Is Feminism Still Relevant?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Pearl

Oh please. Do you really think I should handle that stage by flipping out and shaming my kids for even thinking about sex? I will teach them it is perfectly natural to be interested in sex, and not wrong, dirty or sinful. Honestly, AEON, I think your worries over this could backfire on you, and you may get a rebellious kid doing the opposite of what you want them to do.

You didn't say "thinking about sex" - you said "explore" - that is what prompted my comment.

I do not have my teenage daughter locked in a room waiting for a suitable knight to come along. We simply do our best to teach her that sex is sacred (according to our views) and should be reserved for marriage (this is the goal - and we realize this probably won't happen). Also - according to our view, sex is a sin outside of marriage. That may not mean anything to you, but it means something to our family. Additionally, we do keep an eye on her activities. She is not free to roam the night until the moment she decides to come home. This is just responsible parenting.

The same morals will be taught to our son when he comes of age.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

well, she is free to enjoy sex, isn't she? with or without your permission, she is ultimately going to make her own choices.

Yes - so then why are we having this discussion if you think that is all there is to it?

Originally Posted by Irvine511

and do you not trust her to choose when, where, with whom, and how many times? why would you assume that her default would be to have sex with many anonymous partners?

I don't assume that would be her default behavior. Again - I was presenting a worst case scenario to prove a point.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

while i don't think it's yet feasible for American culture, what i love about the Dutch attitude is that it creates a context for what you (and i) think is the "best" place for sex -- within a monogamous relationship.

Why do you think monogamy is best? Just curious. Would you teach that to your son or daughter if you ever adopt? If so - why?

Originally Posted by Irvine511

then the negative consequences can be drastically reduced if not entirely eradicated.

And that is the main point - there ARE negative consequences to sex - it is not just a scoop of ice cream raising endorphin levels.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i'm sure this is very difficult for parents to wrap our heads around, but i prefer the Dutch model and their, you know, rates of teen pregnancy 4x lower than ours (shouldn't the anti-choice folks be proud of this?).

Are you suggesting teen pregnancy is a bad thing?

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by AEON

You didn't say "thinking about sex" - you said "explore" - that is what prompted my comment.

OK, fair enough.

Originally Posted by AEON

Are you suggesting teen pregnancy is a bad thing?

Er, are you joking here, or trying to bait a discussion?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

Yes - so then why are we having this discussion if you think that is all there is to it?

i'm pointing out how anti-sex attitudes can create more harm than good.

and being pro-sex doesn't mean pro-teen sex.

I don't assume that would be her default behavior. Again - I was presenting a worst case scenario to prove a point.

what is the actual point?

Why do you think monogamy is best? Just curious. Would you teach that to your son or daughter if ever adopt? If so - why?

with monogamy you have accountability, and the negative consequences of sex are virtually nil. if two people are std free and they only have sex with each other, they will never contract an std.

some couples may negotiate with monogamy, and it can be said that monogamy is not natural and difficult for many people. adults skilled enough to explore the world of open relationships are certainly free to do so, but i do think the cultural expectation is monogamy.

And that is the main point - there ARE negative consequences to sex - it is not just a scoop of ice cream raising endorphin levels.

of course. so encouraging good, healthy sex seems a better way than forbidding it and encouraging a double standard for boys and girls.

i'm not saying you're doing this, i'm responding in general, and keeping in mind the article i posed where the father wishes his daughter a happy sex life, whether it's only within the bounds of matrimony or otherwise. the point he's making is that he wants his daughter to view sex as a good thing, and not as a thing she "gives up" to a boy that wants it.

and, in my opinion, it's this "getting" of sex that contributes to Rape Culture and things like Stuebenville, Tailhook, etc.

Are you suggesting teen pregnancy is a bad thing?

yes.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

and being pro-sex doesn't mean pro-teen sex.

I understand - but that was the focus of your Dutch article.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

what is the actual point?

That it is crazy to suggest that a father should completely ignore their teenage daughter's sex life.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

with monogamy you have accountability, and the negative consequences of sex are virtually nil. if two people are std free and they only have sex with each other, they will never contract an std.

Sounds a lot like marriage.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

and, in my opinion, it's this "getting" of sex that contributes to Rape Culture and things like Stuebenville, Tailhook, etc.

There's probably some truth to that. I would not argue against the fact the "getting some" is often portrayed as the "highest goal" in many movies and songs.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

yes.

Good - so we can at least agree that parents wanting their teenage daughters to remain free from pregnancy and disease is in fact - a positive thing.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by AEON

Good - so we can at least agree that parents wanting their teenage daughters to remain free from pregnancy and disease is in fact - a positive thing.

And let's forget the double standard and include teenage sons into this.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Pearl

And let's forget the double standard and include teenage sons into this.

Yes, the same hope and prayer will be there for my son when he reaches his teen years - there is no double standard.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

Good - so we can at least agree that parents wanting their teenage daughters to remain free from pregnancy and disease is in fact - a positive thing.

and research will show that comprehensive sex education is better at this than abstinence education.

the same could be said for parenting.

teens who sneak around and view sex as an impulsive, forbidden thing like drinking and drugs are much more likely to end up pregnant and/or with an STD.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

I understand - but that was the focus of your Dutch article.

no, the focus of the Dutch article wasn't necessarily to encourage teens to have sex, but to encourage teens who are having sex to have healthy relationships.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

no, the focus of the Dutch article wasn't necessarily to encourage teens to have sex, but to encourage teens who are having sex to have healthy relationships.

What I meant was the focus was on teens, and not on adults.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

and research will show that comprehensive sex education is better at this than abstinence education.

Hasn't the US public education system been doing this for the last 30 or 40 years? Even when I was in HS in the 80's, there was little mention of abstinence as a valid choice. It was pretty much assumed everyone was either having sex - or would soon have sex.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

and research will show that comprehensive sex education is better at this than abstinence education.

the same could be said for parenting.

teens who sneak around and view sex as an impulsive, forbidden thing like drinking and drugs are much more likely to end up pregnant and/or with an STD.

I agree but I don't necessarily see it as an either/or proposition.

My parents certainly emphasized to us that they would prefer that we wait, not necessarily until marriage (though they probably would have but accepted the reality around them) and yet at the same time, my Mom had no issue taking me to the family doctor and paying for my birth control pills when I was 19. So I think that it is possible for parents to raise their children with the view that sex when you are emotionally immature, which isn't the same age/stage for everyone, is not the best idea. That sex when you are drunk and unable to really consent, is not the best idea. That sex which makes you sad afterwards, is not the best idea. Etc, etc. But those same parents can impart upon that teenager knowledge about fertility, reproduction so that the teenager is, at a minimum, informed enough to procure their own birth control, or more optimally, feel comfortable enough with the parents to discuss with them, have them provide access to a medical professional and so on.

[jeevey]

While I'm not totally comfortable with the ideas expressed in the dutch study I have to admit there's a lot of sense in it. Certainly it seems like the worst sexual troubles kids get into occur in a vaccum of adult help and communication. I can see how that level of openness could help with a lot of things.

Originally Posted by AEON

Please check back to this comment when that day comes...

I often here this attitude- that you'll discover you don't want your kids to have sex as soon as it becomes a real possibility. My oldest child is an early adolescent, and I can feel that day getting close. We know a bunch of boys that I think will probably be delightful first partners in a few years. But the first time she really took a shine to someone, it was an absolutely beautiful, charming, lovable boy whose dad I know is an abusive alcoholic and has had some pretty atrocious relationship modeling. I was terrified of their connection not because they might touch each other, but because she might fall in love with someone with abusive tendencies and not recognize them. I would much, much rather have her feel totally able to talk to me about the person who she's interested in, than to feel like she's got something to hide physically and so can't tell me about the power dynamics because I might find out. The thought of her having sex too young doesn't make me want to puke nearly as much as the thought of her in an emotionally manipulative relationship.

It's interesting that one reason the Dutch study cites that accepting teen sex can be good is that it promotes monogamy. I honestly have mixed feelings about teen monogamy. It's not that I think running around and serial screwing is great. But I grew up in a rural religious culture where it was common for teens to develop a relationship that was essentially like being married, and I don't think it was super. It looked a lot like the kids owned each other, to be honest. It's so natural to be interested in many different people especially when you're young and it's all brand new, and yet the rules were very specific that once you make a contract to go out with someone you're doing something very, very wrong to be interested in someone else. Very often they'd have a first or second boyfriend at 15 and literally marry the same person after a few years together. It was quite territorial, and it made me uncomfortable.

I guess I just don't see monogamy as an independent value of its own like kindness or honesty. What I'd like to do is teach my kids honesty, good communication, ethical treatment of others and safety. Those things can be present in relationships of any duration or kind.

[jeevey]

Originally Posted by AEON

Hasn't the US public education system been doing this for the last 30 or 40 years? Even when I was in HS in the 80's, there was little mention of abstinence as a valid choice. It was pretty much assumed everyone was either having sex - or would soon have sex.

What the US has been doing is called risk-reduction sex ed. In other words, "It's best that you don't have sex but we know you will, so here's not not to get yourself killed." It's still pretty sex negative and not at all trusting of young people. This topic might deserve its own thread, but there's a developing model called pleasure-based sex ed that is very, very different. In fact, I'll just put up the article in a new thread rather than linking it here.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by AEON

Hasn't the US public education system been doing this for the last 30 or 40 years? Even when I was in HS in the 80's, there was little mention of abstinence as a valid choice. It was pretty much assumed everyone was either having sex - or would soon have sex.

Originally Posted by jeevey

What the US has been doing is called risk-reduction sex ed. In other words, "It's best that you don't have sex but we know you will, so here's not not to get yourself killed." It's still pretty sex negative and not at all trusting of young people. This topic might deserve its own thread, but there's a developing model called pleasure-based sex ed that is very, very different. In fact, I'll just put up the article in a new thread rather than linking it here.

A lot of states, particularly Texas, have abstinence-only programs, which is behind the spike in teen pregnancy rates in those places.

I agree that having a sex-positive attitude is the best road to sexual responsibility.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

Hasn't the US public education system been doing this for the last 30 or 40 years? Even when I was in HS in the 80's, there was little mention of abstinence as a valid choice. It was pretty much assumed everyone was either having sex - or would soon have sex.

no.

compare rates of STDs and pregnancy in states like Texas to states like Massachusetts.

also, teen pregnancy nationwide is at a 30 year low or something. kids are having less sex and safer sex than in the 1980s.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by jeevey

It's interesting that one reason the Dutch study cites that accepting teen sex can be good is that it promotes monogamy. I honestly have mixed feelings about teen monogamy. It's not that I think running around and serial screwing is great. But I grew up in a rural religious culture where it was common for teens to develop a relationship that was essentially like being married, and I don't think it was super. It looked a lot like the kids owned each other, to be honest. It's so natural to be interested in many different people especially when you're young and it's all brand new, and yet the rules were very specific that once you make a contract to go out with someone you're doing something very, very wrong to be interested in someone else. Very often they'd have a first or second boyfriend at 15 and literally marry the same person after a few years together. It was quite territorial, and it made me uncomfortable.

I guess I just don't see monogamy as an independent value of its own like kindness or honesty. What I'd like to do is teach my kids honesty, good communication, ethical treatment of others and safety. Those things can be present in relationships of any duration or kind.

all very interesting observations. i remember couples who were virtually "married" in high school and college, and i think it comes at a cost of personal development to some degree.

[jeevey]

Oh, totally. I didn't even want to get into that, but I saw it too, for sure.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

no.

compare rates of STDs and pregnancy in states like Texas to states like Massachusetts.

Well, doesn't Texas also have a HUGE illegal/recent immigrant population? This must skew the statistics somewhat.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

also, teen pregnancy nationwide is at a 30 year low or something. kids are having less sex and safer sex than in the 1980s.

That's a good thing, right?

[jeevey]

Originally Posted by AEON

Well, doesn't Texas also have a HUGE illegal/recent immigrant population? This must skew the statistics somewhat.

Holy shit. Did you really just say that?