# How much do you check up on your 16/17 yo..also holiday parties



## renren1 (Dec 17, 2014)

This is something I am really struggling with. I feel like a hypocrite. I tell my soon to be 17 yo dd that I will trust her until she breaks my trust, yet I still feel the need to check on her at times. It is mainly only with her boyfriend of 3 months. My daughter is truly a great person, but she is still a teen! Her boyfriend seems great too, although I've caught him in a lie: he's told her he drives - found out from his mom that he is not allowed until he is 18...several other things he's said also seem fishy, but I am unsure for certain if they are untrue. Anyway, one major rule I have is that he is not allowed here when we are not home, and she is not allowed there when a parent is not home. I have told his mom this rule as well. Pretty much every time he invites her over his house, I call his mom to check that is ok (and to make sure there will be an adult there). Twice now, she had no idea the son invited her, not that she is not allowed, but the mom just didn't know. Am I being too over protective? I'm starting to feel weird calling the mom every time. I know that this is the age where they need to experience some freedom, and I can't hover over her forever! I also know that if they are interested in sex or other behaviors, they will find a place to do them other than their homes. I kind of feel like I'm arranging a playdate when I call them. Which road do you take? Give them freedom and trust until they break it, or check on their whereabouts behind their back? How much freedom do you give with their bf/gf?
Also, how about when your teen wants to go to a party and you don't know the kid or parents? My dd told me that she's been invited to 2 holiday parties (one of which she is busy for). Do you check in with the parents, trust that your kid will do the right thing, allow them to go, but pick them up at a certain time instead of allowing them to stay over, etc?


----------



## moominmamma (Jul 5, 2003)

First of all, good for you for putting energy into evaluating the balance you're striking. To me that suggests that you're a caring, thoughtful, open-minded and responsive parent and I'd be willing to bet that even if you make a few mis-steps parenting your almost-an-adult child it'll all come out okay in the end.

I readily admit that I'm on the trusting and permissive end of the spectrum. My newly-16-year-old lives on her own half the week in the nearby city where she attends school and I trust her, without checking up, to go to parties, hang out with friends, have a boy over, and to get to school, cook, eat and sleep without me there. I have two older kids who had similar levels of freedom and independence quite early.

The reason I feel really strongly about taking this approach with my kids is that my parents were very slow to give me any trust, freedom and responsibility. Not only that but when I eventually negotiated for the tiniest bit of new responsibility, the instant I made any choice that was different from what they would have chosen, they announced that I wasn't ready for it, and took away my freedom. So I had a weekend curfew of 10 pm for years, and at 16 they agreed that I could now set my own curfew. But the first time I chose a curfew later than 10 pm they told me that was evidence I wasn't ready to make responsible choices and took away my privilege. I was, like, what??? :dizzy It made me crazy. They didn't even see the irony.

It felt intensely distrustful and infantilizing to me, and I swore I wouldn't do anything like that to my kids. So I've always made sure that I granted them autonomy and responsibility as soon as I felt there was a decent chance they'd handle it well, _and_ that I then gave them some latitude for making poor choices, so that they could learn from them.

I think it's important to realize that a 16-year-old is less than two years away from having the legal right to live entirely independently with absolutely no oversight from anyone. A sixteen-year-old is 90% of the way from utter dependence to adulthood.so by that stage I think parents should have given over about 90% of decision-making and responsibility to their kids. I think the only way to learn to handle responsibility is to have it. And it's not really responsibility if your parents are there making sure it's all done 'right.' It's like the old trick where you put something behind your back and ask someone to guess whether it's in the right hand or the left hand, but then depending on which they choose you move it to the other hand so that their guess works out the way you want. It's a fake choice: the person offering the "choice" is still ultimately in control. And as infuriated as you'd feel if you found out the object was being switched from hand to hand, that's how it can feel to a teen to know that a parent is checking up on all their choices to ensure they've made the right ones.

So I'd encourage you to keep two thoughts in mind as you start to stretch your comfort zone as a parent: your dd is 90% of the way to full legal independence, so she needs to be pretty far along the way to having the ability to handle that responsibility, and secondly that learning to handle responsibility means having it to practice on -- complete with a few small mistakes, which you are thankfully still around to support her through if necessary.

Miranda


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

I give my kids a ton of freedom and seldom check up on them. I can't imagine calling my 16 year old's boyfriend's mother and discussing the kids' plan. 


There are a couple of reasons for this. First, it is extremely important to me that I cultivate a relationship with my daughter where she can be open and honest. If, heaven forbid, she has a problem she doesn't know how to deal with or ends up in situation where she doesn't feel safe, I want her know with every single fiber of her being that I will be there for her. She is so, so much safer with that knowledge. 


Second, my goal is to help my kids learn to make solid decisions that will serve them well long after they leave. My goal is NOT to control and micromanage their lives for the few brief years they live at home. These are completely opposite goals, and if you are hyper focused on the second, you aren't doing the first, because you kid isn't learning to think through how her choices will really work for her, she's busy thinking through how to not get in trouble with mom. 


Last, when I turned 18, I told my parents to go f*ck themselves and I didn't speak to them for several years. Besides the obvious thing of knowing that in a very short time, my relationship with my kids will be on their terms, I also know what I complete mess I was. I had no moral compass and acted like a wild animal that got loose from a cage. I was with other out of control young adults. I've seen people, not much older than my teens are now, doing things that are highly dangerous, self abusive, illegal, and so on. The dumbest things I saw people do were AFTER they realized they had screwed up, and they were trying to fix it. My concept of what it is extremely important for my kids to know is skewed from what many parents are concerned with. 


I don't care if my kids have sex -- with protection and in the context of a respectful relationship. I care that they love themselves enough to be sexual for their own reasons, not in attempt to get love, get back at me or their father, etc. This seems to be a big hang up for you. You aren't teaching your DD how to make choices about who to be sexual with, or how to make sure that she is protected from unwanted consequences. You've made it impossible for her to have birth control. You given her nothing other than a sense that she can't be trusted because you believe if she is along with her boyfriend for even a minute without supervision, you think she'll screw him. 


As far as gatherings where I don't know the parents, my 16 year old has midnight curfew, and she would take a charged cell phone with her. Sleepovers are not the norm here for teens this age. I trust my DD to make good choices because she understands the reasons behind the good choices. I've also made a relationship with her where if she determined that the party wasn't a good idea at any time, she would call me to come get her. And even if I showed up and it was a crazy, out of control drug and orgy party, I would just be happy that she realized that she didn't want to be there. 


Also, some parents allow all sorts of crap that my DD wouldn't choose to be a part of. I trust her more than I trust random adults that I don't know well.


----------



## renren1 (Dec 17, 2014)

Linda on the move said:


> I don't care if my kids have sex -- with protection and in the context of a respectful relationship. I care that they love themselves enough to be sexual for their own reasons, not in attempt to get love, get back at me or their father, etc. This seems to be a big hang up for you. You aren't teaching your DD how to make choices about who to be sexual with, or how to make sure that she is protected from unwanted consequences. You've made it impossible for her to have birth control. You given her nothing other than a sense that she can't be trusted because you believe if she is along with her boyfriend for even a minute without supervision, you think she'll screw him.


No, not even close. I will admit that the idea of my dd having sex, especially after dating the boy for only 3 months isn't something I love to think about, and it's not something I encourage or would give open reign to in my house. However, her and I have had MANY very open conversations regarding sex, birth control, and emotional risks that go with it when you have it before you are completely secure in your relationship, not to mention the physical risks from not using condomes. I have told her that although I am not condoning it, the decision is hers to make...I just ask that she makes sure it's a decision SHE wants and no one else. I have asked her to let me take her for a more reliable form of bc when the time does come. At the same time, they are 17! I was a walking hormone at that age, and I certainly didn't stop and think. I just happened to get lucky! Therefore, I don't want to make it overly easy for them, especially so early in the relationship.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

renren1 said:


> I have told her that although I am not condoning it, the decision is hers to make...I just ask that she makes sure it's a decision SHE wants and no one else..


Actions speak louder than words. That fact that you call ahead and make sure that they are never alone speaks volumes. When your daughter decides to have sex, she will most likely keep it a secret from you because you've made your views VERY clear, not just to her, but to her friends parents.


----------



## moominmamma (Jul 5, 2003)

renren1 said:


> I have told her that although I am not condoning it, the decision is hers to make...


This is what I was talking about above: choices that are fake choices. You've told her she can choose whether to have sex or not, but then you've set up a situation where where she doesn't have the option to have sex without lying about where she's going and sneaking around -- and likely disappointing you terribly if you were to find out. Is that really a choice?

And if she were to decide to have sex (by sneaking around behind your back, since you're not allowing any other way), would she have ready access to contraception? Would she be able to get to a clinic or doctor without your help? I think you've set up a risky situation here.

Miranda


----------



## renren1 (Dec 17, 2014)

The bf's mom agreed with this as well, especially in the beginning. As far as if she will tell me when she starts having sex will remain to be seen. So far, it's been a very open topic, and if she is uncomfortable telling me, I have to trust that I've given her enough info to protect herself. This is her first boyfriend ever, so I just hope she doesn't move too quickly before she is secure in that relationship (as I said we did catch him in several lies that he still hasn't told her about). There's also the fact that he is going one way next year, and she is going another. Sex adds another layer to the relationship that makes it so much tougher. I know...I've been there! The talk I had with my dd just last night added another layer of trust in her, and I am no longer going to call there before she goes. She has just gone from complete homebody to dating, driving, etc... all within a few months, and it's taking me a bit of time to catch up! Raising teenagers is the hardest job ever!


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

renren1 said:


> . As far as if she will tell me when she starts having sex will remain to be seen. So far, it's been a very open topic, and if she is uncomfortable telling me, I have to trust *that I've given her enough info to protect herself*.


It takes more than information. Unless a young woman has access to a well woman provider, the money to pay for conception, the ability to keep it without risk of getting 'caught,' they aren't able to protect themselves.

My advice to my kids is to use 2 forms of birth control, one of them being a condemn because it is the only protection against STDs. Nothing is 100% effective which is why I recommend 2 forms.

I also think that once young women are sexually active they should have their own supply of condemns and have one on them. Wanting to have sex and your partner not having a condemn is more likely to result in unprotected sex than no sex.

I think you've made it impossible for your daughter to make her own choice by repeatedly giving her the message that if she is alone with her boyfriend, they WILL have sex. I also think that you've made it impossible for her to protect herself by making such a big deal about it.


----------



## renren1 (Dec 17, 2014)

I've apparently caused some sort of misunderstanding here. My daughter IS on birth control, but I want to take her back to be put on something more full proof once she becomes sexually active. The pill she is on is very low dose, and it has to be taken RIGHT on time. She has told me that is not the case yet, but once she starts to seriously consider it, she would like to go on something more reliable and full proof as well. I also have stressed condoms every time no matter what other form of contraception she may decide on. Right or wrong, the rule has always been no boys in the house when her father or I are not home. As a matter of fact, no friend that I don't know well is allowed over. Luckily I only work part time, so there are tons of times people can come over. This is not a matter of trust, but the fact that we have 2 dogs that are not at all friendly with strangers, especially males. I am making a point to no longer check with his mom unless I were to have a good reason to suspect something in the future (ex: drugs, alcohol, etc.). 
It really is amazing how much different message boards can differ SO much in opinion. Another board I asked this advice on basically made it seem like I was incredibly too lenient for even considering not checking with parents. Many didn't even allow one on one dating yet. Some couldn't believe I allwoed them together in a car yet. Then such different opinions here. I guess from here on out, I have to trust my own gut and realize that everyone has their own way or raising their own kids. Everyone has different values and beliefs. None are right or wrong.


----------



## salr (Apr 14, 2008)

Maybe people here are just thinking that the kind of person who would call ahead to the 16yo's boyfriend's parents is the kind of person who wouldn't have open talks about sex? It seems like that's not the case with you, but the PPs have also pointed out some good things to consider. 

Are you on one hand allowing choices, but showing that there is only one "right"answer? That does get to the heart of the problem with values. What is the best way to pass your values on to your kids? What is the best way for them to develop into their own person?

I think it's respectful to know what your kid can handle at what age, and consider how to help them also stretch their wings a bit. 

From your post, I think you made a great decision that it was time to stop calling ahead of your daughter's visits to her boyfriend. That was a step in a long chain of talks and experiences moving your daughter towards being responsible for herself. It seems kind to match her rapid expansion into adulthood (as you said you noticed I'm the past few months) with an expansion in independence that you grant her. I think it's kind to help kids practice, instead of giving them "book learning" and then setting them free on their 18th birthday. 

Even if your daughter makes relatively bad choices, it's important that she experience those with your support.


----------



## renren1 (Dec 17, 2014)

I have just told her to really think before she acts. I am hoping she waits a little longer to really work on the emotional part of this relationship before moving on to the physical part. I'm just trying to explain to her the benefits of waiting. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I have told her that it is ultimately her choice and I meant that. I would never punish her for whatever choice she makes. I just want to make sure it's done in a way that won't have her pregnant at 17 or moving so quickly before the relationship is solid, and then they break up and she is even more heartbroken. I may never get to the point of where I comfortable with it happening in my home, but that doesn't mean I'm going to send her off into the woods! If they are still together in a few months, and the relationship seems strong, maybe I will start letting him come over for a bit while I'm not here ( if the dogs aren't trying to still eat him at that point) , who knows? I do know I'm not at that point yet. I really just wanted opinions on who lets their kids do what as far as boyfriend/girlfriends, parties, etc...


----------



## Snydley (Feb 22, 2012)

I find this thread to be really interesting. My DD is only 7, but I just can't imagine not expressing to her that I REALLY hope she chooses to not have sex in high school. I waited until I was 20 and at the time I remember thinking there was no way I would want to deal with this when I was younger- worrying about being pregnant, STDs, etc. 

You could say I'm being unrealistic, and maybe I am, and maybe my words will lead her to keep secrets from me...but on the other side, I've heard from other moms that they are starting their girls on birth control as soon as they start dating, and I think that sends the wrong message. The reality is, in my opinion, that both boys and girls are curious about sex as teens but it's the boys that beg to go all the way and girls are perfectly happy with some fooling around and leaving it at that. 

Also, high school is a great time for girls to bond with friends, not be stuck in a serious relationship. Again, I know I'll have little/no say over her decisions here, but if I were in the OPs situation, with her DD dating someone who clearly isn't the best person, I'd probably have a hard time not being vocal about my thoughts and telling her (in so many words, somehow!) not to give your virginity to HIM. 

Ugh not looking forward to this times! :lol


----------



## whatsnextmom (Apr 2, 2010)

My DD is 17 and 2000 miles away at college so no, not checking up on her. DS 14 doesn't yet socialize in a manner that would concern a parent. He went to all sorts of holiday parties this season but they are still being hosted by families at this point.

I really don't feel there is a blanket answer to this question. Reality is, kids are different. Some personalities don't need a lot of supervision but other personalities absolutely do. The problems occur when parents take that blanket approach and over-supervise a kid who doesn't need it or ignores a kid who really could use some. Between 14 and 15, my DD needed media restrictions and you bet we checked up on her on that front. It was just a messy time for her for a variety of reason and so we were more hands on. However, by 15, she was happy, reliable and using her good judgement again. It would have been a mistake not to alter our approach at that point.

As to dating, again, it really depends. DD didn't start dating until 16. Her first (and only) boyfriend she'd been friends with since they were 10. Great kid. They were more best friends than a romantic couple. They chose not to have sex because a) DD at least did not feel ready... still felt like it was too invasive of an act for her introverted self and b) they knew she was leaving for college and neither wanted that complication. In the end, DD is grateful they did not go that route as it was easier to end their romantic relationship for college but still continue their great friendship which both have needed during this transition. I did not check-up on them. I do know she was at his home a few times without a parent present because she told me. We trusted them both to be responsible whether sex was involved or not. Of course, it's easier to trust with a kid who has involved you in her decision making (which I admit, I never anticipated.) 

So no, I don't check-up on my kids but I also haven't had reason to. Who knows, DS 14 might go crazy in a year or two and might need a more hands on approach. I'm not going to assume that though. We'll see when we get there.


----------



## moominmamma (Jul 5, 2003)

Snydley said:


> I've heard from other moms that they are starting their girls on birth control as soon as they start dating, and I think that sends the wrong message. The reality is, in my opinion, that both boys and girls are curious about sex as teens but it's the boys that beg to go all the way and girls are perfectly happy with some fooling around and leaving it at that.


I work at an adolescent sexual health clinic and I can tell you that your view of reality is not true in my experience. One of the questions we ask routinely when interviewing sexually active teenaged girls is "When you have sex, whose idea is it usually?" and the typical answer is "both of ours," sometimes "his," but almost as often "mine."

I'm not sure if it will make you feel any better, but here's what's happened with my kids. I have taken the approach not of putting my girls on contraception when they begin dating but rather of removing all obstacles at that point so that it is totally easy for them to start on birth control when they decide it's needed: as easy as just deciding to take a package out of the cupboard and taking the first pill. I made sure ds and my dd's had a stash of condoms handy to dip into any time. I have empowered them to make the decision about when to become sexually active, and whether to be alone with a member of the opposite sex, and whether to let a relationship get physical. And the upshot is that none of my teens have become sexually active prior to adulthood. My older three kids are 16, 18 and almost 21, and only the oldest has been sexually active.

I believe having all the options and knowing it is their choice has allowed them to feel empowered -- empowered to decide for themselves regardless of what their parents might choose, and to decide for themselves in the face of social expectations and relationship pressures to the contrary.

If my 11-year-old is in a relationship at age 14 I will do the same for her, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if, like her older siblings, she chooses to wait many years to become sexually active.

On the other hand, I do think that there's a certain wisdom in the more European approach of viewing the teen years, while still having ready access to support and guidance from parents, as a _good_ time for young people to have those first few sexual experiences and romantic relationships, to discover what they want and what makes them happy. My kids haven't chosen to do things that way, but I know a lot of pretty happy, stress-free, confident young people who have been through one or more sexual relationships on their terms and seem if anything happier and more secure in themselves for having had that experience.

Miranda


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

whatsnextmom said:


> Between 14 and 15, my DD needed media restrictions and you bet we checked up on her on that front. It was just a messy time for her for a variety of reason and so we were more hands on. However, by 15, she was happy, reliable and using her good judgement again. It would have been a mistake not to alter our approach at that point.


One of my DDs also had some media issues around the same age and we also become very hands-on around that issue.



moominmamma said:


> I have taken the approach not of putting my girls on contraception when they begin dating but rather of removing all obstacles at that point so that it is totally easy for them to start on birth control when they decide it's needed: as easy as just deciding to take a package out of the cupboard and taking the first pill. I made sure ds and my dd's had a stash of condoms handy to dip into any time. I have empowered them to make the decision about when to become sexually active, and whether to be alone with a member of the opposite sex, and whether to let a relationship get physical. And the upshot is that none of my teens have become sexually active prior to adulthood. My older three kids are 16, 18 and almost 21, and only the oldest has been sexually active.


We can't have pills on hand without a prescription, which can't be gotten without a well woman check w/ pap smear. I did get condemns just to have on hand.

Neither of my kids have made crazy choices about sex. They are now 18 and 16. One is sexual active, the other isn't. The one who is sexually active was involved with her boyfriend for over a year before they decided to have sex. They discussed it and discussed how to do so responsibly, and she asked me to help her get on the pill.

I think the assumption of many parents is that if teens are given all the information and the right to make any choice they want without parents getting freaked out, they will screw every person they can. That just hasn't been my experience.



Snydley said:


> My DD is only 7, but I just can't imagine not expressing to her that I REALLY hope she chooses to not have sex in high school. I waited until I was 20 and at the time I remember thinking there was no way I would want to deal with this when I was younger- worrying about being pregnant, STDs, etc.


Things I told my kids about sex, starting when they were about 9 or 10


If two people want to have sex and they don't want to have a baby, they should use 2 forms of birth control, and one of them should be a condemn. (I'm guessing that you didn't do that or you wouldn't have been so worried)
 Sex can confuse you about what you feel about a person. People sometimes think they like a person more because they are having sex with them and the sex feels good. It's better to get to know someone well before having sex with them because you are less biased before sex. Get clear on their strengths and weaknesses first.
Sex can intensify the feelings you have for someone. Break ups can be rough any way, and they can be rougher when sex it part of the equation. To decide to have sex with someone and trust them in that way and then have them break up with you is crappy. To decide to have sex with someone and think they are wonderful enough to warrant being intimate, and then realize they aren't all that and decide you want to dump them, is also crappy. However, don't stay with someone *just because you had sex with them*.
Put as much thought into every single person you have sex with as you do the first person. A lot of people really build up the whole "virgin" thing, and I didn't do that with my kids. You are precious and special, and every person you chose to be intimate with counts the same way. Just because you have one sexual relationship that ended, for whatever reason, you are still exactly as valuable as a human being and you should keep your own standards high.


----------



## MyFillingQuiver (Sep 7, 2009)

Snydley said:


> I find this thread to be really interesting. My DD is only 7, but I just can't imagine not expressing to her that I REALLY hope she chooses to not have sex in high school. I waited until I was 20 and at the time I remember thinking there was no way I would want to deal with this when I was younger- worrying about being pregnant, STDs, etc.
> 
> You could say I'm being unrealistic, and maybe I am, and maybe my words will lead her to keep secrets from me...but on the other side, I've heard from other moms that they are starting their girls on birth control as soon as they start dating, and I think that sends the wrong message. The reality is, in my opinion, that both boys and girls are curious about sex as teens but it's the boys that beg to go all the way and girls are perfectly happy with some fooling around and leaving it at that.
> 
> ...


No need to dread these times! As a woman who did not explore sexuality before marrying my husband, it certainly is not a given that all children have sex before marriage, the way society teaches us. Mine was a choice. Had I gotten pregnant or an STD, my parents would have been disappointed, but also would have helped me take steps to figure out how to move forward.

The assumption is often that parents who teach abstinence before marriage are ignorant, or that they are the kind that will kick a child out for a choice that they don't agree with or one that lands consequences.

The OP was correct in one of her comments that we each raise our children differently. Our son is just about 18, and is a virgin. He is in a courtship with a lovely young lady and they aren't alone together, ever. He realizes that he is a weak human being, like the rest of us, and that he wants to protect her until marriage, as well. We didn't tell him, "if you have sex we'll disown you", but rather taught our children from a young age how the body works and that it a beautiful relationship given to them by God, and it should be cherished.

So far, all of our children openly discuss this with us (the oldest 4) and want to save themeselves for marriage, and request our help with that. We don't believe serial dating/sex is a good way to interview someone for a lifelong commitment. When they turn 18/move out, they may choose whatever they want. We will always love them.

There are lots of ways children can make choices for themselves, and the same reason I don't let my 5 year old drive a car, I don't support my teens/preteens conducting their lives in a manner in which gives the illusion that they have enough life experience/understanding to make decisions that impact life forever.

I respect the way that others choose to parent their children, as I am far too busy raising our own to pass judgement. I just wanted OP and PP to know that not everyone who is naturally minded/gentle is also permissive about sexuality and who/what/when/where and how preteens and teens spend their time.

Additionally, there are some misconceptions about how these families run. They are not tyrannical dictatorships (not at all for us or the families I know that choose similar methods) but rather develop a deep respect and understanding for the importance of the why's behind the "morality".

Blessings!


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

MyFillingQuiver said:


> So far, *all of our children openly discuss this with us (the oldest 4) and want to save themeselves for marriage, and request our help with that.* We don't believe serial dating/sex is a good way to interview someone for a lifelong commitment. When they turn 18/move out, they may choose whatever they want. We will always love them.
> 
> There are lots of ways children can make choices for themselves, and the same reason I don't let my 5 year old drive a car,* I don't support my teens/preteens conducting their lives in a manner in which gives the illusion that they have enough life experience/understanding to make decisions* that impact life forever.


I think you are contradicting yourself. If you believe that your children lack the experience and understanding to make a choice, then they aren't making a choice when they repeat to you what you want them to say. I was raised in a family, church, and school that taught the things you are teaching your kids (good old Bill Gothard). Since I was open about the fact that I "left the faith," a number of the teens I grew up with told me how following these played out for them in adulthood:


Marrying too young and/or marrying the wrong person because they were so horny.
Marrying some one who turned out to be gay. She thought it was so great that he had NO desire to do anything sexual with her before marriage. She mistook it for being spiritual. He cheated on her with other men.
Marrying and being unable to enjoy sex because the messages that "sex is basically bad" were louder and more persistent than "sex is beautiful and fun"
Marrying and having zero sexual chemistry for unknown reasons
Being unsatisfied with their partner and acting on feelings for another
Being sexually assaulted before marriage and feeling that this made them worthless because of the tremendous emphasis on the importance of being a virgin.
I know several people who feel these teachings ruined their lives.

There is a website for people overcoming courtship teachings and other non-biblical teachings. Here's a link to one woman's story of how the purity stuff messed with her life. AWESOME WEBSITE
http://www.recoveringgrace.org/2011/07/emotionalpurity/

As far as how others see families who teach the things you teach your kids, I have lots of models -- my family of origin, all the families I knew from church growing up, and all the families I knew from school. You think that some people do things differently from you because we are all ignorant, but some of us do things differently because we got out.


----------



## MyFillingQuiver (Sep 7, 2009)

I respect your position, and how you raise(d) your children. Your view is a common one, and therefore has a lot of support. 

I appreciate the same respect of my position, as my parenting choices are panning out quite well, and not up for debate.

Your "got out" and some other comments about our faith/recommendations for websites are fairly "close minded" for an "open minded" forum, and also rather bigoted and inflammatory, but you are free to posses them. I wonder if you'd slam other faiths this way, as well, or if it's just Christians you despise. In addition, I missed the part where you qualify as an expert over any other mother here, that gives you a place in which to criticize. There are other non-permissive parents here, and some are not Christians at all.

I contributed to the conversation for the OP's questions, as well as the PP's, that not all gentle/natural parents are permissive, and that it is a falsehood that all children raised differently than permissively have "hang ups". 

I think it is important to give parents support, even when they may choose to raise their children differently. You know nothing about our parenting, other than stereotypes about families of faith. Would you like me to make assumptions about yours? I'm not into judgement, so that won't work. Apparently, it's fine for you to do so.

If you don't wish to check up on your teens, that's absolutely fine. I never wrote a post to tell you that you are wrong, or that your entire basis of beliefs is basically a prison full of lies/restrictions, like you attacked me. 

We have eight children who are happy, healthy, naturally mothered, present father, and have a faith that they will have to choose for/against themselves as adults. We are not involved in religion, so it is an individual choice. We are joy filled in our home, and don't approval from others in order to validate our family. Again, you are very condescending. I think I was respectful in my post in saying that there are many ways to raise pre-teens/teens and that I respected other choices, yet you sought out to attack my parenting. I'm sorry you had a crappy upbringing. Don't saddle me, or other families who choose differently, with your issues.  Particularly when you are going off of website accounts and stereotypes. You've never met my family. You've never met my son. You've never met my other children. 

My son is making amazing choices for his future, and he can continue to make those, whatever they may look like as he leaves the home in a couple of months, and I look forward to seeing who my other children become, as well.

Blessings!


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

MyFillingQuiver said:


> Particularly when you are going off of website accounts and stereotypes.


I'm going off my very own life, and the lives of other people I grew up.

The website is one I found when I was working through the tremendous issues that my childhood left me with. Most of the people who post on it still identify as Christians; it is not an anti-Christian site. Nothing in my post is anti-Christian.

Obviously, I really pushed your buttons, and you don't even know me. You think you are fine with your kids making their own choices when they are adults, but you might think about how you will feel if just one of them ends up feeling the same way about all this that I do. If it gets under your skin so much with a stranger, how free are your kids to have a different opinion?

The very open way that I speak to my teens about sex is not typical. It's very radical. Most parents find it deeply uncomfortable to speak about these issues with their teens. Most teens are getting their information about contraception and STD prevention from other teens, and information on the emotional side of sex from.... no one.


----------



## MyFillingQuiver (Sep 7, 2009)

You "pushed my buttons" because you attacked my beliefs and my parenting, and I was never talking to you. I respected your views, and you assume you know anything about mine. That is bigotry. 

You use the usual anti-Christian drivel of "what if your children choose differently". If my children choose differently, they choose differently. Boom. Questions? You think you know about "my kind" and you don't. You also are no more an expert on parenting than any other mama. We are all experts on our own children. That's it. 

I could show you websites about secular kids who had horrible outcomes because their parents let them do as they please, but my goal is not to attempt to discredit your philosophy and parenting. I couldn't care less. Remember who jumped on who here? Why should another mama who wants to ensure her children are safe be made to feel like she is causing them nothing but pain and anguish for taking away their right to choose freely? Simply because that's what you believe???...and you are whom?

I wanted to encourage her that some people may think it's OK to check up on your teen and/or have boundaries/rules, and not all of them are bad.

What happens to YOU if your child(ren) chooses to be a Christian and raise their children in some way you think is restricting their self? Do you understand that Christians with my viewpoint find themselves more free than ever before because of their faith and salvation? Probably not, but yet you judge.

Again, I was raised a certain way, as was my husband. We freely chose to follow Jesus on our own, and have thus raised our children the same. No one beat us, or made us, and actually, we were raised fairly liberally and both decided we would follow our faith and raise our children the way we are doing so. We also know people who were raised in all different backgrounds and are raising their children this way. It is a fabrication to imply that raising children in a Christian home with an understanding and respect for God's Word will rebel against the faith they were raised with and become whack jobs that then scream hatred for it all. While some may depart from the way they were raised, a faith based in free will expects that.

It's a good thing I'm accountable to God and not Linda on the Move. 

Again, you are not very respectful of other viewpoints. That doesn't make your opinion more valid than the opinion of another mother. I still have not judged your parenting, and really would appreciate the same.

I'm not going to debate my parenting with you, as that was never the subject of my post. I have no desire to discuss this any further with someone who holds no respect for a mother who is raising children with nothing but love and commitment. It contributes nothing positive to my mothering.

Blessings to you.


----------



## lauren (Nov 20, 2001)

Great discussion and let's keep it mellow even with differing opinions (speaking in my Moderator voice for a moment!). Parents are all over the map with this question, and it's good to be able to talk about without getting too intense. Everyone's experience informs the way they manage this stuff when their children are "transition age."

I have honestly been closer to the OP's views on this than others, even though I am quite liberal minded. As a teenager I was provided excessive amounts of freedom by fairly naive parents. I made many MANY poor decisions during that time and would have benefited from some limits. That said, there is nothing about the limits that either interferes with or promotes dialogue. With our children there has been tons of dialogue....as well as limits. My children still think I am a freak when it comes to the type of checking into that Renren describes. I try to strike a balance. We do what we think is best for our kids given their temperament, who they are hanging with, what's going on in the local community etc. 

I've also talked with some teens through my work that get creeped out by having parents that are too open, too permissive, etc. In some ways they kind of want to push back, not have everything 'accepted.' It is part of their life stage, similar to toddlers. They want to assert a sense of difference, bump up against their parents values in order to try out their own values, figure out who they are. If parents agree with everything they want to do, support every choice no matter the ramifications, provide no limits, kids of this age struggle like someone on a rudderless ship. 

Interestingly my son who argued like crazy with us during his teen years, but made it to the other side (!) thanks us for some of the limits we imposed. He knew some of the things that were really going on in the community and actually didn't want to go as far as some of his friends.


----------



## Ragana (Oct 15, 2002)

moominmamma said:


> So I'd encourage you to keep two thoughts in mind as you start to stretch your comfort zone as a parent: your dd is 90% of the way to full legal independence, so she needs to be pretty far along the way to having the ability to handle that responsibility, and secondly that learning to handle responsibility means having it to practice on -- complete with a few small mistakes, which you are thankfully still around to support her through if necessary.
> 
> Miranda


That says it all for me - great advice.


----------



## Ragana (Oct 15, 2002)

lauren said:


> I have honestly been closer to the OP's views on this than others, even though I am quite liberal minded. As a teenager I was provided excessive amounts of freedom by fairly naive parents. I made many MANY poor decisions during that time and would have benefited from some limits. That said, there is nothing about the limits that either interferes with or promotes dialogue. With our children there has been tons of dialogue....as well as limits. My children still think I am a freak when it comes to the type of checking into that Renren describes. I try to strike a balance. We do what we think is best for our kids given their temperament, who they are hanging with, what's going on in the local community etc.


Agree! I was also a teen with very few limits (and could have used some better advice on the situations I got myself into). I don't check up on my teen, but we do set certain limits. This doesn't conflict with the above advice, because for us it's a matter of lifting the limits as she gets older to get her to that stage where she will be confident in handling adult situations when she leaves us.


----------



## lauren (Nov 20, 2001)

When we are having our limit setting conversations, it usually leads to the very (deeper level) conversations that we most hope to have. If we weren't setting limits and our kids were just doing what they thought was best, we would be unlikely to have those conversations at all.

It is a trade off, granted. Our oldest has always come to us with things that were over his head. I don't need to know everything. I don't even want to know everything. He did plenty of things that I haven't agreed with, EVEN WITH our limit setting. Because that's his job too. My other two children have (and will) as well. They won't come to me with EVERYTHING, because I'm not trying to be their friend. And that's o.k. (Not suggesting that people who do it differently are trying to be their kid's friend but I do see that in our area with other parents.) I trust that we've given them the ability to discern the things that require an adult's help and to manage all the other choices with the guidance we've given them about decision making in general since birth.

Simultaneously, our limits speak to our values and they need to know them, so they can figure out their own.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

lauren said:


> If parents agree with everything they want to do, support every choice no matter the ramifications, provide no limits, kids of this age struggle like someone on a rudderless ship.


My teens do have tons of freedom, but that is far different from "supporting every choice no matter the ramifications." The focus in our home is on:


thinking through the possible outcomes of actions,
considering what outcomes the person really wants in their life,
 weighing the actions that are most likely to produce those outcomes, and
then having the self control to follow through with that.
It's really a far cry from leaving them to struggle like a rudderless -- it's teaching them to be their own rudder.

Both my kids have a year and a half left at home, then they'll go away to college (older one is doing community college first, younger one won't). I feel deeply that my job isn't to control them for the brief time they have left under my roof, but* to teach them how to control themselves after they leave*.

I don't feel like I could teach them to be their own rudder if I were caught up in my own agenda of what they were supposed to do. Life is more complicated than that. They need to learn to do what is really going to work for them in lives beyond whether or not I know about it or control it.

The strange thing is that neither of my kids are doing anything crazy. Friday night they went out with a big group of friends to see the Hobbit movie, then over to one of the kid's houses to play board games. (His parents were there.) There was no drinking, no drugs, no sex. Just a bunch of teens hanging out and laughing together.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

My basic mode of thinking on this is that, if she truly consents to sex, if she is comfortable with it, its her body. I would never tell my teenage daughter that i dont think she should have sex. I would have talked about reproduction, and std protection long before then, and would relate the basic idea that its her body, cherish it, and protect it. Her body, her choice.


----------



## lauren (Nov 20, 2001)

Linda on the move said:


> My teens do have tons of freedom, but that is far different from "supporting every choice no matter the ramifications." The focus in our home is on:
> 
> 
> thinking through the possible outcomes of actions,
> ...


Yes, agreed and there is a difference between setting limits and controlling (or even trying to control) our children. I am real clear on that.


----------



## whatsnextmom (Apr 2, 2010)

lauren said:


> I've also talked with some teens through my work that get creeped out by having parents that are too open, too permissive, etc.


Haha, yes, we know some of these. We once had a carpool with a woman who felt it appropriate to talk about sex with MY child during their drives. Same women set up her DD's 16th birthday to look like a bar including drink tickets and alcohol like virgin drinks. At the same time, she'd wear her religion and conservativeness as a badge of honor and take any pot shot she could at our lives. The kids always found her creepy.

As for all the touchy feelings, I get it. I was raised in a liberal, Atheist, vegetarian home and am raising my children in the same. I know all about the nasty assumptions people make and the frustration they can leave you with no matter how secure you are in your beliefs. I mean, you can be perfectly satisfied with the results of your parenting and still not want Mrs. Jones to corner your 7-year-old on the playground and tell her she's going to burn for eternity. You'd still love a proud moment with your child without having to listen to the whispers behind you of how your life is all some sham hiding a seedy underbelly of neglect.... or worse, that your passionate and beautiful child is just some empty husk with no soul. Ironically, my parents were stricter than any of my peers parents growing up. For as liberal as they were politically, they were darn conservative in the home. There was little to no pop-culture in our home. No TV that wasn't sesame street of nature shows on PBS. We didn't have trendy toys. My parents were working in the school every week. There was always a parent home when we were home. Dinner at the table every night. They didn't smoke or drink. Lots of rules on the "kid stuff" but a lot of freedom in very grown-up ways if that makes sense. We had hundreds of books and creative toys and outdoor play. We weren't rebellious and I never looked at another family and wanted their life (OK, maybe once when Cindy's family went to Europe for a whole summer ;-) Everyone not only assumed we were religious but that we were devout in whatever religion THEY were. When they found out the truth (which they always did since my parents didn't lie) they would say really awful things and make all sorts of dire predictions that of course, never came true. My childhood wasn't perfect. My parents made mistakes. I'm still grateful for my childhood and DH and I have chosen very much the same approach with our kids (not so strict on the pop-culture... we sort of love Dr. Who and Star Wars too much for that lol.)

In truth, we've all seen belief systems executed poorly or used with the wrong personalities. We know religious homes that are wonderful and religious homes that are toxic. We know homeschooling families that are thriving and homeschooling families that really, are not doing a good job educating their kids. We've seen permissive homes where the kids are on the straight and narrow and permissive homes where the kids are totally out of control. The list goes on and on and on.

Personally, I don't take issue with the abstinence approach as long as it includes a good education on sexual health. Ignorance is a bad choice. Abstinence, not so much.


----------



## moominmamma (Jul 5, 2003)

lauren said:


> Yes, agreed and there is a difference between setting limits and controlling (or even trying to control) our children. I am real clear on that.


I wonder if you could describe what you see as the crucial differences. I think I have an inkling but I'm not entirely clear.

I am facing a bit of a situation where my newly 16-year-old, who lives partly on her own in a neighbouring city, is being encouraged by her friends to use her place (which is rented in my name) to host a New Year's Eve party. Her friends are lovely but there would almost certainly be drinking and marijuana use -- and no adults around. This is going to get a "no" from me, unless the parameters end up being very different from what I imagine -- but if she pushes for a typical NYE party with no adults present, it will probably be the first true "no" I've ever laid down for her: everything else has either been her choice, or a mutual decision based on principles she agrees with and wants to abide by. Faced with possibly imposing a parental limit against her wishes, but having little idea how I could enforce that limit without being controlling (insisting on staying at her apartment to be sure?), I'm genuinely curious what you see as the difference between limits and controls.

Miranda


----------



## whatsnextmom (Apr 2, 2010)

moominmamma said:


> I'm genuinely curious what you see as the difference between limits and controls.


I'm not really answering your question of the difference between limits and controls generally but I wanted to say that this really isn't a "parental limit" you are talking about imposing. It's potentially a legal limit that you should both explore together. The apartment is in your name. She is still a minor child as I don't believe any legal emancipation occurred correct? If someone were to call in about DD's party (like a noise complaint) and any minors were involved in underage drinking or illegal drugs, there could be legal ramifications for YOU. If another parent finds out their child lied and attended an unsupervised party at your flat, got drunk, sprang an ankle... you could be sued. This isn't about YOU deciding SHE shouldn't have a party. This is you potentially paying the consequences for her actions on something society has generally agreed is a bad idea. It's not controlling to stop someone from injuring you and while I won't pretend to know anything about the Canadian legal system, I know it the states, something like this could have life altering consequences for a family (including loss of custody of younger children.)


----------



## moominmamma (Jul 5, 2003)

whatsnextmom said:


> there could be legal ramifications for YOU.


Oh, I get that, and that's why I won't be "allowing" it. Though I think it's a grey area... she's had friends over before for what could be characterized as parties. There wasn't alcohol involved, but there were a bunch of teens crashing overnight at her apartment after hanging out there into the wee hours. I'm totally okay with that, and that's a situation that risks things like sprained ankles and noise complaints, at least theoretically, right? What would be the difference with NYE? Merely that I know that because of it's December 31st there would be a much higher likelihood that alcohol and drugs would complicate things, whether anyone in her immediate circle plans on that or not.

I'm not even sure she wants to go ahead. I suspect it will end up being one of those situations where it's a relief to her that she'll be able to tell her friends "no, my mom won't let me." And where she'll be able to express to me that it would be a relief to have that limit.

This is the crux of what I'm asking, I suppose: if I say "I feel I need to say no, and here's why, and are you okay with that?" and she says "Yes, actually that kind of makes my life easier," is that what would be described as a limit, rather than a control?

Miranda


----------



## whatsnextmom (Apr 2, 2010)

moominmamma said:


> What would be the difference with NYE?


Adding drugs and alcohol always makes a difference. Sure, kids get hurt at a regular sleep-over but how a person reacts to some kids being noisy or hurting themselves without those influences tends to move perspective from "kids being kids" to "parents being irresponsible." A lot of parents use alcohol and drugs as an "out." MY kid never would have made that choice themselves and they never would have gotten hurt if they were sober.

I'll be honest, I don't put a whole lot of thought into the difference between limits and controls. We've certainly had limits and I suspect moments that would be considered overly controlling to others. Then again, my kids have had freedoms and experiences that their peers never would have been allowed or offered. I don't know... too much to try to make sense of. I'm just happy that the teen years are really pretty harmonious around here lol.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

lauren said:


> Yes, agreed and there is a difference between setting limits and controlling (or even trying to control) our children. I am real clear on that.


I hardly ever set limits on my kids. That was my point. I've taught them, and continue to teach them, to set their own limits based on thinking through the long term ramifications and their own selfish best interest.

I put a lot of emphasis on how their selfish best interest just isn't about what feels fun today, but how their actions will play out for them over time.



moominmamma said:


> she's had friends over before for what could be characterized as parties. ...
> I'm not even sure she wants to go ahead. I suspect it will end up being one of those situations where it's a relief to her that she'll be able to tell her friends "no, my mom won't let me." And where she'll be able to express to me that it would be a relief to have that limit.
> 
> This is the crux of what I'm asking, I suppose: if I say "I feel I need to say no, and here's why, and are you okay with that?" and she says "Yes, actually that kind of makes my life easier," is that what would be described as a limit, rather than a control?
> ...


There are parties, and then there are parties. We recently had a situation where both my DH and I were out of town and my kids had their friend group over (they rotate houses). Even though alcohol isn't a usual thing for that group, we emphasized that *in the event that this is gathering where someone starts drinking, they absolutely cannot drive.* Where we live, we could loose our house. I made it clear that if any of the kids had even one drink, they needed to sleep here, and I don't care what the neighbors think. It's a safety thing and a legal thing.

But it is group of kids we know well. It wasn't a situation where someone would make a phone call or post it to FaceBook and we'd have a bunch of out of control minors, drinking, getting high, having sex, etc.

Things I would worry about in your DD's situation is how well she really knows the other kids, and how well she could put the breaks on the situation if it started to spin out of control. It just takes one "friend" to spin the whole thing into a nightmare.

Instead of the playing the game with her about you telling her she can't, why not just encourage her to lie to her friends and tell them that she *can't,* when in truth you don't have a way to enforce it. My very social daughter has done -- it's more socially acceptable to tell peers that she isn't allowed to do something than to tell them she thinks it is a stupid idea. It's a baby step to being able to say, "no."

I also wonder if she couldn't just come home for a couple of days (or even 24 hours).


----------



## renren1 (Dec 17, 2014)

lauren said:


> I have honestly been closer to the OP's views on this than others, even though I am quite liberal minded. As a teenager I was provided excessive amounts of freedom by fairly naive parents. I made many MANY poor decisions during that time and would have benefited from some limits.


I'm with you on this one. I don't know if my parents were naive or just didn't want to know, but I got away with ALOT, and I was one of the better kids...lol! There was a lot I did that I was not careful about...I just happened to get lucky. Maybe that's why my own dd's teen years scare the crap out of me!


----------



## moominmamma (Jul 5, 2003)

Linda on the move said:


> Instead of the playing the game with her about you telling her she can't, why not just encourage her to lie to her friends and tell them that she *can't,* when in truth you don't have a way to enforce it.


I don't see the difference: neither of us would ever view this as my choice: only in the "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" sense. What you described is pretty much what I'd intended. It's not a game, except that she and I would need to agree to be complicit in the story that she "can't."

It's a complicated situation involving a social circle that overlaps considerably between two communities, and with her older brother's circle (he is also part of this whole scenario, except that it's not his apartment). I know almost all of their friends: lovely people, though not entirely straight-laced. My kids want to spend some of the holidays in their "alternate town" and I support that, especially since ds hasn't seen his town-friends in months. Work schedules and transportation challenges have conspired to make the 30th/31st/1st the only opportunity for such a visit.

I'm sure we'll work it out. OP, sorry to have hijacked. And I'm still interested in the difference between limits and control, if anyone has any more thoughts.

Miranda


----------



## lauren (Nov 20, 2001)

I am really tired so this may not come out right. I see control as being based on MY needs-- my fear for what the child may do and perhaps how I can't cope with my need to have a good outcome. I see limits as being set from a place of rational (not fear/anxiety based) well thought out risk reduction with a holistic picture of the possible outcomes. So to use the New Year's Eve party as an example--the fact based limit setting is related to the very real potential negative outcomes for all involved-- legal charges to the property owner, children killed while drunk driving, illegal minors drinking, etc. A controlling approach would just be based on my own fear that I can't handle what would be happening at this party, I fear the worst, I can't get my child to agree with me, so I just forbid it in a knee jerk sort of manner without any dialogue about it. 

Here's the thing, and I have my grown up son to verify this notion: kids think that many things are o.k. when they are teens, even when we work with them to evaluate the risk/benefit aspects of different decisions, because they don't have sufficient information to not do them. Their brains are still developing (scientific fact). They appreciate limits but have a hard time saying so at the time. We all need to decide what our non negotiables are, setting limits based on rational thought, not fear.


----------



## Fortune Teller (Jan 28, 2013)

I'm tired too, and need to go to sleep soon, so I will try to keep this short-

I just want to back up OP. Sounds like she has good communication with her daughter, and I don't see anything wrong with the rules OP has set up. 

I am pretty liberal... My daughter is 15 but we have had lots of talk about sex. I want her to make informed choices for herself. She also knows she can come to us for anything- advice, and yes, birth control when the time comes. However, like OP I don't see myself being ok with her spending time at a boyfriend's house with no parents, or at our house with us not there. I think it's perfectly reasonable to set those limitations. 

I believe you can be a supportive, trusting parent and still set some boundaries. That doesn't make us naive or draconian. 

A 17 year old is still a child. Yes, they should be given more autonomy and freedom, etc. Absolutely. But they are still vulnerable.

I really wish my parents had set some limitations for me. I found myself in some really uncomfortable situations at that age that I was not remotely ready for... and I handled poorly. Of course, my parents never talked to me about sex, or had that 'open door' type of relationship with me, so maybe I would have handled things better if they had talked to me about these things. I say that as a disclaimer, but gosh- I could have really benefited from some limits too. 

My daughter has access to anything she wants/needs: Information, birth control, advice, support, etc. She knows this. But she will also have some boundaries.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

lauren said:


> I see control as being based on MY needs-- my fear for what the child may do and perhaps how I can't cope with my need to have a good outcome. I see limits as being set from a place of rational (not fear/anxiety based) well thought out risk reduction with a holistic picture of the possible outcomes.


I like the way you put this. I've been thinking it over and I think part of the answer is the degree to which the parent sees the teen's autonomy as valuable. I see control as wanting to limit the teens autonomy due to preconceived ideas of what they should do. I see limits as respecting the teens growing autonomy while minimizing the risk of catastrophic outcomes.

I suspect that all parents believe they are acting in their teens' best interests. We all draw the line with risk reduction at a different point. I'm ok with some risk of small negative outcomes because I see them as learning experiences. If my teens were engaging in truly risky behavior, I would put limits in place. I suspect that whether another parent would deem those limits as "reasonable limits" or "being controlling" has more to do with their own views of where the line should be rather than some absolute, Platonic idea of perfect parenting.

It's interesting to me the number of people who have posted on this thread that their own parents were too far on one side of the line, so they moved to the other. My parents were extremely controlling and in the end, it had very negative outcomes for me, so I'm open and honest with my kids but very mellow. Only one of my children plans on having kids, and she doesn't want them until she's in her 30's. I have a very long wait to see how she handles these issues with her own kids.


----------



## moominmamma (Jul 5, 2003)

Linda on the move said:


> I like the way you put this.


Me too. Though I think that "assessing risk rationally" is very difficult to do, since it's coloured by societal norms, the pervasiveness and one-sidedness of the media's focus, baggage from our own pasts and various other factors. We are not rational animals. Try as we might, we never truly believe that we are putting our school-aged kids are at more risk driving them across town to pick up grandma than is the single parent who leaves her 8-year-old playing at the neighbourhood park while she goes to a job interview.

While I agree that this distinction is useful in encouraging self-examination, I don't think you'd find very many controlling parents who would admit that the rules they create stem from their own fears rather than from actual risks. Our fears flow from what we believe to be significant risks. It's hard to tease the two apart.



Linda on the move said:


> I suspect that all parents believe they are acting in their teens' best interests. We all draw the line with risk reduction at a different point.


Exactly! And furthermore, like the risk of being t-boned while taking the kids with us when we drive to pick up grandma, I think that we tend to ignore certain risks in favour of avoiding the more sensationalized ones. We are all concerned about the risks to teens of sex and drugs and school failure and underaged drinking and inexperienced driving and such, but when we set up overly vigorous limits for our kids we are in fact creating other risks that we happily ignore. Like the risk of raising young adults who don't know how to manage their own lives, the risk of giving them a world-view based on fear and distrust, the risk of setting our teens up for guilt and dishonesty, the risk of eroding our relationship with them such that they are unable to hear us in our moments of wisdom or unwilling to accept our help when they need it, the risk of turning them loose in the world with no experience actively managing risk.

When I'm assessing the risk of a stranger abducting my 11-year-old walking around a small city on her own, dropping change into the hats of the homeless people she encounters, I'm weighing that against the risk of her growing up fearful and distrusting, xenophobic, individualistic, lacking in compassion and idealism. When I'm assessing the risk of my 18-year-old drinking alcohol with a bunch of young adult friends at a neighbourhood party, I'm weighing that against the risk of this kid with social anxiety growing into a 20-something living hundreds of miles away from home with no experience holding the line on his drinking at the point where his social anxiety is controlled but he's not getting so intoxicated that he's liable to pass out in a snowbank or get hit by a car.

It's complicated.

Miranda


----------



## Snydley (Feb 22, 2012)

moominmamma said:


> We are all concerned about the risks to teens of sex and drugs and school failure and underaged drinking and inexperienced driving and such, but when we set up overly vigorous limits for our kids we are in fact creating other risks that we happily ignore. Like the risk of raising young adults who don't know how to manage their own lives


:thumb Paranoia (due to the media) and the consequent confining of kids is a huge problem nowadays. I am now allowing my 7yo to walk around the neighborhood alone (home from friends' houses, etc) and she loves it! It's super important to be objective about risk.

I, like Linda on the move, was raised in a controlling household (in my case, my mother was loving, but fearful/smothering when I was younger). She and I didn't talk about sex ever. Not once.

Once I got my license at 16, I experienced real freedom for the first time. I would tell my mom I was sleeping over at a girlfriend's house on a weekend night, I'd pick up a bunch of friends, and we'd go to parties/drinking at parks/ponds, etc..often winding up sleeping in my car. I drank way more than most girls my age, even my friends. I drank to get drunk. In retrospect, I did this because I needed to feel I was making my own choices, and the fact that they were ones my mom would not approve of made them all the more attractive. I wound up dying my hair jet black and dressing like a hippie..all to be what my mother wouldn't like.

That said, I'd be curious what you ladies would do as the mom in the following situation: when I was 15, I started talking to a DJ on the radio at night who was 18 (out of high school). This phone romance began because I was a huge Richard Marx fan and kept calling to vote for his songs for the top 10 (seriously...what was I thinking! LOL). Anyway, there I was, crouched in my closet on my Garfield phone from 11-5am for weeks on end. My mom eventually caught me, and by then I had developed real feelings for this guy. She completely dropped the hammer. No phone in my room, and I was FORBIDDEN from ever meeting him/pursuing this relationship. She said she would ground me for months, my social life would end, etc. She said I was too young for him, end of story.

I did eventually sneak away and meet him twice. We fooled around both times (nothing too serious)...but in the end, my mom's efforts kept it from going anywhere.

When I look back now, I'm very glad she did what she did. She potentially sent my high school experience (and maybe my life) on a very different course. The guy was very nice, respectful, a good person, but she had no interest in meeting him. If I dated him, I'd start having sex, probably before 16. My guess is that was all she was thinking of and felt it was her job to prevent. I gotta say, I think I would agree with that logic.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

Snydley said:


> That said, I'd be curious what you ladies would do as the mom in the following situation: when I was 15, I started talking to a DJ on the radio at night who was 18 (out of high school)....
> When I look back now, I'm very glad she did what she did. She potentially sent my high school experience (and maybe my life) on a very different course. The guy was very nice, respectful, a good person, but she had no interest in meeting him. If I dated him, I'd start having sex, probably before 16. My guess is that was all she was thinking of and felt it was her job to prevent. I gotta say, I think I would agree with that logic.


In a somewhat similar situation when one of my DDs was 15, we did set some limitations. We said that the boy, who was 19, was welcome in our home any time, please invite him for dinner. They were welcome to hang out and play video games. They had a bunch of mutual friends, and they were welcome to do things in a group. She was welcome to do things with his family (and his mother ended up adoring her and taught her to can). She eventually dumped him because she decided she didn't like the way he spoke to her. Our line of reasoning was to allow a real relationship, but not a set up for sex, which would have been inappropriate/possibly illegal considering the age difference.

I don't think it altered the course of her life, except that we made it clear to her life is her own, and we have a lot of faith in her, within reason. She didn't turn into a slut or anything. She's still on a college prep track.

She was allowed to start car dating at 16, and thankful, started dating boys more age appropriate.

I don't know that it is my job to set my kids' lives on a specific course. I don't even buy that life is a course and we are along for the ride. I don't buy that we make a decision that settles everything. We can ALWAYS make a different choice.

So what if you had gone out with this guy a few times? Perhaps you would have gotten to know him better and found out that you didn't like him so much -- most teen relationships run their course. Perhaps he would have been an interesting person and challenged you intellectually. A lot of things could have happened. Gotta say, having a boy around for dinner and then playing games with him pretty much takes all the "forbidden fruit" excitement out of the equation. Then you are left figuring out if you actually like their company or not.

After I left my parents home, I was extremely wild and my life was pretty much exactly what every one fears their kid will do if the "turn out bad." (My mellowness with my own kids is not because I'm naive). Eventually, I realized that doing the opposite of what my parents wanted me to do was still giving them all the control, and that the answer was to start figuring out what actually worked for me. It took me a few years, and some counseling on a sliding scale, but I turned my life around.

Each of us decides every day what our life will be from this point forward. It's easy to keep doing the same things we have been doing, but any one can change at any time. It's something I tell my kids -- if you realize that the choices you've been making aren't working for you, then you can start making different choices. I'm more concerned that my kids know that they can ALWAYS alter the course they are on than making sure they are on a course I feel is right for them.


----------



## moominmamma (Jul 5, 2003)

Snydley said:


> I, like Linda on the move, was raised in a controlling household (in my case, my mother was loving, but fearful/smothering when I was younger)..... when I was 15, I started talking to a DJ on the radio at night who was 18 (out of high school). ..... My mom eventually caught me, and by then I had developed real feelings for this guy. She completely dropped the hammer. No phone in my room, and I was FORBIDDEN from ever meeting him/pursuing this relationship.


My then-15-year-old did date an guy almost four years older (though he was 18 and still in high school), but it was a pretty ordinary relationship. She didn't keep it secret. They hung out together and with friends. Went to some dances. We got to know him and eventually, for several reasons, his family as well. Nice folk, kind of a quirky gentle guy. The relationship stayed non-sexual and they split up after a few months because she felt he was just uninteresting and lacking in ambition.

Not nearly as exciting as your almost-relationship, which is really my point. I suspect that much of the reason you were pulled towards a that boy so strongly was because of the allure of the forbidden. This was something that your mom would never allow, and sitting in your closet at night talking to him gave you a feeling of control over your own life. That's a pretty powerful feeling for a 15-year-old who has precious little sense of autonomy. Of course your mother needed to put very dire limits on you to wrest back control. I expect if she had been less controlling the 'relationship' would never have sprung up, or if it had, it wouldn't have been nearly as alluring. Exposed to the brighter light of day, it would have quickly become rather ordinary. Maybe in a good and lasting way, or likely you would have tired of each other in the way most teens in relationships eventually do.

Miranda


----------



## lauren (Nov 20, 2001)

I am curious, though, I don't think the age of the DJ was mentioned. When I read that story it sounded extremely creepy to me because that is exactly how sex offenders behave. The older guy should not have been talking all night long to a 15 yr old. The allure of the forbidden relationship was the draw. This is not someone who was going to come over and play games at the house. 

This is where it gets complicated, as was said earlier. I agree Linda, that our children's lives are ultimately their own to direct. That principle has guided me even during some very very challenging times with my son in which the decisions being made were not good (in my opinion......). But let's say the guy was a sex offender. Do we go with it so they can learn their own lesson and make better choices next time? To me there is a balance, but it has to be based NOT only on my fears (everyone can't be a sex offender!!) but on facts. 

I want to get back to the comments on fears/control later, but have to run my daughter to a dr's appointment.

Great discussion, by the way.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

lauren said:


> I am curious, though, I don't think the age of the DJ was mentioned. When I read that story it sounded extremely creepy to me because that is exactly how sex offenders behave. The older guy should not have been talking all night long to a 15 yr old. The allure of the forbidden relationship was the draw. This is not someone who was going to come over and play games at the house.


He was 18, so there was a less of an age difference than between my DD and the young man she was involved with. Our first reaction was to have him over to the house, Snydley's mother's first reaction was to forbid the relationship. Who knows -- he might have been perfectly happy to show up, be polite, and prove to her mother that he actually liked her daughter and found her interesting to talk to. He was never given that opportunity.

I think that part of the message that Snydley's mother gave is that the ONLY reason a boy would like her to for sex. That's a pretty degrading thing to tell a young woman. (It's a very different message than, "of course boys like you -- you are smart and funny and interesting.")


----------



## Snydley (Feb 22, 2012)

Linda on the move said:


> I think that part of the message that Snydley's mother gave is that the ONLY reason a boy would like her to for sex. That's a pretty degrading thing to tell a young woman. (It's a very different message than, "of course boys like you -- you are smart and funny and interesting.")


I see it differently. I think my mom knew (#1 ) I was completely sexually inexperienced, and (#2) an 18-year-old man, out of high school, is going to be looking for a sexual relationship. It would be odd if he wasn't. She felt she needed to protect me. When we discussed him (from what I am remembering) I asked her to have him come to dinner, to get to know him, and she said something to the effect of that it doesn't matter, he's simply too old for me, end of story. She didn't say, "he only wants you for sex".

"I suspect that much of the reason you were pulled towards a that boy so strongly was because of the allure of the forbidden. This was something that your mom would never allow, and sitting in your closet at night talking to him gave you a feeling of control over your own life. That's a pretty powerful feeling for a 15-year-old who has precious little sense of autonomy." 
Good point. I did feel quite connected to him, but really the pull towards him may have been for the reasons you mention.

"I don't know that it is my job to set my kids' lives on a specific course. I don't even buy that life is a course and we are along for the ride. I don't buy that we make a decision that settles everything. We can ALWAYS make a different choice. " 
I see my job as giving my DD as much freedom as possible to learn how to function on her own, yet simultaneously protect her childhood. It's not about directing her on a course per se. For example, I'm pretty pro-active in my efforts to keep her exposed to what I feel a 7yo should encounter, more so than other parents I think. She watches only very "G" programming, no commercials directed at kids. She was following around some 5th grade boys playing basketball in the street outside my house a few months ago, and one made a sexual gesture towards her with phallic-looking toy, so I called her inside (I didn't know the kids). She doesn't currently ride the bus to school, but her friend (who is in 4th grade) does and couldn't sleep all night after another child showed her a video of a dog being killed on youtube on her phone. This is not what young grade school kids should be exposed to, these events cannot easily be erased (if ever).

She's been pretty unhappy in public school (she likes to direct her own learning) so I looked into the Sudbury school by us, and I cannot believe they allowed the kids unlimited access to the internet/violent video games in these schools. To me, it's simply a (much) milder version of dropping the kids in a war-zone and saying, "I trust them". I'm just not that 'progressive'; I think we need to protect kids from elements of the adult world.

Sex is an intensely personal, physical act (and intrusive, for women). Is it wonderful in the right context? Of course. Do I feel that if my 15yo DD has sex it threatens her childhood? Yes.

That said, this thread has helped me to realize that my personal perceptions are mine alone, and if my DD's are different, my words could drive her towards sex or other, potentially destructive behaviors even earlier than she would do normally. I know I will be walking a fine line, and will reach points when she is a teen where I really don't know how to act in her best interest, when sex, alcohol, drugs, and school pressures are all on the table.

Childhood is precious and it sets the stage for the rest of your life. In the teen years, I view sex as the #1 threat to end childhood too soon.

-Jen


----------



## moominmamma (Jul 5, 2003)

Snydley said:


> an 18-year-old man, out of high school, is going to be looking for a sexual relationship. It would be odd if he wasn't.


As the mother of an 18-year-old "man" (who weighs about 140 pounds and shaves maybe once a week) I don't doubt that sex is on his mind a lot and probably has been since he was 12. What I'm not clear on is why your mom assumed that at say 16 boys are looking for primarily for friendship and non-physical intimacy while at 18 all that changes. I just don't see that in my ds or his friends, and in fact he's told me that there was way more social pressure amongst peers at 16 to be sexually active then than there is now that he's moved away from home and has a more mature life.

Miranda


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

Snydley said:


> Childhood is precious and it sets the stage for the rest of your life. In the teen years, I view sex as the #1 threat to end childhood too soon.
> 
> -Jen


I disagree. I think that in teen years, childhood has already ended. My goal since my kids were about 12/13 has been on independence and life skills (in all areas -- laundry, banking skills, etc.).

If you aren't going to teach your DD to how to make real decisions about real issues when she is 15, then when will you? If we skip this because we are stuck on what our role was when they were actually children, then we miss it forever and they will leave home without getting to learn how to manage their lives, which hurts them.

Your mother trying to protect your childhood ended with you sneaking around and fooling around. To me, that actually put you in a lot of danger. Thank god he was a nice, respectful young man. If he hadn't been, that could have had a much bigger impact on your life. With my dd, the one thing we drew the line as was being alone in a car. So what you were doing, she wasn't. Yet you think your mother was protecting you -- by saying that he couldn't come to your house and making your only option sneaking around. How did that make you safe?

There isn't some magic age when boys become potential predators. A 16 year old boy told one of my DD's friends that he wouldn't study with her any more unless she started giving him blow jobs (they aren't studying together any more). When we simplify the people our kids are around to just ages, we can end up skipping a lot of information. And girls can be VERY aggressive and put pressure on boys as well.

I'm actually surprised how much sexism has been on this thread.


----------



## moominmamma (Jul 5, 2003)

I very much agree with Linda's post above. A teen of 13 or 15 or 17 isn't a child, so teen sex doesn't threaten childhood, it only threatens the parents' sentimental and infantalized view of their offspring. Childhood innocence is slowly eroded throughout the early tween years as children begin to understand and grapple with injustice and greed and all the social ills that spring from them. Having watched four kids grow through adolescence I am in awe with how wise and competent and capable they become, and how quickly it happens. 

I think humans are biologically programmed for sexual activity as teenagers. Because of a lot of good cultural, demographic and economic reasons we don't want our 15-year-olds marrying and starting families. We ask them to wait until they're older, and that's fine. But that doesn't make them children.

Of course there is maturation of the brain that continues to take place well into the 20's. But there are also ongoing changes to the brain throughout later adulthood, and that doesn't mean no one under 50 should be entrusted with important decisions. Conversely there are facets of intellectual capacity that peak around age 18 and decline thereafter. The brain is never a fully complete and static entity. So I don't buy "but the brain is still maturing at age X" as a reason to treat our competent, strong and smart teenaged offspring as children. 

It's true that sex carries emotional and physical risks, but it's also true that teens given access to all the good information and tools that are available today, while still enfolded within their nuclear families, make better choices than those who are not so informed and supported.

As I've said, only one of my kids has thus far chosen to become sexually active as a teen, and she was already a legal adult and had been living on her own for more than a year. I'm thankful my kids have avoided the intensity and heartbreak that often comes of young-teen romantic relationships whether they're sexual in nature or not. But I wouldn't have been upset, nor would I have grieved for their lost childhoods, if they'd chosen otherwise.

Miranda


----------



## lauren (Nov 20, 2001)

moominmamma said:


> As I've said, only one of my kids has thus far chosen to become sexually active as a teen, and she was already a legal adult and had been living on her own for more than a year. I'm thankful my kids have avoided the intensity and heartbreak that often comes of young-teen romantic relationships whether they're sexual in nature or not. But I wouldn't have been upset, nor would I have grieved for their lost childhoods, if they'd chosen otherwise.
> 
> Miranda


Just out of curiosity, why are you thankful that your kids have avoided it then?


----------



## Snydley (Feb 22, 2012)

Funny, but I can't imagine saying that a 13yo (or a 15yo) isn't a child. Maybe we are defining 'child' differently, or maybe I don't understand b/c I do not have a teen yet, and haven't been a teen in ages. My 7yo is becoming more aware of social injustice/disease/greed in the world, but she's still a kid. 

Also, FYI- at the time I started talking to the DJ, I was a sophomore at an all girls' high school. I had developed a core group friends (including 8 girls or so), spent my weekends with them, we had big sleepovers, and walking around the mall, giggling all time. We did have some male friends as well, and I had them over my house for a 'party' (my parents were there) around the time all this started with the DJ. I remember being so nervous I barely spoke to the boys; they all sat together and played nintendo most of the night. A couple of my girlfriends were real social with them (buddy-buddy, flirty, etc.) but not me. I didn't have my footing with boys yet. 

I'm sure my mom noticed this. Imagine how different my life would be if I started a relationship outside of this group of kids? I'd spend my weekends with my boyfriend. I think it's not that 18=sexual and 16=innocent, but leaving the group of friends as my primary social life changes the dynamic of teen years. When I look back on that time (I should pull out my journal) I think of myself as a 15yo child. I was exploring with my sexual thoughts, etc..(I remember writing a love letter to Richard Marx!) but don't think I was mature enough for sex, and I think sex at that time would have caused my to lose some of my more childish/innocent youth that I still needed. 

-Jen


----------



## One_Girl (Feb 8, 2008)

I have to wonder why you would see it as the number 1 threat in the teen years. I assume it is because of the fall out from unsafe sex but that makes iinadequate sex ed and lack or resources and confidentiality the threat not the sex. I personally had great sex ed and a mother who made sure I had resources and the independence to have confidential medical appointments so I don't understand how sex itself is threatening. I feel that my teen relationships were very beneficial because I learned a lot about myself and my boundaries. I probably would have eventually but as a teen my family was able to provide a level of security they can't as easily when you're an adult on your own, possibly far from home.


----------



## Fortune Teller (Jan 28, 2013)

I would just like to respectfully disagree on the statement that a 13-15 year old is not a child. 

I *do* think sexual exploration in teenagers is normal. But I would never lump them in with adults (as far as physical and mental maturity goes).

Sounds like we all have different experiences of our own that we are drawing from, plus factoring in our own teenagers unique personalities. 

One person's approach and philosophy is not automatically applicable across the board. 

I just think this is a topic with too many variables to try to bend others around to your own philosophy and way of doing things. 

Everyone here on this forum are awesome parents. I know this from having been on these boards for a few years now and having gotten to know a lot of you from your posts. Obviously you guys are doing whats right in your own little families. 

And I should have said so earlier, but I will be no different with my boys when they become teenagers. Just like my own daughter- While I accept their sexuality and growing autonomy, I will have boundaries in place for them. Not to stop them from being sexual beings per se, but just to have some added precautions in place. 

Boys are no different in terms of risk involved.


----------



## moominmamma (Jul 5, 2003)

lauren said:


> Just out of curiosity, why are you thankful that your kids have avoided it then?


I think I hinted at why: because I think the intensity and heartbreak that so often comes of young-teen relationships can unnecessarily complicate teens' lives. When so much energy goes into coping with tumultuous romantic relationships, there's less energy left for the rest of life.

Miranda


----------



## moominmamma (Jul 5, 2003)

Fortune Teller said:


> I would just like to respectfully disagree on the statement that a 13-15 year old is not a child. .... I would never lump them in with adults (as far as physical and mental maturity goes).


I don't think of young teens as adults either. I think of them more as "almost-adults" or "becoming adults." Not as children. I refer to my teens (and my 20-year-old!) as "my kids" and of course they're less experienced and less mature than they'll be in another 10 years. But I don't think of them as children in the sense of possessing virginal innocence, or of needing the type of supervision and protection that younger children need, nor do I see it as my job to control their lives, their behaviour, their experiences.

Miranda


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

Snydley said:


> Imagine how different my life would be if I started a relationship outside of this group of kids? I'd spend my weekends with my boyfriend. I think it's not that 18=sexual and 16=innocent, but leaving the group of friends as my primary social life changes the dynamic of teen years. When I look back on that time (I should pull out my journal) I think of myself as a 15yo child.


I mean this without any judgment, but I have a hard time seeing your behavior in high school as something I would want for my own kids. Here is from one of your other posts:



Snydley said:


> Once I got my license at 16, I experienced real freedom for the first time. I would tell my mom I was sleeping over at a girlfriend's house on a weekend night, I'd pick up a bunch of friends, and we'd go to parties/drinking at parks/ponds, etc..often winding up sleeping in my car. I drank way more than most girls my age, even my friends. I drank to get drunk. In retrospect, I did this because I needed to feel I was making my own choices, and the fact that they were ones my mom would not approve of made them all the more attractive.


It all sounds dangerous and out of control to me. It's exactly what I'm trying to avoid by being realistic that my kids are growing up. My kids are 16 and 18, and not engaging in any of this sort of self-destructive stuff.

May be if that boy had been allowed to come over for dinner, you wouldn't have been drinking to get drunk and sleeping in parks to prove to yourself that you had control over your life. May be if when you were still naive enough to be honest with your mother, she had understood that you weren't a child and that you were growing up, you would have still been honest with her the next year. Your mother proved to you that being honest with her was a mistake, and you believed her.

I've made it safe for my kids to be honest, partly by accepting that they aren't children and by accepting that they WILL make their own choices for themselves -- either by having reasonable conversations with me where I help them think through outcomes, or, if I close that avenue, with their own limited judgment.



moominmamma said:


> I don't think of young teens as adults either. I think of them more as "almost-adults" or "becoming adults."


I'm similar. I see them as being in a transition phase between childhood and adulthood. I think they gradually become adults, at different rates in different parts of their lives, and at different rates from others, but, none the less, transitioning. I see my role as helping them make that transition as smooth as possible.

I don't see my job as prolonging childhood. That's over and done with. I also don't see my job as dictating what their adult choices should be. That's up to them.

My role is to teach them skills, provide them with information, and allow them to gradually assume total control over their own lives.


----------



## Snydley (Feb 22, 2012)

Linda on the move said:


> I mean this without any judgment, but I have a hard time seeing your behavior in high school as something I would want for my own kids.


The behavior was definitely self-destructive and unsafe at times, and yes I do believe I did it to exert some control over my life due to my mother's firm hand. She was often not reasonable about things. I think she had a quiet 'on the sidelines' high school experience, was a virgin on her wedding day, etc. She always seemed out of touch to me on many interpersonal issues (and still does).

However, a key difference between her situation and yours (with your 15yo DD dating an 18yo) was that she couldn't speak with his parent. From your posts, it sounds like you were trying to set limits on the relationship by not allowing them to be alone. Is this accurate? Also, if you don't mind me asking, did your DD wind up having sex with this boy?



Linda on the move said:


> I don't see my job as prolonging childhood. That's over and done with. I also don't see my job as dictating what their adult choices should be. That's up to them.


I'm not talking about prolonging childhood but preserving what is left of it during the teen years so it is not lost too soon. This is, I presume, what Miranda means when she says she was relieved that her kids didn't encounter "the intensity and heartbreak that so often comes of young-teen relationships can unnecessarily complicate teens' lives."

However, I know that any attempts of mine to intervene/set firm limits on my DD as a teen need to be chosen as carefully and sparingly as possible. I want to tell her about my choices (waiting to have sex, etc) and why I think they were the right decisions for me in retrospect..but I also realize (particularly after this thread) and these may not be her choices and if I close myself to an alternative choice it could have a very negative outcome for our relationship (and her safety).

I can't ignore the reality that the vast majority of teens have sex in high school. Maybe calling sex "the #1 threat ending childhood too soon" is a bit much...but I really hope she chooses to wait, and I cannot envision not intervening on some level if it seems sex in the early teen years is a real possibility. For now, I'm just going to hope my DD doesn't ask to date a much older boy/man, particularly before she's 16. Maybe I can dodge that bullet.

-Jen


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

Snydley said:


> Funny, but I can't imagine saying that a 13yo (or a 15yo) isn't a child. Maybe we are defining 'child' differently, or maybe I don't understand b/c I do not have a teen yet, and haven't been a teen in ages. My 7yo is becoming more aware of social injustice/disease/greed in the world, but she's still a kid.
> 
> Also, FYI- at the time I started talking to the DJ, I was a sophomore at an all girls' high school. I had developed a core group friends (including 8 girls or so), spent my weekends with them, we had big sleepovers, and walking around the mall, giggling all time. We did have some male friends as well, and I had them over my house for a 'party' (my parents were there) around the time all this started with the DJ. I remember being so nervous I barely spoke to the boys; they all sat together and played nintendo most of the night. A couple of my girlfriends were real social with them (buddy-buddy, flirty, etc.) but not me. I didn't have my footing with boys yet.
> 
> ...


Im following this interesting discussion. To my mind, if you are capable of wanting sex, by your own true consent, if you are capable of thinking through the consequences and protecting yourself from them to the extent that it is possible which is a matter of having the right information (birth control), and if you have sensitivity of others' needs as well as your own, then you are ready.

Sex can lead to unwanted pregnancy and be emotionally risky for adults as much as teens.


----------



## contactmaya (Feb 21, 2006)

moominmamma said:


> I think I hinted at why: because I think the intensity and heartbreak that so often comes of young-teen relationships can unnecessarily complicate teens' lives. When so much energy goes into coping with tumultuous romantic relationships, there's less energy left for the rest of life.
> 
> Miranda


I think this is a good point. People often emphasize the riskiness of sexual relationships as revolving around potential pregnancy, but the emotional investment and turmoil it can lead to is also a big risk. Like i said, as much for adults as for teens.

So, if as a parent you feel this way, how did you discourage your kids from this, or did you? How do you think your parenting led them in directions that allowed them to avoid this risk?


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

Snydley said:


> However, a key difference between her situation and yours (with your 15yo DD dating an 18yo) was that she couldn't speak with his parent.


I spoke with my DD and with my DH (her father). No one else. Eventually I did meet and speak with his parents in a variety of contexts, but that doesn't have anything to do with the limits I set for my DD. I never once called his mother to set rules or check up on them. Ever. I think that would be humiliating behavior.

One of the very convenient differences with your situation is that they had a bunch of mutual friends. They spent most of their time together with a group of friends.



> From your posts, it sounds like you were trying to set limits on the relationship by not allowing them to be alone. Is this accurate? Also, if you don't mind me asking, did your DD wind up having sex with this boy?


As I already said, I wanted to give them space to have a relationship without it being a set up for sex, which would have been illegal in our state.

I'm curious where you think they could have had sex. In the middle of a movie theatre with a dozen friends, including her sister. On his kitchen table while canning with his mother. On our couch while playing playstation and our whole family in the house. In the middle of a coffee shop while playing D&D with a their D&D. (their breakup eventually was hardest on the D&D group).

An odd side benefit of the whole thing was that it set up some very healthy trends for her in dating. She is allowed to car date now, and she and her current boy friend (who is only a year and a half older than her) spend some time with just each other but spend most of the time they are together with other people, which I think is nice and very healthy.

Why does it matter if she had sex with him? Does it make me a good parent if she didn't, but a bad parent if she did? Does it mean that your mom was right and therefore justified if she did, but your mom was out of line if she didn't?

Is it OK if she passed the magic 16th birthday? If they dated for a certain amount of time?

And who gets to make up all these rules and use them to pass judgment on her (and me)?

All I wanted was for her to be able to make her own choices, but with enough reasonable limitations to make sure that the law was broken and that she didn't get enough rope to hang herself until she know how to handle the rope. (The way I see it, everyone gets enough rope to hang themselves when they are 18. We need to get them ready for it so they don't use it to hurt themselves).



> I can't ignore the reality that the vast majority of teens have sex in high school. Maybe calling sex "the #1 threat ending childhood too soon" is a bit much...but I really hope she chooses to wait, and I cannot envision not intervening on some level if it seems sex in the early teen years is a real possibility.


I don't think that's true. I did some looking, and found this:

"57 percent of teenage girls aged 15-19 years had never had vaginal intercourse, an increase from 49 percent in 1995, said the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly report"
From: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-sty...se-increase-49-percent-1995-article-1.1072709

I also don't think that 15 is part of the "early teen years."


----------



## moominmamma (Jul 5, 2003)

contactmaya said:


> So, if as a parent you feel this way, how did you discourage your kids from this, or did you? How do you think your parenting led them in directions that allowed them to avoid this risk?


I can't say that my kids completely avoided this risk. My middle two did date, and there was some drama. Not much, but enough to make them wary of pursuing other high school relationships ... to want more maturity from any future relationships and (mostly) more maturity from the circle milieu those relationships would take place in.

I did nothing to actively discourage any of this, other than just try to raise kids who are grounded in a strong sense of their own values and who are not particularly peer-oriented. Avoiding peer orientation meant keeping our own inter-family relationships well nurtured, and giving the kids opportunities to develop strong adult-like relationships with mentors in the community and social circles that extended well beyond the high school's meagre offerings.

Miranda


----------



## Snydley (Feb 22, 2012)

Linda on the move said:


> As I already said, I wanted to give them space to have a relationship without it being a set up for sex, which would have been illegal in our state.
> 
> I'm curious where you think they could have had sex. In the middle of a movie theatre with a dozen friends, including her sister. On his kitchen table while canning with his mother. On our couch while playing playstation and our whole family in the house. In the middle of a coffee shop while playing D&D with a their D&D. (their breakup eventually was hardest on the D&D group).


I think you are packaging your parenting choices as "giving them space to have a relationship" but it sounds like you exhibited quite controlling behavior to actively prevent them from having sex. It appears that you always kept tabs on where she was and who else was them. I really like the way you handled it; it makes a lot of sense to me. But it's more than just "setting limits".



Linda on the move said:


> Why does it matter if she had sex with him? Does it make me a good parent if she didn't, but a bad parent if she did? Does it mean that your mom was right and therefore justified if she did, but your mom was out of line if she didn't? Is it OK if she passed the magic 16th birthday? If they dated for a certain amount of time? And who gets to make up all these rules and use them to pass judgment on her (and me)?


I'm not sure why you have become so defensive. I was honestly just curious. I've already agreed with you that my mom's strict parenting style put me in some dangerous situations that could have had disastrous consequences. I'm not sure where you are hearing the judging in my text; it certainly isn't intended.



Linda on the move said:


> All I wanted was for her to be able to make her own choices, but with enough reasonable limitations to make sure that the law was broken


 Is this really about breaking the law? If you had a 17yo dating at 18yo, would you mention the 'law' as a factor for limiting their interaction as well? If your 15yo DD started dating another 15yo instead of a 19yo in her group of friends, would you have been as strict about them not ever being alone together? And if not, is it only because sex between them is technically illegal? Or maybe because two 15yos experimenting with dating is different from a 15yo and a 19yo?



Linda on the move said:


> and that she didn't get enough rope to hang herself until she know how to handle the rope.


 This doesn't sound different from what I've been saying.



Linda on the move said:


> I don't think that's true. I did some looking, and found this: "57 percent of teenage girls aged 15-19 years had never had vaginal intercourse, an increase from 49 percent in 1995, said the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly report"
> From: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-sty...se-increase-49-percent-1995-article-1.1072709
> 
> I also don't think that 15 is part of the "early teen years."


Ok, let's say the % of girls having sex in any given high school is between 40-85%. Not the vast majority across the board (in my high school, it was the vast majority).

-Jen


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

Snydley said:


> I think you are packaging your parenting choices as "giving them space to have a relationship" but it sounds like *you exhibited quite controlling behavior* to actively prevent them from having sex. It appears that you always kept tabs on where she was and who else was them. I really like the way you handled it; it makes a lot of sense to me. But it's more than just "setting limits".


 As I already said in this thread, the line between controlling and not controlling is in the eye of the beholder. I never once checked up on her. The only real rule was that they couldn't be alone in a car. That really meant we had a pretty good clue about what was going on, but was I controlling? She didn't seem to think so. What we found was a solution we could all live with.

What if we defined "controlling" as the degree to which the teen can live with rules, so that there is no negative back lash either at that time, or in the future?



> Is this really about breaking the law? If you had a 17yo dating at 18yo, would you mention the 'law' as a factor for limiting their interaction as well? If your 15yo DD started dating another 15yo instead of a 19yo in her group of friends, would you have been as strict about them not ever being alone together?


Well, she's 16 now and has none of those rules (her only rule is that she has to be home by midnight, but that's because of a law -- our community has a midnight curfew and the one time I got to discuss this with a police officer, I didn't enjoy it).

The laws vary from state to state, but a 17 year old having sex with an 18 year old isn't against the law in my state.

Another 15 year old wouldn't have been able to pick her up in his car. Had she at 15 been interested in a boy who was 16, we wouldn't have made these same rules. I can't say exactly what guidelines we would have come up with because we never had that situation.

yes, I was uncomfortable with the situation because of the age difference. I also pushed past my own discomfort because *I know from my own life experience what happens when parents try to over-control their kids*


----------



## Snydley (Feb 22, 2012)

Linda on the move said:


> What if we defined "controlling" as the degree to which the teen can live with rules, so that there is no negative back lash either at that time, or in the future?


 I like this. It's controlling/setting limits your DC can live with because they feel fundamentally respected. I've seen, even with my young DD, that power struggles benefit no one.



Linda on the move said:


> Well, she's 16 now and has none of those rules (her only rule is that she has to be home by midnight, but that's because of a law -- our community has a midnight curfew and the one time I got to discuss this with a police officer, I didn't enjoy it).


 Midnight curfew? Talk about control..ugh


----------



## moominmamma (Jul 5, 2003)

Linda on the move said:


> The only real rule was that they couldn't be alone in a car.


I'm not criticizing, and maybe it says more about differences in culture, but this strikes me as a really odd "only real rule" to have. It would never have occurred to me to choose this as the scenario to ban. Here cars are about transportation, not sex. If I was trying to reduce the likelihood that my teen would engage in sex, I'd be far more likely to focus on scenarios like what the OP was concerned about: teens alone in an empty house.

And I agree: a midnight curfew law? Ughh! Land of the free, eh? Sheesh.

Miranda


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

moominmamma said:


> I'm not criticizing, and maybe it says more about differences in culture, but this strikes me as a really odd "only real rule" to have. It would never have occurred to me to choose this as the scenario to ban. Here cars are about transportation, not sex. If I was trying to reduce the likelihood that my teen would engage in sex, I'd be far more likely to focus on scenarios like what the OP was concerned about: teens alone in an empty house.


At that time, there really aren't a lot of times when this specific kid was home and no one else was. "He can't be here unless we are" would have been meaningless. (the fact that she has a big sister who is a home body and who would have found this appalling may have impacted what we focused on)

As far as his house, her only means of transportation was immediately family members, which meant we had a pretty good idea who else was at his house. Were his parents home every single minute she was there? I don't know. I know that most of the time my DD and her then boyfriend spent together, they were with other people, and that she spent enough time with his parents to form quite nice relationships with them.

I've never actually told my kids that other people can't be in our house when we aren't -- mostly out of a habit to not give them rules that I can't enforce. When they were little, they had very few rules, but I enforced them 100%. I'm happy with how that played out.

It is different now because we do leave them alone, but we have transitioned totally to parenting by explaining consequences rather than parenting by enforcing rules. We hadn't totally made that transition when she and this boy where a couple (obviously).

I'm happy with how we handled the situation, and I'm fine with how it played out in her life. She seems pretty sensible about boys and relationships.


----------



## lauren (Nov 20, 2001)

I think one other interesting thing is that some teens do things they regret later because they live in a controlling household and some (like me) because there are no limits at all.

Which to me again, means, that a balance of limits and freedom plus an open relationship is a good thing.


----------



## moominmamma (Jul 5, 2003)

lauren said:


> I think one other interesting thing is that some teens do things they regret later because they live in a controlling household and some (like me) because there are no limits at all.d


And some teens do things they regret later even though they live in homes with balanced, middle-of-the-road parenting. I know families where parenting has been flexible and understanding, yet firm on basic limits, where the parents are kind, secure and intelligent. And it worked out beautifully. For one or two of their kids. But their experience with one or two of the others was just a mess.

Why is it that some kids seem to make really shitty choices despite what seems to be really good balanced parenting? Part of it is simply human nature: we are hard-wired to learn from our own experience more than from the advice of others and often teens just need to learn the hard way. And part of it is that teens aren't clones of each other: some do better with clear controls and limits, for others any hint of control incites their oppositional tendencies, and others need a little more or a little less autonomy at different times on different issues in different contexts. If there were one true path I'm pretty sure we'd all be on it.

I'm generally a fan of a middle-of-the-spectrum approach, if only because when, as inevitably will happen, you realize it's the wrong approach for your particular kid in this particular situation, you're not likely to be _quite as far off the mark_ as you might have been if you'd opted for a more radical end-of-spectrum choice.

Miranda


----------



## lauren (Nov 20, 2001)

Agreed. My children are each SO different from each other and need different approaches.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

Agreed. Parenting isn't like cooking where you follow a recipe and can expect a specific end product.


----------



## IsaFrench (Mar 22, 2008)

interesting discussion for me too ... my eldest is 15, invited tomorrow evening at a girlfriend's place ....i know 2 other girls from schools have been invited, not sure they will turn up , supposed to have a sleep over, i think two boys from school are invited too, not sure if invited for sleepover though, & tried texting the mom last week to learn if there would be an adult present ... the girl inviting is 2 years older than mine & her friend, a recent expatriate so they put her 2 grades back at school so that she has time to catch up on the language first .... no answer from the mom
i am going to let my daughter go there overnight ... but am wondering if it is the "right decision" that i'm taking ....


----------

