I’m sorry if my attitude seems dismissive, but I really hate to see bad advice being given here–somebody might actually take it. I would say that humanity is not “filled” with people who succeed in living up to their values–although there are many who do, many don’t. And for a lot of them (especially college students) these aren’t people who renounce their values and turn to the dark side–they are people who have a few drinks and slip, or let things get out of hand, or who do things that they think are wrong, but “only this once.”</p>
<p>And it really is like drinking. Even a kid who swears that he will never touch a drop should be told about the consequences of binge drinking, about drinking ages, etc.</p>
<p>I’m certainly not being dismissive. I’m countering Baelor’s claim that hers and her friends’ deeply religious convictions preclude a failure of ideals. There are people I know who lived up to their ideals - including myself, so I am aware it can be done. The examples I mentioned were shocking to me at the time, because I thought that anyone with a profound faith life could never waver in their personal conduct. It doesn’t negate the many others who have succeeded.</p>
<p>When I said dismissive- I was not referring to any individual here- but a more general societal stance regarding abstinence. </p>
<p>I agree that there are parallels with the issue of drinking. Everyone needs to know the perils that could accompany the pleasure. </p>
<p>My only point is that it is important to recognize that not every one fails at living up to their own standards and that it is important not to convey the message that well, because a whole bunch of other people said they believed like you do and failed, then it’s real likely that you will fail too.</p>
<p>This thread has turned into an identical clone of the one where the mother of the sixteen year old daughter overheard her telling a friend that she had been parking with her boyfriend and had taken off her shirt. Baelor’s current arguments could practically be lifted verbatim from that thread, as well as some of the counter arguments. I learned from that thread that neither side arguing their points are going to change their thinking about the matter. The arguments just go on and on repetitively, like a CD with a scratch on it</p>
<p>As to the OP, it sounds like your daughter has a good head on her shoulders. She sounds like the kind of girl who will put thought and care into whatever action she takes.</p>
<p>The Advocate for Youth Group conducted a study and these statistics are sobering. Putting ideology over science undermines a young woman’s access to a basic right as adequate healthcare, education and prevention. These are just the FACTS.</p>
<p>“In the United States, 45.6 percent of high school students1 and 79.5 percent of college students ages 18-242 have had sex, and the median age at first marriage is 28.6 for men and 26.6 for women.3 Thus, it is critically important for adults to address adolescent sexuality realistically and to recognize that a young person’s decision whether to have sexual intercourse may be influenced by many factors, including socioeconomic status, ethnicity, family structure, educational aspirations, age, and life experiences”".</p>
<p>“because a whole bunch of other people said they believed like you do and failed, then it’s real likely that you will fail too.”</p>
<p>Who says they failed? I think that most of them changed their minds. When you see responsible peers having sex, and you see that they have a lot of fun and don’t get sick or get pregnant and God doesn’t smite them…and you see that some of them are truly good, loving people…your perspective on the whole premarital-sex-is-inherently-immoral construct evolves.</p>
<p>I used the word “failed” because the discussion was about those who verbally maintained abstinence, but succumbed to temptation, intoxication plus hormones, etc.- ie. a failure to uphold their own proclaimed values.</p>
<p>But, of course there are those that change their minds about the pre-marital sex issue.</p>
<p>My 2 cents. D and I talk openly about everything. She has told me repeatedly that she is waiting to have sex and I respect her decision but have also told her that I believe it is her decision to make. She is very open about her relationships and I want her to continue to tell me what’s going on, without being judgemental.
She had a history of female trouble and went on bc pills as a junior. I have cautioned her that bc pills alone are no longer sufficient due to STDs so that if she does decide to have sex at some point, she will make smart decisions. She has a great nurse practitioner who is willing to answer her questions and address any concerns. Also, I made sure she knows what services the Student Health Center at her university will provide. I have given her the information and freedom to come with me with anything, now I trust her to make the right choices.</p>
<p>1) The lecture that I have shared with each of my kids by in opposite ways. First choice is abstinence but if not you must be responsible for yourself and your partner must as well. What do I mean by that? A guy should use a condom even if the girl is on the pill or using some other means of contraceptive. It is irresponsible to require the other half to bear the responsibility of protection. Guys should be aware that a girl who is taking the pill irregularly (or maybe even lying about it) is more likely to get pregnant so don’t count on this and protect yourself. A girl needs to be aware that condoms break so don’t count on it. Multiple protections are additive and both will be better and safer for it.</p>
<p>2) I only have two female cousins and they are from the devote part of our family - very involved in their church. One has had two kids by two different guys. Guy one refused to marry she because he got another girl pregnant and was marrying her. Guy two was put in jail for assaulting his parents. The other cousin gets married to a guy who stood her up almost at the alter twice before. For wedding three she was 5 months pregnant.</p>
<p>3) Conversation I had with my sister-in-law about 25 years ago. She was mentioning how of all her friends she was the only one that had not already had al least one abortion. Apparently that was the birth control of choice at the time.</p>
<p>4) I have had three pregnancies on my life. First child took 18 months and I was being sent to a fertility specialist doctor the next month when I got pregnant with my son. Second pregnancy, after pregnancy one why did I need birth control? One “what the heck” and I was pregnant (in fact when I told my husband I was pregnant he asked “how?”. I had to remind him.). This pregnancy ended in a miscarriage. Pregnancy three, was a long and drawn out process but I eventually got my daughter. What’s my point? No matter what you believe about your own fertility, don’t have unprotected sex unless you are ready and willing to be a parent in 9 months.</p>
<p>smoda61–I totally read that as if you were pregnant for 18 months. Kept looking at that sentence, trying to make sense of it! :D</p>
<p>I would respect the D’s feelings re sex before marriage, but frame the discussion as “If you should change your mind…” to say you would not be upset if you saw BC pills or a bill for same.</p>
<p>Many of us went into college with one attitude, and after a couple of years wondered what the big hairy deal was about virginity (within a relationship and with precautions, of course!)</p>
<p>And years ago the pill might have been considered to be enough, before the horrors of HIV-AIDS. </p>
<p>Our health center had an extremely cavalier attitude…as 1st year college girls we were annoyed when every appt. for a yeast infection or whatever included pointed questions that we might be pregnant! My Irish Catholic roommate was truly shocked at the line of questioning. They really did not listen to the patient who said she was a VIRGIN. Made us feel like weirdos, at the very least.</p>
<p>Very sensible. You’re not saying that you doubt her, just that people’s views and priorities tend to change during life. You can undoubtedly cite examples from your own life (perhaps you once aspired to a large family but ended up with a small one, or changed political parties, or whatever).</p>
<p>I would suggest saying something like, “I don’t doubt you at all, and I have total confidence in your convictions. However, the current parenting manual requires that I give you the following information whether you want it or need it.”</p>
<p>And I haven’t, because I haven’t met any. Do you understand what I’m saying? Honestly, unless you can prove that I am lying or that your life experiences apply to literally everyone, I don’t view this discussion as anything but over.</p>
<p>I know people who are successfully abstinent, period. Therefore, it can be done. Why is this so outrageously controversial?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then my life experience will dictate the values that I impart on my child – yet you seem to have a problem with this. If I know only successfully abstinent kids and know how they were raised, etc., would you be okay with having this life experience guide how I raise my own child and what discussions I initiate with that child? Or is that only okay when my experience is consistent with yours?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Only if you view them as such. And only if you consider the social barriers against each weak enough to break eventually. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one is claiming anything to the contrary.</p>
<p>Let me just lay this out:</p>
<p>1) People are successfully abstinent. Other people are not.</p>
<p>2) We agree that discussing things that have almost no chance of happening is not necessary.</p>
<p>3) Therefore, by discussing consequences of consensual sex, she is acknowledging that it can happen in great enough chance to discuss it at all</p>
<p>4) This is inherently telling the daughter how she feels, as described in 3). This means that the mother acknowledges that the daughter has a good chance of acting against her beliefs in a major way.</p>
<p>5) This is obviously demeaning, but may be worth it to the mother if the act of being of demeaning is more worth it than potential consequences of not sharing her feelings later.</p>
<p>This is really all I’m saying in that regard. Now, the important caveat is that the mother address this properly – “just in case you do have sex” is not the right approach, in my opinion. The correct approach, again in my mind, would be a more general statement that we will always accept you, blahblahblah. Then, in the specific case of sex, work with the daughter on ways to prevent situations that might lead to sex, and then make a more specific speech or whatever about what happens if sex does occur – consensual or not. In this way, the mother is totally reaffirming her daughter’s beliefs while getting her point across.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What I cannot understand is the total arrogance of your mindset.</p>
<p>Obviously I cannot tell who is a virgin or not for sure. Just like you cannot tell that your husband murdered someone at work, or that your neighbor tortures dogs in the backyard.</p>
<p>Does it sound like I’m saying the odds are the same? Yes. That is actually exactly what I am saying. For you to say that I am wrong is either for you to claim to know my friends better than I do, or that you know everyone in the world because of some principle that applies to everyone. Is either of those the case?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree entirely. But this is not a matter of a child being told not to have sex. Agency is explicitly given in the first post, and the convictions here are stronger than parental interdiction. So I agree with your literal post, but I disagree with what I believe to be the thought behind it. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Duh. You’re not getting it.</p>
<p>I understand that people make mistakes. I understand that my friends make mistakes, and I am always open to listening to them and their problems and they do the same for me. I understand that people in your college campus ministry acted in ways that contradicted their beliefs.</p>
<p>My point is that sex is simply not an issue in which they would fail more frequently than extreme moral wrongs – like the murder that I keep mentioning because we all agree that it’s wrong and it clearly elicits a response. Let’s take being mean to people. That happens all the time with my friends. Or being judgmental (I will preempt that thought). All the time. Cheating may even happen, for all I know.</p>
<p>But assault does not. Rape does not. Murder does not. And fornication also does not. My problem is that this “not doubting of resolve” and “college life is hard” reasoning seems to be used exclusively for sex. What I am saying is that with the people I know, that line of reasoning may as well apply to the outlandishly extreme issues. If you cannot wrap your head around this, then I am not the one that needs to open my eyes.</p>
<p>And BTW, no one takes a virginity pledge. Those are perceived as odd or unnecessary. As unnecessary as a non-murder pledge.</p>
I think the way I would put it is that the real impossibility here is your belief that you can really know what the odds of your friends making this particular mistake are, as opposed to your view that it is impossible that they might do so.</p>
<p>Baelor, who are these people that you are friends with? Is this some particularly small, isolated group of people, members of some particularly devout faith community? Because what you keep saying just doesn’t match the reality the rest of us have seen, even with groups of extremely devout people. I recognize the possibility that there are groups of superhuman people, but I find it difficult to just take your word for it.</p>
<p>I too am curious about this group, since they are the first in human history to be just as likely to murder someone as have sex. I’m also very curious how it is that Baelor can know the sexual status of a entire group of people with total accuracy. Again, that would be a first in the recorded history of human beings. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very well said.</p>
<p>Edited to add three notes:
Baelor, I don’t think you are lying. I think you believe what you are saying. However, it is impossible for you to have the knowledge you claim to have. That’s all.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>If you want people to take you seriously and/or to not be read as being very young, don’t use words like “Duh.” </p></li>
<li><p>Pipmom, I’m not dismissive of the idea of waiting until marriage or any other claims about sexual status that fall within the well documented history of human sexuality. I am dismissive of the claims by groups or group members that their group is the one out of recorded history that has 100% group compliance with abstaining. Or anything close to that kind of statement.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I’m also heavily influenced by living in a state where keeping teenagers ignorant about their sexuality and birth control is the law. The state I live in pour millions of dollars into supporting waiting until marriage in our schools and communities. Our state is also strongly influenced by two religions that argue for the same thing; Catholics and conservative Baptists. The result?</p>
<p>We remain in the top five states in the country for teen pregnancy rates. STDs among our teen population is an epidemic. The teenagers who live here are not weak, they are not ignorant about ways to avoid premarital sex (in fact, that’s what their sex ed consists of), but they are human. And they are being heavily punished in the adults quest to refuse to deal with reality. After what I saw at my high school, after reading the research on how much more at risk these kids who are relentlessly supported in their effort to wait until marriage are, I cannot abide that.</p>
<p>I think all parents should be talking to their kids about sex regularly starting before they go to elementary school. Besides creating an environment in which the kids feel free to bring up sexual topics, this approach has the fringe benefit of embarrassing the living daylights out of your children, which is very entertaining. ;)</p>
<p>Well, I calculated them precisely with a formula that I tinkered with in high school. I then repeated the formula with several other potential mistakes – theft, lying, and instances of blasphemy. I then realized that they were all identical.</p>
<p>By “odds” I mean “general chance.” As in, it would not surprise me more or less to hear that they had committed a drive-by shooting than to hear that they had had premarital sex. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m very curious to that as well, given that he actually claimed the contrary on several occasions. What he did claim is that he does not know their sexual status (beyond single or married or dating) in the same way that he does not know whether they sadistically harm animals in their free time or whether they slaughter babies on the weekend.</p>
<p>Perhaps you do, in which case I will defer to your omniscience.</p>
<p>Baelor, you can tell us that your friends are telekinetic ninjas who can fly and walk through walls. Since we don’t know them, we can’t say for absolutely sure that this isn’t the case. But since we (or at least I) have never encountered a group with these characteristics, I would remain skeptical. Similarly, when you tell us that you know a group (how many?) of young people (how old?) who are just as likely to commit a drive-by shooting as to have premarital sex, I remain skeptical that such a group of young people exists, anywhere. I will certainly agree that there may be a group–many, probably–of young people who think this about themselves.</p>