We live in the U.S., not Europe. Our culture is different, and we follow different rules. Our country is far larger and more heterogeneous than is the Netherlands. It's unfair to compare statistics for the two countries, and then say, "See, the Dutch know what they are doing!"

It's not a fair comparison. You have to consider context and the overall culture, and the customs of the culture. Europeans tend to have sex earlier than Americans, and tend to get married earlier. Their culture encourages earlier maturation. It's entirely different here in the U.S., where kids mature later.

I will not allow my kids to drink, do drugs or have sex under my roof. My job as their parent, is to protect them. They are not mature enough to have sex, and they don't need to experiment with drugs, or use alcohol. When their brains are more mature, and they are able to handle dealing with these things, then yes, they will be able to make their own decisions. But while they are living with me, my job is to be their parent, not their friend or co-conspirator. This is their only chance to be children, and I will protect this precious time in their lives. They have the rest of their lives to have sex, drink, do drugs, if that's what they want. I won't be able to stop them, but I hope that by then, they will make responsible decisions and good choices.

Anonymous wrote:I think PP is confusing a different set of rules with "permissiveness". There are many cultures around the world where merely to have an unmarried male and female together unchaperoned is scandalous.

These cultures would see two 19 year olds going to a movie together and would have pretty much the exact same reaction as "very permissive" PP above.

If you make rules and adhere to them it's by definition not "very permissive".

In the cultures you are talking about. Two 19 year olds can go to the movies together, the chaperone comes with, but going to the movies is possible.
I would do the same if I lived in those lands. If a raped woman is thrown in prison for immortality, I would definitely not be happy to let them out of the house

Anonymous wrote:Not all kids are going to have sex if they are in a relationship. Some kids do chose to wait for religious reasons. Perhaps not many anymore but there are a few moral kids still around.

Yes, and some wait because they don't feel ready. I waited until I was 21 because I didn't feel ready before that. Had nothing to do w/religion.

From the CDC: Sexual Risk Behavior: HIV, STD, & Teen Pregnancy Prevention
Many young people engage in sexual risk behaviors that can result in unintended health outcomes. For example, among U.S. high school students surveyed in 20091

46% had ever had sexual intercourse
34% had had sexual intercourse during the previous 3 months, and, of these
39% did not use a condom the last time they had sex
77% did not use birth control pills or Depo-Provera to prevent pregnancy the last time they had sex
14% had had sex with four or more people during their life
Sexual risk behaviors place adolescents at risk for HIV infection, other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and unintended pregnancy:

An estimated 8,300 young people aged 13–24 years in the 40 states reporting to CDC had HIV infection in 20092
Nearly half of the 19 million new STDs each year are among young people aged 15–24 years3
More than 400,000 teen girls aged 15–19 years gave birth in 20094
To reduce sexual risk behaviors and related health problems among youth, schools and other youth-serving organizations can help young people adopt lifelong attitudes and behaviors that support their health and well-being—including behaviors that reduce their risk for HIV, other STDs, and unintended pregnancy.

According to a study done a few years ago by the CDC at least one in 4 teenage American girls has a sexually transmitted disease--so yes this is a distinct possibility.

Teens having sex isn't all about feeling good and being liberated. Sadly there are often very negative consequences to teens have sex. For many teens, having sex leaves emotional scars. WebMD reports that many sexually active teens admit that they have felt used post-sex and felt bad about themselves for giving in to the sexual temptation. When compared with their virginal counterparts, sexually active teens were less likely to report feelings of happiness and more likely to exhibit signs of depression. In an even more startling study, the same source found that sexually active girls were three times more likely to attempt suicide than virgins and sexually active boys were eight times more likely to try to take their lives than non-sexually active teens.

Without a doubt teens are having sex, but as parents do we really want to encourage teenage sex by giving kids the green light to have sex at home?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with the poster who points out the hypocrisy and ultimate selfishness of "not under my roof" ("I don't care horrors my children experience so long as I'm not exposed to any potentially embarrassing behavior on their part.")

Why is refusing to allow your children to have sex in your house hypocrisy? If you are opposed to your children screwing around and they know your beliefs, how it is it hypocritical not to allow them to have sex at home? You are sending a dual message if you say "don't do this" but if you do "do this at home."

I am sorry I should have clarified, and perhaps hypocrisy is too strong a word. If you believe that having sex in your teens (or outside of marriage) is wrong under all circumstances, then of course you are not being hypocritical when you don't let your children have it in your house. But if you yourself have enjoyed sex under a variety of circumstances (not just in the context of a marriage) and you don't believe that all extramarital or all teenage sex is bad by definition, then forbidding your children from doing it under your roof does send a mixed message.

Also, I think the point the article is making is teenage sex does not equal "screwing around". It can be a beautiful thing between two young people who are in love, and we should celebrate that, instead of filling their heads with guilt and shame and our own hangups.

I see your point. But is teenage sex ever really a beautiful thing? I don't remember it that way at all and I married my high school sweetheart so obviously we were in love. Also, I am the pp whose parents let us have sleepovers. No pregnancy, no stds, no "soiled reputation." And we are still married so maybe my mom did something right.

Go ahead and let your sexually liberated child sleep with my underage teen and see how fast he has a statutory rape charge filed against him. Let them do it in your house with your consent and the next charge is filed against you. Parents. Act like parents.

We, the mighty US of A, learn from some podunk little country in...in...let's see, is it Africa? Oh no, I forgot, Africa is a country of its own.

Well anyway, no way. We tell others what to do. Shining city upon a hill and all that.

Sexually transmitted diseases--doubtful??? Glad my son won't be having anal sex with your diseased out skank that everyone whispers slut when she walks by. Committed relationships among teenagers last about as long as a bottle of beer.

It can lead to unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, emotional difficulties, poor self-esteem, lost reputations, etc

Um.. no, no, not really, doubtful, and why "lost reputations".

You sound like one of those "abstinence education instructors. While you're busy worrying about "lost reputations" your daughter's engaging in anal sex with random partners. Thanks, but when my kids are experimenting, I'll encourage healthy sex in a committed relationship.

It can be a beautiful thing between two young people who are in love, and we should celebrate that, instead of filling their heads with guilt and shame and our own hangups.

It can lead to unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, emotional difficulties, poor self-esteem, lost reputations, etc. Just because 2 kids can get it on doesn't mean that they are emotionally ready for a sexual relationship. This has nothing to do with my 'hang-ups" as you so aptly put it. I want more for my children than a series of sexual partners and problems that go along with those choices.

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with the poster who points out the hypocrisy and ultimate selfishness of "not under my roof" ("I don't care horrors my children experience so long as I'm not exposed to any potentially embarrassing behavior on their part.")

Why is refusing to allow your children to have sex in your house hypocrisy? If you are opposed to your children screwing around and they know your beliefs, how it is it hypocritical not to allow them to have sex at home? You are sending a dual message if you say "don't do this" but if you do "do this at home."

I am sorry I should have clarified, and perhaps hypocrisy is too strong a word. If you believe that having sex in your teens (or outside of marriage) is wrong under all circumstances, then of course you are not being hypocritical when you don't let your children have it in your house. But if you yourself have enjoyed sex under a variety of circumstances (not just in the context of a marriage) and you don't believe that all extramarital or all teenage sex is bad by definition, then forbidding your children from doing it under your roof does send a mixed message.

Also, I think the point the article is making is teenage sex does not equal "screwing around". It can be a beautiful thing between two young people who are in love, and we should celebrate that, instead of filling their heads with guilt and shame and our own hangups.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't you feel you can do it with your kids if it worked for your parents?

Because I can't stand the thought of listening to my kids having sex. I will get them birth control. They can always talk to me about anything with no judgment. But they have to find someplace else to do that.

Ok, I will amend this. I will not let them do it at age 15 like my parents did and I will not let them smoke pot in my house like my mom did. I actually was a very reasonable and responsible teenager because I had nothing to rebel against. I told my mom everything and I didn't do stupid things very often. But I can't see raising my kids this way. My DD is 14 and has been way more sheltered than I was and, as a result, she is not yet having sex. I hope she continues to not have sex or use drugs for quite a while. When she does decide to have sex, she will tell me and I will decide what to do about the house rules because she and I do trust each other. It will all depend on the situations and the ages of the kids when it happens.

I think PP is confusing a different set of rules with "permissiveness". There are many cultures around the world where merely to have an unmarried male and female together unchaperoned is scandalous.

These cultures would see two 19 year olds going to a movie together and would have pretty much the exact same reaction as "very permissive" PP above.

If you make rules and adhere to them it's by definition not "very permissive".