Well, her last name is Spears, afterall. Not the brightest bulbs. </p>
<p>I think the way sex ed is taught to our kids, with emphasis on “safe” sex, when there is really no such thing, would leave a very strong impression that pregnancy isn’t going to happen & STDs are not a big concern. The risks of pregnancy & disease, not to mention emotional impact, are glossed over rather quickly from what I’ve seen. </p>
<p>Brave, I would not find religion a strange reason for a man to give as his decision to hold off sex until marriage. As Atomom says, virgins figure it out pretty quickly, and it is ridiculous & insulting to assume some type of pathology lurks beneath the virgin’s psyche! Choose what works for you, for whatever personal reasons you wish.</p>
<p>Agree to atomon post. I think there seems to be almost an accepted thinking that there are no virgins. Says who? I know an Indian couple who got married in there late 20’s to 30’s. It took them a whole week to find out what’s going on but they are happily married today.
Note, I don’t push my D either way. It’s none of my business whether she decides to have it or not(especially after she turns 18). But I also think this issue is not one SIZE fits all(note the emphasis on size, lol). Does it depend on one’s sex drive? Some people have stronger sex drive than others.</p>
<p>I don’t think those who choose to abstain from sex are any more virtuous than those who choose to have sex, just as I don’t think those who are overweight are less responsible than those of normal size</p>
<p>“I don’t think those who choose to abstain from sex are any more virtuous than those who choose to have sex, just as I don’t think those who are overweight are less responsible than those of normal size”</p>
<p>very true. </p>
<p>I think sometimes the “prize” is overvalued. Personally, it’s a low requirement on my list in a mate. It’s a one time thing, I would rather focus on the long time consistent traits that make a good mate. Things like compassion, humor, understanding, intelligence…etc… all the things that a person has regardless of their virginity status. Virginity doesn’t guarantee anything else about the person. At least, the things that matter long term. </p>
<p>If the most important thing you can give, you can only give once, what happens tomorrow? there are far more important virtues that should be considered that have nothing to do with reproductive organs.</p>
<p>atomom – arranged marriages have different purposes depending on the culture. For some, it is a way to assure the continuation of a chaste system. Also marriage is a cash tranaction for some with the woman getting dower in consideration for being obligated to her husband for sex.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The literal language that people espouse to be the Ten Commandments makes an express statement that it is adultery and men coveting other men’s wives that are “no-no’s.” There is no mention of any sin related to unmarried sex.</p>
<p>Once it is realized that sex/marriage is, has been and always will be a cultural construct, the rabid need to “sell” sex or virginity is exposed as “knee jerk” behavior and a parent can greatly assist their child by explaining that and stressing that it is a matter of choice. Yes. no. when, with whom, how often, etc. are just decisions to make.</p>
<p>I saw the Amish documentary a couple of years ago. I am not sure I agree with your take on it. My feeling was that the Amish community, releasing, those kids into the world the way they do, sets them up for failure – and I am sure they know it. These kids come “into the world” looking and acting like aliens. “Playground” is exactly what it is for them – once the game is over, they pretty much have to return home for food and shelter. Just like a wild animal that is born and raised in the zoo will not survive if it is released into the wild without special preparation, the odds are very much against those kids’ survival in the “real world”. And from the community point of view, the goal is not to give these kids all the options, and then let them chose what’s best for them, but to put them into a situation were they are almost certain to end up where the community wants them.</p>
<p>I do think that it is very admirable that the few that choose to stay outside are not shunned by their families and the community.</p>
<p>I like 07Dad’s summary of my position that sex is just part of who a person is and that some young people are ready for sex at 17, 18 and some are not. No pressure should be put on young people in either direction, IMO. (No, I don’t feel the same about 14, 15 year olds. I asked my daughter to wait until 16 and when she had a serious boyfriend at 16 she voluntarily came back and said she was going to wait at least until 17. I said, “Great!” I don’t know what happened then because that was the last conversation we had. She’s almost 21, and I’m happy we don’t discuss this. I never discussed intimate details of my life with others either.</p>
<p>Sex can have negative consequences, surely, but again, so can many other things. Young drivers are at risk, but in some environments (like ours on LI) require driving. I can’t say, “Wait.” But that’s how we learn.</p>
<p>nngmm: That’s a really interesting take on the movie. I won’t say that you’re wrong, but it certainly doesn’t accord with my emotional memory of it. Things that still linger in my mind: the incredible spirituality and charisma of the troubled boy at the movie’s center, the scene where he takes the camera through his parents’ house and talks about church, his beautiful, centered girlfriend who chose the “real” world definitively, when I was certain that she was going to return, another young woman’s struggle to get an education, the way the one baptized adult who was willing to be interviewed on camera talked about cars and rock music with affection, but not exactly regret, the bewilderment of the kids as they realized that they had values, and the world – much as they loved it – didn’t reflect them . . . </p>
<p>Obviously, I tend toward the romantic. And I am probably much more charitable toward the Amish – who seem quaint and exotic to me, but don’t affect my life much except to sell me pretty good poultry and sweet rolls – than I am towards their Hasidic counterparts, whom I encounter far more and whose shortcomings annoy and threaten me. But the basic idea that you can’t sustain a separatist counter-culture without free consent and experience of what is being rejected, or at least the possibility of it: that seems beautiful to me.</p>
<p>“What bothers me is that anyone who is having sex can be in “complete and total shock” about getting pregnant.”</p>
<p>Same here. Unless, of course, she is a lesbian.</p>
<p>“Pregnancy is now seen as a “failure of birth control,””</p>
<p>What makes you think she was using birth control? (Much less using a reliable method with a backup, correctly, every time, which is the only thing that would justify surprise over a pregnancy.)</p>
<p>Only two people will ever know for sure, but I would confidently bet my last nickel that there was no real birth control in the picture here. Prayer and pulling out do not count.</p>
<p>Fornication and sexual immorality are condemned many times in the New Testament.</p>
<p>In many cultures the woman’s family pays the man/man’s family the dowry.
This was common in Europe and in Asia, though I know that in many African cultures the man has to pay a “bride price”–usually cattle–to the woman’s family.</p>
<p>Throughout history (and prehistory) the whole point of a woman protecting her virginity, (woman as gatekeeper) is to make sure that she has the father’s support to raise a child–and for him to know that it is his child he is raising. Now that birth control is available and women are more economically independent and can support a child without the help of the father, virginity is less important in this sense.</p>
<p>Actually this is not true for most of prehistory. Patriarchy brought repression of female sexuality. Pre-patriarchal societies with no knowledge of paternity did not regulate or control female sexuality. A good source for a detailed description of prepatriarchal sexuality and the origin and development of gender roles is offered in the work of Elizabeth Fisher. Margaret Mead offered description of thi kind of society in The Coming of Age in Samoa.</p>
<p>We assume that agricultural mores go back through all of human history, or rather prehistory, but it wasn’t so.</p>
Honestly, what business does someone that age have having sex? Yes, I know most people lose it at that age, but do kids that age really need that type of relationship? Sixteen is so young in my opinion. I remember reading in a study that most teens have sex because they are looking for improved social status or a “more intimate relationship.” They tend to get neither once everything goes down. Maybe if our culture wasn’t so sexed, kids would realize that they should be just that - kids. These days we make 16 years olds think they’re older than they really are. We call 18 year olds adults, but frankly I still call eighteen year olds “kids.” Even when someone is 22 and let’s say they pass away, people go “they were only a kid…”</p>
<p>^I am aware of that. However, we are talking about now, not what happened in the past. At one time people had children in their teens, that isn’t as common anymore.</p>
<p>You’re right. It’s not my business; only to the extent that I wanted D to be mature enough to handle any fall out. The morality of it wouldn’t concern me. It was just a guide line from Mom to D but definitely not a rule.</p>
<p>What I and several other posters argue is that today in the US physiologically people are capable of sex at an earlier age than ever before. What has also changed is that females among all socio-economic classes are tending to seek higher education and personal earning capacity rather than early marriages and dependence on the male spouse for support. </p>
<p>With that comes the need (or practical choice) to delay a marriage. If you accept that pregnancy often leads to marriage, avoiding pregnancy becomes a goal. Avoiding pregnancy requires abstinance or BC. </p>
<p>Add to the mix that media marketing has (correctly) accessed the selling power of “sex” since the moralists have elevated sex to sin hence the “forbidden fruit” attraction. So you have biological urges AND modern culture/religion pushing young people toward sex.</p>
<p>That seems to be why many of us argue that you need to deal straight with a young person on these issues and not just fall back on “good girls don’t.” I believe that trying to determine when anyone else (including your own child) is “ready” for sex is in large degree tea leaf reading. Therefore, I am one who believes you counsel your child on these matters, but accept that ultimately it is a decision that each young person will make on their own.</p>
<p>OK, so it sounds as if most on this thread are in the “in a committed relationship, when you think you’re ready” category. My question is, how do you get from meeting somebody and being in a committed relationship without DATING and getting to know them? Especially if the guys today seem to expect sex very early? My niece would be “committed” after a week or so which makes me think that kids dive into these heavy relationships to justify having sex. What think you?</p>
<p>I managed to make it through adolescence with hardly any “dating” at all, if by “dating” what you mean is pre-arranged, explicit, one-on-one courtship activity between two people who are not already committed to each other in some way. There was lots of group socializing from which a couple sometimes formed, like a crystal, and a fair number of friendships that evolved slowly into something more, and sometimes random struck-by-lightning meetings. Whit Stillman’s movies, especially Metropolitan, capture the dynamic I grew up with pretty well.</p>