Okay, that Schalet article is AWESOME and should be required reading for all parents.

My boyfriend is Dutch American and was raised in the Netherlands by Dutch parents. We met when I was 15 and he was 19, but didn't have sex for a couple years because I seemed nervous the first time we tried so he stopped. He brought up the topic of what we would do if I got pregnant before I did. He offered to help pay for my birth control when I went on it.
His mother is very open (sometimes too much so, honestly)and had no problem letting us sleep together in her house..
I think it's part being raised in an open minded culture and part just being a great guy, but he's always being very intelligent and open about all things sexual. I really don't think I would be as healthy sexually if I wasn't dating him, because I was raised in such an opposite environment and never even got a real sex talk at any point.
I actually resent it when people blanket criticize all men in their 20s.

Thanks for the Schalet article link . . . I'm printing it right now to read after class!

I totally agree with 99% of that philosophy except I can't see myself letting my teens have sleepovers with their partners. I think I can respect their relationship and even their sexuality and still pull some parental rank.

The truth is even protected sex has unintended consequences sometimes. To pretend otherwise to your child is irresponsible. I would hate it if I gave my kids zero boundaries because I wanted to respect their autonomy before they fully grew into it and then, plop, they've got a baby in high school.

On the otherhand I know kids also have sex in the day time and even when parents are home, but... to just be totally laissez-faire in that part of their development seems idealistic and naive in an American setting.

Do we lack comprehensive sex education because adults fear (and want to stifle) teen sexuality, or is teen sexuality feared because so many teens haven't been given comprehensive sex education?

Do we lack comprehensive sex education because adults fear (and want to stifle) teen sexuality, or is teen sexuality feared because so many teens haven't been given comprehensive sex education?

ideally i think comfort level with one's teenager's sexuality should really vary based on maturity. let's face, it not everyone matures at the same rate--some 16-year-olds are perfectly ready to go there and some aren't. i like to think if i were a parent, i would keep this in mind.

i fell in love for the first time when i was 15. granted, many years later i don't look back on it and compare to my adult loves; i consider that experience rather juvenile, but that doesn't make it any less important an experience (just different) and it certainly was love. it looks like the dutch have a better handle on how to balance respecting teenagers' feelings and acknowledging that sexual development is normal and "ok", while not expecting dating and sex to be the end-all be-all of life for all teens. america seems to be, paradoxically, hung up on both freaking out and pushing kids toward being sexualized earlier.

as usual, we fail at moderation, tolerance and common sense.

I'm really uncomfortable with the wording of Courtney's question here. "Sexuality" and "Sexual Activity" are not synonymous. It's possible to strongly support teenagers' awareness and embrace of their sexuality, while also strongly encouraging them to postpone, for a time, certain types of interpersonal sexual behavior--not because it's bad or because they should keep themselves "pure" but because they have a lifetime of experiences ahead of them and there's absolutely no good reason to rush into them before they've had plenty of comprehensive sex ed, reached some degree of self-sufficiency, and gotten through some of the already numerous hiccups and catastrophes of adolescence.

All our hangups also create this really hostile environment for teens to develop their sexuality. That makes it that much more difficult for teens to deal with it as responsibly as possible.

What do we expect when we give them no safe place to figure it all out? Instead, they have to sneak around, lie, and be worried about being caught. How are we to expect them to be responsible when we take all responsible options but abstinence away?

We (as a culture) don't even give them the respect of acknoweldging that sex is a normal part of becomming and adult. We don't give them the tools to understand and deal with it, like comprehensive sex ed and acceptance of masturbation as an excellent way to explore sexuality without the risks.

And my posts are getting to be so long I might need my own blog.

america seems to be, paradoxically, hung up on both freaking out and pushing kids toward being sexualized earlier.

Rileystclair, you are so right. We normalize men's attraction to teenage girls while we freak out that those teenage girls actually have sexual agency of their own. What kind of message does it send them when it's acceptable to treat them as sex objects but they're told it's shameful for them to actually be sexual?

I think I can respect their relationship and even their sexuality and still pull some parental rank." -lizadilly

america seems to be, paradoxically, hung up on both freaking out and pushing kids toward being sexualized earlier." -rileystclair

I agree 100% with both sentiments, and also with sara....it might be because of our culture, but I think teens CAN BE impulsive and immature.

The problem of our dual views of sex--garish panting and sexualization of teens (girls!) at younger and younger ages (sex sells,after all...) and then restriction of info/access to birth control + shaming....

That combo sure as hell doesn't help.

I think INFORMED abstinence for teens is underrated...I would sympathize with my 15 year old if s/he was having sex at that age and drill birth control and "you can talk to me" into them, but at the same time I can't entirely blame parents (specifically the more enlightened ones) for being slightly wary/uncomfortable with the thought of their kids having sex/feeling PRESSURED by others to have sex.

Where's the line?

I had some sex as a teen. None of it all that great, definitely feeling lots of love and lust, don't regret any of it...
But if I hadn't been afraid of what my parents would do if they found bc in the house, I would have had a lot safer sex. As it is I can't believe I trusted only condoms and nothing happened!

What a fascinating article -- just awesome, and thank you.

One of the implied points that really stood out for me is that Americans tend to lump in healthy, love-inspired, relationship sex with flash-in-the-pan one night stands. In both of those situations in this country, girls are made to feel slutty, and boys are made to feel studly but amoral, which just reinforces the battle of the sexes issues. If we teach kids that they're bad if they engage in any sex at all, I don't see why they'd be any less likely to engage in unsafe sexual practices than safe ones; it makes sense that this could be one of the causes of American teens having more sexual partners, more pregnancies, more abortions, and more STDs.

I really related, though, to how the American parents talked about their teenagers and sex, and I certainly could project myself feeling the same way. But I WANTED to be like the Dutch parents. One thing I hope is addressed in the later parts of this study is what American parents can do, individually, to help their children grow up with a safe and healthy outlook on their sexual behavior, within the context of OUR culture. I'd like to think that by the time I pop out the ragamuffins and they're old enough to be thinking about sex, that our medical practices and culture in general would have developed a healthier, more holistic approach to sex, but somehow I doubt that will happen. I wouldn't be surprised if in this country a parent could be considered legally negligent if they allowed their kid's SO to spend the night -- like if you observe your kids and their friends drinking or what-not, which I know you can get in big trouble for. So how do you instill healthy sexual practices in your kids when all their friends, their friends’ parents, and the culture in general look upon sexually mature/healthy teenagers as aberrant and amoral?

lizadilly: I understand that visceral discomfort at the thought of one's child having sex, but I don't follow what "pulling some parental rank" means here. It would appear to mean, "I don't approve of you having sex and I can't stop you but I can ensure you do it in riskier places than my home."

I had sex as a teenager and I don't regret it. Some of it was crummy, mostly because of shame and the sexism girls and boys are raised in, but a lot of it was pleasurable and all of it was an adventure I wouldn't have missed. I do regret that because of that shame, although I always used birth control, I didn't always practice safe sex.

I'll try to remember this when my daughter reaches puberty.

I can't believe I trusted only condoms and nothing happened!

I...still do that. Sounds safe enough to me.

First, I am impressed that she thought of that question for her research, a question with such obvious yet different answers for people from the two countries.

There may be impulsive, less mature teens but I'd like to think when people are expected to be responsible and are fully aware of the consequences if they aren't (STIs, pregnancy) and know all the facts about how to prevent these consequences, they would be more responsible.

I can understand the parents' dislike of letting their teenagers sleep together but after their kid is moved out, they can't bring their boyfriend/girlfriend home with them without renting a hotel room? To that I said what???

Still, I hate the assumptions that leaving teens alone, letting them sleep together, etc will lead to sex. It might eventually (but trying to prevent it won't stop it). Things don't always lead to sex as they seem to on TV and all teens aren't looking for the first opportunity to have sex. Bah.

That article is just awesome and makes so much SENSE. If only more people could know about this research.

I guess I'm Dutch at heart, then. My mother was raised in what I consider to be an almost-Puritan household (her parents were in their 30s when she was born, an almost unheard-of event in the 1950s -- her sisters are 19 and 17 years older than her).

I fell in love when I was barely a teenager, but I waited 2 years to have sex with the boy -- we were almost 16 when we finally consummated it. My mother went BALLISTIC. She THREW SHOES at us after barging into my room without knocking when we happened to be lying in bed one time.

Nearly ten years later, I finally had a conversation with her about it. "Why did you do that?" I asked. "What would you have rather we did?"

"I just couldn't believe that you would have sex under my roof," she said.

"What did you WANT us to do?" I asked her. "Where else did we have to go?"

"I didn't really care," she said. "He had a car. You could've gone anywhere. I just didn't want it in my house."

Excuse me? That floored me. She was my MOTHER, for Chrissake -- and she would rather confine me to having the first sexual experience of my life in a goddamn CAR than let me do it in the comfort of my own bed, in the safety of my own house, in a place where I felt safe and warm? She would rather I lose my virginity in my boyfriend's beat-up Toyota truck??

I couldn't believe it. I still can't.

People, before you put a ban on a particular sexual activity for your child, please think about what alternatives they really have. Think about what you're consigning them to. Lying, sneaking around, sex in public places, hoping not to get picked up by the police while naked and young and vulnerable. Really THINK about it.

Are we as Americans so uncomfortable with teen sexuality (not to mention our own) that we would knowingly do that to our own children? If so, why in the world?

Maybe this is something I'll never understand. But then again, maybe someone can explain it to me. My ears are open -- I'm listening.

You know, I think the attitudes of the American parents in this study bring up a larger issue of infantilization of teenagers in this country. The attitude reads something like: they can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves, they can't be trusted with information about safer sex, they can't experience love and attachment, they have to be constantly guarded and protected, they should remain child-like and non-sexual forever.

That last one really disturbs me, particularly in father-daughter relationships, where the father is supposed to forever resent and monitor his daughter's sexual partners. FUCK NO.

In my country (Austria), the average age for teens to start having sex is 13,5 years.

I had my first boyfriend at that age, and I can't remember ever hearing that I was too young to have sex. It was all "Don't let anybody pressure you", " don't feel like you have to", "wait until you feel ready", ... and, of course, the only comment my mother ever gave on that subject: "Do whatever you want, but always do it safely...and please don't rub it in my face."

The first time I ever came across the message of "don't have sex until you're 18" was on US-made TV...and it still seems strange to me today.

As it is I can't believe I trusted only condoms and nothing happened!

If condoms are used properly, they are very effective. For over 2 decades now (wow, that makes me sound old), condoms have been my BC choice and I've never been pregnant nor had an STI. Condoms are great...if you aren't allergic, of course.

You made a wise and appropriate decision to use condoms in high school. You should be proud of yourself!

For all of you condom fans, may I suggest Inspiral brand? Mr. ShelbyWoo and I discovered them a few years ago and they are fantastic!

I don't know why I'm still always amazed at the insistance of Americans (and I speak as one) to believe that the best way to develop a healthy sex life is to go from "SEX IS BAD NO SEX EVER" to "now it's ok to have sex and even if it isn't I can't stop you" at the magical age at which their children move out of the parental house.

She was my MOTHER, for Chrissake -- and she would rather confine me to having the first sexual experience of my life in a goddamn CAR than let me do it in the comfort of my own bed, in the safety of my own house, in a place where I felt safe and warm?

You know what's sad, literarycritic? I'm 30 and I've never heard anyone express it that way. Very well said.

Teenagers are not adults, but they aren't children. And when the vast majority of us do have sex as teenagers, it's sad that we practically guarantee that it's not going to be in that warm, safe, comfort zone.

literarycritic: I don't know your mom, but I'd guess she didn't want you having sex in her house because then she'd feel she bears responsibility for your having had sex and for any negative consequences for it. At some level, most parents know they can't control their kids, but most people want to believe they can control what happens in the homes they own. If you have sex somewhere she doesn't pay for and isn't supposed to have control over, that's not her fault.

You know, I can kind of see the "not in my house" thing. Though for me, it would be more of a "don't make me aware of it by any means other than, you know, talking to me about it if you want to." Perhaps it comes of growing up in a small apartment in which I didn't even have my own room, but the idea of being a mere room away from close family members having sex--and knowing it--just icks me right out. My parents were kind enough never to make me aware of their sex lives, and it seems fair enough that they would want me to show the same consideration. It seems to me to be part of an incest taboo (don't involve immediate family members in your sex life) rather than a desire to desexualize adolescents.

But, then, I also can't conceive of wanting to have sex in my parents' home. I couldn't even have sex there when I was in my mid-twenties and my then-boyfriend and I were dogsitting while my mom and stepdad were on their honeymoon. Perhaps I just have a very strong incest taboo. But it was more...there I was, in the room I grew up in, with all my childhood posters of the Wizard of Oz and suchlike on the walls, and all my memories of my dolls and stuffed animals, and my memories of my little sister sleeping in the other bed and...ew.

EG - I don't particularly enjoy the thought of my mom and stepfather having sex, either, but I wouldn't use my personal discomfort to suggest they shouldn't have sex in their own house while I was staying with them for a year and a half recently.

The original paper does address this, and the fact that Dutch parents do also feel this discomfort, but they treat it very differently than American parents.

I don't know your mom, but I'd guess she didn't want you having sex in her house because then she'd feel she bears responsibility for your having had sex and for any negative consequences for it. At some level, most parents know they can't control their kids, but most people want to believe they can control what happens in the homes they own. If you have sex somewhere she doesn't pay for and isn't supposed to have control over, that's not her fault.

Possibly, but that's a pretty negative attitude to have towards sex in the first place, isn't it? Always seemed that way to me. Like a punishment for expressing desires I wasn't supposed to feel, but she was allowed to do whatever she wanted with her husband (a "legitimate" relationship).

... the idea of being a mere room away from close family members having sex--and knowing it--just icks me right out. My parents were kind enough never to make me aware of their sex lives, and it seems fair enough that they would want me to show the same consideration. It seems to me to be part of an incest taboo (don't involve immediate family members in your sex life) rather than a desire to desexualize adolescents.

The thing is, EG, I had my own "wing" in the house -- my bedroom was far enough away (and we were quiet enough) that no one ever had to hear (or see) anything they didn't want to. My mom seemed to have a weird sort of complex about it:

"You can talk to me about anything"/"I want to be a part of your life"

vs.

"Your life can happen, but not in my house (where you just happen to live)"/"Ick! Gross! You + sex = disgusting."

Very conflicted message to send to an already-confused teenager entering into a new phase of life. It confused me greatly, I can tell you. Something that had always been fine in the abstract suddenly became the reason my own mother called me a whore (literally, I'm sorry to say) for rubbing her face in it, which I never tried to do -- I was just trying to live in the same house, but it seemed she didn't want my life to unfold that way, ever. Which I think IS part and parcel of the "desexualizing teenagers (forcibly, if you have to)" thing.

EG - I don't particularly enjoy the thought of my mom and stepfather having sex, either, but I wouldn't use my personal discomfort to suggest they shouldn't have sex in their own house while I was staying with them for a year and a half recently.

Exactly! Consideration goes both ways.

Why don't we seem to grasp that if you make something taboo, then people will do it anyway, but stupidly?

It's like alcohol. I went to Belgium when I was 15 and in the bar I went to the Belgian teenagers were standing around chatting and sipping drinks, while the loud American teenagers got hammered and danced (embarrassingly).

I have an interesting sidestory I want to share. My high school boyfriend went to Nederland in 1998 and came back with a stack of teen magazines that were shocking to me for two reasons.

First, because they were aimed at both women and men. He said there were a few teen fashion mags, but most of the magazines for young people were unisex. There was much less othering and objectification of the other gender. Instead of trying to guess what women or men wanted, they just asked them. And tasks and past times were not divided between genders, so the girls could read about stock car racing and the guys could read about romance novels.

Also, a few of these magazines had naked teenagers in them! There was a feature in one mag where average Dutch teens would take a full length naked photo of themselves, then answer some simple questions about their favorite movies and music and life goals. Naked. I was absolutely shocked. In this paricular magazine, they featured a guy who was 17 on one page and a girl who was 16 on the other. Other magazines just had random nudity in ads or pictures illustrating stories, some of which were not about sex. I was absolutely shocked and could not stop starring at them. I had never seen another person my age naked before.

There may be impulsive, less mature teens but I'd like to think when people are expected to be responsible and are fully aware of the consequences if they aren't (STIs, pregnancy) and know all the facts about how to prevent these consequences, they would be more responsible.-lyndorr

Unfortunately, how many people understand condoms lower risk of unwanted pregnancy/STIS (unless they're fucking being lied to in their "abstinence only" classes"...unless a kid is living where there is no TV, internet, or news, I don't know how any American kid could live without hearing a more accurate view), but STILL have unprotected sex?

Like others have said...it's a pipe dream to think we'd live in a culture where people are constantly reminded, "USE PROTECTION! PLAN ON USING PROTECTION!" everywhere they went. Hell, add "USE PROTECTION OR DON'T F*CKING HAVE SEX!" But the way things are now....is nightmarish. Especially for girls.

It was all "Don't let anybody pressure you", " don't feel like you have to", "wait until you feel ready", ... and, of course, the only comment my mother ever gave on that subject: "Do whatever you want, but always do it safely...and please don't rub it in my face."- Deadra

I think that's how I'd feel in a nutshell, and yet I'd be uncomfortable if my 13 year old was having sex.

Can you still realize the realities of teen sexuality without ignoring the cartoonish garish sexualization of teens, pressure to have sex....

Oh well I guess it's like Courtney's points...body/sexual/empathy awareness.

I'd like to think that by the time I pop out the ragamuffins and they're old enough to be thinking about sex, that our medical practices and culture in general would have developed a healthier, more holistic approach to sex, but somehow I doubt that will happen."--roro80.

I'd like that too, but...

Oh what the hell do I know.

If the U.S. is simultaneously exploitative/sleazy and puritanical when it comes to sex, does that mean people in the Netherlands are immune to the argument that at SOME point--after crossing some barrier....a "sexualized" teen is potentially a dehumanized, pressured one? (I know, what an overgeneralization)...

Haven't other women argued that--at least in America--we fell short in women's sexual liberation because it was perverted and is related to today's "female chauvinism", where objectification and dehumanization of women's sexuality is just more mainstream and aggressive?

Is that aggressive dehumanized sexualization---ESPECIALLY of adolescents---inevitable? Someone else said teens aren't adults, but they aren't children either. Either they're a little bit more mature than before, or else they're impulsive AND ready to take on riskier, more serious ("adult") decisions without full appreciation of the consequences.

I like to think it's not 100% inevitable or resolvable...

I encountered a similar attitude when I went to Quebec. I was 15 at the time, and having been raised in American culture and been given American sexual education, I was floored when I woke up the morning after the first night I was there and their daughter's boyfriend was sitting there in his pajamas eating breakfast with the family. It was funny because I was staying in the basement with my friend Michael, and the night before the host parents had asked us if we would prefer to share a bed or sleep in seperate beds. After they left we both turned to eachother and asked, "Why would they let us stay in the same bed...?" We had no clue that they thought we were a couple and that we might want to sleep in the same bed, the thought had never even crossed our minds.

The two of us thought that we just had a very open family, but when we met up with the rest of our tour group, we found out that a couple of the people we were touring with had similar stories.

Personally I have to agree with literary critic. It was never fun as a teenager to have to go park in the Mormon church parking lot (because it was the darkest, most secluded parking lot in the entire town) and run the risk of getting caught by a bunch of angry fundamentalists (like many of my friends did). It was always so much nicer to wait until someone's parents had left the house and be someplace where you felt safe. If I were a parent, I would so much rather my child have safe sex in my house than get caught by an angry Christian fundamentalist (or the police).

had my own "wing" in the house -- my bedroom was far enough away (and we were quiet enough) that no one ever had to hear (or see) anything they didn't want to.

Well, then, you were very lucky, and that's a different story altogether. I didn't know anybody who lived like that when I was a teenager, so I was just extrapolating from my own experience. Obviously, your mother handled it quite badly; all I'm saying is that there's more going on with a general sense of "I don't want this happening right next to me" than anti-sex prejudice.

I wouldn't use my personal discomfort to suggest they shouldn't have sex in their own house while I was staying with them for a year and a half recently.

But that's a different story, isn't it? You were a long-term guest, and it was their house. It's a very different dynamic between teenagers and their parents.

When I was in high school, I had a friend who broke her bed having sex with her boyfriend while her parents were watching TV in the living room. (Her bedroom was down a long hall, which is about as far away as anybody I knew could get from anybody else.) They were pissed, not because she was having sex, but because they'd been forced to listen to her having sex, and also because new beds are expensive. When rooms are no more than a few feet from each other, it's very unlikely that one could have sex without one's parents being forced to know about it in a kind of blatant and unpleasant way. Unless one did it while they were out, which would probably be the best idea.

Also, one should, at this point, make sure that one is doing one's own laundry.

@ CarolynMcC: The "parental rank" comment wasn't about icky thoughts or visceral reactions to my child having sex. It has to do with the fact that sex can bear adult consequences, and while every other influence in my child's life (including his/her own desires) may green light sex, there should be some influence balancing the pros with the cons, and isn't that a parent's job?

It's not that I inherently distrust teenagers with sex or think it gross/immoral. But just because I think sex is a healthy, normal, pleasant part of adulthood doesn't mean I as a parent am going to completely butt out and just wish them good luck. If they inherited a huge sum of money I would probably also help them manage it, lest they end up with a million video games and a belly of regret. (Which, by the way, is not an attempt to equate chastity with monetary value. I'm just pulling out an example of an adult responsibility-privilege combo where parental guidelines are often helpful.)

I first had sex at 18 (behind my parents' back), and I don't regret it. So I'm not a prude or something. But if my parents had said, "no biggie, do it whenever man," I probably would have had sex with the first guy who initiated it and I WOULD have regretted that. I'm glad they gave me some structure so my emerging sexuality didn't subsume my relationships and evolving identity, which, as an obsessive adolescent, it could have.

Is it really so controversial to have any kind of rules for your kids? It's from a pure-hearted place. I'm not out to control anyone, but boundaries and pacing are a part of giving a shit. If I high-fived the average 15 year old's every instinct I would be Dina Lohan, and I don't want that.

Just as a point of clarification, the article states that Dutch parents were accepting of the sleepovers in the later teen years, 16-17. I feel like the term teenager encompasses a pretty wide age range, and a pretty wide range of maturity. Your average 15 year old is different from your average 17 year old, and apprently, your average dutch 17 year old is very different from your average American 15 year old.

Lizadilly: I think part of the problem with a lot of the comments is that we were raised in American society. We have been brought up with this idea that sex is bad, and that teenagers shouldn't have sex in their parent's homes. The Dutch parents don't say, "do it whenever." They say, do it when you are ready, when you feel ready, when you are informed about all the risks and consequences and are prepared to prevent them or deal with them.

It's hard for us to step outside of the box and think of teens having sex in any other way then the way we were brought up. Which is, teens having sex is bad, and leads to all kinds of terrible things.

I had sex at 18 and I do regret it, because if my mom hadn't been so crazy Christian and anti-sex, I would have had sex with the boyfriend that I loved before I went to college, instead of getting to college, having no rules, and deciding, what the hell, my crazy bitch of a mom isn't here.

Quotes from the article about the Dutch parents (and Dutch teens)

"Hannie and Dirk De Groot believe it is "stupid to try to avoid giving teenagers opportunities to have sex. "THey need to determine that themselves," says Dirk. "They can do that, provided that yo have spoken about it with them and that you have pointed out the dangers and consequences to them. And if they know all that, they can handle it."

"Part of what gives Dutch parents confidence in their children's ability to know when they are ready is when they see that their children take their sexual development at a gradual, slow pace."

"He has no worries about pregnancy and diesease: "No, she is 16, almost 17, and I think she knows very well what matters and what can happen and that if she is ready, I would let her be ready."

Here is one thought about our fear. Seems like a lot of parents fear sex period, so if their kids are having sex "under their roof" it only makes them feel or confront their own fears and memories of sexuality. Also, that their children aren't really children anymore, also that they themselves are aging and not "young and beautiful" etc. American's have a big problem with growing older and dying so kids being sexual and coming of age may very well act as an irritant psychically.
Anyway, we have it all wrong that's for sure.

My experience growing up in America: I wasn't allowed to have sleepovers at male friends' houses, but I could stay at girls' homes or have them stay at mine (in the same room even!). Being queer, this situation worked out quite well for me! Heh heh. Maybe the only advantage of being a queer high schooler.

The study sample here is small, and doesn't seem to include queer teens and/or their parents. It explicitly omits the experiences of families of color. I am interested how these factors would add to or change the conclusions of the study.

"If you have sex somewhere she doesn't pay for and isn't supposed to have control over, that's not her fault."

Parenting isn't about taking care of a house, it's about taking care of a kid, who is still yours when he or she leaves the house. If you have sex in an unsafe place or manner because she wouldn't let you have sex in a safe place and manner, that is at least partially her (slash both parents') fault. I mean, the kid can obviously still decide yes or no to sex, but kids are likely to decide yes even in bad circumstances, and parents should think about what is more important to their children's welfare, safety or the knowledge that their parents don't allow sex under their roof.

I think our country has a problem with being too "principled" and not practical enough sometimes. Like, even if it will save more lives for abortion to be legal, some people say it should be illegal just because it would be wrong for the government to "condone" it. Even if kids will have sex anyway, and in worse conditions, some people say parents should disallow it in the house to show that they don't think teens should be having sex. I just don't think these "I do not approve" messages make any difference, except to limit the safe options that people have.

By the way, I don't mean to say that parents shouldn't tell their kids "I don't think you're ready to have sex" or anything like that. I'm not in favor of parents who are buds instead of parents. But there's a difference between openly talking about how she's a sexual being and needs to make some decisions about sex vs. making a rule that boys can't be in her room and deciding your work is done, and good thing because talking to her about sex freaks you out. "You" being several American parents that I know of.

I agree with the informed abstinence idea. Because sex (and all that entails)involves two people, you become responsible not only for yourself, but for the person you're with to a degree. I think the self should be fully developed before bringing people into your personal world...or that once you do choose this, you should ease into it. I don't think all teenagers are emotionally evolved enough to make that decision. Some people have sex at 16 and never look back, other people do it and regret it because they approached it with less care. Not to mention some teenagers, by their very nature, are careless and can be exposed to pregnancy or stds as a result of this carelessness. I don't like the idea of shame of course, but I don't think it would be terrible if America attached responsibility and sex together a little better. Netherlands has a good culture, but unfortunately, we cant just jump into emulating it.

I think Dr. Schalet has done some very important research. I worry that her research will not receive a widespread American audience, and if it does, that it will be immediately dismissed because of American attitudes about sex.

What made me truly interested was how easily I related to all aspects of what she was reporting. I wish I had had guidance during my formative years. It would be great if Americans could deal with any type of discomfort, or anything natural. Instead we pervert things that should be natural and exciting. I'm jealous of the Dutch. Even my incredibly liberal boyfriend -he calls himself a feminist :) will probably scoff at the idea that teenagers can handle their sexuality, if properly equipped.

I'd be interested to know what the prevalence of sexual abuse is in Dutch culture. 1 in 3 American women have been sexually abused in some way. Is their seemingly healthy approach to sexuality lowering rates of rape and incest? Our culture overwhelmingly places blame and responsibility on girls when it comes to any kind of sex- meaning don't do it at all, don't get yourself into a situation where sex is a possibility, etc. If we go with the assumption that hormones make teens sex-crazed, what are we teaching our youth with a culture that over-stimulates and over-sexualizes society while telling women to keep their chastity belts on? Shouldn't there be some way we can teach our girls AND our boys to be healthy about sex so that I don't have to be afraid everyday of being raped?

I'll admit I may have a skewed opinion of this because of my own experiences, but I know that having been sexually abused and then experiencing the generic 'chastity is best' lesson throughout my teens made me incredibly sexually self-destructive throughout college. I wonder if I'll ever see things evenly.

idyllicmollusk, there was at least one family with a gay son in the interviews. They were Dutch. I don't see any indication that they specifically ruled out queer teens.

I think it's also important to note that the Dutch parents weren't simply allowing their teenage kids to sleepover with anyone just to have sex. The study makes it clear that they treated this as something that was part of a developing relationship and often didn't involve sex.

So the difference is not about Wheee, let's give teens no boundaries vs we have to set limits for teens and protect them from bad sexual experiences.

On the one hand the Dutch believe that romantic relationships are important for teens and that a slow advancement toward sex is the healthy way to build those relationships. On the other hand, the American parents tended to believe teen sexuality was all about hormones and that their kids would just have sex at the first opportunity if they didn't do everything they could to stop them.

Going off on a tangent, you know what's really stupid about the whole teenage hormones hysteria? It's people talking as if adults are attracted to each other for some reason other than hormones! Hormones are vital to sexual maturity! Hormones are what make us want to have sex! Of course teenage romance and sexuality is driven by hormones--so is adult romance and sexuality!

I will concede the difference that teenagers have crap decision-making abilities, but that seems all the more reason for us to take special care in teaching them how to make responsible, thoughtful decisions, so that they learn how. You don't learn how to do something when somebody forbids you from doing it because you might get hurt. You don't learn how to ride a bike unless you accept falling off and skinning your knees. Same with decision-making--you don't learn how to do it well if you can't accept that you're going to make some lousy decisions and live to regret it.

But that's a different story, isn't it? You were a long-term guest, and it was their house. It's a very different dynamic between teenagers and their parents.

The argument was that the feeling of ick related to teens having sex in their parents' house is related to the incest taboo. I was pointing out that that's not a very good justification for restricting others' activities in and of itself.

there should be some influence balancing the pros with the cons, and isn't that a parent's job?

Lizadilly, your earlier post suggested that putting your parental foot down meant forbidding teens from having "sleepovers." That seems a lot different to me than helping them balance the pros and cons.

I kind of think it is. "Don't have sex near me, please, in a way I can't ignore, because I'm your mother and it freaks me out" doesn't seem unreasonable to me. The OP went on to clarify that she lived in a big ol' house and her mother couldn't have heard her--I'd assumed that her mother had heard her or otherwise been made aware of what was going on and that was why she walked in. If my mother and stepdad had very loud sex while I was visiting and sleeping in the next room I also don't think it would be unreasonable to take my mother aside later that day and say something like "Mom, I'm really glad that you and Stepdad are so much in love and everything, but, well, I'm your daughter, and it kind of freaks me out when I hear...you know...so maybe while I'm around you could kind of...not let me hear it?" That's the kind of thing people do.

On a completely different note, I wonder how much of this is also related to the American desire to insulate one's children from every danger and pain under the sun. Certainly it seems more difficult for American parents to accept that this is impossible than it is for other parents. I look back at the ways I was hurt in sexual relationships, and when I think about somebody hurting the kids I sit for that way, it makes me want to throw up (literally--my stomach turns over and I feel nauseated) and then reach for my baseball bat to beat the shit out of whatever asshole would hurt my girls like that. But that's part of life, isn't it? You get hurt. And you try to move on. You can't climb on monkey bars without taking the risk that you'll tumble off the top.

Heh. I just remembered that I have had, in the past, to convey similar sentiments to my mother. But instead of saying something eloquent and adult like, oh, "Mom, this is a fascinating topic of discussion and I'd love to continue talking about the possibility that the heart-shape is based on representations of the vulva, but I would prefer to have this conversation when my stepfather is not in the room," I said "MO-O-O-O-OMMMM!" Which did actually get the point across, especially when I gestured to my stepfather and said "Not in front of him!" And then my mother giggled.

@ FemiDancer: First, I can't think of a new way to say that I don't think that sex is bad, so you'll just have to trust me.

But I also don't think there's a big difference between saying "have sex whenever" and "have sex when you're ready." In both cases, you are just telling your teen that whatever they think is best is best, but I think having a conversation with them about whether they're getting ahead of themselves is a lot more courageous and respectful than just removing yourself from the situation and hoping for the best.

Now I'm sure we here were all brilliantly precocious teenagers, but not all are. Many are more impressionable, more readily attached. Many need to be told when to say when -- no more soda, turn off the computer, get off the phone, etc. So if it's 11pm and I think the boy or girl needs to go home, why is that different? It's not being anti-sex specifically, it's just saying Hey, why don't you enjoy your youth and nuture your own identity before it all becomes about another person?

I know I'm not going to convince anyone because it's sooo lame to be remotely traditional. But honestly, I am very open to whatever my kids' sexuality might be. I won't bat an eye if they are gay, or asexual, or never want to get married, or get married five times. I could even manage if they went into the porn industry or became hardcore Christians. And of course they will have birth control, they will get the sex talk, and I will be avilable to them no matter what. But if they're 16 and they make a baby, guess who's raising it? Uhh, me. So, until they can deal with their own consequences, I get to negotiate the stakes with them.

And furthermore, wasn't this same group aghast when Jamie Lynn Spears got pregnant that her mom "let" her have a live-in boyfriend at 16? Isn't this same group always disgusted by how young girls are sexualized by advertisements and pop stars? So where's the line here? Is there a certain age when they can't decide for themselves, and when is it? What if they want to get married at 17? What if the person they want to sleep over is 45? What if they want to host a sex party in my basement? Admit it, everyone has a point where they put their foot down, even the Dutch. This whole concept is entirely based on the assumption that the teen is incredibly mature, honest and responsible, and plenty of American teens fall outside of that category but you can't just write them off. You have to parent them.

wasn't this same group aghast when Jamie Lynn Spears got pregnant that her mom "let" her have a live-in boyfriend at 16? Isn't this same group always disgusted by how young girls are sexualized by advertisements and pop stars? So where's the line here?

As I recall, the aghast-ness about Jamie Lynn Spears wasn't so much that she was living with her boyfriend as it was being aghast that her dumb-ass mother thought that if she was living with her boyfriend but somehow never broke curfew by being out with said boyfriend, then how could she have possibly gotten pregnant? I mean, this is a prime example of people being too stupid to live..."I never suspected my daughter was having sex with her boyfriend who lived with us because she didn't stay out late, but instead stayed at home with her boyfriend?"

I mean, what does 11 PM have to do with anything? One can have sex at any time of day. As Mrs. Spears found out, to her amazement.

And surely you see the difference between objecting to turning younger and younger girls into sexual objects and arguing for better recognition of and respect for adolescent girls' sexual subjectivity.

I don't agree that "Have sex when you're ready" is in any way similar to "Have sex whenever." "Have sex when you're ready" seems to be strongly related to helping kids from an early age understand exactly what it means to be ready for sex, by talking to them about pressure, birth control, pregnancy, abortion, STDs, romance, and last but not least, love.

This is the thing about teenagers. They're as big as you are. You can't actually make them go to bed, or stop drinking soda, or stop playing on the computer if they don't want to--not the way you can make a five-year-old go to bed. You do have to negotiate with them as thinking beings. 17-year-olds are legally allowed to get married--there's nothing you can do about that. And I tell you this: if a forty-five-year-old man had to come over to meet my parents when I was a teenager, rather than screwing around with me in secret, I suspect I would've been a lot better off. And a sex party? That would violate my "Don't make me aware of what you're doing in an obnoxious and intrusive way" rule, so no.

If a 25-year-old woman becomes a single mother and is hit by a car and killed, guess who's going to end up raising that kid? Probably her mother. But that doesn't mean her mother gets a say in her sex life. I don't think that's a very convincing argument.

@lizadilly: What if the person they want to sleep over is 45? What if they want to host a sex party in my basement? Admit it, everyone has a point where they put their foot down, even the Dutch. This whole concept is entirely based on the assumption that the teen is incredibly mature, honest and responsible, and plenty of American teens fall outside of that category but you can't just write them off. You have to parent them."

I agree with you (did before too)...and the worries you described are mine too, esp. about being pressured

This concept isn't based on assumption, it's based on facts. Dutch teenagers are, by and large, more responsible about sex by the measurements we generally find important.

The article focuses on looking at one difference between the cultures and how it could be having an effect: the attitude toward sleepovers.

Responding to the suggestion that respecting teens sexuality might actually help them be more responsible with questions like "what if they want to host a sex party" is missing the point.

No one's saying don't parent them!

A while back I was on a blog that had members of all ages, it was designed so teenagers could ask questions about sex ans sexuality, the blog had a bunch of rules about certain topics and what types of questions and comments participants shouldn't bring up I didn't think I was breaking any rules here, well, one girl had a question about orgasm because she couldn't have one when her bf gave her oral, and I posted a reply talking about how a lot of young girls don't have orgasms right off the bat and that many have better luck after they "explore" a bit on their own to find out what they like and what works. I mentioned using a vibrator and posted a link to an article about having an orgasm using a vibrator, I also mentioned that masturbation was a perfectly fine alternative to sex for girls who feel they aren't ready yet. Anyway, I thought it was a totally appropriate reply however the moderator didn't think so, she was appalled that I was talking about vibrators and how inappropriate that was, she said, "it's fine to talk about orgasm, but vibrators! totally inappropriate for this blog, this isn't a porno website!" she also said if I did it again I would be banned. Talk about intolerance and unwillingness to talk about a perfectly normal activity in human sexual behavior, I hate that for some reason it's expected for guys to masturbate with "aids" like magazines and such but for some reason it's still taboo if girls do?? I felt the moderator was doing all the girls a disservice by acting as the moral policeman, especially when I framed the whole thing as a way of getting to know your body better and as an alternative to intercourse which for some teens can be risky. Maybe the moderator thought a more appropriate answer would have been: "Teenage girls shouldn't ever try and have orgasms on their own, in fact you're too young, go back to playing with your my little ponies (wagging finger)" Sheesh!

I was not a very mature teenager but I was a little too capable of acting the part. I was always vigilant in maintaning this façade of maturity. The mask never came off for anyone, and I didn't have much of a childhood because of it.

So... I met my partner when I was thirteen years old. He was twenty-four. I was already drinking, smoking, and getting tattoos at that age so a relationship just seemed like par for the course.

Six years later, and we are still together. The mask did come off after a year or so, and he was shocked at just how immature I really was beneath the surface. Some time after that I went through a period of re-experiencing my childhood in the way that it should have been, and aside from a few rough patches during that time, it all worked out for us in the end.

As for my hypothetical future children, I don't know how I would give them the guidance they needed without sounding like a total hypocrite... But hypocritical guidance is definitely better than none at all.

In NZ we're not nearly as open or relaxed about sex as most European countries, but neither are we as fucked up and repressed as the US.

I feel that we are getting more puritanical with all the American media and gender roles being shoved more down our throats.

I first had sexual experiences when I was 16 with my 18 year old boyfriend at my house. It was months before we had penetrative sex for multiple reasons, one of which being I wanted to be on the pill AND use condoms first. Neither of our families had a problem with this and it was a great environment for us to learn about sex and each other's bodies.

I had a Canadian boyfriend when I was 18 and I lived in a wee flat behind my mother's place. He was kissing me goodbye, then waved at my mother as he walked past the kitchen. He couldn't get over the fact she didn't mind, after so many years of sneaking around back home.

I only wish we were more influenced my European values and less by North American ones :(

"Don't have sex near me, please, in a way I can't ignore, because I'm your mother and it freaks me out" doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Well, first of all, why does it freak you out? Not criticizing, just questioning. I seriously have never understood this. Maybe I'm the abnormal one. My attitude was always more along the lines of "People have sex, it's a natural thing, just think about something else while others have their fun."

The OP went on to clarify that she lived in a big ol' house and her mother couldn't have heard her--I'd assumed that her mother had heard her or otherwise been made aware of what was going on and that was why she walked in.

It wasn't really a big house, it was just designed that way. My room and bathroom were down a long hallway, and my parents' bedroom was on the other end of the house.

As for mom hearing something -- nope, not really possible. Like I said, we were far away and always, ALWAYS quiet. I do have some modicum of respect for my parents. She just has boundary issues. Can't tell you how many times she walked in on me in various states of undress during those awkward pubescent years, prompting screams of "MO-OOOOM! Jesus!" The woman's never heard of knocking.

At what point do you think it crosses into being "in your face"? When you're aware of it at all, even in the abstract, even when you don't hear anything? When you're forced to acknowledge it at all, for instance when it's in your house and you know that sex has occurred there? Or does that only involve bed-breaking and loud sexual screaming? Really, not trying to be snarky, just curious.

In high school I was involved in band and in UIL (nerdy overacheivers R us), both of which involved much time spent with persons of the opposite sex on dark buses, hotels and on one memorable occassion, sleeping bags in the band hall.

What was interesting was how the two groups were treated. In band, 'boy rooms' and 'girl rooms' were strictly enforced and if there was too much giggling on the way home from out of town football games, the buses would become 'boy bus' and 'girl bus'.

In UIL, on the other hand, though rooms were assigned based on boy/girl, they weren't enforced at all. On one trip, we all ended up crashing in one room and when the teacher did the wake up call the next morning, the person who answered the phone told them not to bother to call the other rooms, since we were all present and accounted for on his floor. The teacher in charge of the group just joked that next time he wouldn't pay for extra rooms, just cram us all into one.

It could be the relative 'positions' of the two groups. While most of the UIL people were also band nerds, we were the 'smart, brainy, nerdy, wouldn't know what to do with the opposite sex unless there was a diagram involved' group, as opposed to the rest of the band, which always seemed to fall into 'let me show you how to handle my instrument' wink wink nudge nudge, group.

I'm not sure what this actually ads to the discussion, just that different groups were treated differently as teenagers. The drill team and cheerleaders were putting out for the football team, the band had orgies after every thursday afternoon practice and the UIL people were asexual robots who got off on games of Magic and Star Trek reruns.

Well, first of all, why does it freak you out?

Meh, it just does, and I don't think it's that uncommon--I don't want to hear someone grunting on the toilet either. I'm a big believer in privacy both for the benefit of the person in private and for the benefit of those around them. I could spend a lot of introspective time delving into why, but I don't really think it would be worth it--it doesn't cramp my style or upset my life to take the time. If it doesn't bother you, that's great, but it's not so freakish to be bothered that a request to keep it down and keep it out of my face is so unusual.

For me, given that unless I marry money or win the lottery, I'll be spending my life in apartments that will be probably be quite small by the standards of mid-America (though perhaps large by the standards of NYC), I'd prefer that my children not have sex in said apartments when I'm home--especially if if their bedroom shares a wall with mine or with the living room (and I can't imagine how it wouldn't).

That's probably unrealistic, unless my hypothetical kids' hypothetical lovers come from money and have big-ass houses or something, in which case they can just damn well go there. NYers don't have cars, by and large, and I'd rather my kids not have sex in school stairwells and suchlike. (On the other hand, it might not be unrealistic at all, as my kids might carry on the generations-long family tradition of being big unpopular geeks in high school and not even getting a date, much less late.)

But if they are getting laid, and there's no good alternative to doing it in my house, I don't want the evidence of it actively impingeing on my life. I don't want to hear moaning and screaming, I don't want to find used condoms in trash cans that I empty, and I don't want to wash sheets with my kids' lovers' semen on them. Old enough to have sex is old enough to do your own laundry and empty your own trash cans. And no people unrelated to me wandering through my home barely clothed.

All this is predicated on me being able to give my kids their own bedrooms. Which I would dearly love to do, as I had to share a bedroom with my sister and I loathed every single minute of it. But you never know. If my kids have to share a bedroom, than the sex-having kid is SOL, as you don't get to bar your sister/brother from her/his own room. And that's life.

"On the otherhand I know kids also have sex in the day time and even when parents are home, but... to just be totally laissez-faire in that part of their development seems idealistic and naive in an American setting."

I propose that more openness can also result in more honesty. Why sneak around or lie, if teens can believe there will be a respectful dialogue with parents instead of lectures and disapproval? Even if the end result is they do not get what they want, they may at least understand the reasoning of adults before making their choices. I assume my children will be sexually active by about 14, and need to consider ways to regulate it, because I do not assume it can ever be stopped without me acting like a fascist, confining them to the house, removing bedroom and bathroom doors, installing surveillance systems, denying them use of phones and cellphones, personally picking them up and dropping them off at school, not allowing them to have any playmates or friends (even same sex friends could be temptation), and supervising them at all times because, ick, I have one son and one daughter.

Personally, I simply accepted my parents' authority, then behaved like an irresponsible ass (though still celibate because of self-esteem issues, and did not use drugs) as soon as I left for university at 17, including once being arrested. I also propose that I would not have needed to behave like an irresponsible ass as an "adult" of 18, if I'd had the opportunity to think and experiment for myself as a child or young teen. For example, I learned when I secretly tried one of my grandpa's More 120s (vile) at the age of 10, and tried smoking with friends during high school, that there was nothing in smoking for me (I did learn different brands were less vile, such as "women's" cigarettes). Luckily, there was no peer pressure, and being cool or uncool among my friends was not linked to tobacco use. I knew no habitual teen smokers at the time.

I started having sex when I was seventeen, and my boyfriend at the time was twenty and had his own place. We did it in my house exactly once, when it was empty. So my mother really didn't have anything to complain about, and probably didn't even know.

The next boyfriend lived with his hardcore Christian dad who was at home all the time and didn't let him be alone in his room with a girl and close the door. (Or a boy, for that matter. Daddy kind of thought he might be gay.)

As a result, we mostly had sex in my house, frequently while my parents were there but asleep. We tried our best to be quiet, and we never got caught, but it was risky. We had sex at his Church, in various parking lots, on the roof of my former elementary school, in the graveyard next door to my house . . . none of which were particularly comfortable or legal.

I came back for Christmas break after a semester at college and the among the first things I was told when I arrived home: " No screwing in that room." Of course, I was eighteen and halfway through the break got caught with that same ex-boyfriend naked in my bathroom. My parents pitched a fit and threatened to send me back to school the next day.

It was ridiculous, because we really didn't have any legal alternatives. They knew I was having sex and they were okay with that, but they weren't okay with me doing it in the house. They said it made them uncomfortable. And it really didn't make any sense to me because it was MY room. We weren't being loud -- when they caught us, we hadn't even done anything yet -- and I felt like I should be able to have sex in the room where I'd lived for the last ten years.

I think the whole point of the research was comfort levels and the importance of confronting them. No one should have anyone else's values forced upon them, but the absence of self-examination seems to be at the core of American attitudes about sex.

When I was in high school my best friend took what I will refer to as a 'Puritanical' attitude about mostly everything. Sex was bad. People with divorced parents were wrong and taboo (i.e. she wasn't allowed to sleep over my house). This was only about 7 years ago, mind you.

And I attribute this to her mother, who is a remarkable woman, except when it comes to “right� and “wrong.� She uses the word “should� a lot. So when, at 16, my friend had been with the same guy for a little over a year her mother started to accuse her of having sex (intercourse) when she wasn't. It was the same notion that teens cannot be trusted with their sex drives, even though she had effectively pounded abstinence into my friend's head. My friend quite earnestly believed sex was for marriage, which I rolled my eyes at all the time. And she was doing everything short of penetration, and freaking out that she could be pregnant because some semen got on her thigh once. Unfortunately she wrote the incident down in a notebook, which her mother found...

It was an ongoing saga of her mother interrogating her about whether she had lost her virginity yet. Eventually her mother forced her to go to the gyno to check her hymen. I remember my horror when my friend sobbed to me how she cried all through her OBGYN exam while the nurses crooned to her that she was a big girl now. She wasn’t ready to have sex; she wasn’t ready to be penetrated even by the gyno’s clamps. And her mother traumatized the shit out of her with this chastity bullshit. And I live in NY, just outside the city, not some middle-American town ruled by conservative values.

She stayed with that guy well into college, and they never consummated the relationship. That happened with her next boyfriend who she knew for hardly two months. And she's hardly talked to her mother since she's been on her own. My point is- why the cloak and dagger?

Eventually her mother forced her to go to the gyno to check her hymen. I remember my horror when my friend sobbed to me how she cried all through her OBGYN exam

For God's sake! How is that legal or ethical for medical professionals at all? That's one of the most horrible things I've ever heard--it's medical rape if I've ever heard it. Hadn't her mother ever read that you can break or not have your hymen in so many ways? I never had one, and I didn't lose my virginity until I was pretty far along in years.

Maybe I'm more fearful of adolescent sexuality than I thought, but, jesus - Morosa, a 24 year old having sex with a 13 year old? I just find that sort of appalling. If a 24 year old isn't old enough to understand that a thirteen year girl is just aping maturity, and is in fact just a child playing grown-up, maybe he's not ready for a sexual relationship himself.

I'll try to rationalize why I find it more disturbing for a grown man to sleep with a thirteen year old, as opposed to a couple of teenagers sleeping with each other. I guess I think when both parts of the "couple" are a similar age, they're sort of growing up and learning together. Instead of an adult raising a child in the guise of her being his "girlfriend". Cause really, where does one draw the line in terms of age? A ten-year old girl can be eager to play grown up and have a boyfriend and have sex. Trying to be "mature" and act like an adult is an integral part of growing up. So is a ten-year old dating a twenty-four year old okay? I mean, a ten-year old can show early development and have the secondary sexual characteristics that give a normal, non-pedophile male a hard-on, and be willing and eager to be in a sexual relationship just like a grown-up. Is this okay? There's consent, right?

I'm reminded of a friend of my family who left his wife for a woman he'd been sleeping with since she was sixteen or seventeen, and he was in forties. When my mother commented that the girlfriend/(eventual wife) was nice or sweet or something to that effect, my father said "Yeah, he did a fine job raising her." The power dynamics informing relationships with such huge age differences trouble me.

Ksms:

A 24 year old having sex with a 13 year old? I just find that sort of appalling.

Your reaction is pretty tame compared to what I'm used to hearing (in the rare situations when I'm put on the spot to explain it).

Looking back, I would have to say that physical relations with my forty-something highschool janitor when I was fifteen was probably more appalling by a long shot. I can think of a few other scenarios that you might find even worse. (This impulsivity & attention-seeking behavior was something my partner and I had to work through for a while.) I was an immature and deeply disturbed adolescent, but the one thing I always seemed to be good at was reading people's motivations. The man that I've spent the past six years of my life with has never had selfish or unkind motivations.

So is a ten-year old dating a twenty-four year old okay? I mean, a ten-year old can show early development and have the secondary sexual characteristics that give a normal, non-pedophile male a hard-on, and be willing and eager to be in a sexual relationship just like a grown-up. Is this okay? There's consent, right?

Is this something you'd like me to give my opinion on, or...?

The power dynamics informing relationships with such huge age differences trouble me.

As it should. There is bound to be a power imbalance when there is such a significant age gap, especially when the younger partner is just a teenager. I have absolutely no shame in saying that in many ways my partner helped to raise me. He influenced my development in a positive way. In my teen years I was very reckless and impulsive. Now that I'm a bit older, my harmful behaviors have lessened significantly and the power is somewhat balanced between us. I've become more stable, I've matured, and he knows that pseudo-paternal guidance is no longer appropriate or necessary.

I totally agree with lizadilly. Why is it controversial to want to properly parent your young children so that they can have some foundation upon which to negotiate the path of their emerging sexuality?????. It is normal to want to set some kind of parental boundaries without thinking that teen sex is icky or gross. I have two boys who will not be taught sex is bad but will know my views about boundaries and act accordingly...They already know to ask any question regarding sexuality and be sure that we will be honest and open about the topic.

morosa, I am sure you and many other girls and young women in caring relationships turn out fine. When I was working at a junior high school in Japan, out of 23 male teachers, I knew of three who had lasting marriages with their former students, and professional boundaries in Japan are much more lax. [Some girls approached me, too, but I kept my distance. One mother, an elementary school teacher, offered me her 14 year old daughter when I informed her of the girl's inappropriate behavior. WTF.] I am also not as sensitive as I should be when I read about American teenaged boys willingly having sex with adult women such as teachers, and the adults get arrested.

My question for you is, how do we prevent exploitation of girls and boys if such relationships are socially accepted or legalized? Who will be an objective judge?

While reading about US consent laws I came across this forum (I am assuming all posters are truthful), where the group's aim is to reform age of consent and statutory rape laws:

http://www.moraloutrage.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1448

"Im 16 too and my boyfriend is 56 but its legal in pennyslvania because im the age of consent"

The claim is it's legal in PA, but wow. The other 16 year old, with a 21 year old lover, wrote:

"Also, usually the sex is consentual right? Which means the girl also played a role. For example, I was the one who initiated sexual activity."

The reply, in all caps:

"YES MOST SEX IS CONSENSUAL. I WOULD HATE MYSELF IF MY BOYFRIEND GOT INTO TROUBLE WHEN I WAS THE ONE THAT CONSENTED TO THE SEX."

No, her boyfriend should get into trouble because apparently some of the sex is rape of a girl 40 years younger than he is.

When is it ok for a child to give consent to an adult? When is an adult pursuing a relationship with a significantly younger child NOT a mere pedophile? Acting as a mentor, teacher or parent figure in a continuing relationship is a common fantasy among pedophiles.

On the same forum, it is noted that Canada is in the process of raising their age of consent from 14 to 16, because allegedly "Canada has been a target destination for pedophiles." (I thought southeast Asia was the hunting ground of globetrotting male hetero pedophiles.) The original source, a pro-life site:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/dec/07121406.html

This site also claims "pedophile websites that are forced out of the United States by authorities find their material welcomed in Canada." The visitors to the sites in question are seeking sex with underage boys, and information is exchanged, i.e., they are indeed sexual predators.

Cases like yours are problematic when discussing exploitation of children.

"Why is it controversial to want to properly parent your young children so that they can have some foundation upon which to negotiate the path of their emerging sexuality?????"

I don't think anyone is saying that is controversial. What is controversial is the idea of parents being totally uncomfortable with their teenagers having sex in their home but still, expecting that their teen could have sex. But where?

I agree that there are impulsive, immature teens in today's Western culture. But then I keep thinking of how much adolescence is a recent development and not recognized in all cultures. More responsibility used to be expected at 12 years old. I don't think teenagers immaturity and whatnot is a genetic inevitability. And of course bad decisions can be made at any age. I don't like that we expect and accept certain behaviour from teens just because they're teens. But then we want to prevent them from doing certain activities because of assumed immaturity. Yes, I know there are teens who actually aren't ready for certain things but I think society makes a lot of assumptions about teens.

I know I can't completely understand the fear of teenage pregnancy unless I have a teenager but I mean, what are the options? Figure out how to get your child to postpone sex until they are on their own and/or give them all the information they need and trust the teenagers and birth control. It is quite something how low the Netherland's teenage birth rate is.

Well...I don't think adolescence is a recent development. Our understanding of it, perhaps, but if you go back through old records, adolescence as a state is pretty clearly there, in folk traditions involving young unmarried people playing kissing games, in parish injury records (seriously: when you read a sixteenth-century account of how a young fellow and girl wound up injured because they were flirting on a bridge by tossing his knife back and forth to each other--well, you know that "young" in this case means around 15, not around 25). There's also Shakespeare's famous quotation from The Winter's Tale about the ages between 15 and 25 being good for nothing but getting into trouble, brawling, and getting wenches with child.

I've been really interested in recent brain development studies that suggest that brain function in adolescents is actually significantly different from brain function in adults.

And, I agree with EG. I mean can't sex be something that is more openly talked about and seen more as natural while still being something private when it is done? I don't think it is a strange thing to not want proof of your parents' or children's sex lives. It doesn't mean you're not okay with it.

And A male said, "I propose that more openness can also result in more honesty."
Yes, I'm sure, at least for many. And if the parents expectations seem reasonable ("I don't expect you to not have sex ever but you should wait till you're ready and have a good relationship with someone") then I'd think they'd be more likely to follow.

EG "I've been really interested in recent brain development studies that suggest that brain function in adolescents is actually significantly different from brain function in adults."

Hey EG - this might interest you. It's the syllabus from a course on social-developmental-biological perspectives on adolescent development with lots of brain stuff a few winters ago. Knife tossing wasn't covered until spring quarter.

http://www.cbd.ucla.edu/lectures/CBD%20adoles%20course%20syl%20fin.doc

Huh, that's interesting. I've never heard those things.
I would be interested to see the difference between the brains of 15 and 30 year olds in cultures in which they do not recognize adolescence.

Ahhhh, I want to take that course now.

I don't think it is a strange thing to not want proof of your parents' or children's sex lives. It doesn't mean you're not okay with it.

It's not strange. But I think it's a problem when personal discomfort is used as a justification for seriously limiting someone's ability to develop/experience their sexuality.

I say "seriously" because questions like "what if they want to have an orgy, aren't there limits?" set up a strawperson to argue against. No one is saying there aren't limits. But I have a problem when discomfort and a desire to "not have proof" of sexuality are used as rational justifications. In and of itself, it's not a very good reason to restrict someone's behavior. There may be other reasons that are perfectly valid! I just don't see how that one is.

A male:

My question for you is, how do we prevent exploitation of girls and boys if such relationships are socially accepted or legalized? Who will be an objective judge?

In my comments I never advocated the legalization of adult/child partnerships and I never said adult/child partnerships should be socially acceptable. I was just sharing the story of my own adolescence.

When is it ok for a child to give consent to an adult? When is an adult pursuing a relationship with a significantly younger child NOT a mere pedophile? Acting as a mentor, teacher or parent figure in a continuing relationship is a common fantasy among pedophiles.

Child sex offender is not a synonym for pedophile. The criminalization of both has led to much confusion between the two.

Yep, I'm coming late to this thread, but I finally got around to reading the journal article by Amy Schalet. It's quite striking and I'm definitely filing it away in my burgeoning 'sexuality' file for future reference.

Vis a vis the question about lovers sleeping over, which was the focus of the article:

My mom, because of her own experience growing up, believes that teenagers are going to find a way to do what they want to do, whether or not you 'forbid' it as a parent. So she and my dad decided early on that they wanted us to have the privacy to explore our sexuality in the house, since if we were going to do it anyway. Basically, they would rather know where we were (safe), with whom, etc., than worry in the middle of the night.

I'm one of three kids, and I actually never had a sexual relationship while I was living with them . . . but my brother and sister did (with and without actual intercourse-sex), and it was fine with my parents for them to take people upstairs (our domain), behind closed doors. Sometimes they stayed over, sometimes not.

Of course we all got the basic sex ed talk, as well as conversations about emotional stuff, and whatever support we needed in that area.

And the "ick" factor, at least for me, wasn't really an issue. I mean, I lived in my parents' house for over twenty years and, um, I'm pretty sure they were sexually active during that time . . . and if I'm grossed out by that, as long as they're in their bedroom, it's MY problem, not theirs.

My question with the "not in my house"/"I don't want to know" policy is always, "So where are teenagers supposed to explore sexual intimacy if they can't explore it in their own space?" I think I would have felt pretty rejected if I had been told I couldn't have the privacy of my own room, with all its familiarity, to explore a sexual relationship . . . if I had been in a position to do so.

Another thing that struck me about the article is that, in Europe, living in your parents' home is not equated with dependency so much as it is here (as was clear in the way American parents' framed the "not in my house" argument). The Europeans I know, many of them have lived with their parents well into their twenties, and they've negotiated adult relationships with their parents. So living under the same roof probably doesn't have the same connotations of immaturity in the Netherlands as it does here.

"In my comments I never advocated the legalization of adult/child partnerships and I never said adult/child partnerships should be socially acceptable. I was just sharing the story of my own adolescence."

Which is why I respect your individuality. Whose business is it that today a 19 year old is with a 29 year old? No one's, not even your respective parents or the law. But you also know that "properly" handled under the law, it would not have been permitted six years prior, and your boyfriend would have been arrested and jailed in any of the 50 US states or most countries of the world. How can this be reconciled, for anyone else currently in such a relationship, to avoid these issues? And how do we justly punish the actual predators that exist if legal or social restrictions are loosened? Your life is none of my business, but if your boyfriend (I use him for example because I assume by your description he is a decent human being) ever came to my house on the arm of *my* daughter at 13, he would not be welcomed, is the *very* least of all possible outcomes. I wouldn't be ready for my children having sex with kids their own age at 13. And it is quite probable that age would be my only issue. With no indicators to suggest different (they are 7 and 9), my current assumption for when they will become sexually active is 14.

"Child sex offender is not a synonym for pedophile. The criminalization of both has led to much confusion between the two. "

Correct. By definition as opposed to colloquial usage, a pedophile is someone with a (sexual) attraction to the young, even if they never, ever, act upon those impulses, and exhibit no "symptoms" - note pedophile to a professional probably indicates a recognized mental disorder - I make no such claim. Simply being a pedophile is not criminal. A child molester, sex offender, or someone who views, trades in or creates child pornography, is indeed different.

Both of us understanding this, the question remains - how do we know an adult attracted to or pursuing a relationship with someone significantly younger than themselves is actually interested in them as an equal human being (arguably, your boyfriend was not if he was "pseudo paternal" when you were younger), and not a pedophile who just likes them young? (Note a pedophile may also be, or remain sexually attracted to adults.) Who can be the objective judge? Apparently the law, most parents, or the general public cannot be trusted in cases like yours.

"I finally got around to reading the journal article by Amy Schalet. It's quite striking and I'm definitely filing it away in my burgeoning 'sexuality' file for future reference."

It's fascinating, is it not? What continues to puzzle me, is despite the changes in the previous three decades which resulted in the sexual openness enjoyed by many in the Netherlands, the interviewed parents continue to report a disapproval for "one night stands" and casual sex, despite being a "perfect" contraception society with abortion free of charge. Also, Dutch teens reported starting sex later, and having fewer sex partners than those in the US. I do not believe it is as simple as "love" being promoted in sex education, or parental concepts of "proper" sexual relations as "courtship."

"And the "ick" factor, at least for me, wasn't really an issue."

I believe my children may be ready for sex with people their own age at 14, and I'll be as open as I can, but I still don't want to hear them at it. That would be like listening to my own kids in child porn, yes?

i think my parents are getting more conservative as they age. when i was 16, my mother accidentally found my birth control pills. it was awkward. she stared at them. i stared at them. after what felt like an hour of staring she said, "well, as long as you are being safe..." and shrugged and walked out. we never spoke of it again.

fast forward to the present. my intended and i decide to move across the country (for various reasons) to where my parents currently live. we planned on getting an apartment as soon as we got out here, but due to financial factors, we are living with my parents until we can save enough money. (just a few more months and we should be ready!!)

anyways. the other day my little brother came up to me after my guy and i had gotten out of the shower and said, "mom told me to tell you not to shower together anymore in her house." uhh... we have our own bathroom and everything, so im not even sure how she knew what we were doing, OR why she feels its her business.

there have been a few other times when we were having sex and my mom knocked on the door. "stop doing what youre doing and come do the dishes!"

on a related note, my guy is european and his parents were always ok with us having sex in their house when were there. as long as the door was shut and we were discreet.

What continues to puzzle me [is that] the interviewed parents continue to report a disapproval for "one night stands" and casual sex

I think it fits into the paradigm she was talking about, that sexual expression is normalized in the context of love relationships, so committed, intimate relationships are privileged culturally over casual sex.

Also, Dutch teens reported starting sex later, and having fewer sex partners than those in the US.

I think there are some Scandinavian statistics similar to this also.

This stat makes some sense to me, in that the Dutch seem to emphasize self-knowledge and a more gradual, holistic approach to sexual relationships, so that young people explore their sexuality together, but may delay more intense types of sexual activity, like intercourse.

It seems like, if kids are being encouraged to pay attention to and trust their own instincts and readiness--and respect the instincts and readiness in their partners--it makes sense that sexual activity is delayed.

I'll be as open as I can, but I still don't want to hear them at it.

And as to sexual relations under parental roofs . . . I keep coming back to the fact that, in households, people DO have sexual relationships, and it seems unfair to privilege parental sexual relationships over children's sexual relationships. As long as the kids are living in the house, it's THEIR house to, and I think that they deserve to bring lovers into their own space.

Consideration for others is necessary for community life, of course (to paraphrase Dorothy Sayers), so kids should have to follow the same rules of courtesy as their parents. But how do we justify a double standard?

I feel for those who report squeamish parents or those who are insensitive or rude to teens or adult children. I do.

However, I was also a teen 20 years ago, and I continue to live in a house my mother owns (a newer one miles away from hers). It remains her house (I need to remind her sometimes), and she can make any rules she sees fit such as telling me to get rid of my chickens because they were "dirty" (I did), or express any opinions about the house such as how well or poorly we are keeping it up (despite working full time with two kids, the house she lives in was always clean, and the professionally landscaped yard is the best it has ever been in 43 years - she's always upset *this* place is so messy and overgrown with weeds with crap outside visible from the street).

If I ever have my own place, I expect similar respect from my children, and reserve the same rights as their parents while they are under "my" roof. The authority is held by the owner of the house, or some other figure such as parental renters, not the children. I will be open, but they will not make demands of me (such as, I have mentioned, that I pay for college - I save money for them because I feel like it, as a "responsible" parent). If I lived by my kid's rules (and they have demonstrated this numerous times), they would watch TV till bedtime without doing their homework or helping around the house, just showing up when hungry to eat then walking away empty handed when done, as if in a restaurant or hotel.

And about sex: I wait till our kids are asleep, and I have personally verified they continue to be heavy sleepers. They can pass out cold, even if sitting upright, and in my daughter's case, even while in the act of eating. Listening to my kids and their lovers going at it as teens (I can be awake at any given time of day or night because of my schedule) would technically still be like listening to my own kids in child porn, no matter how I felt about it. If and when I awakened as a child to overhear my own parents, say once a month, I ignored it, as they were my parents, and it was their house. I understood that as a child.

Eddie Murphy "Delirious" comes to mind for some reason.

Also BTW: My wife lived in her aunt's house until we moved in together after we were married. It didn't stay at her place, it never would have been permitted anyway, and she did not stay at mine, even at the age of 26. When we had sex, we went to the city about an hour away, and secretly got a room. Ideally, the townspeople weren't even supposed to know we were a couple.

The two or three times I had sex with the previous woman I was engaged to marry three years before in the US (at 23), was at her place when her mother was out.

My parents couldn't be sure I was sexually active till marriage. Personally, I liked "sneaking around," though I wouldn't recommend it to my children, for safety concerns. Luckily, I was not a rapist, as my two fiancees were most enthusiastic (before marriage).

Hmm. A male, it sounds like we have fairly different philosophies when it comes to parenting and family dynamics. My parents were very communal in their approach, and while they certainly remained "parents" (as opposed to "buddies") when we were growing up, everyone in our home thought of it as our home.

Clearly, young children and even younger teens are different from older teenagers and young adults (all of us lived under our parents' roof through at least some of college and have been in and out since). As we grew older, we had increasing autonomy, such as the authority to determine when or if we came home at night. Even when we were still financially dependent on our parents.

While obviously, you have the prerogative to have a different parenting style, I'm a little puzzled by the emphasis on whose house it is--eg:

If and when I awakened as a child to overhear my own parents, say once a month, I ignored it, as they were my parents, and it was their house.

So, human beings earn the right to have sex by being financially solvent enough to have a house or rent a hotel room? I find that a troubling conclusion. I think the freedom to form intimate attachments, including sexual relationships, shouldn't be a privilege we earn by having all of our shit together; I believe it's a basic human right.

"As we grew older, we had increasing autonomy, such as the authority to determine when or if we came home at night."

Wow. I believe my latest official bedtime in high school was 10pm, and going out was for weekends only. The curfew then was midnight, though I didn't go out.

"So, human beings earn the right to have sex by being financially solvent enough to have a house or rent a hotel room?"

No. I said I, unlike apparently 90% of American parents in the study (why would I be viewed as the odd one?), would even allow my kids and their partners in my home, and not necessarily wait until 17 like many Dutch would. Like the one Dutch mother, I simply won't have to like what goes on behind bedroom doors.

"I find that a troubling conclusion."

As a matter of fact, if more people actually waited until they were "mature" enough to experiment with sex, including having enough money to support themselves, we'd have fewer social problems, regardless of the availability of bc, EC, and abortion. If my daughter or my son's girlfriend become pregnant at 14, guess who the financial burden likely falls upon, abortion or no abortion? The taxpayer? The boyfriend or my son? No-o. Believing my kids might start having sex at 14, for better or worse, is simply accepting reality. Their college money might become grandchild support.

"I believe it's a basic human right."

How old?

if more people actually waited until they were "mature" enough to experiment with sex, including having enough money to support themselves, we'd have fewer social problems

I didn't say we'd have fewer social/financial problems, I simply said I find it a troubling argument that people who are less financially privileged are somehow less entitled to sexual relationships.

Sure, if we as a society could prevent anyone without proper credentials from procreating, we might be able to ensure no children were born into poverty, into emotionally unstable homes, to less than "perfect" situations . . . but that's not really the society I'm interested in living in.

I realize that's not what you're advocating, and it's an extreme sort of dystopian scenario, but that's why I find it troubling to start monitoring intimate relationships.

"I believe it's a basic human right."

How old?

Fair question, but I'm not really sure how useful it is to name some arbitrary age. Some fourteen-year-olds are way more developmentally mature than some thirty-year-olds. In the Dutch cases, the parents were talking about older teens (sixteen, seventeen), not younger teens. And the permission for sleepovers happened in the context of a society that supported teenagers relationships and their ability to take responsibility for their relationships.

Rather than naming an age, I would argue that--in America--we need to re-orient ourselves away from the "irresponsible, hormonal teenagers" model and instead think of them as individuals who are capable of growing into adult human beings, and that part of that growing up includes coming into their own adult sexuality and exploring it without shame or undue interference, either from the law or from their parents.

This doesn't mean, of course, that I reject legal and parental protection of young people from adult sexuality, particularly at a younger age. But the situation we're talking about here is older teens in relationships with other teens wanting to make love with their partners in their own homes.

AJC "I believe it's a basic human right."
AM "How old?"
AJC "Fair question, but I'm not really sure how useful it is to name some arbitrary age. Some fourteen-year-olds are way more developmentally mature than some thirty-year-olds."

Then someone is going to need to answer my question to morosa. How do we allow what may be sincere relationships, while protecting children from exploitation? I knew a girl in Japan who was 11 (and looked it) in a sexual relationship with a man of 25, had an abortion at 12; and upon graduating 9th grade at 15, the end of Japanese compulsory education, ended her education to prepare for marriage at 16, the Japanese age of consent; with her parents' blessing. Other than her age, I did not consider the girl any more screwed up in the head than the average person in that town, and no authority figures, not the parents, not the teachers, not the town board of education, not social workers, not the police, treated her as a victim or the man as a rapist; and no one acted on her case, despite it being no secret.

I also knew two sisters, 12 and 15 (and looked it), who were competing for the physical love of their 19 year old male first cousin. Both were friends of mine, and I had to listen to the younger one in particular about her hormones and desires. As I said, the professional line between teacher and student is often blurred in Japan.

"But the situation we're talking about here is older teens in relationships with other teens wanting to make love with their partners in their own homes."

And I've said numerous times that my current assumption for when my children will be sexually active is 14, and I'll be as open as I can, including being supportive of their reproductive choices, up to and including financially supporting their children, or "allowing" them to be sexually active, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of Americans, and I would allow relations in "my" home for safety concerns alone. It would be a little harder for rape to occur. But I hope a ten years older lover is not going to come home to meet me, because we will have a problem. I'm not as "open" as those rural Japanese.

Correction, the 15 year old girl was not ending her education at 9th grade with her parents' blessing, her mother's words were, why go to school if she was going to get married? That was dumb.

In and of itself, it's not a very good reason to restrict someone's behavior. There may be other reasons that are perfectly valid! I just don't see how that one is.

I disagree. I think it is a very good reason--it is the essential nature of living with other human beings. I may like leaving my dirty socks lying around the living room, but if I am living with someone who thinks that coming home to a living room of dirty socks is gross, then that person has the right to request that I pick up my damn socks. Or he/she may be a vegetarian and be grossed out by coming home to the smell of me broiling a steak. If we have a relationship of equals, like that of roommates, I can point out that I pay half the rent and I like having dirty socks around, and she can point out that that's sort of freakishly unusual, and we can decide either to part ways or to come to some kind of equitable arrangement (I can leave dirty socks around on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays, but not the others). But if we're not in an equal relationship, and nothing about the parent-child relationship is equal, then, yeah, the dominant person in the hierarchy gets to lay down the rules based on what he/she needs in order to make a liveable life, maintain sanity, and not strangle her obnoxious 15-year-old. So if my sister, who became a vegetarian at 11, announced at the age of 15 that she was grossed out by mother broiling herself a steak and didn't want to have to smell it, my mother could, and did, tell her to suck it up and deal.

I
Which is my response to Anna's question about a "double standard" between parent and child--family relationships are full of such double standards. Parents of adolescents do the bulk of the domestic labor and provide for their kids' welfare, protect them from harm as best they can, treat them for illness, etc. Kids, including teenage kids, can make demands on parents that they can't on other people; in return, parents can set ground rules for kids that other people don't have the right to set. If that encourages the kids to move out before they turn 20, well, in my opinion, so much the better. I know people in their mid-20s who still live with their parents and are unable/unwilling to move out on their own, and it's not pretty.

I also don't really advocate a double standard when it comes to this: fifteen-year-olds shouldn't have to listen to their parents having sex either. Everyone makes the occasional slip-up, and parents are human, so if once in a while a kid wakes up at 3 in the morning and hears things, well, that is life. Similarly, if once in a long while over a two-year adolescent relationship a parent comes home early and hears things, that's a shame, but not really horrible. A simple "Hey, kiddo/Ma/Dad...remember to keep it down, please?" should suffice. But if it's happening regularly, that's just obnoxious disregard for the comfort levels of other people who have just as much of a right to feel comfortable and relaxed in their own home as you.

f I had a roommate who insisted on having loud sex, I would be similarly annoyed. And we'd either have to work it out in some way (I'd set up regular times to be out of the house and she'd agree not to have the loud sex at other times, or some such thing) or one of us would have to move out. But recognizing and respecting other people's "Ick" levels is an essential part of living with other people.

Which is why I like to live alone.

Then someone is going to need to answer my question to morosa. How do we allow what may be sincere relationships, while protecting children from exploitation?

I don't have a problem with laws and social norms that place extra scrutiny on overage/underage relationships. I DO think that children (and eleven-year-olds are still children in my book) deserve protection from adult sexuality (as I said above). Absolutely. An eleven year old in a relationship with someone who's an adult is going to be very different from an eleven year old exploring their sexuality (if they want to) with another eleven-year old. We can't, and shouldn't, ignore the power differential when there's a huge age gap.

Some of those situations are difficult to sort out--such as the one morosa describes, and relationships between older/younger teens that are technically over/under age pairings (like if one is 19 and the other 16). I don't know how we negotiate these incidences to protect people from being exploited, but I agree that we need to have a framework in place that recognizes that younger people are vulnerable to exploitation and that we have a collective responsibility to protect them.

But recognizing and respecting other people's "Ick" levels is an essential part of living with other people.

There's a difference between basic respect for others you are living with (basic human courtesy, I agree) and treating young adults' sexual relationships as less legitimate than "adult" relationships. That was what the original article was talking about: parents who didn't want their children to have sex in the house because they didn't want to know their kids were sexually active, not that there was pattern of the couples being loud or indiscreet. The very possibility was being rejected out of hand. That's what I found offensive about the attitudes in the article.

I know lots of people who have towed the "not in MY house" with their children and their lovers throughout and long after they've passed adolescence. I know every family has its own particular relationship dynamics, but I think it's a curious pattern here in America that parents have an aversion to their children developing into sexual beings (here I'm speaking in generalities, drawing from the article). I think it's perfectly possible to respect communal living spaces and also create privacy for sexual intimacy in family homes. And I think it's strange that many parents seem to reject the notion out of hand.

Being Dutch, this comparison was interesting to me. I'm sure me and many others (non-Americans) have stood in amazement at the controlling and above all fearful attitude many American parents seem to exhibit.

As to the "Not under my roof" thing, which (judging by the comments) also garners some support under the more liberal parents - I don't get it. At all. If anything, I'd WANT my children to have their first sexual experience under my roof. I'd WANT them to be able to trust me enough to experiment and be safe in my house. What's the alternative? For them to have a quickie on a parking lot? A public bathroom? A tennis court? If your concern is their safety, then the only thing that makes sense is to ensure they are informed and protected, are doing whatever they do out of their free will, and are in a safe place when the time comes to take that next step. I want to be there for them and I want to be open about that, so that SHOULD something happen, I'm near.

The whole "ick factor" issue appealed to above to me is simply childish. Changing a baby's diaper is "ick" too. The whole attitude alludes to a tabooification (excuse the inventive vocabulary) of natural sexual behaviour and shame that's projected on your children. I doubt that's healthy.

Hm, I can't seem to edit my previous entry.

Just wanted to add the issue of dramatizing teen sexuality reminded of Frank Furedi's book Paranoid Parenting.

A review found here: http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/books/story/0,10595,514542,00.html

I don't find changing a baby's diaper particularly icky, and I've changed a lot of diapers in my time. If someone does, that's a very good reason not to have children.

Morgan, you really have no reason to claim that finding listening to other people having sex icky has anything to do with shame (it does have to do with taboos; but taboos aren't inherently bad--they usually signal an area of immense charge). I don't want to watch my fifteen-year-old pop her pimples, either, because that's gross. But I don't particularly find acne, or the act of popping pimples shameful. I just don't want to watch it.

"I think it's a curious pattern here in America that parents have an aversion to their children developing into sexual beings"

The same can be said for children's (particularly adolescent/teen) discomfort with parent sexuality. As in (hypothetical) "Ew, dad, gross," if a father and wife merely kiss in front of the children, or anger/disgust when single parents resume dating.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuaIJGJNbzo

"The whole 'ick factor' issue appealed to above to me is simply childish."

My "open mindedness" simply hearing about children's sexual feelings or relationships in Japan including what were obviously child molestation and incest is one thing. How should I react to actually overhearing children having sex? Should I recognize their performance based upon what I overhear? It would seem natural, particularly if it sounds painful, especially loud, or as one poster mentioned much earlier, the furniture gets damaged. If I was able to overhear it, I don't believe I would allow the bed to get broken, unless they plan on paying for a new one themselves, Perhaps they need to learn to do it on a mat on the floor like Japanese. Being respectful of people outside the door is no different than parents being respectful of children having sex inside. If I am unwelcome inside, why should I be subject to hearing them? Can I turn up the television or put in an adult video so they must hear it during a private or intimate moment? And don't suggest I just ignore it, much less retreat from MY house.

"The whole attitude alludes to a tabooification"

No, it's recognizing there is a proper time or place for everything, as well as a "proper" way to do it. Such as, I hope my kids wait until they are ready for sex, much older than the simple onset of puberty, and they can have some discretion, such as not doing it in a car, where they could be subject to attack, public shame, or the law. Keeping it quiet in the house behind closed doors when others are present is respectful of manners, as well. I'm not entitled to just have sex in the living room with others awake in the house because I feel like it, and others in that "community" of family should be mindful as well.