In general, I'm sure mothers and (especially) fathers don't like their daughters knocking boots because they don't like the image of their princesses being sullied. But's let's also realize that, practically speaking, teenage sex carries risks of pregnancy and disease that are deleterious to the regimented education plan the average teenager must complete in order to emerge equipped for the adult world. I believe, on some level, parental support for discouraging teen sex is fairly rational risk-averse behavior.

Suppose we attempt to analyze the psychology of dear ol' Dad. Assuming he is enlightened enough to allow his girl to ultimately make her own decision about keeping the fetus, there is a chance his teenage daughter will be burdened with an infant. No matter what course of action he chooses to take, the process exacts a cost on him (not to mention his daughter), whether that cost is putting money and energy into helping raise another child as his daughter finishes high school, losing an investment in his daughter's future as her college plans are compromised, or going through the emotional trauma of scenarios like the adoption process or heartlessly booting the girl and her offspring out of the house if she is 18.

Morality aside, there are two reasons why Dad might be hesitant to trust a largely approving but instructive sex-ed atmosphere. First, such a program places weight on the informed cognition of the teen. Debbie just forgot to feed the dog for the third time this week and made her mother cry just because she was pissed about a text message her girlfriend sent her. Is she mature and reliable enough to be trusted to use a condom or take the pill? to not use sex as a ploy? One dumb, very teenage lapse in memory or prudence and Daddy has to re-balance the family budget.

Second, kids really do listen (somewhat) to their parents regarding right and wrong, especially if they respect them. I remember the whole Nature v. Nurture war from the 90s, sure, but I don't reacall the consensus. In any case, why not hedge your bets if you're Dad and make public your preference that she wait? Dad should also keep in mind that teens are not the best at moderation, so a green light for responsible, deliberate sex might actually just push the transgressive boundaries further out to drunken hookups that may or may not include contraceptives.

Age of consent law, aside from being selectively invoked as a way of keeping creepy old men away from softheaded girls, reminds us that teen pregnancy inflicts collateral damage on parents. Broadly speaking (and I understand case-by-case this is horseshit) the idea that a teenager is not mature enough to decide when she's ready to copulate is an inductive conclusion drawn from the fact that a teen girl is not mature enough to provide for herself.

What are you being pragmatic about? I don't disagree with anything you say here since it all is common sense in my view, but what practical good will having the parents say 'well, it is really better for you NOT to have sex until you are mature enough', really have? i.e. will it impact many outcomes (prevent many girls from having sex \ getting pregrant). It doesn't look like it since I assume most parents already do this (or are parent's really that shy?).

I advise parents to focus on DISEASE and NOT getting pregrant (and I see you listed getting pregrant before disease). A disease can be fatal. So focus on that. Use FEAR.

Pregnancy can be 'cured' really easy. Its called an abortion. Getting a disease like HIV, cannot be. So place MOST of the focus on disease prevention.

I'm not intending to shoot holes in what is a fairly well thought-out theory but:

the idea that a teenager is not mature enough to decide when she's ready to copulate is an inductive conclusion drawn from the fact that a teen girl is not mature enough to provide for herself.

Doesn't really ring true if the affair is with a man old enough to provide for her -- it's an argument against the age of concent rather than for it.

@trapdoor

Only if the old man is prepared to support it, and even court-ordained child support is not enough if the girl can't work (because she needs to finish school.) It's one thing if the girl is in a long-term committed relationship in which the older boyfriend is willing to support and raise a child; but up until about the age of 26-30, most guys I suspect just want sex with a hot young thing. They're not looking for committment, otherwise why choose someone who can't even support her own life? And if a guy is 30+ and having sex with a teenager 17-, there's something much more fishy going on.

Additionally, as I'll probably tell my daughters, I'm okay with you having sex with your boyfriends once you have a drivers' license and a car, cause then you can get yourself to a job. And frankly, if your boyfriend is so committed and loves you so much, why can't he wait one year or two to have sex with you?

trapdoor:

Doesn't really ring true if the affair is with a man old enough to provide for her -- it's an argument against the age of concent rather than for it.

The older man will not likely sick around and provide for her. Meanwhile, she's gotta finish her education, or statistically she's damned to a life of low wages. She's burdened herself at a very vulnerable point.

When I was 26 I had sex with an 18 year old for a while. Yeah, I liked having sex with a hot young thing, but there was more relationship there than just sex -- and now, almost 20 years later we are still good friends.

It didn't lead to a pregnancy, but somehow I can't imagine me running for the horizon if it had.

The trouble with any discussion of teen sex, and possibly of sex at any age, is that sex is a subject that is tied to human emotions almost by its very nature. The first time I had sex (at age 20), I guarantee you the last thing on my mind was pregnancy, any impact on my future, child support, child rearing, the economy, retirement or the exchange rate. And while I wish I could say that I'm much more mature at 45 than I was at 20, I still probably don't make my sexual choices all that "responsibly" -- but no one else does, either. Who could be more responsible than an executive who runs the world's most powerful nation -- and yet Bill Clinton wasn't the first president to have a sex scandal in office, and certainly not the first to make unwise sexual decisions ("Happy Birthday, Mr. President," in Marylin's musky contralto comes to mind).

So, you can raise your daughters as you desire, and tell them they can't have sex until they can fly a shuttle to the moon, and that if they're boyfriend's really love them, true love waits -- and they'll still probably decide because they're turned on, think they're in love, and half-sauced on wine coolers. Just like everyone else.

trapdoor,

You make the (highly unlikely) assumption here that this hypothetical older man has only the very best interests of this hypothetical young girl at heart.

And that he would be willing and able to take over and complete the parenting job for the girl and any children this 'affair' might engender.

Your description sounds a bit more like a 'child mistress' situation.

yugh

jazzguitarman:

What are you being pragmatic about? I don't disagree with anything you say here since it all is common sense in my view, but what practical good will having the parents say 'well, it is really better for you NOT to have sex until you are mature enough', really have? i.e. will it impact many outcomes (prevent many girls from having sex \ getting pregrant). It doesn't look like it since I assume most parents already do this (or are parent's really that shy?).

I advise parents to focus on DISEASE and NOT getting pregrant (and I see you listed getting pregrant before disease). A disease can be fatal. So focus on that. Use FEAR.

Pregnancy can be 'cured' really easy. Its called an abortion. Getting a disease like HIV, cannot be. So place MOST of the focus on disease prevention.

Pragmatic is the wrong word, unless I had been talking about an experience I had had myself (no, thank God). I meant "practical". Oops. Point: jazzguitarman.

For teens at least, I think greenlighting formerly taboo behavior just pushes boundaries further out. Sometimes that's okay, unless you think the sight of ladies' ankles are the first misstep on a slippery slope to Armageddon. But if, broadly speaking as SOCIETY, we say teens are rational enough to make sexual choices, they will be more likely in larger numbers to engage in risky sexual activity. I think a general undercurrent of disapproval will foster more caution overall. And sorry, I have nothing against kids, but they're fucking dumb sometimes. Lots of times. When they screw up, they need grown-ups to help them get out of it if they want to maintain the path they were on the best they can.

That leads to your next point, which is that a "cure" for pregnancy is abortion. Agreed. But as a father and hopefully an enlightened human being, you can't tell your daughter she MUST get an abortion if she can't do it morally or emotionally. Therefore you have to take into account the alternate scenarios.

You're right about the health thing, as aesthetic concerns are almost irrationally high on teen priority lists--hence one of the huge success factors of the Montana Meth Project. If you get disease, you're "dirty" (also sick or DEAD, but hey), so that's a pretty good scare tactic I suppose.

What you can tell your kid before they start having sex is that IF they get pregrant you expect them to have an abortion. PERIOD. And if they don't they and the kid are on their own as soon as they turn 18. No financial support. PERIOD. Show them the bills one pays each month and ask them the type of job they can get at 18 years old!

Once they understand the disease side AND understand that they are on their own if the have a kid, this combo just might be enough for her to say 'yes, you are cute BUT you are wearing this condom OR you are NOT getting in'!

samuraiam: You are making the assumption that every "older man" is scum, and your assumption has no more sound a basis than mine, other than cynicism.

And who said anything about a "child mistress?" Certainly not I.

I never had sex with any women where we didn't talk about Birth control AND abortion BEFORE HAND. Note that the 'sex' I had before age 20 or so was NOT sex that would lead to disease of pregnancy. These methods should be taught to everyone. If used correctly they are just as 'fun' as going 'all the way'.

Yes, I didn't get laid a few times because of this but BFD. This is what everyone should do and what parents should teach. Every mom should teach her daughter how to give a great hand job. Really!

Which is why the age of consent should be 18.

btw, I have no problems with your 18-26 relationship. Two consenting adults.

and when you said 'if the older man can provide for her', it sounded more like a dalliance than a long-term relationship.

We WERE talking about girls who are still under their parent's roof, weren't we? At least I thought the top-poster was.

Samuraim: Yeah, I assume we're still talking about girls under their own parent's roof -- but the women I intended to marry 20 years ago were still under their parent's roofs (they weren't simultaneous -- the sentence needs some work).

Mark Twain wrote that he wanted to do away with the age of consent entirely. His concern wasn't that his daughters would have sex he didn't want them to have, but that they would besmirch his good name by marrying someone of whom he disapproved -- and that above age 21 he couldn't stop them from doing so.

Obviously, no one wants to adopt the Twain motto. Similarly no one really expects 15 year old girls to be dating 50 year old men (although I'm told this isn't uncommon, or particularly harmful, in Denmark). So what we're talking about is a happy medium. It's going to have to be between my approach and that of the as-yet-uncanonized St. JazzGuitarMan. Presumably we can find such a thing.

My approach was to prevent disease. I don't care if girls have sex as long as they have abortions. What I do care about is girls have babies they cannot afford. That is what is immoral NOT the sex.

I'm agnostic and only fools believe in myth and voodoo so I'm suprised by the 'St' reference. The RCC is a sick organization that should be closed down.

My advise to parents was to teach their girls how to give a great hand job. THAT is a good way to have fun without getting a disease.

The fact that you were too shy or too much of a coward to discuss sex with women before having it is a sign of how immature you were. But that is understandable. Most young people are immature. I talked about sex before having it NOT for moral reasons but because I didn't want to have to pay for a kid for 18 years. (i.e. financial reasons).