two people? What is special and unique about it?
Yes, my poor girls...I'd better start raising them by the Bible's rules, right away. Like Deuteronomy 22, for instance. I'm sure you support enforcing those commandments with one's daughters, right?
/snark
I suppose you must believe, in the face of all evidence, that the world is 6,000-odd years old? Otherwise you'd know that sex has been around far, far longer than marriage has.
I also noted the heterosexist premise of your "between a man and a woman" remark. Maybe one or both of my daughters will marry another woman; and if so, I will be a happy and proud father at their weddings. (I will not however walk my daughters down the aisle, not even if they asked me, because I find that tradition repellent in its patriarchal sexism.)
Interesting question. I can see it from multiple angles. In one sense, there's nothing "special and unique" about it: sexual intercourse has been going on for eons. Insert Tab A into Slot B. But OTOH I do believe there can be great emotional intimacy between two people who are having sex. On the other other hand, I don't necessarily believe that if the intimacy is not so great, it is an abomination or some soul-destroying experience.
Clearly the reason sex exists to begin with is for reproduction. But that does not mean it can't be enjoyed for non-reproductive reasons by a species (humans) whose brains have evolved to such a degree that they can enjoy many pursuits that do not relate directly to Maslow's lower levels (food, shelter, reproduction). Our ears for instance evolved to detect danger, to facilitate communication, etc.; but we can still enjoy music despite its most likely being what evolutionary biologists call a "spandrel":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology)
So it is with non-procreative sex, whether gay sex, sex with contraception, or sex after menopause.
In response to "raising them by the Bible's rule...Deut. 22..." We (Christians) are no longer under the rule of the Mosaic law. This truth is stated very clearly and in a variety of ways (see Rom. 6:14; 7:1-14; Gal. 3:10-13, 24-25; 4:21; 5:1, 13; 2 Cor. 3:7-18). If you would like to better understand why Christians are no longer under the rule of the Mosaic law, this website may be very informative for you: http://bible.org/article/mosaic-law-its-function-and-purpose-new-testament
In terms of your opinion (not scientific evidence as none was noted by you) of how old the Earth is, what does that have to do with sex inside the boundary of marriage yielding the best possible outcome for your girls (in terms of emotionally, physically & safety purposes)? Do you want for your daughters to be protected, honored, esteemed and loved unconditionally in the secure and safety of a loving & committed relationship? The only place that can truly happen is in the sanctity of marriage*. I have personally seen evidence in people's lives (as noted in the emotional turmoil, hurt & destruction, even death) that supports my belief.
*I would like to state that of course simply being married doesn't by default create this type of relationship...but it does at least provide the foundation, the framework if you will, upon which one may be built! One's own worldview, core values and beliefs will play a pivotal part in how a marriage relationship will "play out". Take for instance that worldview of an active/committed Muslim: his/her relationship will/should be starkly different than that of a Bible believing Christ follower (Christian), as men & women are viewed quite differently in their opposing spiritual belief systems.
Actually, you have made my point exactly-thank you! As you noted-- sex is not just carnal and reproductive in its nature. It is extremely emotional and erotic (of the mind). With that being agreed upon, we cannot simply approach our children's understanding and exploration of their sexuality purely as a developmental stage they are entering. We should not simply say our duty as a parent is to provide a "safe" place for them to make their bed and lie in it (sexually & metaphorically speaking).
So I'm curious, how are you (or will you be) addressing the unique emotional & mental component of sex with your daughters so that they may be protected, esteemed, lovingly cared for? How does your worldview address these qualities (or maybe you don't care about these things for your girls since IDK you personally)? How does your system, or institution provide the basis, structure and propensity for such qualities to exist?
"and so on, is to make it clear that if you can’t talk about sex (and protection) with your partner, you probably aren’t ready to have sex. This goes hand in hand with requiring an enthusiastic yes, rather than an absence of no, in order to consider that you have consent."
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. My mother's answer, to my question of "OK well when IS someone "ready"?" answered with: when you can buy your own condoms, and answer we both consider brilliant looking back on it.
And HELL YEAH for enthusiastic consent! <3
My feeling is that refusing to buy a teen condoms, on the rationale that if they are ready to have sex, they are ready to buy condoms, may result in their waiting for sex, or more likely it may lead to condomless sex.
And the logic just doesn't really strike me as all that "brilliant" anyway. Would you say to your child "you shouldn't go to college until you can pay for it yourself"? How about "you shouldn't eat food until you pay for it yourself"? Parents pay for a lot of things for their kids. How is this one magically different?
Being ready to have sex isn't about having the cash to buy the condoms, it's about being mature enough to walk into a store and buy them.
As to whether I agree with that being a brilliant answer, I think it is, if the question from the kid was a genuine "How do I know?" as opposed to a "When will you let me?". Ginger Baker wasn't claiming that this was a universally brilliant answer, but that it was brilliant in that particular case.
Personally, I can certainly imagine a situation in which a teenager can discuss sex with their partner, but can't buy their own condoms for any number of reasons. Therefore, I'd run with having the stash of condoms available rather than expecting my kids to buy them. Still, the maturity to deal with protection is a prerequisite for being ready for sex, and the message I'll be sending my kids. It makes sense to set expectations high for teenagers to make mature, sensible decisions, but to have safety nets (like a stash of condoms) for when they don't quite get there.
Yes, this. It had nothing to do with the ability to pay for or otherwise access condoms, and it wasn't about permission. I was asking because I was looking for guidance on "how do I *know* that *I'm* ready?" and the answer I got - which I still think is brilliant :p - is "when you are not ashamed to get condoms." THAT was the underlying (and very clear in the context of our conversation at the time) message.
What it really gets to, is "when you can own your own choices." It is absolutely what I will (and, to an age-appropriate extent, do) teach my kids.
That makes a little more sense. I still disagree, though. :)
It can be embarrassing for a teen, or even someone older, to walk into a pharmacy or supermarket and hand a cashier a pack of condoms. In a small town, there may be no way to do this without safeguarding one's privacy, and is it the whole town's business whether 16 year old Sally is having sex? I think you're still flirting with one of the reasons behind teen pregnancy here, and I'd rather just err on the side of caution and not mind if they get the condoms from the discreetly refilled bowl in the bathroom.
Also, I'd add that by making the answer to "when are you ready?" "when you're not ashamed to buy condoms", you are saying that an introvert should wait longer to have sex, which doesn't seem particularly fair as that introvert may be more mature and responsible in many ways; and you're also allowing the community one lives in to have a big say there. If the community tends to engage in "slut shaming" toward adolescent female sexual agency (and typically not as much toward adolescent male sexuality), why should that be the decisive factor about whether a girl is ready to have sex?
I would agree with this. I think being ready to talk to your partner about birth control/protection is important, but being ready to go out and buy it in public is an entirely different thing. And yes, the community does matter. When I was doing my MBA, my period was late one month even though I was on the pill. I was panicked and went to buy a pregnancy test just to be sure. Of course, I happened to run into the biggest gossip in my class while I was there and didn't really need rumours circulating that I might be pregnant. Since then, I always prefer to make sensitive purchases in an out-of-the-way store so that I'm not likely to run into people.
I completely agree with that too - that's what I was alluding to when I said I can imagine a situation in which someone can talk to their partner, but not buy their own condoms. The local community is a significant factor. Having said that, my kids are growing up in a world where online shopping avoids a whole lot of that sort of thing. Perhaps I should make sure there is a family condom purchasing credit card? :)
Ha, that's funny because I had thought of the online thing but then figured high school kids can't have their own credit cards. Or can they? You see sometimes movies where rich kids (girls mainly) have a credit card; but isn't that supplied by their parents? Can kids pay cash to buy a debit card with a certain amount on it that can be used for online shopping?
Yeah, if they have a bank account, they can have a debit visa or mastercard which will allow for online purchases. Or parents can provide one, but I'm thinking that would really only work if the parents didn't oversee the statements, because while as a teenager I'd have happily snarfed condoms from a cupboard, I wouldn't have bought them on something my parents could track. Not logical or sensible, but then I was a teenager. :)
Why are ya'll debating about where to get condoms?! Hello! Planned Parenthood! Free...everything...including abortions in case these kids-uh... I mean teens really don't understand the implications of having sex.
I don't quite understand your interpretation of Scripture, as it seems quite taken out of context. The Bible must be understood in its entirety, not taken verse by verse in order to support your point. According to Scripture, we live under Grace...THE theme of the New Testament, Paul's AND Jesus message throughout. If you'd like to discuss this in more detail privately, I'd love to do that. But really, I don't understand why you are trying dissuade me using the very text that defines my worldview? That doesn't make sense to me.
Back to the point of this article, I've asked you on several occasions and I'll ask you again. Do you want for your daughters to be protected, honored, esteemed and loved unconditionally in the secure and safety of a loving & committed relationship? How are you (or will you be) addressing the unique emotional & mental component of sex with your daughters so that they may be protected, esteemed & lovingly cared for? How does your approach (worldview) address these qualities (if they are important to you)? How does your system, or institution provide the basis, structure and propensity for such qualities to thrive & exist?
I'm not speaking for SlackerInc, just myself. But I want all my kids to find the love they want (one of them has already suggested he may not want a "living with another person" relationship, and I'll respect that if it's his choice). I want them to be respected and cared for by many people. And in the context of the OP, I want them to know that sex has practically nothing to do with any of those things. It can be part of those things, but they don't hinge on sex and sex doesn't hinge on them. If my daughter wants to have safe, consensual, meaningless sex I'll be as happy for her as I will be for my sons to do the same. I will make sure she finds her worth within herself and has sex because it's fun, not to win the approval of anyone else. Just as I will with my sons. In fact, as I already am teaching them.
The success of my relationships has never had anything to do with when I started having sex, and I see no reason why it should for my kids. And yes, I live in a relationship in which I am cherished, loved, supported and respected. I don't wish to be protected, I'm a big girl and can protect myself and my children (even from enormous spiders of which I am phobic, as I demonstrated to myself and my daughter this morning).