“Who am I to stop them?” Parents, teenagers, and sex

[AdamP88]

No, not corporal punishment in regards to sex, but the idea of bodily autonomy has been very good for society as a whole. Today, most parents would not use heavy corporal punishment (belts, etc) even if they choose to use the occasional spank. Parents also recognize that it’s a bad idea to force a young child to kiss, hug or cuddle a relative when they don’t want to…especally one they don’t know well…so long as they are otherwise respectful. This idea of bodily autonomy was non-existant in the 50’s. If creepy Uncle Melvin wanted a hug, you bet your red rear end you were going to give him a hug.

While I wouldn’t use heavey corporal pubishment, I would have no problem spanking. I got a few whacks when I was younger and I’m not traumatised.
I wouldn’t punish a child for not kissing/hugging their granny, but I certainly would “strongly encourage” them to do so out of good manners.

This thing that kids should not be forced to show affection to relatives is nonsense. There are plenty of siturations in adult life where you simply have to do things you might not like out of good manners. If granny wants a kiss and a hug after a visit, I don’t see a problem with that. Kids need to also learn to show deference to elders.

 

[AdamP88]

In that case you are committing a double sin by both taking the marital act out of context and also mutilating it for your own pleasure.

 

[AdamP88]

Amazingly enough, during USAF basic training back in the dark ages, we were shown a film depicting the effects of venereal diseases. I don’t remember anything about it except that it was something I wanted to avoid.

Yeah, it’s funny…there was probably better sexual health information in the “bad old days” than there is today. The line today is more or less “use condoms and everything will be grand”, But it ignores the fact that condoms regularly fail and just don’t offer protection to many diseases.

Today the attitude seems to be that young people must be free to have sex, but with little attention paid to the potential consequences of this.

 

[AdamP88]

The failure rate of condoms is 2% if they are used correctly.
This rises to 15% when in the “real world” where people may be drunk, or not bothered to use them correctly. So if 15% of the time they aren’t working then that is pretty regularly.

Even if the 2% figure was the real life figure that means that failure will occur for 2 out of every 100 people. That is 20,000 people for every million. I’d say that’s “regular”.

They also offer zero protection from STD’s such as Herpes.

You might want to consider not being so rude.

 

[AdamP88]

Planned Parenthood website:

If you use condoms perfectly every single time you have sex, they’re 98% effective at preventing pregnancy. But people aren’t perfect, so in real life condoms are about 85% effective — that means about 15 out of 100 people who use condoms as their only birth control method will get pregnant each year.

What Is the Effectiveness of Condoms?

Relatively speaking, 2% of people who use condoms means that it must occur fairly regularly. How many people use condoms in the US in one year? If it’s in the tens of millions then that means that hundreds of thousands of people use condoms that fail each year.

In any case my point is that condoms don’t offer adequate protection from STDs

What is your fixation with the President?

 

[fredystairs]

Couple of other points: first, the failure rate for a condom preventing pregnancy will be lower than the failure rate for a condom overall. The reason is that in any woman’s cycle, she is only fertile about a quarter of the time (7 days out 28). Therefore a condom could fail and the woman not get pregnant because she was not in that part of her cycle where is was possible for her to get pregnant.

Second is the relative size of the sperm and an STD. I saw in a nursing magazine that if you assume that the sperm is the size of a diesel locomotive then the AIDS virus would be the size of a collie dog. The condom could be successful in stopping the locomotive but still allow the smaller collie through. A higher failure rate again.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

While I wouldn’t use heavey corporal pubishment, I would have no problem spanking. I got a few whacks when I was younger and I’m not traumatised.
I wouldn’t punish a child for not kissing/hugging their granny, but I certainly would “strongly encourage” them to do so out of good manners.

This thing that kids should not be forced to show affection to relatives is nonsense. There are plenty of siturations in adult life where you simply have to do things you might not like out of good manners. If granny wants a kiss and a hug after a visit, I don’t see a problem with that. Kids need to also learn to show deference to elders.

And those views, while not shifted to what can still be considered healthy, are affirmed in this culture. Back in the 50’s beating a child was considered totally socially acceptable. One wouldn’t think twice about it.

And forcing affection was also considered the norm. No matter how uncomfortable the child they HAD to give hugs and kisses, period. I think your opinion of forced affection might change when you have children. Kids sometimes go through phazes where nobody but Mommy…or nobody but Daddy…gets affection. I don’t even force my child to hug me if she refuses. It’s not a “deference to elders” at all but whatever is spinning around in her little brain. She still has to be respectful, but I don’t make her give affection, in the way, say, I make her let me change her diaper or make her get dressed.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

As a child in the 60s and early 70s I was expected to give hugs and kisses to my aunts and uncles. First of all I wasn’t really into kissing people generally including my parents whom I loved, but second, my aunts and uncles all chain smoked cigarettes constantly. My mother didn’t smoke at all ever, and my father smoked only a pipe with fairly expensive tobacco which has a much different, better odor than someone who is chain smoking a pack of Marlboro a day along with a lot of coffee and beer. I did not want to kiss people whose breath would basically stop a clock. This caused a major family disturbance when i didnt want to kiss them. I think I, being a child, might have even said something to the effect of “you smell funny”.

All those people passed on years ago and I still remember that event like it was yesterday as being traumatic. I was able to talk to my mother about it shortly before she died and she had kind of come around to understanding that the cigarettes smelled bad and I wasn’t trying to be nasty to my relatives. I would hope nobody nowadays is making their kids hug or kiss relatives if they don’t want to. Back then it was considered horribly disrespectful to refuse.

 

[AdamP88]

I doubt it will change. There’s a movement in this time to empower kids over parents. “If little Timmy doesn’t want to do X I can’t force him.”

I see no problem with actually telling a child…“eh no Timmy, whatever is spinning around in yout brain isn’t always correct.”

 

[Xantippe]

I think your opinion of forced affection might change when you have children.

Yeah.

It’s just not a good idea to tell little kids that they have to be physical with random people (because, from the small child’s point of view, Great Aunt Agnes is random) even if they don’t want to, or that you won’t stand up for them if they have problems with random people being physical with them in ways they find uncomfortable.

A smaller child just isn’t going to get the distinctions, and for their safety, it’s good for them to understand a) you don’t expect them to be physical with people they don’t want to be physical with b) you will stand up for them with regard to protecting them from being handled by people they don’t trust. Small children’s instinct about limiting touch to a small trusted circle of adults has a lot of protective value, and it’s not an instinct we should be trying to dissolve prematurely.

If Great Aunt Agnes doesn’t understand that–too darn bad.

 

[AdamP88]

Big difference between “random people” and family members… And I don’t think kids are so stupid that they can’t tell the differenct between a family member and a “strange man in the street”.

In any case…I think this is getting a bit off topic.

 

[Xantippe]

I doubt it will change. There’s a movement in this time to empower kids over parents. “If little Timmy doesn’t want to do X I can’t force him.”

I see no problem with actually telling a child…“eh no Timmy, whatever is spinning around in yout brain isn’t always correct.”

How are you going to teach your future kids that adults aren’t allowed carte blanche in handling them physically?

One of the methods you’ll hear in the US is good touch/bad touch (you don’t have to let adults touch you if it feels bad) but that’s not going to work if the child is routinely being forced to engage in behavior that feels like “bad touch” to them.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

I doubt it will change. There’s a movement in this time to empower kids over parents. “If little Timmy doesn’t want to do X I can’t force him.”

I see no problem with actually telling a child…“eh no Timmy, whatever is spinning around in yout brain isn’t always correct.”

There is a huge difference between something required (sitting in a car seat, eating veggies) and something wholly different, like affection. Timmy might need to be forced to do some things, but again, get back when you are a parent. There’s a really difference between things that are NOT required and things that are. If I want my child to understand healthy obedience, it is so wrong to make them “obey” in something that carries conotations you don’t want to be applied in other circumstances.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Well, if you want to compel your kid to kiss some relative and it doesn’t go as planned, it’s going to be on you if that kid 45 years later is still feeling the aftereffects as I am.

 

[Xantippe]

Big difference between “random people” and family members… And I don’t think kids are so stupid that they can’t tell the differenct between a family member and a “strange man in the street”.

In any case…I think this is getting a bit off topic.

No, not at all–we’re talking about children, parents and protecting children/teens from harmful sexuality. Also, there is a strong link because children who have been molested are vulnerable to being sexually precocious and promiscuous. Protecting children from sexual abuse is, in effect, also protecting them from sexual sin when they older and making choices for themselves.

With regard to you not thinking that “kids are so stupid that they can’t tell the differenct between a family member and a “strange man in the street,” there are a lot of issues with that formulation:

a) trusted relatives and family intimates are more likely to molest children than “strangers,” so there’s not a lot of point in freaking out about “strangers” while assuming that one’s own circle is A-OK.
b) we’re talking primarily about really small children, who have very strong reactions to being physically handled by people they don’t trust, but who are of an age where they need a lot of personal help in managing their bodies (pottying, bathing, dressing) and are still developing a sense of modesty.
c) it takes a while for children to figure out what is normal, appropriate adult behavior.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Big difference between “random people” and family members… And I don’t think kids are so stupid that they can’t tell the differenct between a family member and a “strange man in the street”.

In any case…I think this is getting a bit off topic.

Not really. The idea of bodily autonomy is very crucial to this conversation. It’s funny, though because you are on the side of “I can tell Timmy he MUST hug creepy Uncle Melvin” but at the same time say “I can tell my child they will not have sex”

As Xantippe (the other one) indicates, the healthy line of thought around bodily autonomy teaches that we don’t teach little children that they must be forced in their affections and we teach older children that the teenage years are to keep their affections out of inappropriate places because they cannot consent to the kind of activities that follow.

 

[Xantippe]

Another reason why being able to say “no” to affectionate adults is important:

Years later, the older child or teen will be dealing with peers or older adults that want physical affection that the older child/teen is uncomfortable with/knows to be immoral. How do they say “no” to that if they have no practice saying “no” to unwanted physical touch?

 

[Theo520]

I’d say abdicating their responsibility, rather than naive.

 

[Spyridon]

That is EXACTLY my point.

It’s called harm reduction.

If my moron kid is going to be fornicating, out of love for him I would give him condoms to protect him from the STDs and unwanted pregnancies which may occur.

It’s the same idea with harm reduction regarding drug use.

If I’m going to be moronic enough to shoot heroin into my veins, it sure is nice knowing there are loving people who understand providing clean needles is better than letting AIDS spread with nothing stemming the flow.

And I’m a former heroin addict who does NOT have AIDS, thanks be to God, due to harm reduction.

I am a firm lifelong believer in harm reduction.

If people are going to commit vice (and they will), at least help them do it as safely as possible.

How in Gods Holy Name can you say it is charitable to say “nope nope, either dont do it or live with AIDS you filthy fornicator” or “nope nope, no clean needles for you junkie scum - either don’t use heroin or live with AIDS, your choice maniacal cackling”

 

[omgriley]

The 2% includes the possible failures you indicate. But hey, what’s wrong with making up numbers (15%) when the President does it. And you obviously didn’t take Statistics in school if you think 2% is considered "regularly “. And using that same logic, it would be correct to say children are " regularly” raped by Priests.

You need to take a step back and knock off the attitude or you’re going to be reported.