How young is too young for sex?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to tell the mother what you know -- not what you've concluded, but what you actually know/observed/heard/seen.

I think the mother will be supportive. But, if she denies or accuses you, then the correct thing to do is contact the school counselor. You do not take the 13 yr. old to get birth control -- not that you could anyway b/c she is a minor and would need parents permission to be treated by a doctor.

You are incorrect.

A 13 year old does not need her parents' permission or even knowlege to get birth control, an abortion or treated for an STD.

It is unfortunate but this is the ridiculously stupid world we live in that puts a political issue ahead of the health, safety, well being and future of what are essentially children.

It's interesting that you should say that, because I think that allowing 13-year-olds to get the health care they need actually is putting their health, safety, well-being, and future first.

[Anonymous]

Young teens having sex is not healthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Young teens having sex is not healthy.

Nonetheless, there are young teens who have sex. Not many, but some. Which is better for their health?

Option 1: it would be better if they weren't having sex, but given that they are, they also have access to contraception and STI testing/treatment
Option 2: it would be better if they weren't having sex, even though they are, therefore they should have no access to contraception and STI testing/treatment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Young teens having sex is not healthy.

Nonetheless, there are young teens who have sex. Not many, but some. Which is better for their health?

Option 1: it would be better if they weren't having sex, but given that they are, they also have access to contraception and STI testing/treatment
Option 2: it would be better if they weren't having sex, even though they are, therefore they should have no access to contraception and STI testing/treatment

Answer:
Option 3: Two parents who parent their child

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Hold up. So allowing a 13 year old girl to date a 17 year old boy to date is going to keep them from having sex?

Maybe. My parents allowed me to date a 24-year-old when I was 17, and we didn't have sex. Or maybe allowing a 13-year-old girl to date boys closer to her own age would have stopped her from dating, not to mention having sex with, a 17-year-old boy.

Do you remember being a teenager? For many teenagers, nothing is more enticing than something your parents forbid you to do because they say you're too young.

I get what you are saying but there is an huge difference between a 17 year old and a 13 year old. A 13 year old is still a child in my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Young teens having sex is not healthy.

Young teens can have healthy sex or unhealthy and risky sex. Much the same way anyone can have healthy sex or unhealthy/risky sex. I don't think a blanket such determination can be made.

IMO healthy relationships, access to information, access to health resources, and a true understanding of informed consent are the necessary ingredients for having sex to be healthy. Not all people or all relationships are equal, and I certainly think it is possible for a teen to be having safe, healthy sexual relations.

Not that I did not say it was ever ideal. The only reason I believe it is inherently a bad idea for young teens to have sex, however, is the practical aspect of our laws. Frankly, I find our age of consent laws utterly ridiculous, and I wish our laws were more similar to the laws in the Netherlands. Were it not for U.S. law, I would say teen sex, like all sex, ought to be a carefully considered choice for each individual and couple.

To give my opinion on the question in the thread title, in an ideal or theoretical world, puberty. In the U.S. right now, any age before it is legal to be having sex with whoever the teen is having sex with, not because I believe the law has the right idea but simply because the potential consequences are just not worth it in our current justice system.

Theoretically and ethically, I do not believe it is best to tell the parent. I don't think it is truly anyone's business other than the people engaging in the sexual activity, unless there is good reason to believe it is nonconsensual sex. What I would ideally like to see is a legal and societal framework where kids in and after puberty have private access to all manner of healthcare, ranging from primary care to mental health care to care for sexual and reproductive issues. I would prefer it if methods of birth control were easily available to all people, including teens, and if legally teens could choose to involve their parents or other trusted adults in their medical care. I think parental notification laws and requiring teen patients to be accompanied to (any type of) medical appointments by their parents are inherently unethical. I don't think it is a parent's business whether or with whom their teens are sexually active, unless the teen chooses to share. In my case as a parent, one of my DDs told me as soon as she was considering becoming intimate with her BF, one told me a bit after the fact, and one told me only years later that she had been sexually active for a while. They always had access to birth control and regular appointments with the gynecologist regardless, and none of the kids appear to be having any problems resulting from having first had sex at a range of ages from 12 to 21. I always told my daughters that they were in charge of their bodies and that they were the ones to decide what to consent to... and IMO if this is going to work for empowering people to say no, it also needs to apply to choosing to say yes.

That said, that's all a theoretical answer to the question posed by the title, which I think is a bit different than the question in OP's situation. That question isn't "is the teen too young?" it is "do I need to tell the parents?" While I would argue against the morality, I think practically speaking yes, OP did need to do as she did and inform the parents.
The young lady didn't appear from OP's post to have had access to reliable sources of information about her sexual health and the choices she was making. The current legal situation doesn't really allow anyone other than the parents to truly step in and provide all the resources needed to make safe and informed decisions or see to the girl's medical care. The legal situation is potentially precarious for the young teen and older partner. And there is some minor possibility OP could become viewed as complicit in the situation if anything was legally off and she allowed it to go on when she had suspicions it was occurring.

Thus, although I truly think it is wrong to inform anyone about anyone else's sex life unless abuse is suspected, and although I believe it is wrong to restrict teen sexuality the way we do and especially to allow parents to be the ones to do so, I would reluctantly agree with the consensus on this thread for purely practical reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Young teens having sex is not healthy.

Nonetheless, there are young teens who have sex. Not many, but some. Which is better for their health?

Option 1: it would be better if they weren't having sex, but given that they are, they also have access to contraception and STI testing/treatment
Option 2: it would be better if they weren't having sex, even though they are, therefore they should have no access to contraception and STI testing/treatment

Answer:
Option 3: Two parents who parent their child

Sometimes Option 3 is not an option. Then what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Young teens having sex is not healthy.

Nonetheless, there are young teens who have sex. Not many, but some. Which is better for their health?

Option 1: it would be better if they weren't having sex, but given that they are, they also have access to contraception and STI testing/treatment
Option 2: it would be better if they weren't having sex, even though they are, therefore they should have no access to contraception and STI testing/treatment

What is best for their health is to give their parents the knowlege they need to protect them from themselves.

At 13 year old having sex is clearly demonstrating they lack the awareness, judgement, and ability to make decisions necessary to keep themselves safe, and do not possess the ability to do things with any regard for their own well being. A child making that stupid of a decision does not have the rational intelligence necessary to take care of herself should she develop and STD or complications from an abortion. These are decisions that affect the rest of her life, and a kid who is deemed too young by the law to tattoo her own body, drive a car, take her own tylenol or midol at school or sign herself out of school on a whim, along with a whole host of other things, does not have the ability or maturity to free reign manage her own sex life. Additionally, if they are having sex at 13 they are more likely than not being taken advantage of by someone who does not have their best interest in mind.

Keeping it from their parents is irresponsible and not in the best interest of the child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What is best for their health is to give their parents the knowledge they need to protect them from themselves.

At 13 year old having sex is clearly demonstrating they lack the awareness, judgement, and ability to make decisions necessary to keep themselves safe, and do not possess the ability to do things with any regard for their own well being. A child making that stupid of a decision does not have the rational intelligence necessary to take care of herself should she develop and STD or complications from an abortion. These are decisions that affect the rest of her life, and a kid who is deemed too young by the law to tattoo her own body, drive a car, take her own tylenol or midol at school or sign herself out of school on a whim, along with a whole host of other things, does not have the ability or maturity to free reign manage her own sex life. Additionally, if they are having sex at 13 they are more likely than not being taken advantage of by someone who does not have their best interest in mind.

Keeping it from their parents is irresponsible and not in the best interest of the child.

Surely that depends on the particular child's particular parents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to tell the mother what you know -- not what you've concluded, but what you actually know/observed/heard/seen.

I think the mother will be supportive. But, if she denies or accuses you, then the correct thing to do is contact the school counselor. You do not take the 13 yr. old to get birth control -- not that you could anyway b/c she is a minor and would need parents permission to be treated by a doctor.

You are incorrect.

A 13 year old does not need her parents' permission or even knowlege to get birth control, an abortion or treated for an STD.

It is unfortunate but this is the ridiculously stupid world we live in that puts a political issue ahead of the health, safety, well being and future of what are essentially children.

It's interesting that you should say that, because I think that allowing 13-year-olds to get the health care they need actually is putting their health, safety, well-being, and future first.

I'm the PP who suggested that the 13 couldn't receive medical treatment without a parent's permission. Even if what the other PP says is true, wouldn't the doctor need to report the sexual abuse of this child to the police -- it is a felony in Md and Va.? Seems like this would qualify under mandatory reporting laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What is best for their health is to give their parents the knowledge they need to protect them from themselves.

At 13 year old having sex is clearly demonstrating they lack the awareness, judgement, and ability to make decisions necessary to keep themselves safe, and do not possess the ability to do things with any regard for their own well being. A child making that stupid of a decision does not have the rational intelligence necessary to take care of herself should she develop and STD or complications from an abortion. These are decisions that affect the rest of her life, and a kid who is deemed too young by the law to tattoo her own body, drive a car, take her own tylenol or midol at school or sign herself out of school on a whim, along with a whole host of other things, does not have the ability or maturity to free reign manage her own sex life. Additionally, if they are having sex at 13 they are more likely than not being taken advantage of by someone who does not have their best interest in mind.

Keeping it from their parents is irresponsible and not in the best interest of the child.

Surely that depends on the particular child's particular parents?

For the vast majority of children.

[Anonymous]

Someone didn't teach the 13yr old values and self-worth. Is this a middle school student? Whew. Unless I knew 100% I wouldn't get involved. The kids will deny and unless she is pregnant, you can't get proof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I want you to tell me if my DS or DD was having sex at any age, until college. Period.

+100% As a mother of pre-teen daughters, please, please tell the parents asap. A 13yo is a child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone didn't teach the 13yr old values and self-worth. Is this a middle school student? Whew. Unless I knew 100% I wouldn't get involved. The kids will deny and unless she is pregnant, you can't get proof.

WTF is wrong with you? I don't pretend that this couldn't happen to any ONE of our kids, even those with the BEST PARENTS EVER, if the kid just falls in with the wrong people or meets the wrong guy. Getting through adolescence isn't all about good parenting, a lot of it is pure luck and being in the right place instead of the wrong place at the wrong time.

That's why parents need to pull together and support one another. None of this "not getting involved" bs that just pushes the problem around until later. OP did her friend a solid and told her, and she's glad she did, and almost everyone else here but you is glad, too. Too bad you're such a coward that you wouldn't help your own friend or her kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Hold up. So allowing a 13 year old girl to date a 17 year old boy to date is going to keep them from having sex?

Maybe. My parents allowed me to date a 24-year-old when I was 17, and we didn't have sex. Or maybe allowing a 13-year-old girl to date boys closer to her own age would have stopped her from dating, not to mention having sex with, a 17-year-old boy.

Do you remember being a teenager? For many teenagers, nothing is more enticing than something your parents forbid you to do because they say you're too young.

PP, maybe that worked out for you, but it's not a common experience. Who knows? Maybe you dated that one 24 year old man who was not looking for sex when dating, but if I had a teenage daughter, I'd want to know who she's dating his (or her) age and what they are doing. That would go for my son as well. An odd age difference is a warning sign.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and yes, absolutely it's a warning sign. The situation in the OP is a bad situation. But it sounds to me like maybe it's a bad situation rooted in too much parental forbidding already, in which case more parental forbidding alone won't improve the situation.

I'm not simply suggesting that "more forbidding" is the answer. Full disclosure is the answer. The fact that a 13-year-old girl lied to her parents about her 17-year-old BF shows that she knew there was something wrong with it but wanted to do it anyway and was willing to lie and scheme to indulge her impulses. That doesn't exactly scream "responsibility" to me. That, paradoxically, sounds like a cry for help, as in "Stop me before I rebel again."

The girl and her parents need family therapy now. The boy's parents need an earful from the girl's mom and dad. If anything, the boy is more culpable, due to age and also agreeing with her to lie and meet with him secretly. He doesn't sound like good dating material in any possible way. A BF who would encourage the girl to lie, to meet secretly and to hide it would more likely encourage her to engage in unprotected sex than to bring a condom and bear his share of responsibility for what happens. She's better off without him and with her parents knowing exactly what she was doing.