<p>This is exactly how I feel also. I have been afraid to post on this topic because I have taken some criticism for my type of “conservative” parenting. BUT, since you brought it up (;)), I will say that this would NEVER come up in my home. I mean, my kids have been brainwashed, indoctrinated, call it what you will, but they KNOW that they WILL finish their educations before establishing that type of committed relationship. Frankly, they have never been given another choice nor will they be. Call it puttin’ our feet down as parents, but yep, we’ve done it. </p>
<p>S has been involved with a girl from his h.s. for over 18 months now. It would never have occurred to him to alter his college plans for her, nor WOULD IT EVER HAVE OCCURRED TO HER TO ASK HIM—simply because she is well aware of how we (our son AND us parents) feel about this. She is VERY supportive of him, and also desires to finish HER education. In that way, their values are similar. Whether or not this relationship will last is anyone’s guess, but right now, both of their educations will get the priority.</p>
<p>That someone would even CONSIDER altering college plans for a four-month relationship perplexes me totally…I am really pretty stunned by this.</p>
<p><<<< That someone would even CONSIDER altering college plans for a four-month relationship perplexes me totally…I am really pretty stunned by this.>></p>
<p>As a fellow conservative parent, who also “brain-washes” her kids, I remember the words from a female college prof who “studied” teenage girls for DECADES. She noted that when a girl becomes sexually active with a boy that she “loves” it is very hard to pull her away. However, if the girl does not have sex with her “love” then it is rather easy. I suspect that the OP’s D lost her virginity to this boy and she rationalized it by convincing herself that “he is the one” – and no one wants to leave “the one”.</p>
<p>The prof first started noticing this when she would try to steer some of her female students away from “bad relationships” (some were even dangerous). If the couple was sexually active, the girl would cry, “but I love him” and would refuse – usually those relationships would end when HE would tire of HER. However, if no sex was involved, she could often convince the girl that the guy was not right for her or getting in the way of her studies.</p>
<p>JLauer95:
Never mind - it was an off-the-cuff attempt at a joke, and it fell rather flat.</p>
<p>(It started with your typo of “Dating is a pre-martial activity”, where you meant “pre-marital”, I think. Pre-martial = pre-military = before fighting… you see where that train of thought led?</p>
<p>I meant it as gentle ribbing - no offence intended.)</p>
<p>Telling your daughter to get educated to support herself and not relying on a guy isn’t conservative; it’s good parenting. Hell, the real conservative agenda is to tell her to get married first and educate herself second! Either way, it’s a value - and I’m all for parents “brainwashing” their children. Stand for something and stand up for something, whatever it may be. The young people don’t have the benefit of 40+ years of living the way you do - it’s part of your job as parents to figure out what values you want to impart to your kids. Fiscally, romantically, educationally, familial relationships - whatever.</p>
<p>Berurah: I suspect that your S’s relationship works so well because he knows what is important to him - and she knows what is important to her. Whether or not they end up together, it will be a good experience for both of them. </p>
<p>I really agree about the girl/sex thing. I know a lot of girls - esp. those raised in religious environments - who won’t leave the first guy they slept with. They think, “No sex until marriage didn’t work out, so I’ll marry the guy I slept with.” Bad idea all around - no need to compound the mistakes - but it happens. Note that I’m not a fan of pre-marital sex - just have observed that women who have that same value but do have sex have trouble pulling away. It is also really hard for women to conceive of marrying a guy who is not the first, one, and only. Don’t think men won’t play off that as well.</p>
<p>My commentary… as usual, from the girl who has the relationships from hell.</p>
aries~
As usual, you beat me to the punch. I was going to talk about this and say just what you did, but I wasn’t sure I wanted to open that can of worms. </p>
<p>Though I am more conservative than not in my parenting, I sat my son down a LOOOOOOOOOONG time ago and explained something to him. I said this: </p>
<p>“I want you to finish school before you get tied down in a ultra-committed relationship (i.e. marriage). However, given that request, I do not think it is fair of me to expect you to NOT have sex until you are in that type of relationship [with his aspirations, he could be anywhere from his mid-twenties to young thirties before he is “done” with school]. Therefore, though I am urging you to wait for the RIGHT person and the RIGHT relationship, I am telling you that I will NOT be disappointed in you or feel like you have done something ‘bad’ if you choose to become physically involved with someone you love before that time.” </p>
<p>Frankly, I did this to try to prevent what you talked about above…to prevent my sons or daughters from taking that first sexual experience and extending it into a marriage situation if it is not the right one for them. I think that many parents instill that notion, and I think that by and large it can cause a great deal of unnecessary grief over time.</p>
<p>IMHO, I am simply taking into account reality here. I am definitely NOT encouraging my children to have early sexual relationships, but I am not going to make them feel guilt or shame if they choose to do so in a responsible fashion and within the context of a loving relationship.</p>
<p>Amazingly, some of my S’s friends have felt comfortable enough to talk to me about these things, and most have conceded that they WISH their parents had given them the same message…there is a LOT of conflict and guilt infllicted when parents don’t allow for this reality.</p>
<p>I hope you also told your son never to completely trust any girl who says that she is on the “pill”. Even with the pill, he needs to protect himself.</p>
jlauer~
Not only have we talked about THAT, but we’ve talked about making sure of the mental/emotional stability of the girl. It is very easy for a “scorned” girl (or guy for that matter) to have a completely different retroactive view of a consensual relationship. </p>
I’m surprised that a college prof would engage in such simplistic thinking. It’s a which came first, chicken-or-egg thing. That is, the reason the girl starts having sex in the first place is that she is in love with the guy – at least among inexperienced, non-promiscuous girls. So to assume the attachment results from the sex, as opposed to the idea that the sex starts because of the attachment, is circular reasoning. </p>
<p>For that matter, if you think about it, girls who are sexually experienced and promiscuous are probably less likely to get too attached to one guy. They would be less likely to confuse sexual intimacy with true love; more likely to be willing to leave one relationship for the prospect of others. Now I am not advocating promiscuity - I’m just trying to illustrate the problem with the reasoning.</p>
I agree completely - speaking from experience here. “Saved myself” for marriage until I met “the one” (so I thought) in my first year of college & was devastated when <em>he</em> left <em>me</em> after a 6-month relationship. I would have married him in a heartbeat and it would have been a disaster. I would’ve hung in there forever because of the “first, one, and only” thinking that had been instilled in me through religious upbringing. Had I not had a physical relationship with him, it would’ve been an entirely different psychological dynamic.</p>
<p>jlauer95: re: "As a fellow conservative parent, who also “brain-washes” her kids, I remember the words from a female college prof who “studied” teenage girls for DECADES. She noted that when a girl becomes sexually active with a boy that she “loves” it is very hard to pull her away. However, if the girl does not have sex with her “love” then it is rather easy. I suspect that the OP’s D lost her virginity to this boy and she rationalized it by convincing herself that “he is the one” – and no one wants to leave “the one”.</p>
<p>The prof first started noticing this when she would try to steer some of her female students away from “bad relationships” (some were even dangerous). If the couple was sexually active, the girl would cry, “but I love him” and would refuse – usually those relationships would end when HE would tire of HER. However, if no sex was involved, she could often convince the girl that the guy was not right for her or getting in the way of her studies."</p>
<p>Can you tell us the source for this? Thanks. Lorelei
jlauer95 is offline</p>
<p>Wow, are we now getting to the part where all the CC moms come forward and detail their own first sexual experiences to either support or refute the arguments?</p>
<p>I’ve been waiting for this discussion for a long time! I’ve brought my knitting. Carry on!</p>
<p>You’re too funny I’lll bring the margaritas by the third round, who knows what stories will come out.</p>
<p>the prof is Dr. Janet Smith!!! She was at University of Dallas… I will try to find where she is now. She was the keynote speaker at a conference I attended. Her story about female students was riveting.</p>
<p>Just found her again. She’s now a prof at University of IL, Chicago</p>
<p>I just remembered another one of her points. She said that during sex, the same hormone (oxytocin sp?) that is released when a mother nurses her baby is also released during sex. This hormone ecourages “bonding”. Her theory is that the bonding that occurs during sex is why it is so difficult for girls to break up with “bad matches.”</p>
Hmmmmmmmmmm, interesting. I would think it would be more based on the emotional elements talked about about above…particularly the message given by some parents that sex is to be saved strictly for marriage. If it is biologically-based, then wouldn’t it make sense that it would be hardest to leave the “best lover”–the one who is most adept at facilitating the oxytocin? That would probably be an argument AGAINST having a difficult time leaving the first lover, as either one or both parties are likely more sexually inexperienced. Just a thought…</p>
<p>In a semi-related thought, I am now wondering about the fact that I had five of my six babes on pitocin (synthetic oxytocin)…maybe I bonded with the “childbirth experience” and so perseverated…:eek:</p>
<p>I would definitely encourage you to forgo the knitting. If I DID decide to share, you would be at serious risk for dropping a stitch or two…or suffering an embarrassing injury from a dropped needle…<em>lol</em> ;)</p>
That would probably be an argument AGAINST having a difficult time leaving the first lover, as either one or both parties are likely more sexually inexperienced. Just a thought…</p>