Freakish and bizarre. You move to another, less decadent, town.
knowing your kid was in the next room getting it on would be the definition of squick
True. So you check into a motel.
This would be unimaginable in the household in which I grew up. My friend Ellie's parents were the complete opposite -- she had guys spend the night in high school and her parents didn't care at all. Hell, it's still a running joke in their family about the time she was in HS and her dad caught her and one of her boyfriends having sex in the hot tub.
I figure they should either allow the sleepovers at their house or forbid the kid to sleep over at the girl's house. My instinct says the first, but I can't say I would be comfortable defending it as reasonable. (Aaaack. In nine years, Sally will be 16. Must develop rational parenting philosophy.)
In nine years, Sally will be 16. Must develop rational parenting philosophy.
In the meantime, denial rules!
First, Yoffe's advice about the parents contacting each other is madness. I can't see any way of doing that that doesn't totally alienate your own kid and risk offending the other parents: "we understand that you're immoral and raised a slut daughter, but could you please...."
Part of what's confusing about this situation is that we haven't thematized the question of whether it's somehow different to sleep over than to stay until a curfew time, even if we know there will be sex in both situations.
17? As in, still in high school? I don't think I'd okay that. Once the kid's left home, fine; then any returns are visits, and bringing a partner is just fine. I might have to adjust a bit, but okay. But there's just something kind of icky about being the "cool parent" who lets high school kids fuck in the bedroom.
I think that it's basically, if the kid is asking permission to have sex, then he/she is too young to be doing it.
Yoffe is rather among USian advice columnists in that she comes acrooss as a normal person giving earnest advice. Maybe because the others approach it as entertainment for the readers, but I wonder if it's not mainly because they're all big weirdos.
Kids these days.
In my day, parents did not allow sleepovers. They just accepted that kids were screwing in the park or in someone's house during the day when their parents were gone. What happened to those old time values?
How is the son getting around his parent's rules by just sleeping over at his girlfriend's house? Do they not expect him home by a certain hour?
10 gets it right. It's one thing to privately acknowledge that yes, your kids might be having sex, or experimenting with illicit substances, and quite another to hand your son a hash pipe and a box of condoms and pat him on the back. Kids need structure and parental rigidity to rebel against. Otherwise they will grow up lawless, or Republican.
5: Actually, I think there's a rationale for saying "sleep over there but not here": it teaches the lesson that different places have different rules that you ought to respect, even if some of those rules are not inherently better than the others. Such as, it may be OK to swear in front of some people but not in others.
13: This will also encourage a respect for national laws.
Kids need structure and parental rigidity to rebel against.
Exactly.
wtf, is wrong with you people? The kid's 17. He's not a child.
This is one of those 'remember that Americans are essentially puritans' moments.
I think that it's basically, if the kid is asking permission to have sex, then he/she is too young to be doing it.
The kid isn't asking permission to have sex, I presume he's doing that anyway. He's asking permission to stay the night at his girlfriend's house, and if her parents are cool with that it seems utterly bizarre to refuse that permission.
I am with bitchphd. High school is pretty young.
If the kid is staying out all night without permission he should be punished. If he keeps doing it, you need to contact the other parents. They probably don't know your kid is staying overnight without permission.
16: He's a minor, he's in high school, he lives with his parents, he throws "tantrums": He's a kid.
I do like having the decadent European around. The question of what we think the parents should allow, and how the parents should handle the situation, given their beliefs, are different. I agree with b's 11; if you have a rule that no one can sleep over, you can also have a rule that the kid isn't allowed to sleep over anywhere else.
That said, I think a "no sleepovers" rule is a good one, generally speaking.
Generally a big USian-euro split here, or at least I hope there is.
BPhD: "No, your girfriend can't sleep over."
17 year old PK: "My open marriage swinger parents won't let me have my girlriend over? Are you fucking kidding me? "
Hee hee.
re: 18
17 is, by no rational standard, a child.
"knowing your kid was in the next room getting it on would be the definition of squick"
Kids spend twenty years dealing with primal sounds. Parents should be able to handle a couple.
FWIW, I can understand the parents wanting to be morally consistent. I just think they're wrong.
17 is, by no rational standard, a child.
Well, except the legal one.
I'm totally with BPhD. The high school age girlfriend can't stay the night, and he needs to be home by curfew. The son's staying out all night forces his parents to acknowledge that the kids are having sex, and the parents shouldn't have to condone that. If he were a mature kid, he could earn some privileges, and some overlooking some late night returns, but it doesn't sound like the kid is ready for that.
Yoffe's advice about the parents contacting each other is madness.
I don't think it is at all. It's the same kind of thing as parents contacting each other to make sure that a party will be supervised, or that when the kid says he's sleeping over at a friend's house he's actually there and not sneaking out to one of those "raves", or whatever it is the young folks do these days. It's not a condemnation of the other parents to say that they're (perhaps inadvertantly, if they don't realize that the boy's parents have objections) undermining their household rules.
Age of consent is 16 in 48 states or so. Of course, that's also unreasonable.
Intellectually I actually don't see much wrong with it.
But as a father of two girls my gut says "Over my dead body."
Totally with Matt F, too. I hope that the parents of a high school couple would know each other well enough to broach topics like "the groundrules for how we are raising our son".
re: 25
I don't know about the US but there are multiple legal standards of 'adulthood' in the UK.
Sex is legal at 16. Marriage is legal at 16. In Scotland no parental permission is required for marriage. In England, I believe, parental permission is still required until they are 18.
You can drink and vote at 18. You can drive at 17. You can drink alcohol in a restaurant, with a meal, at 16.
The US, it seems, is the same in the sense that there are different legal ages for different things..
http://www.peak.org/~jeremy/dictionary/tables/independence.php
my 10 was supposed to mostly be funny rather than seriously address the question.
Having already had one kid go through the teenage years, the tension between B.Ph.D.'s view (which I mostly agree with) and Matt's (which I mostly agree with) is tough.
Matt is absolutely right (heck, I ran away from home at 15 and was soon living with the woman I became involved with and was married by the time I was 17--how can I say that it is crazy for teens to have sex). On the other hand, I am not sure that I would say yes if, at 17, one of my kids asked to have their girlfriend sleep over. It just is "not done" here, for the most part. My eldest son solved the problem by simply ignoring my rules and sleeping over at his girlfriend's house when her parents were away. I got mad, he got laid, life went one. Thus it has ever been. But I agree that it is weird.
My solution--tell the kids no sleepovers, but make sure they have birth control and do not be too shocked when they come home at 6 in the morning with a smile and bleary eyes.
I am not a "swinger," and for better or worse, I grew up in a US nuclear family. The general expectation of US culture is that kids under 18 are in school and living with their parents--i.e., we have an extended sense of childhood. Yeah, I know kids in high school have sex; I did. And like I said, once the kid has moved out and lived on his own, even for a few months, he is now independent and entitled to bring home guests. But in American culture, a 17-year old *is* still a child, and the whole "can my girlfriend sleep over" is totally a tacit request for permission to fuck.
I don't want to be in the position of giving my kid permission to fuck, and I don't ask him for *his* permission for *me* to fuck. I'll certainly make sure that *if* he decides to fuck, he knows how to do so responsibly. But yeah, whatever, sue me: I've internalized a sense that there's a significant difference between being in high school and being post-graduation, whether that means going to college or getting a full-time job or in some other way marking the beginning of independence.
If we lived somewhere where 17 wasn't still a child, and where the cultural norms treated kids that age differently than they do here, then that would be different.
De-lurking here as neither an American nor a European reader, to say that round these parts (Australia), bringing partners home in one's late teens is considered in the same light as gradually being able to drink at home, or smoke whatever one's substance of choice might be. Parents don't necessarily approve, but the shift to adulthood is understood to mean making one's own decisions.
Or, what ttaM said in 16.
Being of the age of consent just means it isn't automatically rape. It doesn't mean that it's necessarily a good idea for a 16 year old to be in a sexual relationship, or that parents have to condone it. This seems like the kind of thing that is best addressed from within individual families, and their decisions shouldn't be dismissed by other parents who disagree with them.
Actually, as aside: looking it up, it seems that in Scotland legal adulthood is attained at 16 -- which is qute unusual among Western nations.
Age of consent is 15 here, no ifs and buts. Though old people sleeping w 15-year olds can be deemed illegal "seduction of youth" (actual legal term) under certain circumstances.
re: 38
It's 16 here, but adults in a position of responsibility e.g. teachers, can be prosecuted for sexual involvement with under 18s.
Am I the only one who feels like part of my problem is that it's the *boy* who is asking permission? I can't help but feel that as the parent of a boy, I want to expect a *higher* standard of responsibilty from him than I might a girl. It would bother the hell out of me to be sort of turning a blind eye to my 17-year old son possibly being responsible for a pregnancy. If it were a daughter, then fine; she's taking a risk on her own behalf. But a boy? Taking a risk like that on someone else's behalf? When he's way too young to realistically be able to pay child support or maintain a relationship with the girlfriend and therefore the baby, if she keeps it, or to be emotionally supportive in a helpful way if she decides to abort?
Hell no. He might knock someone up anyway, and he'll probably fuck around if he gets a chance, but I'm not going to condone it, any more than I'll condone his drinking. If he's too drunk to drive home, he can call me and I'm not going to be an asshole about it; but I'm still not going to say that he can have friends over to drink at my house.
I am prepared to have you all consider me sexist, but there it is.
Letting your teenager have guests over just seems wrong to me but, besides making it more probable that teens would practice safe sex, I do think it might be safer for teen girls. When I think about the places teens went to hook up when I was in high school (the woods, cornfields, abandoned parking lots, essentially any place that was in the middle of nowhere with nobody else around for miles) it's no surprise that I had a lot of friends get pressured into things they didn't want to do.
But something about letting your kid's gf/bf spend the night still seems wrong.
Am I the only one who feels like part of my problem is that it's the *boy* who is asking permission? I can't help but feel that as the parent of a boy, I want to expect a *higher* standard of responsibilty from him than I might a girl.
That's insane. But not as insane as the Europeans.
Nothing wrong with drinking at 17 either.
Preventing kids from taking responsibility just seems a strange perspective to take. Make their responsibilities clear, by all means. Give them shit if they fuck up. But tell them there are certain choices they aren't qualified to make? At 17?
I don't have a position I can defend on this one. Emotionally, I'm with B. and Idealist -- there's nothing wrong with kids having sex in (late) high school, it's just that they shouldn't be expecting it to be openly acknowleged and condoned by their parents. But logically that doesn't make any sense at all -- to the extent that there are possible bad consequences from having sex, they're all mitigated by having parental advice and support available.
The decadent European position is the one that makes sense to me, but it feels really wrong.
I blame all of you for my continued virginity. (Except the Europeans. You guys rock.)
Seriously, why is it insane? If I have a daughter, and she gets pregnant, than the responsibility for dealing with it (one way or another) is ultimately hers--which means it's ultimately mine, presumably. But if it's my son, then none of the decisions about what to do are his, and he's just put someone who ostensibly he is fond of in a really awful situation. One that he's emotionally and financially not really prepared to deal with (based on my general sense of 17-year old kids).
I dunno, I just feel like there is (or should be) a greater level of responsibility when you're taking a risk on someone else's behalf than there is when you're doing it on your own. And the fact is that teen pregnancy is going to affect the girl more than it is the boy.
The decadent European position is the one that makes sense to me, but it feels really wrong.
Umm, because it's wrong. B's right: I don't want to be the one OK'ing my kid's sex life. It's just weird. And, seriously, what's wrong with making the kid steal around to have sex?
40: To take the 'decadent Euro' position, which I'm talking myself into -- if he has permission, you can effectively hector him about responsibility. If he's sneaking around, he is more likely to behave badly in whatever way you're worried about.
But something about letting your kid's gf/bf spend the night still seems wrong.
It feels wrong because the kids aren't preserving the convention that they are still kids. There is a very pleasant hypocrisy in the last years of high school that the kids are kids and the parents are in charge. When that hypocrisy is observed by all the participants, the kids can get away with some discreet sex and the parents can decide they don't know about it (after the safe sex lecture). Besides being a disobediant kid, that boy is showing that he doesn't understand manners.
45 - I was going to protest with something along the lines of "Hey! Some of us have tried to help." but I'm sure that would be seriously misinterpreted.
But if it's my son, then none of the decisions about what to do are his, and he's just put someone who ostensibly he is fond of in a really awful situation. One that he's emotionally and financially not really prepared to deal with (based on my general sense of 17-year old kids).
Do you see how the second sentence implies that he might be putting himself in a really awful situation as well? He could run out on them, but it's (a) illegal, and (b) likely to have consequences as regards his relationship with his mother.
re: 47
I just don't think that sort of control is ever healthy. I'm just much more comfortable with the idea that what makes people into responsible adults and good people is precisely the taking of responsibility for themselves.
Purely from personal experience, the friends that did really crazy stupid shit when I was in high-school were precisely the ones with the parents with the tightly defined boundaries who treated their kids -- who were young adults -- like they were little children with no personal autonomy and ability to decide for themselves.
51: Thanks for pre-empting a comment to the effect that Teo should talk linguistics more often.
49 - see, the hypocrisy lets you have your cake and eat it too. You can hector your kid about having safe sex AND everyone pretends that he isn't. The kid just has to keep up pretenses and everybody wins.
I agree with 43; what I'm saying is, that isn't the way things are in the US. I didn't create the situation, but in the US, a 17-year old is still a kid. They act like kids, they're treated as kids, they get away with shit the way kids do. No, there's nothing wrong with drinking or fucking at 17, in and of itself. But here 17-year olds can't drink legally, so that when they *do* drink, it's all secrets and ha ha and boy aren't we being naughty and all sorts of other things that effectively make it an immature thing to do, in context. They're expected to be in school until 18--we don't have O-levels--so that if they are fucking or living on their own or holding down a full-time job, then they're school children acting like adults. It doesn't *have* to be that way, but it is.
Part of the problem implied in the actual online post is in the reaction of the girl's parents-- they are apparently unwilling to respect limits from other parents. I collided with that as a parent, and it is truly upsetting-- basically a response "oh, those rules are old fashioned, you don't have to follow them here." Yoffe's advice-- call them up and talk to them-- seems to me about giving them a chance to respond in good faith (by not undermining the boy's parents rules).
There are several moral issues here. One is about respecting the rules other households have for the minors in their care.
I've been the father of a boy and girl, both. BPhD's view (that the standard is different for a girl, who is making her own choice, than for a boy, who can't become pregnant) seems crazy to me. I'd hope I've charged both my children with notion that they are responsible in every sense for the decisions they make, and think that is as it should be.
40: Apart from Britain to some extent, teen pregnancy is very rare in Europe. But I don't really think that's so much the cause of the USian attitude to teen sex as an effect of it. So I'm not ready to be all cultural relativistic about it. Our way is the right way.
If he's sneaking around, he is more likely to behave badly in whatever way you're worried about.
Is there some magical world in which kids (or people generally) suddenly, once allowed to have sex, stop being foolish? He's still going to be engaging in various risky behavior, and I really, really doubt either he or his girlfriend are going to be "safer," in either sense, if they are allowed to have sex in your house.
I worry that the Scottish approach produces violent children.
The thing is, though, Becks is right. Kids screwing in a cornfield are more likely to be not using birth control properly, or getting date-raped or otherwise pressured into doing things they don't want to do.
A girl having sex in her own bedroom, with her parents within reach, is much safer than a girl sneaking around um, odd corners of Central Park. And the same, in different ways, for a boy.
If I really disapproved of the teenage sex, I suppose I'd hold the line on 'not in my house, or anyplace else if I can stop you', but given that I don't, it seems screwy as anything to impose real risk on teenagers for the sake of preserving a pleasant fiction.
It feels wrong because the kids aren't preserving the convention that they are still kids.
It's precsiely my point that it's a messed up convention. The fact that a convention that's deeply fucked up isn't being preserved doesn't bother me remotely.
Contentiously, I suspect this sort of thing may be why (some) US college students seem like such spoiled children.
The second paragraph of 40 gets it exactly right.
As to the first part, I agree to a certain extent in that the more concrete risks and effects of pregnancy are borne by the girl, and people should be more cautious when their actions impact other people, rather than just themselves.
However, I don't think I'd just say "that's fine" about the girl's decisions. Despite being close to adulthood, a 17-year old likely doesn't fully understand (or care about) those risks. The parents shouldn't just let them go on their merry way when their are lifetime consequences in play.
re: 66
It's already done. And I am cutting your allowance for talking to strangers on the Internet.
If they're at home, you have better oversight and can make sure that they use a condom and put it on properly. If you see them having a problem you can get the banana and pop in for an impromptu demonstration.
More seriously, I think that the Europeans are right but that in the US it's hard to practice that because parents are in this network of communication potentially involving every other parent in town and every boy and girl in the HS, and if you condone what's happening it will go out on the grapevine and a fair proportion of the people who hear about it, including the kids, will be squicked.
66 - Unfortunately, while you also retroactively lost your virginity, you don't remember a damn thing.
Kids screwing in a cornfield are more likely to be not using birth control properly
Why? Are you actually going to be supervising the application of the condom?
or getting date-raped or otherwise pressured into doing things they don't want to do
Maybe, but I doubt it. It's not like they're going to stop doing things elsewhere just because they can also have sex at your house.
Don't toy with me, Becks, or I'll cut off the linguistics talk.
I am not a "swinger," and for better or worse, I grew up in a US nuclear family.
FWIW, I don't actually consider you a swinger. It just sounds like something I can imagine a teenager shouting at his parents. Perhaps around other family members, or in a restaurant.
And yes, exactly, to this:
But here 17-year olds can't drink legally, so that when they *do* drink, it's all secrets and ha ha and boy aren't we being naughty and all sorts of other things that effectively make it an immature thing to do, in context.
I know this is stupid, and dangerous, and hurts people. It trains stupid children to get puking drunk because if they're going to drink they have to be secretive about it. And sometimes they get alcohol poisoning, and sometimes they drive into trees. Learning to drink reasonably is wildly hindered by our stupid drinking age.
And so I'm starting to think the conventional 'no open teen sex' thing is equally mistaken.
52: Even if he doesn't "run out," what I'm saying is that realistically he and the girl are not likely to continue to have much of a relationship for very long. If (as I would hope) she manages to complete high school and hopefully college and pursue some kind of life, then she's likely to move away from home; I'd certainly hope that he would manage to do the same. But then there's a little kid whose parents live in different states, which sucks ass. If she decides to abort, good for her; but being as he's a 17-yo boy, he's going to have a hard time dealing emotionally with being a supportive adult in that role and being helpful to her, rather than just being one more fucking thing for her to worry about. If she decides to go for adoption, then that's her decision, and maybe he'll want to take custody, which fine, but probably not.
It's not because he *would* walk away, or b/c I'd encourage him to; it's b/c I don't see much realistic possibility of two teenage kids being emotionally or financially able to negotiate the incredible complexities of co-parenting while leading separate lives.
And I sure as hell wouldn't encourage kids that age to get married.
49/54: See, I don't think the position I'm advocating is "treat high school kids like children." I'm basically advocating the same thing my folks did: saying, look, I think you're a bit young to be running the risks involved in sex, but you are old enough to make that decision; I can't stop you. So if you decide to do it, here's how to be responsible, here are the issues, you can come talk to me. You're not legally old enough to drink, and I am not going to buy you booze. But if you get drunk, then be responsible; call me for a ride home.
It's not hypocritical. It's called having clear boundaries, and I think it's way healthier for kids to learn the difference between getting permission and making decisions for themselves than it is for me to pretend that all their decisions are going to be ones I agree with.
Woo! Drunken teen sex orgy at LB's house! I'll bring the Plan B!
63 - no it isn't. It is just plain manners. They are at home, living off their parents, who have said no sleepovers. Not forcing the parents to confront their sexual activity shows consideration and maturity.
Contentiously, I suspect this sort of thing may be why (some) US college students seem like such spoiled children.
Or they could just be spoiled. And who cares, unless you're claiming that US people turn out, over the longer term, to be worse people than those in Europe. In which case, please assume links to all of your various discussions of endemic Scottish violence.
I'm really confused. Either your child is mature enough to handle having sex, in which case it's both ok and ok to condone. Or else he/she isn't, in which cases it's both not ok and not ok to condone. The "it's find for them to be having sex, but we shouldn't *condone* it" position is just crazy.
I can definitely see the argument that 17 is too young to be having sex. As Rob's highschool girlfriend puts it in High Fidelity "That's when you're supposed to be having sex, Rob, in college!" But if you don't think 17 is too young to be having sex, what could possibly be wrong with "condoning" it?
Hmmmm, there's also the issue that around here, drinking and fucking in public places are legal offences. So forcing your kids to bonk in parks or whatever means that they may well end up arrested. Home seems safer in every respect.
I am shocked, shocked!, by American attitudes to this.
pretend that all their decisions are going to be ones I agree with.
Well, that's not remotely what I meant. My own parents heartily disapproved of some of the things that I did but I don't remember anything being forbidden.
There's a large stretch of clear blue water between i) explicitly condoning everything your child does and ii) explicitly forbidding everything you disapprove of.
I almost got arrested for that in high school. We were at the soccer field. Thank god we were just packing up and getting ready to leave when the cop showed up. Nothing to see here officer!
79 gets it exactly right. I can't believe how many (and which) people are defending US sexual mores.
I was raised with this, uh, "decadent European" technique, as you call it. Roughly, I was expected to be totally open and honest about my decisions, and in return I would have them respected, although obviously not always supported.
And for what it's worth, I can confirm that it worked in my case. I'm certain that having a trusted adult confidant to help shape my decisions kept me from making a lot of the mistakes with sex and drugs that I saw my peers making; and being able to trust my parents in those matters and not have to hide things from them helped to keep me out of dangerous situations, involving cops or other predators.
Raising a kid that way doesn't seem icky to me at all, so I suggest that this feeling, when present, probably stems from one's own upbringing.
ttaM, I just heard about a Scottish birder's group ("birdwatcher" apparently is too stigmatizing) which meets at a tavern and has violent arguments leading to fisticuffs. The encounter of stereotypes in that is truly beautiful.
If they're at home, you have better oversight and can make sure that they use a condom and put it on properly.
Jesus Christ. I'm so NOT going to be supervising this.
(Well, probably not arrested. But in trouble.)
this sort of thing may be why (some) US college students seem like such spoiled children.
Exactly. And in the US, being the parent who says, "hey, it's cool if you guys have sex at my place, because I'm cool like that and I don't buy into those stupid conventions" doesn't encourage kids to be more mature. It just encourages them to be supercilious little snots.
I agree completely with 74. It *is* stupid. But I don't see a way around it. Lowering the drinking age is easy; kids can go to bars to drink. But the sex thing inevitably presents the problem that kids are still living with mommy and daddy, they don't have their own apartments, they can't afford hotel rooms. So one way or another, they're asking permission to have sex, which is inherently infantalizing. There's no way around it.
Sexually active teens in Europe don't have more unwanted pregnancies than 20-year olds, ergo they're not less responsible in the relevant sense.
Same is true for US middle class teens.
71: Well, I do think they're going to be more likely to use birth control -- if I openly know I about it, I can nag and remind. And I'm certain that they're less likely to be raped if they're within shouting range of their parents.
It's not like they're going to stop doing things elsewhere just because they can also have sex at your house.
No? I certainly wouldn't have been sneaking around Central Park in the rain if I could have been warm and safe.
Child: But what about that talk you gave me about safe sex. Aren't you condoning what I'm doing?
Parent: I didn't say "condone." I said "condom."
re: 78
Endemic Scottish violence has a whole complex array of root causes but if you want to take a cheap shot feel free to go ahead.
Well, maybe in practice 82 and 85 will be where I end up. But the way the question is phrased in the letter doesn't sound like that at all; it totally sounds like the whole "ask permission" thing.
I dunno. I see where the "why the hell not, prudes?" people are coming from. But even though I fucked around in high school, I can't help thinking that the whole "mommy, can my friend spend the night?" situation is just way too childish to think of it in terms of sex.
Endemic Scottish violence has a whole complex array of root causes but if you want to take a cheap shot feel free to go ahead.
Gimme a break, ttaM. You just said, Contentiously, I suspect this sort of thing may be why (some) US college students seem like such spoiled children. I'm assuming contentiously signalled that it might reasonably be considered a cheap shot. I cheap-shotted back.
Are people here of the opinion that there's it's not a problem for kids in late high school to be having sex? Obviously it's not a huge deal, and it's pretty common, but that's different from saying that it's perfectly okay.
It's like what B was sayig with drinking--yes, high school students frequently drink, and it's by and large not the end of the world when they do. Regardless, I still wouldn't provide a keg for their parties.
How is letting teenagers have sex infantilizing in a way that not letting them have sex is not?
Hey, don't piss off McG, there's no telling what he'll do.
Jesus Christ. I'm so NOT going to be supervising this.
What? You're not going to be so comfortable with it that you can just nonchalantly walk right into the room that your daughter and he are having sex in and refill their water glasses or drop off a snack by the bed?
Also, I can confirm that since I could, ah, do things in my parents' house with freedom and ease, I never bothered to do so in remote wilderness, or any other uncomfortable and possibly public place. I recall once trying to find a place and deciding it wasn't worth the effort (but only because we were almost home, ahem).
re: 96
Well, there's a pretty clear connection between the (admittedly snarky) comment re: infantile college students and a certain culture where decision making responsibility is deferred to an older age.
The endemic scottish violence thing, on the other hand, just seems like an irrelevant dig.
re: 99
I plan to take it out vindictively on my adopted offspring.
I'm disappointed that my pre-emptive cheap shot in 61 seems to have been ignored.
It seems like most of this discussion is about how "condoning" teenage sex makes the parents feel about themselves. Which is understandable, I guess, but probably not the most important issue here.
re: 104
Don't worry. Two large men in kilts with blue-painted faces and sharpened haggises are on their way to see you as we type.
103: Aw, man. See what you guys did?
It's a problem if teenagers don't have sex. It's not totally unusual for a teen to start having sex eralier then what's best for that particular problem. But most 16-yearolds should be having sex, for the same reason most 20 year olöds should be having sex.
My swinger sister is going through this with her son and he's pretty angry, though suppressing it. I don't think that she's handling it right. He realizes that she's not on the straight and narrow, and asks why he should be expected to be.
I don't see what's wrong with condoning. It seems better than "I don't want to know about it".
Point of fact, relevant to what Megan has said: Aren't the girl's parents OK with this, but the boy's parents doubtful? So it's not bad manners for him to be over there.
I dunno. I see where the "why the hell not, prudes?" people are coming from. But even though I fucked around in high school, I can't help thinking that the whole "mommy, can my friend spend the night?" situation is just way too childish to think of it in terms of sex.
Only, I think, if you treat it that way. If the approach is "Your room, within limits your decision about who is in there, doing what" how is that different from how you'd treat, say, an adult living under your roof?
re: 109
If you cook it long enough.
The question can't be whether one practice is right or wrong, but what the practice means in the culture in which it's situated. In the US, letting your kid's SO sleep over is permissive, even in a way that openly condoning the kid having sex is not. Sometimes permissiveness is fine, and not all permissiveness is the same (supervised vs. unsupervised, for example). It's not easy to articulate why sleepovers are a problem, but I think I'd say that I want sex to seem particularly important, so I'd want to refrain from being permissive about it, and not allowing sleepovers also reinforces for the kid that he's a beginner at this sex stuff, which I think (assuming the kid is basically a good kid) makes him go more slowly than he might otherwise.
97: Pretty much, yeah, that's what I think -- it's not a problem. More people I know than not did have sex in high school, and I don't think they'd be better off if they had waited untill college.
112 gets it right.
Also, the same responsibilities hold for any other adult living under the same roof. I don't see what's wrong with expecting a certain amount of discretion and consideration for the fact that other people are under the same roof, for example.
I don't think they'd be better off if they had waited untill college.
I second this with a passion.
114: I think the argument here is really about condoning sex. If someone wanted to condone sex, but forbid sleepovers (say, for reasons relating to study habits, getting enough sleep, whatever) I could imagine that as a reasonable position.
Well, there's a pretty clear connection between the (admittedly snarky) comment re: infantile college students and a certain culture where decision making responsibility is deferred to an older age.
Right. It was meant as an irrelevant dig. My suspicion is that the social statistics for the spoiled kids look pretty good. However annoying they are, they're the ones that we're somehow doing right by. We might be doing right by them wrong, but they're the ones that are the success stories in the great American child-rearing experiment.
I'll concede that on the merits, the decadent Ibiza-loving Europeans are probably correct as to what's rational. And that, assuming my position actually survives a kid, my position is really just an attempt to comfort myself--to avoid having to deal with my kid's sex life. To the extent that it doesn't increase a variety of risks--which is my assumption--I'm OK with that. I'm not going to any of his games if he plays sports I don't like, either.
I think I'm really just denying that there are bad effects to not letting your kid have a sleepover. No one I know of was allowed to have such a sleepover, and they have, for the most part, turned into decent human beings. I certainly don't think I could find a correlation between permissiveness in making adult decisions and later outcomes.
Eh, I meant to say "It's not totally unusual for a teen to start having sex eralier then what's best for that particular person."
I think B's deference to the laws and customs in the US about the difference between 18 year olds and 17 year olds confuses the grounds for policy decisions and the grounds for personal decisions.
The law draws a lot of arbitrary lines because it has to. If you are going to get the police involved in whether someone should be drinking, voting, or having sex, you need to set rules like "on your 18th birthday everything becomes magically ok."
But the parents have more flexibility. They can tailor things to their own situation. If the couple is ready, they can give the nod. And if they do think the couple is ready, then why not say so.
I also think that the parents should talk to the girl's parents. In fact, I surprised they haven't already. I have a lot of conversations with the parents of the children my kids play with about parenting philosophy and rule setting. I wouldn't want my kids going places where I didn't know the adults, especially when they are teens.
"Permissive" isn't defined by what you permit. It means saying something like "Anything you do is OK with me". I was permissive about some things (beer) and militantly unpermissive about others (amphetamines.) I wasn't permissive, in my opinion, but the lines I drew permitted things other parents didn't.
115: huh, maybe I'm just a bit odd here, then...I was almost 20 when I first did, and in retrospect I actually think it was better that way than if I had first had sex in high school.
Of course, all my HS girlfriends were insane, so that might be affecting my read of the situation slightly.
I think I'm really just denying that there are bad effects to not letting your kid have a sleepover. No one I know of was allowed to have such a sleepover, and they have, for the most part, turned into decent human beings.
This is, I think, dead wrong. Sneaking around doing something forbidden means greater risk of pregnancy, greater risk of rape, more guilt and fear. This is all survivable, and we all survived, but saying there are no ill effects is not, IMO, a reasonable position.
123: Well, sure -- nothing wrong with waiting, and given the enforced sneaking around, waiting becomes a more attractive option. I would certainly have had more sex in high school had it been okay with my parents.
But I don't think there's an across-the-board benefit to waiting.
"Condone" needs to be retired from the language, because no one ever condones anything. If you google "I condone" you'll find that almost all occurences are in phrases like "Not that I condone" or "Do I condone...?". You rarely find a case of anyone actually condoning anything.
Ok, so are we talking about sex or sleepovers?
126: But I want to say 'condone'. Other than that, what's the word for 'regard something as within the norm of acceptable behavior and recognize that I'm not going to forbid or attempt to stop it, whether or not I specifically approve or disapprove of it in this instance'?
Have only read till 20, but I'm an American who thinks it's just fine for a 17 year old to have sex, even one who --gasp--fights with his parents (if I'm not allowed to start having sex until I start acting like a grownup around my mom, uh, well...can you sew this thing back up again?). Also, contra the rigidity to rebel against, I think libertine parents may raise more conservative children, because of the lack of anything to rebel against. I was very conservative in high school. Okay, I turned, but I didn't have sex till I was 20.
This is, I think, dead wrong. Sneaking around doing something forbidden means greater risk of pregnancy, greater risk of rape, more guilt and fear. This is all survivable, and we all survived, but saying there are no ill effects is not, IMO, a reasonable position.
Again, I've no idea why you've decided that is true. I don't buy the guilt thing or the fear thing, if the rule is, "I'm pretending it's not happening." Pregnancy--again, I think most kids know they're supposed to be safe, but they aren't because it's more fun not to be safe. In fact, I had one friend who was allowed to sleep over at his girlfriend's house, and it didn't make him safer (and it didn't mean they had sex exclusively at her house or his house). Maybe you're right, but I don't see why it's self-evident that you're right.
The rape thing--boy, maybe. I guess I just don't have a sense of how likely that is, and (as I've been assuming a male kid) how likely it is that my kid would do something like that.
112 is good. In general, I'm liking the way LB is talking about the issue.
When i was in my late teens and living at home my parents simply didn't set a policy on this sort of thing at all. I simply assumed that the most permissive doctrine held, which created some embarrassing situations with my girlfriends. The whole situation became rather fucked up and uncertain.
All the parenting books say that the most important thing is to have a policy and stick with it. Even a silly policy is better that capriciousness and instability. The more liberal parenting books say you should have a reason for your policy that you can explain to your child, but even then, there is no illusion that the policy is the best one. In the end, I can see being comfortable with either decision, as long as it had been talked through enough with the kids and the other parents.
OTOH, Clementine's father walked into the room the first time she had sex. The structure of the room allowed him to exit, quietly not having seen anything, but it still wasn't an ideal situation.
The answer, clearly, is to have a cool aunt.
Preferably a cool aunt with a loft on LaG/uardia Place and a country house upstate, who also lets you borrow her car.
131 makes me wonder what the hell kind of high school Tim went to.
"It's ok, mom, I'm doing it with Auntie Carol."
re 124:
In general, I want to retire the "my parents did that, and I came out ok" argument. Whenever anyone says that about any issue, I always want to reply, "No, you did not come out ok. You are a neurotic, controlling bitch." or "...you are a spineless lap dog" or whatever.
The argument rests entirely on people's unwillingness to publically acknowledge how fucked up their friends are.
I don't remember my parents' policy, aside from "be safe."
I really think that the difference is that in the US, general public opinion is so set on this that even people who think it's OK for kids to have sex don't want to get caught openly admitting it. (I suppose "condoning" is something like "publicly declaring that something's OK".)
Kids already start having sex at 18 in college, and that really bothered people when it happened. Knocking the age down to 16 doesn't seem like such a big step.
One of the squicky things is that you normally don't get involved in the sex lives of other adults, whereas if a kid under your supervision is having sex, in some way you ARE involved. But it should be handleable the way roommate situations are handled.
One thing I told my son was that if he got a girl pregnant before he was 30 I'd kill him, married or not. It worked.
The behavior described in 131 is absolutely nothing like the behavior of the high school kids I knew when I was in high school, which was much more in line with LB's point of view.
Pregnancy--again, I think most kids know they're supposed to be safe, but they aren't because it's more fun not to be safe.
Do you have a convincing different explanation for the great difference in teen pregancy rates in Europe and the US? (Well, they've also got better sex ed, but it's better for the same reasons, that it doesn't pretend that the audience isn't having sex.)
I don't buy the guilt thing or the fear thing, if the rule is, "I'm pretending it's not happening."
You can't explicitly set a rule that says "You can have sex, so long as I don't know about it," it would be absurd. The rule, from the kid's point of view, is "Sex is forbidden". Now maybe you're sensitive enough with the non-verbal communication to get across that it's not a real rule without saying it, but I doubt it. Which means that whatever your real attitude, your kid, if she's got any regard for what you think of her, is ashamed, and afraid of getting caught.
The rape thing--boy, maybe. I guess I just don't have a sense of how likely that is, and (as I've been assuming a male kid) how likely it is that my kid would do something like that.
Picture a female kid, and think whether you're happier with her negotiating her sexual boundaries in a cornfield, or in her bedroom with you in call.
This somehow reminds me of step/hen me/gs. Remember this?
140: The great thing about that argument is that it's been applied to all sides in this thread.
I think libertine parents may raise more conservative children
There may be some truth in that. My parents weren't libertine, as such.
They took a pretty strong line on responsibility -- if I fucked up, especially if I'd been warned it was a possibility, then I damn well had to fix it. No-one was going to bail me out. If I behaved like an arsehole, I'd be told in no uncertain terms that i was behaving like an arsehole. So, while I could do pretty much do whatever I wanted* I also knew that I had to deal with the end result.
The result of that was that I was probably the most responsible and sensible person I knew growing up. That's not to say I didn't do stupid stuff, but, relatively speaking, I didn't do that much stupid stuff.
* within reason and I was expected to show consideration for others. I could stay out late, for example, but I had to make sure they knew I was staying out late, etc.
140: But what's the alternative? I'm not sure I'm comfortable with looking to the Planning Commission for the best parental practices. Don't most people end up repeating the parenting model established by their parents, or varying in specific ways from it?
Baa!!!
I think comparing US and European rates of teen pregnancy isn't really helpful, given that we have such a huge underclass that exists in basically a different world from the one in which this discussion is taking place.
You can't explicitly set a rule that says "You can have sex, so long as I don't know about it," it would be absurd.
But, for example, that's often the default rule about a lot of things, including sex and alcohol, for example.
I have no hard feelings about my parents, but in certain respects I tried to do things differently.
The more I think about it, the more I think that the local communities limit parents' options. It would be hard to be a European-style parent in and American small town. And even if I'd wanted to, I couldn't have imitated my parents' small-town style in the city.
That's weird. I actually do have a really cool Auntie Carol. Though I was thinking the cool angle was advice/adult cover for escapades, without the parental squick. Not Ogged's bad teen movie scenario.
(Another aspect of libertinism turning me conservative: I was offered marijuana constantly growing up by my family, and never took it till I was 17 and had hellish psychosomatic menstrual cramps brought on by the sight of my near-death, post brain surgery Aunt Shirley. It was great for the menstrual cramps. To this day, I have never tried another illegal drug, despite my father telling me about (but not doing around me) nitrous, ecstasy, etc.)
150: Well, okay. But I do find the argument that a kid who has to listen to her parents say "I expect you to be using condoms, and I think you should probably go to the gyno and talk about the pill," in the context of the fact that they admittedly know she's sexually active, is more likely to stay safe than one who's getting busy in the back seat of a minivan, very persuasive. The 'Europe' thing was just because SCMT wasn't admitting my logic.
re: 150
I think that's true. The UK has a massive rate of teen pregnancy and I'm sure that's connected to the same sort of 'huge underclass' and the particular values that operate there.
I'm not claiming that one way or the other is the way to avoid teen pregnancy or making a strongly consequentialist argument for one or the other.
It just seems like the right thing to do with people who are, depending on viewpoint, either adults or on the cusp of adulthood is to treat them as adults.
151: And it leads to stupid drinking behavior, and stupid sex behavior.
I'm starting to think I'm wrong. And, gawd help me, #144 is somehow doing the convincing.
Do they allow sleepovers in the underclass?
159: Luckily, you don't have kids yet, so you have plenty of time to revert.
I actually do have a really cool Auntie Carol
Set me up! It's pre-approved!
In the underclass, sleepovers are mandatory.
150: There are so many other issues, but it doesn't seem implausible that the attitude to teen sex is one contributing factor, and the culture of the 'underclass' isn't wholly separate from that of middle class, so one can try to influence USian attitudes in general.
You can't explicitly set a rule that says "You can have sex, so long as I don't know about it," it would be absurd.
No it isn't. It is exactly what the situation calls for. It starts with the conversation about safe sex and the groundrules (like be kind and keep your grades up and get home by curfew so I don't have to worry that you are dead in a car crash.) and then everyone does their part.
The kid keeps the groundrules and does NOT sleep over at his girlfriend's house when the parents said not to. The parents do not ask what the kids did between the movie and curfew and everyone gets some of what they want and no one is squicked out. It totally works.
Endemic Scottish violence has a whole complex array of root causes
I suspect the genes. And I say this as someone who has a fair amount of ancestry from the area. Are the Cornish this way too? As I recall the Swifts (at least the ones I count as ancestors) are from that area.
162: That whole 'resetting the TiVo' thing didn't work out? Dude. You have my sympathies.
re: 160
Well, snarkily, getting pregnant lets you get your own council house which, in turn, enables you to have people sleep over as much as you like.*
* That's the view promulgated by the right-wing tabloid press. Unfortunately, once you take away the hysterical moral condemnation and the snobbery, it has a grain of truth in it.
156: What? If you're willing to admit that the comparisons aren't easy, I assume it's because we all suspect that the numbers look very different for people raised outside the underclass. And my suspicion is that the general rule in the outside-the-underclass set is closer to the one I was previously defending. Which makes me suspect that if we had actual numbers, the obviousness of your cause-effect claim would be less obvious.
But teo has convinced me. I still can't figure out why.
re: 166
Yeah, the genes for engineering and science genius, extreme violence, alcholism and haggis-consumption are closely grouped together on the same chromosome.
[This is where I'd add a smiley emoticon if they weren't banned ...]
Curses! Pwned again! I missed Becks' 100.
But as someone said above, the squickiness comes from being involved in someone else's sex life. People all around us are having sex all the time, and in most cases, I really prefer not to think about it. That is extra true for close relatives.
I was going to mention, kids have to grow up with their parents having sex in the house and that's not squicky at all. is it?
169: Seriously, I'd bet that there's an awful lot of middle-class teen pregnancy that gets aborted; fewer children than in the underclass, but a lot of unsafe sex.
165: Are you really saying that the parents should tell the kid, explicitly "You may have sex so long as we don't know about it"? Because I think that's awfully silly, if you're saying it, and I doubt you're saying it. I think you're suggesting that the parents should forbid sex, at least implicitly, and then wink at likely violations of the rule. Which could work out fine for everyone, but could also turn into guilt and fear for the teens who are violating the rule, and don't know that it's not serious. Because it's not like there aren't enough messages out there telling you you're a bad person for having sex.
OK, I'm slightly on board, but I feel the need for guidance. How far is this approach to be taken? I don't think I'd really care if my son or daughter were pretty wild for a while sexually--if you can do it, why not?--but, while I'm OK with the idea of my hypothetical son or daughter having a multi-some, I'm still finding it really, really hard to imagine OK'ing him or her taking multiple partners into her room under my watchful eye.
'You may have sex (without hassle from us) as long as you demonstrate that you are mature enough to keep to the (reasonable) rules that we set and show some consideration for everyone involved." That primarily means the kid's partner, but it also means the parents, who shouldn't have to know when their kid is having sex.
Sex isn't explicitly forbidden, because it doesn't have to be when everyone does their part.
172: One doesn't mind a theoretical awareness of other people's sex lives. It's of the specific occasions one would prefer not to know.
Weren't any of you guys good kids who came to unspoken agreements with your parents? And the basis for that was respectfulness all around?
Am I wrong that the girl's parents were cool with what's happening, but not the boy's? In that case, whatever offense is to the boy's parents.
And I think that that's why these things are so touchy, because two sets of parents are involved -- and their reputations, and their kids' reputations, and the siblings' reputations. And apparently the two sets disagree.
'You may have sex (without hassle from us) as long as you demonstrate that you are mature enough to keep to the (reasonable) rules that we set and show some consideration for everyone involved." That primarily means the kid's partner, but it also means the parents, who shouldn't have to know when their kid is having sex.
"But Mom, the police keep on hassling us when we park anyplace, and I'm afraid to hide under the bleachers -- those guys from the lacrosse team hang out there and beat people up, and I keep getting ticks. Please, can we stay in my room if we're quiet?"
Once you've given explicit permission, I just don't see the benefit from requiring sneaking around that offsets the practical problems. (City girl here. Not a lot of safe places to screw other than in someone's bedroom.)
That's why I don't think that an unspoken agreement is possible in this case. But I also think that an open, European-style arrangement would be better. It really just amount to granting one step toward adulthood while the kid still is at home.
174: Oh, I think you're fine with setting some standard of prudery -- if threesomes, or significant promiscuity (new partner every night) freak you out, you can say 'not in my house'. I'm not trying to be perfectly consistent here.
177: Nope. Lots of kids aren't.
OK, how about this compromise: buy the kid one of those fuckmobile vans. Explain that it's in case he wants to go hunting or fishing, or engage in other healthful though potentially fatal activities such as rock-climbing or surfing.
(I can't wait till baa discusses this one with his wife.)
178 - the son is being openly disrespectful of his parents, who told him no sleepovers, in either direction. I hope he isn't also offending the girl's parents, but that isn't really the point.
179 - you don't have to give explicit permission. You shouldn't have to grant or withhold permission either way, because you aren't explicitly involved in their sex life.
"Can we stay in my room if we are quiet?" Well, your father and I will be going to the gym this evening, and we'll be back around 8:30. And if your grades stay high, I'll make a lot of noise when I get in from work in the afternoons. Of course it is a pretense, but the pretense itself has value.
But suppose the parents' problem with the sleepover was simply that it was a sleepover? Just a "don't stay out all night" kind of thing. Rather than a "no members of the sex you're interested in alone in your room with you" kind of thing.
I'm still finding it really, really hard to imagine OK'ing him or her taking multiple partners into her room under my watchful eye.
Sounds like something out of Penthouse Forum. Accordingly, it's not a situation that ever needs to be considered in parenting, I think.
Weren't any of you guys good kids who came to unspoken agreements with your parents?
I was a good kid who didn't have sex in high school (not for lack of effort). Now I'm a bitter 21-year-old virgin. My feelings on this issue are rather strong.
186 - If the parent's problem is that it is a sleepover, then the kid is screwed for eight whole months until he goes away to college.
Megan, those kinds of unspoken agreements are OK to the extent that they work, but you seem to think that they are the best solution. Why pretend?
I've answered that question already: public opinion. Parents want plausible deniability. It's not good in terms of the parent-child relationship.
the son is being openly disrespectful of his parents,
True. I'm arguing that his parents are setting foolish rules, not that it's polite of him to disobey them.
You shouldn't have to grant or withhold permission either way, because you aren't explicitly involved in their sex life.
This is, I think, a dodge. As a teen, I had very strong opinions about what was permitted and what was forbidden, even in contexts where my parents had not explicitly stated the rules. (I wasn't always right, but I had strong beliefs.)(And if you're assuming that parents have the right to set rules for their teens, which I'm assuming you do -- we're just arguing about which they should be -- there is no third category other than forbidden and permitted. If it's not forbidden, it's permitted.) And a category of 'permitted, but must be kept secret' would have made no sense to me then, and makes no sense to me now. I would have either believed that I was violating a prohibition (guilt, fear) or not have understood the need for secrecy.
Of course it is a pretense, but the pretense itself has value.
What's the value?
190 - Not public opinion. The parents want what everyone wants, which is not to know when other people are fucking. They might also like to cling to the idea that their kids, who are about to leave anyway, are still children. (Which they may simultaneously know is wrong.) It isn't only that they are trying to be Puritans in front of the neighbors.
The parents want what everyone wants, which is not to know when other people are fucking.
That doesn't get you past normal roommate courtesy -- no screaming, slamming the bed into the way, etc.
They might also like to cling to the idea that their kids, who are about to leave anyway, are still children.
Eh. I can't see this as worth much.
I think I get what Megan is saying, because I had a similar thing with my parents. And #140 notwithstanding, I think we all build off the model of our own childhoods. I wonder if it isn't simply that, given a model that seemed to work, some of us wouldn't rather follow that model just because we understand it better. (There's some story tied, I think, to Achebe about a Nigerian farmer who's son is going off to the city for work. When asked whether he'd rather have his son stay, he says that yes, it would be his preference, though his son's opportunities are probably better in the city. But he knows farming and he could help his kid, and he doesn't know the city.)
Megan, the roommate situation covers that. You learn not to bother your mind about what's happening in the next room. I think that the problem is that up till then you HAVE been intimately involved with your kids' lives, but you just have to learn to stop.
I don't think that the pretense that the kids are still children is something valuable to be preserved.
Tacit agreements are OK until they break down, but this one has broken down. Should the parents fight it? That's the question.
And it's not irrelevant that two sets of parents are involved, because that means that two sets of standards are involved. And that will be true of every couple relationship that the kid is ever in.
191 - really? There was no other category of "Not yet forbidden and something I would really like to do"? 'Cause the penalties are less for that one.
And there was too. There was "tacitly permitted, as long as I don't force the issue".
The value is no one gets squicked out. You don't have to battle over rules when the real context is whether kids get to fuck. Family members can treat each other gently.
Maybe not so much value in clinging to the notion that your high schoolers are kids, but that doesn't mean people don't want to do it.
I agree with virtually everything ttaM has written in this thread, especially about the ridiculousness of teenagers being treated like children. But then, I moved into my boyfriend's house at 16 (I was kind of like David in the David and Darlene relationship on Roseanne) and into my own apartment at 17.
Actually, it's all just jealousy of those young, beautiful kids and the fun they're having.
Should the parents fight it? That's the question.
There's a lot of depends, like do the parents have enough power to win, but my call is that if that kid isn't mature enough to be in a respectful relationship with his (reasonable) parents, then he isn't mature enough to be sexually active. It comes back to basic consideration for me.
Also, family members have sex is ickier than adult roommates have sex. It calls for stronger measures.
And, SCMT, is probably right. It worked for me, so everyone should do that.
196: You know, I think almost any set of rules can work fine if everyone involved is sensitive and loving and highly skilled and unambiguous non-verbal communication, and it sounds like that's how your family worked.
For the rest of us, I think there's a virtue in sacrificing a little emotional comfort for openness and unambiguity.
200: Nine years, baby, nine years!
I'm kind of an anomaly in all of this in that I slept over at my boyfriend's house in high school a number of times (my parents didn't know) but we didn't have sex. (I actually bought into that "good Catholic schoolgirl saving myself until marriage" thing. And then I moved to New Orleans.)
I'm actually glad I waited until college to have sex but a lot of the reason why has to do with the fact that I was so much more relaxed and comfortable about the whole thing without having to worry about curfews or my parents. So my reasons are ones that would have been mitigated had I grown up in a more permissive household.
194 - That was the kindest justification I came up with when I struggled with my Asian-Am ex's parents hating me for not being the same Asian-Am. It helped me hold my tongue.
Megan's family actually sounds a lot like mine, and I think if either my sister or I had had sex in high school it would have turned out okay. My parents' official policy was "no sex in high school; after that we don't care" but I think they probably would have been okay with a tacit understanding that while there would be no sex under their roof they couldn't control what we did anywhere else. It never came up, though.
My bitterness is not directed at them, but at the whole structure of American attitudes toward sex.
Don't worry, Teo. Things get a lot cooler in college.
Oh wait.
121: Well, sort of. Except that teenage sex isn't a purely personal decision, as much as I might think it should be. What the other kid's parents think matters; what their friends think matters; what happens at school if they get knocked up matters. The culture is that, as Ogged said, letting your kid's boy/girlfriend sleep over in their bed is considered extremely permissive.
145: Picture a female kid, and think whether you're happier with her negotiating her sexual boundaries in a cornfield, or in her bedroom with you in call.
In all honesty? I'd like to think that a daughter of mine is going to be comfortable saying "fuck no" wherever. I would certainly raise her to be able to do so, specifically because you can't be by her side forever. And I'm really not sure that she'd be more comfortable saying no with me in call; is a kid in a gray area situation really going to yell for mom? Or is she more likely to want to keep quiet and not argue than she would be if someone weren't there to overhear?
185: "Can we stay in my room if we are quiet?" Well, your father and I will be going to the gym this evening, and we'll be back around 8:30. And if your grades stay high, I'll make a lot of noise when I get in from work in the afternoons. Of course it is a pretense, but the pretense itself has value. This is, I think, exactly the right approach. We're talking about this as if the only opportunity teenagers ever have to have sex is at night--which is nonsense. I mostly had sex on days when I stayed home from school and invited my boyfriend over, or when my parents were out, and so forth.
I'm not going to say "yeah, go ahead and have sex." I'm going to say, *if* you have sex, be careful. And if the kid *is* having sex, and I've figured it out, and then the issue of, um, can we be alone in the house sometimes? comes up, then fine.
But yeah: for whatever reason, I'm more comfortable with the "Mom and Dad are going out tonight, we should be home around midnight" thing than the "yes, of course your girlfriend can spend the night in your bed" approach. Until, like I said, the kid has been out of the house for a little while and we've established a new sort of relationship where he now lives somewhere else, and comes home to visit.
(I'm sooooo sorry. I just couldn't resist. I ban myself.)
Yeah, exactly. And the belief that it's discourteous to one's parents to not hide all evidence of sexual activity from them is both a symptom and a cause of the perpetuation of those attitudes.
In all honesty? I'd like to think that a daughter of mine is going to be comfortable saying "fuck no" wherever. I would certainly raise her to be able to do so, specifically because you can't be by her side forever. And I'm really not sure that she'd be more comfortable saying no with me in call; is a kid in a gray area situation really going to yell for mom? Or is she more likely to want to keep quiet and not argue than she would be if someone weren't there to overhear?
??????? The issue about worrying about being overheard only comes into play if she's worrying about getting caught. If she's not doing anything wrong, why would she worry about calling for help?
Seriously, in a certain amount of college awkward messing around, my confidence and comfort level was like night and day depending on whether I was in my own house, with thirty housemates nearby who were on my side of any disagreement, or on someone else's turf. (I sound like I've been terribly scarred by sexual violence, the way I keep bringing up rape. In fact, no. But I have been in situations where I was nervous, and I was a hell of a lot more nervous when I was depending on pure moral character and my ability to throw a punch, then when I had backup.)
191: What Megan's calling a "pretense" has value precisely *because* sex is (1) private; (2) not your parent's business; (3) an adult activity, and therefore you shouldn't be asking permission. I don't agree that as a teen everything is either permitted or forbidden; I honestly think that there are a lot of things that fall into the "I've done my best to raise you to make decent decisions, and it's time you started deciding things on your own" realm. But one of the realities of making decisions is having to also negotiate other people's boundaries, one of which is that asking parents to give you permission to having your girl/boyfriend sleep over is, in this society, really a bit over the top.
I'm thinking this is one of those things that's going to seem like a bigger deal before it comes up than after. Having sex is going to be the kid's call as a practical matter, so it seems to make more sense to save whatever green stamps you have for "be careful" rather than wasting them on "don't" when that isn't going to work anyway. And even now, with a 10-year-old, I'm becoming a fan of "I'm not wild about that idea (and here's why), but I'm not going to forbid it if you decide that's what you want to do."
OTOH, my kid's room is small and right next to ours, so I doubt he's going to be getting any girls in there when we're around anyway.
I knew I was on my way to adulthood when I stopped asking my parents permission to have a snack after school.
The issue about worrying about being overheard only comes into play if she's worrying about getting caught. If she's not doing anything wrong, why would she worry about calling for help?
Because having your mom walk in on you and your boyfriend negotiating sex is embarrassing?
I'm not presuming forcible rape, mind. I'm presuming, as you said, "negotiating boundaries." I wouldn't want my mother to overhear me arguing with Mr. B. about sex now, let alone when I was 17.
211: That seems right, but it's not clear from the Slate piece how permission became an issue. There's some screwed-up stuff about that situation--among other things, I would certainly tell my kid that he shouldn't be having anyone spend the night if the other parents weren't OK with it--but it's not clear that the thing started with "Mommy, is it OK if I fuck my girlfriend?"
BTW, Emily Yoffe is a huge improvement on Margo Howard, yes?
I'd like to think that a daughter of mine is going to be comfortable saying "fuck no" wherever.
Building on 210, I'm sure things are somewhat better now in the age of cellphones but all of the "fuck no" training in the world isn't going to help a girl who has been driven to the middle of nowhere thinking she was in for a makeout session and then told she isn't going home until she does X.
I don't agree that as a teen everything is either permitted or forbidden; I honestly think that there are a lot of things that fall into the "I've done my best to raise you to make decent decisions, and it's time you started deciding things on your own" realm.
See, that's 'permitted'. Sometime around when I was 12 or so, my parents started giving me an allowance, because they'd done their best to raise me to make decent decisions, and it was time I started deciding how to spend money on my own. I was permitted to spend money without consulting them.
If you can successfully work out a clearly-understood-by-all shame-free agreement in which the kid is allowed to do what he wants with respect to sex once he reaches what you think of as an appropriate age so long as he doesn't unnecessarily make you aware of any sexual conduct, I suppose it's all right, but I think it's an awfully tricky standard to set for families that aren't very, very, fluent non-verbal communicators.
Don't worry, Teo. Things get a lot cooler in college.
Oh wait.
(I'm sooooo sorry. I just couldn't resist. I ban myself.)
Ha. I was going to make that joke if someone else didn't. And as someone who didn't do it until college, I feel his pain. Although his pain might be worse as I didn't really try in high school.
If it weren't for aggressive women I'd probably still be as clueless as I was at 18. Arguably I still am.
I'm not presuming forcible rape, mind. I'm presuming, as you said, "negotiating boundaries."
"Donald, I said get your hand off my ass. Look, if I have to say it again I'm calling my dad in here." has a lot more force, even if the second sentence doesn't have to be said explicitly, than "I said I didn't want to have sex. Come on. Drive me home, please? It's cold out here, and I can't walk in these shoes."*
_____________________
*You knew it was going to be about the shoes, right?
I can't believe you were out with someone named Donald. And I wouldn't be bringing a Donald home, either.
212 is probably right. I think 209 is a bit of an oversimplification--is anyone here saying kids should "hide all evidence" of sexual activity? Aren't the prudes among us just saying that the goal is to retain a reasonable sense of discretion which might involve not coming out and announcing, "mom, dad, I'm fucking that person I went out with last week."
I seriously don't think that one's ability to have mature negotiations with one's parents has any bearing on one's readiness to have sex. They're different sets of relationships. Clementine was consistently quite sulky at the dinner table; I was living there, and was responsible for making gracious conversation with her parents and relieving the silence. She was also having sex with her boyfriend and no ill came of it.
And "this society" isn't uniform. It doesn't say where these parents live, but I know of children who've actually been pressured by their parents into having sex. There are some decadent coastal enclaves in this country.
Teo should bring a laptop and liveblog all dates in the upcoming semester. Who knows how useful realtime advice from the Mineshaft could be?
221: I can't believe you were out with someone named Donald.
Why do you think I'm telling him to get his hand 'off' my ass?
, I suppose it's all right, but I think it's an awfully tricky standard to set for families that aren't very, very, fluent non-verbal communicators.
LB's innate WASPiness comes to the fore. Yes, if you're married to John Kerry, you should probably make everything explicit. By the end of the speech, the kid will be too bored to have sex anyway.
Teo, are you bitter that you haven't olost virgin status, that you aren't having sex now, or that you could have had sex, and thus fun, in the past, but surrendered the chance?
What Megan's calling a "pretense" has value precisely *because* sex is (1) private; (2) not your parent's business; (3) an adult activity, and therefore you shouldn't be asking permission.
Apparently there are places (the fabled continent of Yoorp) where these questions can be handled while the kid is living under the parents' roof. #3 sounds a bit Kafkaesque -- I'm refusing you permission because if you were an adult you wouldn't have to ask, but you're asking, so you're not an adult, so you aren't mature enough, so I'm saying no.
B. seems to accept my theory that public opinion (here as compared to Yoorp) is a major factor here.
I don't understand the enthusiasm for pretense and tacit arrangements and plausible parental deniability here. Especially in a specific case where these have broken down and an explicit response has to be made.
222: Eh, we probably aren't that far apart in practice. I agree that 212 is right.
Yes, if you're married to John Kerry, you should probably make everything explicit. By the end of the speech, the kid will be too bored to have sex anyway.
I'm married to an earthy man of the people. I am John Kerry.
LB's innate WASPiness comes to the fore
whuh? The WASP stereotype is to never directly express anything. Indeed, this is true of the WASPiest people I know.
On the alcohol thing. Actually I knew parents who did provide their kids with kegs. This is exactly how all of the post-highschool graduation parties worked. They also took away all of our keys. The one in Greenwich was really weird, because there was a tent with a catered buffet and a security gaurd/valet who took our keys. These were all giant slumber parties. One of them didn't let us in the house (less pleasant); the other was in such a large house that 60 kids didn't feel like a noticeable inconvenience.
My highschool had a formal policy against sex. At other schools, the kids probably managed to have sex in their dorm rooms. Everything at my school happened in the woods, the attic of teh theater and the music practice rooms. People were always making out in the music rooms; it really sucked if you actually needed to practice the piano at night.
There was a big discussion about whether condoms should be available on campus from the infirmary. I think that eventually a efw years after I left they did let them on campus. Before that day students bought them for their friends.
I remember having one conversation with my Dad about sex. (I haven't talked to my Mom about anything important since I was 7.) It was very abstract and theoretical; I think that we were discussing my school's policy. He thought that giving away free condoms would infantilize us--though I don't think he put it quite like that. Basically, he said that he didn't want to know about my sex life. He told me a story about a friend of his who had a very conservative, German father. She wanted to shock him a bit. So one year, when he asked her what she wanted for her birthday, she said, "a diaphragm." And he said, "Ah my dear, when you are old enough to need one, you will be old enough to get one for yourself." Is her father's position in line with B's?
Who knows how useful realtime advice from the Mineshaft could be?
I'm thinking "not very."
A guy who is going to pull the "fuck me or I won't drive you home" thing is not going to wait until she agrees to make out with him in the car to be an asshole, I don't think.
The WASP stereotype is to never directly express anything.
I thought it was never to express anything.
A guy who is going to pull the "fuck me or I won't drive you home" thing is not going to wait until she agrees to make out with him in the car to be an asshole, I don't think.
This is where my confusion comes in. I don't know of anyone pulling that move off in my high school, but if, as the kids (here, teo) say it happens, I'm willing to believe it.
A guy who is going to pull the "fuck me or I won't drive you home" thing is not going to wait until she agrees to make out with him in the car to be an asshole.
The successful ones will. Some abusive guys are under control and capable of being very charming.
Lizardbreath was against sleepovers before she was for them.
238: I don't know of anyone doing that particular move, but that's the sort of attitude toward women I remember a lot of high school guys having.
232's German father is probably somewhat in line with me. My mom told me I could ask her to make an appointment for me if I wanted birth control. I thought that was a bit intrusive, and went to Planned Parenthood all by my little lonesome. If my kid asked, I'd raise an eyebrow and say, "okay, then call the doctor and make an appointment."
Re. parents who host keg parties: yeah, that happened a lot at my high school too. I thought it was inappropriate then, too.
Well, back in my day, I've had a guy I was making out with tell me, after I told him I wasn't going to have sex with him, that I should be more careful because even though he was reasonable, I couldn't expect that everyone would be in the same situation. That would have read as an implicit threat if I hadn't been on the couch in the basement of my house, with help readily available. It's distinctly uncomfortable being told that you've just 'asked for it.'
And I recall it (241) being even more prevalent among sketchy college guys who fuck high school girls. There were a lot of these guys around when I was in high school.
Fuck, now I look like an idiot. I appreciate your support, though.
238/9/41: Of course; I'm well aware that a lot of high school boys are jerks. But I just don't buy that giving a girl permission to have her boyfriend the jerk fuck her in her bedroom is going to *discourage* him from being a jerk; if anything, a jerky guy is going to interpret that as an indication that her parents aren't protective enough. At least, inasmuch as I assume that the kind of jerkiness that thinks it's okay to extort sex from girls usually goes hand-in-hand with the kind of jerkiness that thinks that girls are supposed to say no.
I will use italics for (perhaps excessive) emphasis in every comment I make.
248: It's not about the guy's perception of her sluttiness, it's about her (and his) perception of her ability to enforce her wishes. It's much easier to say "No" when you want to if you aren't worrying about 'what happens if he won't listen?'.
I don't regret not having sex in high school (I'd say "for lack of trying", but I don't know that if I'd tried I would have) but I do regret not being more social than I was.
My high school discussed giving students access to condoms, but I don't know what they decided. There was support available for teen parents.
248 - My policy of discreetly getting busy when the parents are tactfully away doesn't solve the problem of high pressure boy behavior. (Or high pressure girl behavior, for that matter.)
249 - Me too!
problem of high pressure boy behavior. (Or high pressure girl behavior, for that matter.)
Uh, there's a problem with high school girls pressuring guys into sex against their wishes? Really?
"Dear Penthouse:
I never thought this would happen to me..."
But seriously, it's been known to happen.
Uh, there's a problem with high school girls pressuring guys into sex against their wishes? Really?
Ah, the memories. I had a male friend in high school who told a few of us that a woman had "raped" him. He was being hyperbolic, but not entirely. This was about fifteen years ago, and we still bring it up to make fun of him.
#257
But was it an older woman, or a peer? If I were to count all the times in history a high school girl had forced sex with a male peer, would I even get into double digits?
And he didn't automatically want sex with her, just because he was a boy? And he wasn't happy with the situation because she pressured him into sex he didn't want? Thank god you're still making fun of him for that.
And he didn't automatically want sex with her, just because he was a boy?
Of course he did, didn't you take biology? She just wasn't cool enough for him to admit that he was perfectly happy to get it on with her.
I heart Megan.
Look, re. the "girls are safer with someone within earshot" thing, yes; that's a reasonable reason, I suppose, to prefer a daughter to have sex in your home than in, say, a car. But something about that argument just really bothers me. At some point she's going to leave home and still be having sex and you won't be around to rescue her from pressurey guys. Is there going to be a rule that she can *only* have sex at home?
I know that date rape can happen to anyone, etc. etc. But I somehow can't help feeling that there's something wrong with assuming that a young woman who is having sex needs to have her parents around just in case.
She doesn't need to, but it couldn't hurt, and the only objection I'm hearing is that it would make the parents uncomfortable. Which, as I said above, doesn't seem like a very important issue here.
People, Henley solved the problem, we can talk about basketball now.
My poor daughter had to endure a WASP dad and European classmates: 'why can't I sleep over, everyone else is?' 'The answer is no, and we'll discuss it no further.'
This wouldn't work so well in NYC, I wouldn't think, but the Bay Area is a fine place for sneaking around. I certainly got to know Tilden Park quite well as a high schooler, and to this day I can navigate most of the more remote backroads of Sonoma County.
I don't think that's my only object, the discomfort. My objection to the sleepover thing isn't discomfort, exactly, either. I think it's just more that it violates a boundary that I think is healthy to maintain between parents and kids re. sexual activity.
Re. the potential rape scenario, yes: it's definitely something to think about (although LB's "asking for it" story took place in her parents' house, and presumably she didn't have permission to have her boyfriends spend the night). I, personally, prefer a sense of privacy around sex (no, really, I do) and the idea of having sex as a teenager with my folks in the house knowing that I was having sex would not have made me feel safer. It would have made me feel oddly violated. And while yes, rape can happen to anyone, it's nothing to do with what the girl does or doesn't do, etc., I also can't help feeling that a girl who feels confident in her own judgment and knows her parents have her back is less likely to find herself in situations where she's uncomfortable, and if she does, I hope that she'll be able to handle them, precisely because she *isn't* going to be under her parents' protection for the rest of her sexually active life.
I can see LB's point of view, but I'm really bothered by what I can't help seeing as a logical extension that sexually active young women should always be having sex somewhere where other people can hear them.
I certainly got to know Tilden Park quite well as a high schooler
Hey, did you ever go ice-blocking?
272 -- In Orinda, yes. Never in Tilden. One more reason to invent a time machine.
I, personally, prefer a sense of privacy around sex (no, really, I do) and the idea of having sex as a teenager with my folks in the house knowing that I was having sex would not have made me feel safer. It would have made me feel oddly violated.
Surely you can concede that these are not universal preferences.
But there's no need to acknowledge your daughter will be having sex just because you let them sleep over. Teen couples do sleep over without having sex, cf Becks. You can allow sleepovers and still keep your polite fictions, at least in Europe.
Whatever, there are too many unknown variables here. Different families are going to properly impose different rules. There's a pretty good chance any and all of the rules will work out fine. If your parents turn you into a neurotic mess, that's fine, too: you'll fit in with the rest of American society.
Carmelo Anthony: coming of age, or an aberration?
Tim is of course right. Sorry to be so annoying about this; I just get irritated at the bizarre restrictions American society puts on teenage sexuality.
Let's move on then.
DaveL: 'BTW, Emily Yoffe is a huge improvement on Margo Howard, yes?'
Yes, see 9.
Do you agree with 9?
#275
It's also possible they're spending the night riding around on unicorns and sewing shoes with elves. I need my fictions a bit more plausible.
271: I think that the House LB was referring to was her MIT Co-op house. I think she was saying that she felt safer on her own turf, in part, because it was her own turf, and in part because she knew that she had hosuemates who could kick the guy's ass if she needed them to.
This doesn't address what seems to me to be B's chief complaint: women shouldn't have to think that they will have reason to fear for their safety when they're having sex. They shouldn't need to be able to scream out for help, but I'm not sure that she's right. My own thoughts aren't well enough formed to argue.
Carmelo: they're letting him get all the points precisely because he's not LeBron or Wade, so no one's feathers are ruffled. He is a great scorer though, and always has been.
Also: I'd ask the mineshaft for dating advice, if you weren't a bunch of stupid foreigners. It should be a pretty useful kind of peergroup for the rest of ypou.
274: Sure. But I can only extrapolate for my own kid(s) based on my own experience (and of course my knowledge of them). At this point, it's all hypothetical. What I've said in the thread is what I honestly think at the moment, but I might well change my mind when PK is ten twelve years older.
Hey, they've found a scythian mummy in Mongolia. That's pretty awesome.
Damn basketball. If I wanted to watch a sport where the foreigners kick our asses I'd turn on soccer.
280: I suppose I should also admit that part of my "what? Teenage girls don't need mommy around to save them" attitude is also based on my own highschool/college sex experiences, in which I was *always* playing the lead. The couple of guys who tried to push me didn't get very far. I know there are jerky boys out there, but there are also a lot a lot a lot of guys who are on the shy side and when I imagine PK or a theoretical daughter dating or having sex, I imagine it involving a guy who thinks of girls as autonomous people.
Carmelo: they're letting him get all the points precisely because he's not LeBron or Wade, so no one's feathers are ruffled. He is a great scorer though, and always has been.
Intriguing. I must admit that had not occurred to me. It's so hard to figure out how close or far he is from the LeBron/Wade (should really be LeBron----Wade, but I bow to consensus) level. Sometimes he just appears to be unstoppable; I keep forgetting how tall he is.
when I imagine PK . . . having sex, I imagine it involving a guy . . . .
Interesting.
286: See, where were all the girls like that when I was in high school? (Or college, for that matter.) This mystifies me to no end.
289: Newsflash: PK is a boy. If he's having sex, there's a guy involved.
290: Have you tried wearing Axe cologne? The advertising claims it works wonders for one's sex life.
#290
Ask out the religious ones. Seriously. The ones who've been trying (or pretending to try) to "save it for marriage" can be quite aggressive if you get them alone.
290: Based on my impression of you, Teo, I have no idea why you're not getting laid on a regular basis.
Teo, seriously, you ought not worry about it. Talk to women who seem interesting, and the sex will come.
Despite what you're about to hear from the rest of the crew, I am just the guy to take advice from in this matter.
291: second "a" s/b "at least one".
293: Thanks. Very interesting.
294: I hadn't thought of that. There could be some practical problems.
295: Thanks.
296: Don't worry, I'm not actually very concerned about it anymore.
Teo: I've heard you should give them wine.
It totally doesn't bother me. I, like, never think about it. Whatever. I'm fine with it now.
Megan, don't talk to guys who seem interesting; they're neurotic. Chat up the shy ones, jump them, and the sex will come.
Anyone else looking for some guidance?
A fuller response to 295/296 is that I'm actually painfully shy in real life, so just talking to the interesting women is a step I take less than I probably should. I'm better about it than I used to be, but still not great. And even when I do pursue something, it never goes anywhere, which just contributes to the reluctance to bother. I'm sure it'll work out eventually, though.
Are you the person to take advice from in the matter of interesting neurotic men?
Note that ogged said "seem" interesting.
My high-school life dodged this dilemma in a variety of ways, one of which was not having a private bedroom, so even if I had been having sex with my girlfriend, it would have been somewhere else than my house no matter what. A sleepover probably would have been fine with my parents because it would have been entirely obvious to everyone in the house what was or wasn't going on.
I'm a bit surprised how much this thread presumes that kids have a private space in their parents' house. I don't think it's as universal as is being presumed.
Based on my impression of you, Teo, I have no idea why you're not getting laid on a regular basis.
I'm guessing shyness. Ogged's advice of "Talk to women who seem interesting" is good, but harder for some than others.
Aha! I had not yet seen 306 when I posted.
307: No, but, through intense introspection, he knows all about neurotic who seem interesting.
The comments sure are flying tonight, aren't they?
And even when I do pursue something, it never goes anywhere, which just contributes to the reluctance to bother. I'm sure it'll work out eventually, though.
Teo, at one time or another, we've all been you. (At least the guys.) It really does work out. It's hard to believe that there's not someone at school with you who has a massive crush on you right now. (Sleep with her.)
Megan, I'm here to answer all your questions.
Hard to believe, but that does indeed seem to be the case.
Crap. Add "men" to 314.
Not to mention kind of pwnd by 309.
Wait, Teo, are you still in school? Dude, "talk to" in school is entirely different from "talk to" in, say, a bar. If there's a woman you're interested in in school, there's a very good chance you're going to see her more than once, so you can totally play it cool. If you share a class, sit near her and just make a witty remark about something that happens in class one day. If she laughs, and you do it again another day and she laughs, you can ask her out, and it'll make her happy. If you don't share a class, just say "hello." After a few "hello"s, you can chat, and it won't feel like chatting up a total stranger. You don't have to have "interesting" things to say.
Hard to believe, but that does indeed seem to be the case.
It's time to get a bike.
318: That's what you think now. Get back to us in a few years; I strongly suspect you'll be smacking yourself in the forehead.
I am indeed still in school. I have done what you suggest rather a lot, to no avail. At this point I'm running out of women.
317 -
How many seasons are we going to get out of Ron Artest? When the Maloofs fired Adelman, did they fire one of the few coaches Artest respected? Isn't Musselman supposed to be all hard-ass? How is that gonna work with Artest?
Where is this breaking down? You make your witty remarks, you get the little laughs, and then do you ask them out? Having asked them out, do you try to kiss them on the date?
Where is this breaking down? You make your witty remarks, you get the little laughs, and then do you ask them out? Having asked them out, do you try to kiss them on the date?
OK, don't listen to ogged, Teo. Unless you have the black BMW and the huge gold watch.
Isn't Musselman supposed to be all hard-ass? How is that gonna work with Artest?
Megan, it doesn't matter in the least who is coaching, because Ron Artest is fucking nuts. You should be hoping that he doesn't kill the ball boy one day because he got a bounce pass instead of a chest pass. I can't tell you how much time you'll get out of Artest, but I can tell you that he absolutely will undermine the team just when it seems y'all have a chance to do something good.
What the fuck is wrong with my 325 Timbot? He's in college.
I don't quite understand what the problem was for Musselman and the Warriors. (Aside from it being the Warriors.) They actually played better (relative to other years since 1994) that year.
When the Maloofs fired Adelman, did they fire one of the few coaches Artest respected?
I still think firing Adelman was an enormous mistake. I don't know why he gets no respect, but he's probably in my top ten of current-ish NBA coaches. And I really don't get hiring Musselman, for roughly the resons you cite (though he, too, is a good coach).
325: No, the dates tend to go okay until the point (sometimes months later) when it comes time to clarify the "is this a date?" issue. Or this.
We're used to that from the Webber era.
Hey, teo, I hear having a blog totally gets you all the hottt chix. You could try that!
Come to think of it, doesn't P.J. Carlesimo usually follow Adelman? Imagine him coaching Artest.
Having asked them out, do you try to kiss them on the date?
This step is typically my problem. It's tricky. I rarely make a move, actually, it's usually up to the other person.
335: Me too. Really, I've just got all sorts of problems with the whole dating thing.
I can't tell you how much time you'll get out of Artest, but I can tell you that he absolutely will undermine the team just when it seems y'all have a chance to do something good.
Don't listen to him, Megan. Artest has some emotional problems, but he might be the best value in basketball. And he's a good guy. We're not talking about Eddie Griffin, here. Artest watches his porn while parked.
No, the dates tend to go okay until the point (sometimes months later) when it comes time to clarify the "is this a date?"
Motorcycle my man. No joke. With a decent bike, boots, and a non douchey jacket, shy becomes mysterious.
Artest sure is pretty to watch. I really like how he anticipates. Maybe the overwhelming worship he'll get here in Sac will keep him happy?
335-336
If her torso orients towards you as you change locations, she is interested in you. If she touches your arm, she wants you to kiss her.
I've just got all sorts of problems with the whole dating thing.
No you don't. You're 21, so unless your uncle Keith diddled you when you were a kid, you're just like the rest of us. The easiest way to find out if a woman wants you to kiss her is to ask. "Would it be ok if I kiss you?" Please try this the next time you're on a date.
What the fuck is wrong with my 325 Timbot? He's in college.
1. I dunno. Though we didn't "date" at my college, I guess that's basically what I did. But somehow you've made it sound sort of Euro-trashy.
2. Like most advice, it's not specific enough.
Also, I really liked what one of Dan Savage's readers wrote in:
"You can't say the right thing to the wrong person or the wrong thing to the right person."
You will never be eloquent enough to persuade someone to have a crush on you, but thankfully, if she already has a crush on you, she'll think whatever you stammer out is adorable
Hey, he liked it. And it's not as if his parents didn't condone the whole thing. I sure miss those snacks his mom used to drop off on the bedside table.
we didn't "date" at my college
We don't here either, really. That's what makes it so weird.
339: Yeah, we had a whole thread about that. It just never seems so unambiguous at the moment. I shall note my suggestion from then, which I feel still holds.
342 gets at the real issue. My problem is not that I'm fucking up the dates, it's that the girls don't actually like me.
teo, have you tried adding more salt?
Three squares not agreeing with you, Keith?
I'll square your circle, ogged.
345 contains much wisdom. I wish women would hit on me more often.
Teo, you actually seem to be doing better than I did when I was in college. Are you sure that no one's interested in you? 322 may be accurate.
Please try this the next time you're on a date.
I've pretty sure I've never been on a date until after I've started dating the person. Before that, it's just casual hanging out with ambiguous subtext.
Seriously, I can't think of anyone that might be interested. And trust me, I've given this much thought.
Teo, Matt F, the next time you're feeling that "ambiguous subtext" tingle, will you ask the woman if you can kiss her, please?
(If you guys smell bad, all this advice is void.)
353 - Yeah, until I started begging for dates on the internets I had never been on a date until after I started dating the person. I recently went on my first ever second date. That didn't go anywhere either.
354 - But a new school year is about to start, right? We didn't date either in undergrad, but I think I would have loved being asked out on a real date. So old school!
But a new school year is about to start, right?
Started today. All hope is not lost by any means.
Uncle Keith and Aunt Carol might have some interesting things to say to each other.
Seriously, I can't think of anyone that might be interested. And trust me, I've given this much thought.
Hmm. I'm really the last person who should be giving advice on this issue, but since ogged's unexpectedly trying to turn you into a fey poet, I'll just note that you don't need a woman to "like" like you, just to like you. That is, there are women out there in roughly your situation, and their circumstances are complicated by the extra layer of fucked-upness that seems to come with being a woman dealing with sex matters. So, essentially, they want to have sex with someone they can trust not to be a dick about it. And sometimes, that's really all they are looking for. Find those women; be that guy. You do, of course, have a moral obligation to share details here.
How the hell do you people keep up this pace? Trying to type up a complete sentence that is on topic and makes sense but isn't 20 comments behind the wave is like trying to get above 20th on a round of WEBoggle.
Thanks for the candid discussion of your (not inflexible) views, though. My daughter is 11 and I've been freaking out as we get closer to her debut in junior high school. I asked a friend whose daughter just married what advice he had for me and he said "none". "You must know something helpful to tell me?" Two words that I'm repeating to myself like a mantra: "be cool". Stop fretting it and typing out policies to deal with every possible situation because the stress, it's contagious; but a relaxed and confident attitude rubs off just as well.
That relatively temporary state of teenage rebellion aside, emulation is the more likely future for any of our kids. A proverb: "train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."
Seriously, I can't think of anyone that might be interested. And trust me, I've given this much thought.
I stand by 322. This is one of those things you just can't see except in hindsight.
Find those women; be that guy.
Easier said than done. I'm not entirely sure how I would identify them. Any tips?
355: when I say "ambiguous", I really mean that. It's hard to tell flirty from friendly (checklist of signals aside, the little doubting voice in the head is very persuasive), and the whole "unwanted advances" thing is something I don't want to touch with a 39 1/2 foot pole.
366: Okay, maybe, but all the most probable candidates already have boyfriends.
(Cheating is Wrong.)
Tim's advice isn't functionally different from mine, he just wants you to be a soulless mercenary about it, while I'm all about the pretense of human interaction. Keep making those remarks in class; I'm positive that you're wrong that no one's interested; Josh is totally right about this.
the whole "unwanted advances" thing is something I don't want to touch with a 39 1/2 foot pole
Agreed. That's why you ask. Anyone who is willing to be alone with you won't be freaked out, even if she doesn't want to kiss you.
Dubious, how?
I thought you were mid to late 30s? Hmmm, must be projecting.
I'm all about the pretense of human interaction.
It's that taraf thing again, isn't it? Why can't you and your people just be honest and straightforward, ogged?
Cheating is Drama, which is even worse than wrong.
But being respectfully asked, when you know whatever answer you give is completely fine, if someone can kiss you is nice and flattering. If you want him to kiss you, it is also romantic and exciting and thrilling. Asking straight out is good technique.
Asking straight out is good technique.
It didn't work out so well for me.
371: Huh. Hadn't thought about it that way. Interesting.
If you're too shy to ask straight out, try getting some engraved invitations printed up that say something like "The Honor of a Kiss is Requested". Then you can just fill in her name and hand it to her. Totally classy.
Teofile doesn't have to wade through this experience with his brain, and probably shouldn't.
I didn't think I had any advice, but since I'm going to be behind the curve on yet another comment, why not just keep typing. Just add one good thing at a time to your interactions. I'm still learning how to smile at attractive people, I more naturally cower and grimace. My prior exercise in interactions with pretty women was looking them in the eye - it's finally getting natural. The next one will be telling them how nice they look in a way that makes them feel good.
And I was you dude, with my cherry intact til my mid 20's.
Tim's advice isn't functionally different from mine, he just wants you to be a soulless mercenary about it, while I'm all about the pretense of human interaction.
My position is that, whether he knows it or not, a guy in teo's circumstance (a bit worried about jumping the first hurdle) is a soulless mercenary. As are similarly situated women.
In light of 376, y'all should know that Millsy is also Uncle Keith, which I knew even before I checked the IP.
The engraved invitations don't seem so strange if you already presented her with your card before calling upon her to request the honor of her presence for the evening.
379: What happened to keeping such things implicit?
How is that "in light of 376"?
And truly, there's no getting anything past you, ogged.
And not that I really care, but what's the big deal, oggsy? I wasn't pretending to be another known commenter. Did I violate some other protocol?
Like I said, I don't care, I just don't want to be pissing you off unless it's specifically intended.
I'm not pissed, I just didn't want our young men taking dating advice from a convicted pedophile.
I TOLD you I've CHANGED!
Now come over here and give me some sugar.
369: See, now you're moving from "I don't think anyone's interested in me" to "there might be someone, but I wouldn't do anything about it", which is a different thing entirely.
Either way: this is something that cannot be taught except by experience. You will, at some point, have it made crystal-clear to you that there is someone interested in you, and then you will commence with the forehead-smacking.
Easier said than done. I'm not entirely sure how I would identify them. Any tips?
Well, the shy ones, for example. They're struggling with the same problem as you are; on top of which, they've got a little voice in their head telling them that they can't be proactive about it, because that would somehow invalidate the whole thing. Also, the ones who are outgoing, but slightly reticent when discussions turn to sex. But I think most women (people) feel this way at one point or another in college, just not throughout college.
367 - Tips on recognizing women with a crush on you:
She is willing to be alone with you.
She wants to tell you her news.
She asks you questions that anyone around could answer.
She keeps her shoulders/chest squared to you, no matter where you are in the room. (This works.)
She arranges to walk next to you in a crowd.
She doesn't get off the phone.
She touches your arm (actually, by this point she would probably sleep with you, but just ask for a kiss. Maybe that is just me.)
She listens to you talk at length about dorky things.
Her girlfriends giggle when you show up.
Her girlfriends giggle when you show up.
Just hope they don't start pointing at you as they giggle, though.
387: Okay, I'll take your word for it. My point, though, is that even if there is someone out there who likes me, that's unlikely to help me on a practical level.
389: You seem to be presuming a starting level of intimacy that is way, way, way higher than I have with any of my friends, male or female.
She is willing to be alone with you.
I'm surprised by that one, which I think ogged also mentioned. I think I'd be offended if a woman wasn't comfortable being alone with me; I can't remember a situation in which it was clear that a woman wasn't comfortable being alone with me.
It's worth a shot. Steer clear of mine, though.
If you don't like a guy but you think he likes you, you don't want to be alone with him because he might declare his love. I try to prevent those situations by not being alone with him.
If you are just waiting for sweet, shy Teofilo to please make a move, you can hang out all night in his dorm room alone with him. You know, on his bed, talking about how you need a backrub.
I can't remember a situation in which it was clear that a woman wasn't comfortable being alone with me
Uh, that's because if she wasn't she avoided it, Aristotle.
391: On a practical level? Yeah, exactly, none of this is going to help you on a practical level; it's not something anyone else can really help you with, because all of the important stuff goes on inside your head. (Which sucks. It'd be a lot easier if you could just download these lessons to someone's brain and skip the whole learning-by-experience thing.) On a practical level, the only thing you can do is what ogged said: keep interacting with people.
Shyness is a horrible, horrible, curse. I empathize.
I have no advice really, except: consider doing a Master's program in a field like Art History. Or my field. In my cohort there are like, 15 women and 2 men. And all the women complain that they don't meet any men.
Uh, that's because if she wasn't she avoided it, Aristotle.
No no no. It's clearly because every woman wants to bang SomeCallMeTim.
If you are just waiting for sweet, shy Teofilo to please make a move, you can hang out all night in his dorm room alone with him. You know, on his bed, talking about how you need a backrub.
See, if women were doing this there'd be no problem.
From the opposite perspective, it's 2:45 a.m. on a work night and I've just now finished proofreading/editing/providing moral support for the final paper a friend had to write for her class. Hint to the women: if a guy does this kind of thing, he likely has a crush on you. Making clear your reation to this would be very helpful.
399: There's a thought. I am happy to be in linguistics, which has a roughly equal gender balance, rather than, say, math.
Uh, that's because if she wasn't she avoided it, Aristotle.
I think we must be talking about very different situations, because I've been alone with plenty of women who weren't interested in me.
Teofilo:
My dating advice is to get drunk more ...
More seriously, I had a few friends in this situation. Good-looking, funny guys who struggled to meet women. Most of them got over it after their first few successes and, quite quickly, went from being hopelessly unlucky to being quite successful. Confidence and the absence of an air of desperation seem like the key things.
For me too, acquiring confidence was the key thing. When I was in high school there were girls I liked but I had no clue about how to turn that into anything. When I was 16 my first serious girlfriend aggressively pursued me and the confidence that resulted and the ability to read the signs and work out when someone liked me made all the difference. After that, it was easy.
Not constructive advice, just pointing out it does get better.
Also, people, wtf is this 'we don't date at my college' thing?
Many US colleges are much like the UK in that they are blissfully free of the peculiar American institution of Dating.
399: Nah, that's just an express ticket to frustration at best, "just one of the girls" status at worst. (My major in college was skewed similarly to your cohort. Did me absolutely no good whatsoever.)
I think they mean the kind of formal dating that Tia likes so much, and you were weired out by.
wtf is this 'we don't date at my college' thing?
It just means that there isn't a convention of formal dating among people who aren't already in a relationship. Intereactions are more casual; hanging out at parties and the like.
Just hope they don't start pointing at you as they giggle, though.
And especially hope they don't hold their thumb and forefinger close together when they giggle...
Ah, OK. 406, 408 and 410 make sense.
My dating advice is to get drunk more ...
Thanks, Pops.
411: You have my sympathy for your unfortunate situation, Josh.
Wish I could say I knew how you felt, but . . .
re: 413
I'm only trying to think of your welfare, son.
392 - Those tips are out of your ordinary range of interactions? You don't walk around with the crowd from your dorms, and jostle for position as you walk next to each other? You don't have on-going light conversations that could turn into her telling you news or asking you about your hobbies?
If that's a surprising level of intimacy, then you aren't making yourself available to anyone, much less for girls to crush on. (Please say if I read that wrong, or if I should stop teasing you.)
Sure, I did those things freshman year, when I lived in a dorm (and none of the girls on my hall showed any of the signs of interest you mention). But I'm a senior now, I live in an off-campus apartment, and I basically do my own thing most of the time.
Did everyone go to bed or something?
'Own thing most of the time' means not much opportunity for people to see you are great.
Maybe you don't like hanging out in a crowd (dorms, sport, acting, music), but the trade-off is that you have to affirmatively work to meet girls and ask them out more formally. When you move in a group, more interaction happens with less work on your part.
Not bed for me yet. I still say motorcycle. And I second more getting drunk. But keep those two things separate.
re: 417
That can be a pretty hard situation to be in if you don't live cheek-by-jowl with lots of other people. Are there 'social' things you do? That might provide more opportunities?
Yeah, group activities are the way to go. It really is difficult to meet people if you're just going places by yourself.
Do you have any interests that could put you in touch with other people regularly, particularly people you haven't met before? (Clubs, student organizations, etc.) I was too shy to follow this advice, for the most part, but it seems like a good idea.
We speak with many voices, all saying the same things.
See, there's Megan practically inviting you into her bed. Come on, Teofilo.
Take a class or two in something like elementary education or nursing. Those majors are full of hot chicks.
At least offer her a back rub.
Or whip out that engraved invitation.
427: Dude, she's all the way across the fucking country. Maybe I should get that motorcycle.
428 - Environmental Science classes are all full of hippy girls. They're totally easy.
Night, y'all.
I knew I should have double-majored in ES and history.
420 et seq.: I'm really not a very social person by nature, which is a big part of the problem. I don't mind doing things by myself, and the shyness means I don't often feel comfortable calling people up, so I usually end up alone. Which is fine in general, and how I prefer to live, but does make meeting girls difficult.
I have tried to become more involved in extracurriculars, and that's probably my most promising opportunity. I'm the president of our newly formed linguistics club, which might be good for something (hey, you never know).
So basically, yes, I have thought about these things, but I appreciate all the advice and support. You guys are great.
Everyone's advice here is completely accurate. Especially the "ask if you can kiss her" thing. God, that's so sweet and hot.
And this whole, "she's across the country" thing--talk about your defeatest attitudes. Engage in the long-distance flirt, Teo; it isn't going to hurt you.
Not comfortable calling people up? Email them. You're obviously reasonably comfortable online, yes?
That is indeed what I do, but not everyone is as comfortable with e-mail as I am.
newly formed linguistics club
Excellent, that means you can take the initiative on throwing parties where your members invite their friends; or parties organized with people from other clubs, who also want to meet new people. Anyway, don't stress about it, we've all been there. Except for B, the swinger.
Asking girls out via e-mail doesn't work too well, btw. Too easy to ignore.
(437: I've been doing that. Presumably at some point it'll start to pay off.)
Good night, everyone. Thanks for all the advice.
My university offered informal classes in all kinds of stuff: ballroom dancing, beer brewing, aikido, you name it. One class that was often offered was titled something like "Getting Over a Break-Up". We always thought there would be plenty of potential for rebound action there, but none of us ever signed up.
I know someone who took a ballroom dancing class for reasons he never gave but which could be guessed, but I don't know how that worked out for him.
He's probably too busy bonking hot women in ball gowns to call you.
re: 442
I've heard from female friends that dance classes are ful l of women looking to be swept off their feet by the appropriate (linguistically informed) guy...
You never know how far this linguistics club thing might get you— I had a huge crush on the president of our philosophy club in undergrad.
re: 445
I was the president of the philosophy club in undergrad.
My guess is that if I ever take a dance class I'm going to be going with someone, so that sort of defeats the purpose of taking the class to meet someone.
I'm going to pull a Farber and not bother to read all the insane number of comments but rather say: B is right insofar but only insofar as she says that if he's asking permission, he's too young—not because 17 is too young, but because asking permission is the wrong thing to do, as it force's the parents' hands.
This an exactly analogous situation to Socrates' trial, in which I think one of his prosecutors said (I now can't remember how I came to think this, given that the Apology only contains what S (according to Plato) said) that he had no ill-will towards Socrates and the case should never have been brought, but that, having been brought, it had to be prosecuted, and that it wouldn't go well for Socrates.
Suppose you're of the mind that it's no biggie if the kids get it on but, for whatever reason, you don't want them taking the night to believe. (This seems to be the parents' situation in the, uh, situation at hand, since they claim not to be under illusions as to teenage sex.) How, if your kid out and asks you about it, can you coherently communicate that? "You can screw around if you want, just don't be here in the morning" sounds ridiculous (this may point to an underlying ridiculousness in the position, but obviously one can't codify a policy of benevolent neglect without thereby automatically expanding the boundaries too far) and will only undermine any authority the parents have, because it's so arbitrary. Faced with a choice between consenting to everything and being total hardasses, which do you think the parents will choose? The kid brought it on himself; by asking, he revealed himself to lack judgment, as well as
initiative.
I guess this is similar to Megan's 50.
I, of course, would be (theoretically) completely willing to let my kid have his or her girl or boy or boy or girlfriend over, because what parent doesn't want to see* his or her children succeeding better than he or she him or herself did?
*metaphorically
Also the first three paragraphs of 121 get it exactly right.
I disagree with 296.
In fact, I disagree with all of the advice to teo. Amor fati is the only way: take vows.
Of course there's also the argument that you should never let your kids have sex in your house until they've moved out, because if you let them get that comfortable they'll never leave.
I just mention this to help w-lfs-n on his way.
Uh, that's because if she wasn't she avoided it, Aristotle.
This, though: genius. (also.)
teo, I haven't read the rest of this thread, and I hope this sounds non-creepy, and not predatory older womanish, but after I met you, I remarked to several people that you were even cuter in person than in pictures (seriously, cornfed All American! tall! broad shouldered! the women of your college should be ashamed at the waste of resources they're perpetrating) , and also that for the brief time I spoke with you, you made a detailed description of your bird phobias utterly charming, so I really can't fathom that there's no girl who likes you. But college can be small and insular, and you can keep running in the same circles, so you too should try the internet.
What people don't understand is that shyness and its frequent accompaniment, the expectation of not doing well, of some sorts is a neurtue (completely uninformative link, but the word is mentioned in the table of contents for chapter five; see also "Death" in Happiness, Death and the Remainder of Life); that is, an opportunity for creative repetition of the world in a manner similar to that which virtues affords, according to Lear (eg, a courageous person will see all sorts of situations as opportunities for the display of courage; thus, repetitive in that everything is brought back to courage in the end, but creative because there is no rule for courage), but in a rigid, inflexible manner. Thus when teo says "My problem is not that I'm fucking up the dates, it's that the girls don't actually like me.", you know, there's probably a lot of self-deception and creativity going into making that seem to be the case (though if he's actually getting dates the problem surely can't be that bad). It's, like, a self-perpetuating whole. One can look at a list like Megan's and say, I recognize that in the past so and so many women were behaving this way, but even if you hold the list in your head for the future, you'll find a way to discount a lot of signals that would otherwise count against your neurtuous character.
To clarify 453, all I meant was that using "Aristotle" that way is genius.
OneFatEnglishman and Tia, thanks for your help, but we're going to need to step up the pace a bit.
It's OK, they'll be waking up in NYC in a minute. Unless all the women have rushed off to seduce Teo.
Maybe they'd like to talk about ultra-awesome cadenzas like this one if they don't want to continue talking about mr. filo, who, I reiterate, should just put everything out of his mind and hope that somehow by chance he's robbed of his virtue.
That cadenza does rock. Hugely.
They don't trust us with sound cards at work, but I'll remember to listen when I get home.
mr filo sounds like a brand of unspeakably ersatz sweet pastries, which is unkind. Mind you, until I read Tia's eulogy above, the author function teofilo had me imagining something more like this.
we were just packing up and getting ready to leave
Now I have this image in my head of Becks arranging each of the dildos and butt plugs in its special compartment in her black leather attaché.
Also: Weman has got the cool heavy-metal keyboard because he lives in Sweden.
Mr Filo could also be a nice wholesome spanakopita. Even better, a delivery service for same.
That name again is Mr Filo.
Advice:
Learn to jitterbug, and then do it. I stand in awe of the evident desirability of a man who can jitterbug well. I'm sure there are real Ev Psych points to this, and one can feel free to make them up. It does, however, give one an opportunity to show a number of desirable attributes in a highly visible way.
Couple of comments: To B. way back when. No, I'm not meaning to say that young women shouldn't have sex out of earshot of their parents. Just that there's something wrong with a system that makes it much more likely, in the years when they're still uncertain about what they're doing and less likely to be skilled and forceful about protecting themselves, that they'll always be out of range of any kind of help. (And yes, I was at college, not at home.)
Teo- To make you even more uncomfortable, Tia's 454 is right -- whatever problems you're having are related to 'shy', rather than to failures in either 'cute' or 'charming'. And the advice you've been getting is pretty good.
One thing -- you say people don't 'date', but you could. What it sounds like your problem is that your social life isn't set up so that you're hanging out with female friends in a circumstance where it wouldn't be a total non-sequitur to hit on them. ('Hit on' should be understood to be friendly, respectful, all that good stuff.) 'Dating' may be comparatively artificial, but it's not going to offend anyone. "Hey, you seem like the sort of person I'd like to get to know better, and I'm not sure how else it's going to happen. Do you want to go to (the ball game/get some coffee/whatever)." And once you're doing something in a two person context, the signals should get clearer.
There's no requirement that you know her terribly well first -- mere acquaintances are fine.
(Or you could just accelerate your rate of hanging out with friends, particularly female friends, and hope something works out. The 'actually date' advice is just if you're getting impatient.)
re: 465
I can't imagine there are that many opportunities to show off one's lindyhop/swing/jitterbug skills.
Playing guitar in a rock band. That works. It's not a quick solution, though. Given the whole 'learning the guitar' bit...
Apparently Gilles Apap is a fan of In'n'Out.
Playing guitar in a rock band. That works. It's not a quick solution, though. Given the whole 'learning the guitar' bit...
I've heard the "music" you kids listen to these days and I doubt any of those half-rate entertainers knows how to play his instrument or any other!
re: 469
There are still years of posing in front of the mirror. Fixing your early 80s retro-garb in just the right way -- to fit with whichever aspect of the early 80s is currently in revival.
Learning to hold your guitar in a cool way, knowing whether to go classic -- Les Paul or Stratocaster -- or go for some obscure brand --Mosrite or Burns, maybe -- to catch some extra cred.
This takes years of study.
467 -- Jitterbug is especially effective when out of context (but very well executed).
There's also a certain Field of Dreams aspect to learning to jitterbug. Confidence in one's ability to 'handle' a woman properly, and the experience in doing so that learning this dance requires, are their own rewards.
And it doesn't take very many displays of this talent to get a favorable whispering campaign underway.
471: You know, this isn't useless advice. Your college offers a ballroom dance class in the Phys Ed department (at least most do), and the class is going to be 2/3 women who think dancing would be fun and want men to do it with. If it's not the sort of thing that fills you with complete esthetic loathing, taking the class, making friends, and encouraging people who are enjoying the class to go out and socialize to find other opportunities to dance is going to put you in a very female heavy social scene.
And it is fun.
And before the good doctor responds, let me say that I mean 'handle' in the most literal way.
Notice that I'm savvy enough not to congratulate Teo on having reached the ideal, relationship-free state already at such a young age. You don't appreciate what you've got till it's gone. He'll learn.
"Marriage is like a besieged fortress. Everyone outside it is trying to get in, and everyone inside is trying to escape". Qian Zhongshu
During my career of failure, rejection, and bitterness, I did notice a few things. One is that the hottest women seem to gravitate to the Romance language departments. They're looking for Romance guys (cf. "Fernando"), but maybe Teo is Romance.
Second, another place to find hot women is around horses. Horsewomen are also romantic, but they're relatively down-to-earth, good-natured, and low-maintenance too, because they have to shovel shit and so on.
400+ comments overnight??? Jaysus Christ in a tiny wicker basket.
I hope this sounds non-creepy, and not predatory older womanish
No predatory older woman are you--I'm pretty sure you and Teo fall actually fall within the n/2 + 7 range. And going from personal experience, you don't have to worry about coming across as creepy until you're into your 40's.
Teo, while there is much truth to 475, you should nonetheless ignore it.
It's true that until I listened very closely to the words, I assumed that the Bob Marley classic No woman, no cry was a simple statement of an obvious correlation, but still, love and sex and friendship etc. is worth it.
477 -- I know, I'm concerned too -- I want to lay some advice on Teo but I don't feel like I can do it without reading the thread, which I don't really foresee doing.
The "advice to Teo" section (and related tangents) only starts around comment 290. Not so daunting as it initially seems.
And before the good doctor responds, let me say that I mean 'handle' in the most literal way.
The good doctor found that use of handle utterly charming, actualy. Having only danced twice in her life with partners who could lead, one of whom was a woman.
Which is to say, the dancing class is a totally awesome idea. Even if you don't pick up chicks, you'll learn invaluable chick-charming skills that will doubtless come in handy at some point. I can't really dance for shit, and yet haven't been able to convince Mr. B. (who loves to dance, but in a totally bizarre and idiosyncratic fashion) to take classes with me, like, ever. Men who can dance are shockingly rare. I am sad not to be able to go dancing.
I want to lay some advice on Teo but I don't feel like I can do it without reading the thread, which I don't really foresee doing.
I'm not letting it stop me, so why should you?
Teo--more concrete advice: go make friends with women. Try to forget that you are looking for true love or hot sex (hard to do, I know) and just relax and make friends. When you like someone, let them know (in a non-creepy way--my rule is never to stalk someone until you have had sex with them). The rest will happen, and even if it does not, you will have friends to hang out with.
This advice works--I am fat and plain looking and very shy and not very charming and yet from the time I was 15 until now (50), I have almost always had a woman--whether a girlfriend or a wife--in my life. Genuinely kind friendly isn't as sexy as being a player, but it works.
OK, buy a horse, study Spanish, learn to dance. Easy.
I'm late to this thread, so I can't make it through all 500 previous comments, but I just wanted to add some funny anecdotes. When I was in high school, my girlfriend (now wife- awwww, how cute) and I had sex, and I'm sure our parents knew that, but what's funny is that it was never when they probably thought it was. For example, before we were having sex, she came over to my house after we played tennis and took a shower, but nothing else happened. My mom found the wet towel and asked who had taken a shower in the afternoon, so I'm sure she assumed. A few months later, I was at her house late, and there was a bad storm, so I ended up sleeping on her floor- her parents (I found out later) were all freaked out that I had spent the night, but we hadn't had sex on that occasion. Most of the time when things did happen, I'm sure our parents had no clue- we were careful to avoid leaving evidence when we actually did things, but completely careless about suggestive hints when things weren't actually happening, most likely giving our parents a completely inverted idea of what was going on. So, even parents who are involved can be pretty clueless about what's actually going on.
(On the other hand, maybe we were completely clueless about what our parents knew and assumed they weren't on to us.)
I think we have, in this thread, ensured that Teo will never return to unfogged.
or, that is, we have insured it.
shame.
you don't have to worry about coming across as creepy until you're into your 40's.
Fuck. So what you're saying is I only have sixteen more months before I become creepy?
Better make the most of it, then. Teo: email me.
486, 487: is there really a substantive difference between those two words?
I only have sixteen more months before I become creepy?
There is of course the standard "unless if she's hot" caveat, so it's not a foregone conclusion.
490, 491: Thanks - thought I was losing it.
Jeebus fucking cripes. Another hundred comments, and no one has mentioned exchange students? It's like y'all want him to fail.
re: 494
Yeah, teofilo totally needs to go abroad.* Eastern/Central Europe, maybe.**
* I know you meant other people doing the exchange, but it's more fun the other way round.
** NOT Scotland.
To respond to the post, I haven't the faintest notion whether I should allow my teenaged child to sleep over with an SO. I wasn't allowed to date until I was 16, and unlike you decadent folks, I didn't have a curfew, ever: every engagement that prevented me from coming home for dinner (6pm sharp!) had to be individually approved. Hell, when at 22 I brought home my French boyfriend to meet the folks, he had to sleep in a guest room.
So...while the later prohibition was just stupid, I can't really see rejiggering my prejudices so far as to allow my teenaged kids to have sleepovers in my house. I have plenty of time before I'd actually have to set some rules about it, though.
495- Hmm, that's getting a little too close to, "If you’re literate with a home computer and an internet connection you are very wealthy compared to the rest of the world. Citizenship or legal permanent residency in a rich country makes you more attractive to women in poorer countries. Your value on the dating market is thus much higher there."
SP raises a valid point: Teo, a quality dude, ought to try his luck with the Objectivist lady. (Alternately, get hip to Dianetics -- they have some freaky parties.)
re: 497
Nothing to do with money or wealth and everything to do with per capita density of hot women versus per capita density of hot men.
LB is right about the demographics of a dance class, but one shouldn't be so concerned about the women there -- they'll have seen you when you aren't any good at it, and so a lot of the magic isn't going to work. I think the skills are learned so much better if the other women at the class are ruled out at the start. (Not that exceptions shouldn't be made if it becomes absolutely necessary).
While I suppose any dancing will have some value, I picked jitterbug for a specific reason. Let's set the scene: You're at a place with a mixed gender group, including some of the attached women with whom you are friendly. Music is at least marginally appropriate, and you ask a woman who has a boyfriend to dance -- she knows you took the class, and is willing to give you a chance to practice. This is totally non-threatening, as everyone knows you're not hitting on her. You do it well. OK, so you return to the table, and she's a bit flushed, a bit winded, eyes a little glazed from the realization that she's shared a moment of some physical and emotional intimacy (there's a lot of trust involved in jitterbug) in plain sight, smiling with evident satisfaction -- the unattached women at the table are going to come right out with it: 'it's my turn next.'
Now I know that a shy guy is thinking 'but isn't the boyfriend going to be mad/irritated?' If he's smart, he's thinking about how the pump's been primed, and what's in his own immediate future. If he's an idiot, and makes a scene, he doesn't deserve to be attached, and all's fair game.
499: Not meant to be snide: who are hot female Scots? I don't really know of any famous Scots, male or female, except Sean Connery.
501 -- Plus the manager!
I don't really know of any famous Scots
500: Ooo, that does sound nice. But a sizable chunk of the benefit of dancing is just the chance to hang out with a bunch of women, not so much the possibility of impressing them with your mad skillz. If you develop mad skillz, they will, indeed, be impressive in the manner CC describes. But even if you suck you're still out there giving women who want to dance the chance to do it -- it's Idealist's advice: you just need to make friends.
re: 502
There aren't any globally well-known young(ish) Scottish female actresses.
Kelly Macdonald, from Trainspotting, is probably the best known, I suppose. She's also attractive in a really 'Scottish' way, if that makes any sense.
Other famous Scots - Ewan Macgregor, I suppose is the next best known Scottish actor. Others: Alan Cumming, Kevin Mackidd [the 'lead' in the HBO 'Rome'], Brian Cox [Hannibal Lector in 'Manhunter'], among others.
In music, there are a bunch of moderately well-known but not huge Scottish bands.
It's a country of less than 5 million people, after all.
I may be stereotyping here, but I think of Scots as tending toward the broadshouldered, rather than the delicate. Possibly the country doesn't turn out enough waifs to be competitive in the actress market.
here's a few things that are helpful, i hope:
just interact with more girls. flirt, hang out, etc. if a particular girl isn't into you, remember that she has lots of friends. even if a particular girl doesn't 'like' you, as long as you are friends, you can meet all of her girlfriends. if she thinks you're sweet, she'll probably even help. increase the number of interactions you have.
try to touch people in a casual, friendly (non-groping) way long before you 'make a move;' this helps it seem less drastic. brush people's arm, hugs, hip checks, thumb war, holding hands, whatever.
since you don't have any experience, you probably won't know when girls want you to escalate the situation. so just assume she likes you and try something. right now, you're assuming she doesn't, adn yo'uve got to 'do something' to change that. either she does like you, or doesn't; hte only way you're going to find out is give it a try.
do the girls you're trying to hook up with even know you're interested? if you're not good at flirting, just try something more direct. so if a girl says something funny, say something like 'wow, you're really funny, i find that totally sexy.'
also, who asks for kisses? when you're quire close together, you just stop talking, and you're both looking at each other, and looking at each others' eyes and mouths, and slowly lean closer. if she doesn't want to be kissed, she'll look away, and say 'oh, so anyway...'
re: 507
There are plenty of hot Scottish women [of course I'm biased] and I'm not aware of having noticed Scottish women being any more broad-shouldered than anywhere else. There may be a perception of 'toughness' that comes from the accent, perhaps, which works against them.
However, as I said, there are only around 5 million Scots. It's hard to think of any other nation of a comparable size that has a significant number of actresses on the world stage, either.
I'm also fairly sure there's a lot of national stereotyping at work: Scotland exports a lot of 'macho' character actors of a certain age, for example. That's a stereotype that works for rather than against male actors.
Didn't mean to imply lack of hotness in person; just a lower percentage of the type of hyper-frail bodies that you need to have a Hollywood career. And I'm not sure that that's true -- just an impression (largely because all the Scots actors I can think of are solid, strong looking types).
There are plenty of hot Scottish women
Obviously not enough to keep you away from eastern Europe.
largely because all the Scots actors I can think of are solid, strong looking types
Yeah, that's partly what I meant by the stereotype that works in favour of a certain type of male Scottish actor. It works, to a certain degree, in British politics too.
You may be right about the hyper-frail thing. I've never really thought about it that much. Not enough to go about noticing the relative presence or absence of that body type anyway.
re: 511
I met my wife in Oxford.
What, did you think I was off trawling the fleshpots of Prague for someone who'd take pity on a drunken grad student?
I'm at least half Scottish and am on the thinner side, but I would have to lose at least ten pounds to work in Hollywood and even then would get cast for the brawnier female roles. I think.
"Largely because all the Scots actors I can think of are solid, strong looking types"
Wearing kilts, too -- the beardless brawny types are the girls.
Of course, we're wired for a different, archaic way of life. On the veldt, extremely slender, long-legged, large-breasted women were much better at tracking and luring antelopes than huskier women would have been.
Jackmormon, that's really scary. At the NYC meetup you struck me as slender to a fault, no offense intended.
Blonde hair was also adaptive on the veldt as it enabled women to be seen at long distances by their male protectors.
What Emerson said about being scared by JM's saying she was overweight for the movies.
Me three, but it's probably accurate.
506:Being a big fan of foreign films, and having just the other night watched Kevin McKidd in "16 Years of Alcohol" and noticing ttaM didn't mention Robert Carlyle I had to go out to IMDB and look up Scottish actors.
Wow, Hundreds of names, dozens I recognized and very few women. Very few. Shirley Henderson seems to get all the work. Recommended:"Once Upon a Time in the Highlands". "Intermission" and especially "Wilbur Wants to Kill Himself"
The theme song of this thread is Black Box Recorder's "Facts of Life".
Kelly MacDonald is a bonny lass.
re: 520
Sarah Nixey's voice ...
You take the good you take the bad you take them both and then you have...
I saw Lucy Liu in person once on 47th St. and she did not look good. She looked striking, but not attractive, because she seemed pinched and gaunt. Thinner than my aunt, who is a lifelong anorexic.
521:Recommended:Girl in the Cafe with a wonderful Bill Nighy, who is a frigging treasure.
You could also try Mike Figgis's Loss of Sexual Innocence which, even adding to MacDonald a sexy Saffron Burrows (excuse my heart stopped) I have never been able to finish. Julian Sands and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers are there for the ladies, whomever, or people free enough to enjoy beauty. But it is a frigging weird movie.
The Black Box Recorder track and video is here:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-27445734608651596&q=black+box+recorder
This is my favorite Unfogged thread.
I find this thread good, but still somewhat depressing in a "what have I done with my life?" sort of way. Oh well.
Thanks, folks, for all the advice. Things are not really as hopeless as you might think from my whining here; the semester just started yesterday, so it's not like I'm totally out of options. And Tia's 454 made me very happy, not least because I believe it's the first time anyone's described me as "cornfed."
I wasn't going to wade into this thread because the prospect, however remote, of my daughters having sex was making me hyperventilate. But this is the saddest thing ever:
My problem is not that I'm fucking up the dates, it's that the girls don't actually like me.
This sounds exactly like (painfully shy) me at that age. Dude, I strongly suspect -- no, I'm dead certain -- that shyness and attendant low expectations are making you miss clues that would be unmistakeable to more confident guys. Not that you're quite this clueless, but when I was a high school senior, a cute friend of one of my sisters asked me out. To her college dorm room. Where we were alone. With candles, for chrissakes. Jesus, I was an idiot.
Have you asked female friends for advice? (Apart from the women of Unfogged, of course, who may be mostly fictional.)
I have not, actually, asked female friends for advice. I should.
532 -- try not to use this as a method of coming-on. It is tempting but will not work, and if it does you will probably wish it had not.
there are a bunch of moderately well-known but not huge Scottish bands
Dougie MacLean!
(and in the relm of the actually popular, there's Belle & Sebastian, and current indie darlings Camera Obscura)
Dude, I strongly suspect -- no, I'm dead certain -- that shyness and attendant low expectations are making you miss clues that would be unmistakeable to more confident guys.
Definitely, and this is a big part of the problem. But this doesn't have anything to do with the girls-not-actually-liking-me thing; I know they don't like me because when I make a move they recoil in horror (or something). Or else maybe they do like me but they have boyfriends and casually mention them during the conversation. That is, it's often been obvious that what I consider a date isn't being seen that way across the table.
Is McG still reading this thread? Do you know Karine Polwart?
533: Don't worry, if I was interested in hitting on my female friends I would have done it already.
How about this advice: "Teo, you just need to be more confident!" Most useless advice ever, but you still hear it from time to time.
Translation: Teo hangs with fat chicks.
I'm guessing that you need to find ways of telegraphing interest before you get to the "lean in and kiss" step.
are you misshapen, smelly, unkempt? can you maintain eye contact and avoid nervous twitchings? are you pessimistic; do you seek approval from the girls you interact with? do you brag in subtle ways like always trying to say something smarter than otehr people? do you have fun and joke around or are you alwasy serrious? do you have any friends, especially girls, who could watch you interact with potential love interests and point out wierd shit you do that you might not be noticing?
and orange juice is/was the best scottish band.
do you brag in subtle ways like always trying to say something smarter than otehr people?
Please! No one on unfogged answers to that description.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's true that women you ask for advice should be different from the ones you're interested in. You'll get more honest advice from someone with whom you share no romantic tension, and there's always the chance that a friend will say she knows someone who's totally into you. Of course, if she says, "Didn't you know I'm hot for you?", pounce immediately. FWIW, try not to universalize the recoiling-in-horror incidents, painful as they may be.
And Emerson's right -- telling shy people to be more confident is like saying "Depressed? Buck up!"
Misshapen? Yeah, is there something he's neglected to tell us about, like a third eye or a giant hump on his back? It's all clear now. Teo's problem isn't that he's shy, it's that he's physically repulsive. Now get out there and be more confident damnit.
Found gold. There are a fair number of women out there who feel the exact same way. You can help each other out.
I must pipe up to say
if you're not good at flirting, just try something more direct. so if a girl says something funny, say something like 'wow, you're really funny, i find that totally sexy.'
definitely do NOT do this.
This thread puts me in mind of Flesh Cartoons, but I have no idea why.
I wanted to put a little twist on the "make more friends" advice. Making friends is an actual art that requires work. Somehow I didn't realize this in college. In highschool virtually anyone you meet you're likely to meet again, and so making friends just "happens." But the closer you are to real life, the more you need to make an actual effort to stay in touch with people.
That is, if you meet someone who seems interesting get his/her phone number. (Yes, guys too, we're talking about meeting people, not getting laid.) If someone invites you to do something, say yes, even if it isn't your favorite thing to do. Invite people to do stuff. Etc.
So yeah, "meet more people," but keep in mind that requires modifying your behavior in certain ways.
#546
Oh come on, that "wow" is awesome. It's very, "at first I thought you were just a pussy with legs, but now I find myself pleasantly surprised that you are also funny. Now I really want to fuck you."
549: I think DA's comment was pretty funny. I totally want to have sex with her now.
Wow, your thesis is really funny, i find that totally sexy.
re: 536
No, sorry, never heard of her.
Now if you'd said my architecture was sexy, we'd be getting somewhere.
No, sorry, never heard of her.
Ah well. She's a Scottish musician (the stuff she did with Malinky is awesome), and I thought perhaps....
Now if you'd said my architecture was sexy, we'd be getting somewhere.
Well, I like the way you're built...
re: 555
Sorry. I googled her, and it seems she's part of the more folky side of Scottish music. A side which, tbh, I'm pretty ignorant of. I only know of a few biggish (household) names in that sort of scene.
w-lfs-n, you've already got a bold come-on line in your repertoire, namely, "Sex, I'm a..." by Lovage is pretty good.
also, re: 555
I take it you know what 'Malinky' means?
It's part of a Scots slang phrase 'skinny malinky -- for someone really thin. It's often used of children. Malinky is Slavic so I presume it came into Scots from Polish immigrants or Eastern European jewish refugees.
There's a kids nursery song:
Skinny Malinky Longlegs
Big Banana feet
went tae the pictures
and couldnae find a seat
when the picture started
Skinny Malinky farted
Skinny Malinky longlegs
Big Banana feet
I bet I know what your problem is, Teo. You are hitting on the hott girls. The very pretty girls who get asked out all the time, who get picked up in bars, who already have a line of potential suitors, who can easily see you as "a boy who is also a friend," not a boyfriend.
You are probably ignoring the not-as-hott girls, the ones with a few extra pounds, the acne-prone, the shy girls with too-long (or short) hair.
So when you say that "they" don't like you, you mean simply that the ones you find mind-alteringly beautiful don't like you. Well, we've all been (and some of us remain) there.
So why not try chatting up a different type of girl? One whose locks are not as shiny, whose lips are not as plump, whose wit may be ready for the big screen even if her face is not?
I mean, really. All men want the cheerleaders, which is why us homely girls in the Chorus latch onto the first man who glances in our general direction. At least it'll get you kissed by one of those, probably laid in quick succession, and you can deal with the clinginess later. You might even find a nice girlfriend that way.
Yeah, McG, I think that ditty is in the liner notes to one of their albums.
So why not try chatting up a different type of girl? One whose locks are not as shiny, whose lips are not as plump, whose wit may be ready for the big screen even if her face is not?
To the extent this applies, teo, this is unbelievably good advice. Of the missed sexual/dating opportunities in college that I regret most, the top two, by a long shot, are two women who were, for reasons unknown, interested in me, but who were not (I'm an idiot) sufficiently attractive to me at that time. Those are the two I think about when I feel like feeling blue.
Hmmm... I'm in a similar situation as teofilo, but have realised (or been given) most of the advice listed here before. It's pretty hard to do much of it in practice when you don't particularly know what you are doing or if you are succeeding.
2 things:
1. I was given advice that I do not see on this thread: don't worry if a girl has a boyfriend she my still go out with you (though probably not much more than that while she still has a boyfriend, that state can change however)
2. if you do have success always capitalize on it. I have has the experience of meeting a girl at a party, getting along well with her, geting her phone number, and realising it isn't the right number the next day.
546 is correct. Use "cute" or "charming" or something. Not "sexy," which sounds totally sleazy.
565 is correct.
But if you insist on saying "sexy," say it with a fake lisp, which will then make you the funny one!
560: There was a time when that was the case. No longer, and still no luck.
don't worry if a girl has a boyfriend she my still go out with you
Perhaps, but I would be seriously uncomfortable with this.
Okay, coming in 500 comments too late, and I haven't even read the last 250 or so, but am I really the only one who thinks that parents shouldn't allow sleepovers for the simple reason that hs teens shouldn't be having sex?
I mean, sure, most do (I myself did), but most hs students (including me) do all sorts of things they'd be better off not doing. The fact that it's common doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea.
They're physically ready but by-and-large not emotionally ready for sex. And they should be discouraged from sexual activity -- not because it's inherently wrong or bad (and they shouldn't be taught this) but just because they'd be better off waiting a few more years.
Am I the only one so prudish?
"I believe in making the world safe for our children. But not for our children's children, because I don't believe that children should be having sex."
-- Jack Handey
Oh man, yall just went and made Teo admit that even the fat chicks won't fuck him. Damn that's harsh.
Someone took that position in the middle of the thread. It's not that I think you're self-evidently wrong, there is certainly an age at which I think most kids are too young to have sex. I just think that the hs/college line isn't a good stand-in for the exact age -- that plenty of kids are fine to be having sex in high school.
Everyone accepts that there's some age below which having sex isn't appropriate. Also, the specific age at which it is appropriate may vary from individual to individual.
However, as LB says, the high-school/college divide isn't a great place to draw it. Someone of 17 is a young adult, not a child.
571 forces me to tell gswift that he's being an ass.
I don't think hs/college is an inherently good dividing line, it just happens to be a reasonably good one in our culture. Basically, the dividing line in my mind is whether or not the participants are mature enough for successful marriage if pregnancy results. I don't think many h.s. kids qualify (though some certainly do).
I do not think my high school celibacy improved my life. Quite the opposite, in fact.
576: Oh, you can take it. Gswift is being an ass about 'even the fat chicks'.
Brock, I've made your argument already. They're not buying it.
In other "kids having sex" news, one of my most hilarious girlfriends said something shortly after PK was born, that I now pass on to you, on the grounds of new fatherhood. She came over and was cooing at the clean naked baby lying on the bed, and I left the room for a minute--probably to get a new diaper or something--and came back and she said to me, totally straight-faced, "what would you do if you came back and I had his p-s in my mouth?"
575: See, if that were the line, I'd think most middle-class people should be celibate until their late 20s.
B does not want that phrase to be googleable in relation to her child. For some crazy reason.
580: I'd think most people should just be celibate, period.
582: Now trying to imagine the motivation for someone to run that particular search. This being the internets, I'm sure there are several.
579
I recall hearing about a case of cross cultural misunderstanding a little bit like that. IIRC, in Afghanistan it is traditional for a father to plant a kiss on his newborn son's penis. (A closed-mouth kiss! Christ, what are you imagining!) This is a sign of pride, and it never occurs to anyone that it might be sexual. If I remember the newspaper story right, an Afghan immigrant to the US was actually charged with child sex abuse for planting this ritual kiss on his son in the hospital.
Fuck, now my name is right next to the phrase "kiss on his newborn son's penis."
588: but throwing a good "fuck" in there does help.
Okay, well, it isn't logical, but while I find that story hilarious, telling it skeeves me out a little because it could so easily be misinterpreted. 'Tis why I've never written about it on my own blog, and 'tis why I didn't spell out "penis," even though it's not like I don't already get the skeevy google hits.
584: 583 assumes that 575's "mature enough for a sexual marriage" is the premise. Most people aren't and won't ever be. But I'm OK with their fucking anyway, as long as they don't get uppity and pretend they know what the hell they're doing. Also, they should keep their bratty kids off my lawn.
Wow, late to this party. I think Brock nails it when he asks the prior question: "is this behavior at 17 a good idea." And, of course, we can imagineer up situations where it would be. But usually, no, it is not a good idea. If the implication of this is that many people should be celibate for muc h longer than they are .. I dunno if that qualifies as a reductio.
SCMT, I dig the appeals to tradition. If we can get you on some G.K. Chesterton and you continue to hang out around Wilkinson's place, we'll have you yet.
Anyway, rob, thanks for that piece of information, actually. It's true! The newborn penis is cute and totally kissable. And yet this is one of those Things Parents Don't Admit To, she says, hastening to add that I never *acted* on this.
Though I did admit to my friend that I knew exactly what she was talking about.
"Successful," dammit, not "sexual." The advice-to-Teo subthread has my subconscious back in the Desperate Years.
SCMT, I dig the appeals to tradition.
baa, I realized the other day that the reason I'm a Democrat is because I'm a traditionalist; the Dems had a hegemony for so long in the US that the liberalism is the traditon. (See, e.g., trend lines on the "gay marriage" issue.) It's you who should be moving our way.
I'm all about ideology over partisanship, as you know. Small 'l' liberalism is the american tradition. Boolah boolah. The politics alchemized out of public sector unions, John Rawls, and lifestyle liberalism, not so much.
It makes me sad to think of G.K. Chesterton as a recruiting tool for conservatism.
But it wouldn't make G.K. Chesterton sad!
584: LB, I don't think Emerson's anti-relationship stand entails support for lifelong celibacy. Unless you are pedantically understanding "celibate" to mean "not married."
Small 'l' liberalism is the american tradition.
Not in Boston, it isn't.
No, here salt-of-the-earth machine democrats is the tradition. Which is super.
How awesome would it be if, in eighteen or so years, Pseudonymous Kid seduced baa's hypothetical future daughter? Pretty effin awesome.
If we want to talk about things that teenagers probably shouldn't be doing, I'd put "driving" ahead of "having sex."
I love it, baa. You know that just makes it more awesome, right?
#574 and #578 are right, I'm being an ass.
This thread is making me laugh.
Unfoggetariat: "Dude, you gotta go after the chubby and/or homely ones, they're desperate."
Teo: "I've tried that damnit, it's not working!"
Baa's hypothetical future daughter should be so lucky. PK has a totally kissable penis, even.
I think baa just gave himself a vasectomy.
This made me laugh. Ezra Klein has the following post up (full post): Hey Echidne Has anyone ever told you you're sexy when you're economist-y?
What say you, DA? Is Ezra in there?
Actually, I just saw it the other day. So 'saving it' turns out to be a lie, just like always.
Aren't they all?
If there were world enough and time. Alas.
'saving it' turns out to be a lie, just like always.
What Baa is saying is that in his heart of hearts he knows PK won't have to try very hard.
Hey, if the low hanging fruit is sweet enough, it's worth dying for.
My great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandma taught me that. Tradition, baby.
At least with B's kid, he knows they'll be eighteen before they can think about sleepovers. It could LB's son and baa's kid, and that could start whenever.
"Sexy" can never be for people, only for things. So, Echidne can have sexy economics, but she cannot be sexy when she's all economisty.
579- okay, that's funny and innocent. Unlike my sick friend, who make a joke about taking advantage of my newborn baby's well-developed sucking reflex to, you know, take advantage of it. Yes, what you're thinking.
I don't let him hang around my baby anymore.
Did bphd just reference the fall of man? Awesome.
620: Are you really an architect, DA?
Check the link in 551, Tim. (Which reminded me of a double-entendre on 'thesis' in this book. I read that book probably at least twenty years ago, it disturbs me that I still remember this.)
See, I only like the word sexy when it isn't being used to describe things, like thesis topics, that cannot be sexy.
625: My thesis (the first draft of which I handed in today) is literally sexy. Because it's actually about sex. So.
So be sure to let us know if you need research assistance.
That's right, sleaze is up, DaveL. Congrats on the draft, da. Is it about sex:awesome, sex:oppressive, or sex:more complicated than you thought?
And does it have a colon in the title? Whatever labs might say, the colon is not sexy.
Congratulations! Shouldn't you be drinking?
Congrats, DA. Full word saved for final draft.
On Friday afternoons, cheap shots are as good as it gets around here.
Oh, and congratulations, DA.
It doesn't even have a title.
It's about sex: it can get you tortured by the state.
Three weeks ago I told myself that I wasn't allowed to have so much as a beer until I finished a draft, so now my tolerance is probably low. I'll find out tomorrow. Too burnt to drink today.
sex: it can get you tortured by the state
Huh?
So like I was saying, Ogged can help you with that.
634: My guess is Same sex-sex: It can get you tortured by the state in, e.g, Iran.
634: In some countries identifying as gay can get you tortured by police. (state=government, as in, "smash the state!")
Not to be a downer on such a fun thread. Let's go back to discussing baby's penises. My last name means "little baby's penis" in Turkish.
Ah, is there where the Arabic comes in? Sex can get you tortured, and it doesn't have to be same sex sex, in Iran, or elsewhere in the Middle-East. No sleepovers there, infidels.
I wasn't allowed to have so much as a beer until I finished a draft
The obvious solution here is draft beer.
LB-pwned on the subject of my own thesis. Good one.
I also have a sexy (and non-depressing!) thesis topic, if you consider the Arabic case system sexy. Which you do.
642: I do indeed. I just blogged about the accusative not two hours ago.
My last name means "little baby's penis" in Turkish.
My last name means "fuck" (or some oddly conjugated form of it, at least) in German.
This guy's name means "fuck" in a more familiar language.
Heh. My grandfather changed the spelling of our last name because English speakers tended to pronounce it like a common curse word. Unfortunately, without realizing it he changed it to a word that means "ass" in Czech and a couple of other middle European languages. Always good for a laugh while travelling.
My home town had a small influx of Vietnamese families in the late 70s/early 80s. My dad greatly enjoys telling the story of some poor kindergarten teacher on the first day of school calling roll and trying very hard to make "Phuoc Vu" into something she wanted to pronounce.
My last name means "little baby's penis" in Turkish.
That's right, I'd been meaning to mock you for that.
Everyone accepts that there's some age below which having sex isn't appropriate. Also, the specific age at which it is appropriate may vary from individual to individual.
Is this true? I would have thought there were a non-trivial number of people (in this thread) who would argue that sex is perfectly appropriate for anyone physically mature enough to partake. In other words, as soon as you get the itch, it's okay to scratch it.
Am I wrong? Does everyone in fact think there is some post-pubescent age that is simply "too young"? And why?
(I fully agree with that, as my comments above indicate. I would just be a bit surprised if everyone else agreed with me.)
How many people think that they should have had sex the instant it became physically possible? I would think 0 actually.
isn't there a significan't number of people who engage in some form of sexual-like acts with another person in grade school? i'm kind of curious about this area; children having sex is taken to be evil no. 1 or close to it in our culture, and yet i've not seen (although i've never really researched it, either) anything about its negative effects separated from coercive sexual encounters.
652- I guess I didn't really mean as-soon-as-physically-possible, but something more like as-soon-as-physically-desired.
I would think quite a few people would think it's perfectly okay to have sex then. But I'd be happy to be told I'm wrong!
the people in question probably consider it ok to have sex then. yeah, the older people probably don't want them too. but older people have lots of crazy ideas.
I know two guys who were, effectively, molested as children by slightly older children. One turned out fine, the other was developmentally different beforehand, so it's hard to say whether he was damaged by the experience. Another male friend was introduced to sex at twelve by a twenty year-old... was it an aunt or a cousin? He didn't see anything weird about that, when I asked, rather shocked. I know one woman who was basically date-raped by an older teen at about 13. It hit her hard, she recalls, for maybe a year; she's a wonderful, fearless doctor now. The youngest at which friends have reported having egalitarian, fully consensual sex tended to be at around 16.
That still seems a bit young to me, to be honest.
I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of sense to sharply distinguish between sex and all the other stuff that teenagers do while growing up and testing limits. Many of us have to do things the wrong way a few times (or a lot of times) before we figure out how to do them the right way. I do think there's such a thing as too young, but I'm not sure how much that has to do with emotional maturity and how much it has to do with just trying to keep the risk of pregnancy and STDs at bay for as long as you can ("you" here meaning parent, not teenager).
Brock, I think you're being a little unfair. The question is how you should treat people on the cusp of adulthood. It is clear that 17-year olds are reaching a point where they need to start learning how to behave as sexual persons. How exactly one deals with that issue as an older teen or as a parent is a difficult issue, and that's what we're discussing. "Physically ready" is not 17 (or even 16), that's 13 or 14 (or even younger in many cases). I don't think anyone here is saying that parents shouldn't do their best to stop their 14-year olds from having sex. Clumping all teens together like that is a cheap arguing trick, and doesn't match reality at all.
My gut feeling is that the normal range of being ready for sex is probably somewhere around 17ish-20ish, depending on the people involved and the relationship. But at any rate, I imagine that I would treat a 15-year old child of mine in a relationship quite differently than a 17-year old child of mine.
I imagine that I would treat a 15-year old child of mine in a relationship quite differently than a 17-year old child of mine.
But can you imagine a rule that would communicate that nuance in a convincing way to a reasonably intelligent fifteen year-old? I can't, and I have a lot of sympathy with your position.
It gets more complicated when there are multiple children involved. My parents managed to enforce the no-dating before 16 rule across three children, but the younger children do observe the fights between the older children and the parents; it's easier to find the loopholes and double-standards when you've watched an older sibling fight trench-warfare against the law.
I'll return to the question of ambience. Just as, in a strict context, a parent can't afford to be known to be too permissive, in the same way, in a permissive context, a parent will have trouble successfully being strict.
Of course, nowadays there is no consensus -- the whole thread began with two sets of parents who disagreed.
I just read this entire thread, and think I would've had things to add if I were reading it while it was active. I had time to do this because I've been mildly radioactive since midday Wednesday and am following appropriate procedures for same.
It's really put a crimp in all the hugging children you normally do, eh?
Totally, I just like saying I'm mildly radioactive. Also, that you wouldn't like me when I'm angry. this is just supposed to be a more permanent fix than taking meds to keep my thyroxine levels down every day, which I've done for years (when I don't neglect to take
Should be a capital "T" in "this" and should end "it)."
So, I take it that my advice to go bouldering on a first date met with an ironic curl of the lip?
Bouldering? Got a bunch of climbers here or something?
Nothing ruins a first date faster than a twelve ton boulder crushing your companion's legs. Horribly awkward. I'd stick with mini-golf.
I'd suggested it to Teo, but I'm going to look into it for myself boyfriend pretty much bedamned.
Just climbing up one of those little carnival wall thingamajigs a few weeks ago told me very clearly how out of shape I am. Running and kayaking, I can sort of fake it. Having to drag my butt up something vertical, not so much.
Climbing rules. I haven't done it much in the last three years as most of my climbing friends moved away, but I think I'm joining the climbing gym again in Sept. Salt Lake has world class local climbing. And chicks who climb are hot.
Just climbing up one of those little carnival wall thingamajigs a few weeks ago told me very clearly how out of shape I am.
You very big? Definitely favors smaller guys. 180 lbs is freakishly huge for a world class climber. Most of the best are more in the 120-160 range.
Bigger than I should be, and pretty big even in good shape, so I would definitely start with a disadvantage. It's one of those sports that I can see the attraction of but don't ever see myself doing. Being in the mountains, definitely, but not so much with the ropes.
There's just no way I could go climbing -- leaving aside the fact that I'm not massively keen on heights. I'm reasonably but not incredibly strong but I weigh 210lbs. Dragging 200lbs+ up by your fingers needs enormous uppper body strength.
Also, re: dates: physical/sporty stuff seem like things for later in a relationship. Or at least they seem that way to me -- I wouldn't want someone I was trying to impress to see me all sweaty (until the time was right, IYKWIM AITTYD).
Hiking/walking/strolling/perambulating/ambling/sauntering would be good for me. Climbing probably not so much, though I did enjoy climbing quite a bit when I was younger. Evan after I fractured my wrist.
The second paragraph of 676 is wrong. My drunken bullshit got me a nibble from my now-wife, but what set the hook was that I was about the only guy in our law school class who could hang with her on a run. (She was a real runner and I was just a halfway-decent mid-pack type, but being male helps.)
Sport climbing where you're doing short climbs along a set of bolts pre set in the rock is good times Bouldering is fun because all you need are the shoes, chalk, and a crash pad. Trad climbing, where you're setting your protection as you go is kind of dangerous, not my thing. I've been doing mostly weightlifting for strength lately, so I'm closer to 175 lbs right now. I need to drop a bit. I climb better when I'm more like 160 or 165.
physical/sporty stuff seem like things for later in a relationship
But bouldering gives a lot of opportunities to stare at her ass.
Shoulders, also. Paddlers and surfer chicks are good, too.
558: that counts as a come-on?
560: there is no such thing as a shy girl with too-short hair.
JM -- better/more challenging boulders than Central Park's are to be found in Morningside Park. Indeed some there are steep and big enough that actual equipment would be required or at least helpful.
Oh and -- I finally read the referenced letter to Slate last night. Mainly I just found it hard to get past the letter writer's tone which I found to be off in a way I can't quite describe.
My friend's seventeen-year-old daughter recently spent the night on a cliff-face with her climbing teacher, who had broken his ankle (the stone he was hanging onto broke off and he fell about 20 feet.) They were heli-lifted off in the morning. Speaking of sleepovers.
683: My 17-21 year old self begs to differ.
I can see that climbing with equipment would help seal the deal with someone already into the sport, but that's going to be a pretty small set of folks. I've gone hiking in the mountains to very good effect -- my first sleepover was on such a trip* and, years later, moved the ball pretty far downfield with my now-wife hiking. Not a first date in either case, but I could see going that way. It's a good way to do the cut-from-the-herd thing: hike with a group of friends, and spend time with the one you like the best.
* Bundling. Nonetheless, I earned a whole lot of credit on this one. A group of 5, we got lost in the mountains on the northeast fringe of Death Valley, ran out of water, and my girlfriend's best friend started to faint. With another of the guys, I hiked in what turned out to be the correct direction over several mountain ridges through the night, and an ice storm, to bring water back from the car. There are gods who look out for stupid high schoolers, just too many stupid high schoolers for this system to be perfect.
Northwest fringe.
The question arises whether I'd rather have my kids have their sleepovers in Death Valley or at home. Definitely the former.
as it happens i have an acquaintance who broke her right arm on a rock-climbing first date. it was our freshman year in college, and they were climbing an iconic modernist building on campus (with ropes). did not do so much for the relationship (kersplat). also, resulted in very large cast. although the rest of us had a good time teasing them. so, daters beware.
I realize the thread has now moved on to discuss rock climbing, but I just want to say that 658 totally misinterprets what I was trying to say. I wasn't at all saying that if you allow your older teens to have sex you need to allow very young teens the very same privileges, or anything else like that to "clump all teens together". I wasn't arging anything at all. I was actually just querying how many people thought there was a post-pubescent age at which sex was still too early? (Since 573 struck me as probably wrong).
I guess the answer (based on responses so far) is "Everybody", which is surprising to me. I would seriously have thought that among the "teen sex is perfectly natural and okay" crowd, at least some (and really most) people would have extended that down to 13 or 14 year olds -- again, basically to anyone who was starting to feel the distinctive burn of desire that we call sexual maturity.
That no one seems willing to do this is perfectly okay with me, although again it strikes me as very odd, and probably not entirely consistent. I think some people are throwing up the same sorts of meaningless and arbitrary divisions (13-14, no; 16-17, yes) that they criticize in others (hs, no; college, yes) as hopelessly outdated and prudish and irrational.
At 16 you should start pestering your kids to have sex so that they'll be normal. Give them sex books and DVDs, and ask them probing questions about their sex lives the way you do about school, homework, and sports.
If this doesn't work, send them to a counselor. Intervention may be required in some cases, and in the hard cases, the Eros Boot Camp usually does the job.
Now that that's covered, let's talk about something else.
Rock climbing is so demanding, and rock climbers are so highly competitive, that I can't think of a worse basis for a relationship. Serious rock climebrs are barely able to pay rent, and everything is about the next climb.
20 or 30 years ago friend of mine was enticed by a noted female climber (A****n B**m) who wanted to borrow his ice ax or something. As I remember, he didn't get any, but thought for awhile that he might. It's a jungle out there.
Later on a skull fracture took him permanently out of the sports world. Having a right-side-paraplegic friend makes you very timid about physical danger.
Her true name is A****e B**m. We regret this error.
I don't see the distinction between 14 and 17 as arbitrary. Not every 17 year old is emotionally and socially mature enough for a sexual relationship, but, ime, most are. I'm sure I've never met a 14 year old of whom I would say that. Obviously, no one can articulate a bright line applicable to all people at all times. As a parent, though, one finds it convenient to set a bright line -- doing so with full understanding of the character of the child -- to avoid having to litigate actual maturity on the eve of any proposed sleepovers.
A non-trivial number of people are born in the Autumn, btw; of this cohort, many start college while still 17.
Fwiw, I started University at 16.*
* Which is possible but rare under the Scottish sytem -- without skipping a grade.
691: Brock, you're weird. Sex isn't simply a physical act; it's an emotional one as well. Maybe in a world in which sex weren't stigmatized and fraught with all sorts of Meaning, 14 year olds fucking around wouldn't be a big deal, but we don't live in that world. I think that middle schoolers "dating" is just fucked up--why, for god's sake, do we need to encourage kids to get into pairing up and assessing each other and all the rest of it? I started dating at 15, and it was okay, I guess. I was too young to be having sex, notwithstanding the boyfriend who pulled the "just let me put it in a little" nonsense (we broke up not long after, thank god). It happens, I don't think there's a lot of point in stigmatizing it or pretending it doesn't happen, or making it difficult for kids that age to get birth control or abortions if they end up needing 'em. But yeah, I'd say that 16-17 is a better age (depending on the kid), and that really, it would be entirely preferable to wait for college if not for that irritating problem of being self-conscious about being a college virgin.
So my recipe is: all kids should lose their virginity at 18, just to be rid of it.
695: Well no wonder you think 17 year olds should be having sex. Jeez.
would it be gauche of me to just start lurking around here in the hopes of taking it to 700? really that should be teo. also, ogged, if you cared about comics more like a normal person and read chris' invincible super-blog you'd already have seen that awe-inspiring panel from baa's 603 above. it's a really, truly great blog.
Thank god. It's all right to start having sex now.
la, la lala. kicks stone down sidewalk contemplatively. whistles tunelessly. squints up at sun.
No honor among opportunists, eh?
I'm going to sleep now. goodnight, all.
696: Disagree. Brock is basically right when he says,
That no one seems willing to do this is perfectly okay with me, although again it strikes me as very odd, and probably not entirely consistent. I think some people are throwing up the same sorts of meaningless and arbitrary divisions (13-14, no; 16-17, yes) that they criticize in others (hs, no; college, yes) as hopelessly outdated and prudish and irrational.These lines are all effectively arbitrary, at least when drawn by us. As far as I know, no one here has done any research into the various issues underlying a principled stand on 14 or 16 or 18 as the age at which it's OK to have sex; we're all just recalling ourselves and friends, and deciding what feels right to us. In fact, I think your line is the closest to being non-arbitrary, insofar as you're letting the culture set the boundary, and following that boundary for the purpose of staying in line with the culture.
'Night, Alameida.
I can go along with 707, especially since it says that my argument is the non-arbitrariest.
I don't think that's exactly it. I think everyone has some sense of what age is too young, based on personal experience, cultural norms, or whatever, and we probably aren't going to get very far arguing with each other about the particular ages. If you draw any kind of maturity line at a given age, it's always going to be arbitrary, and wrong for some people, there's no way around that.
What I've been thinking of myself as arguing against here is a position (that maybe no one's wholeheartedly espousing) that there should be a hard line on when kids may act in a way that makes it reasonably obvious that they're having sex (i.e., by having sleepovers) at the end of high school. And that it isn't wrong for them to have sex for some period before that age, but they are acting (rudely, immaturely, somehow wrongly) if they don't keep it secret. Not private, as adults do (not screwing on the front lawn) but secret.
I'm arguing against the two-age position -- that there's an age at which it's okay for kids to have sex, but only if no one knows.
"So my recipe is: all kids should lose their virginity at 18, just to be rid of it."
The Eros Boot Camp could arrange events for just this purpose. "OK, maggots! Do your stuff NOW!"
I also think, of course, that a lot depends on the individual kid, his/her parents, etc. etc. etc.
Billy is mature enough to have his girlfriend sleep over, but, Janet, you're not mature enough yet, even though you're older. And Bobby, don't even think about it yet. We'll evaluate your petition in a couple of years.
650: That's right, I'd been meaning to mock you for that.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...Weiner.
683: that counts as a come-on?
And it's a good one, because it gives one plausible deniability, evidently.
I'm arguing against the two-age position -- that there's an age at which it's okay for kids to have sex, but only if no one knows.
Some of the disagreement springs from the fact that we conceive of the underlying issue differently. You think it's sex-no sex, and I think it's something like likelihood of sex, or amount of sex (or possibly something else which I can quite figure out right now). I see the parents' pretense as a way of titrating the kid's sexual experience in a relatively non-intrusive way. As method of exposing kids to sex so that they grow up in the way one would want, it may or may not work. But that's an empirical issue which I doubt is understood well-enough to ask determinitive empirical questions.
I see the parents' pretense as a way of titrating the kid's sexual experience in a relatively non-intrusive way. As method of exposing kids to sex so that they grow up in the way one would want, it may or may not work. But that's an empirical issue which I doubt is understood well-enough to ask determinitive empirical questions.
Yeah. This is part of what I was thinking about when I kept on bringing up rape, and birth-control, and anything where adult advice might be helpful. What I'm calling the 'two-age' theory is going to (IME) lead kids to keep anything related to sexuality very secret from their parents, which means they aren't getting feedback about sensible, decent behavior.
I'm not suggesting advice on sexual positions, I'm talking more about feedback on boy/girlfriend's apparent manners, decent behavior, etc. My parents didn't know jack about who I was messing around with, because I was putting a lot of effort into keeping them from having enough information to start making deductions about my sexual behavior. If I hadn't been doing that, my parents would have been more useful as a resource about relationships, etc.
Looking back at high school, kids with parents who were reasonably accepting of their kids' right to make sexual decisions didn't have sex with more people (although they did, certainly, get to have more actual sex). But they brought their boy/girlfriends home for dinner much more, and knew what their parents thought of them.
LB, maybe you should consider the parental state of mind on a continuum from unawareness through suspicion, acknowledgement, and endorsement. One moves from unawareness to suspicion fairly easily based on clues of context. Usually, the move from suspicion to acknowledgement is going to require an affirmative speech act on the part of either parent or child. The step from acknowledgement to endorsement is a unilateral act on the part of the parents.
Allowing a sleepover strikes me as tantamount to endorsement.
Assuming nothing truly dangerous or abusive going on, I'd rather live in a state of suspicion than a state of acknowledgement for a 16 year old.
716 written before reading 715. One can live in a state of suspicion as opposed to acknowledgement and still insist on meeting any young men who want to date one's daughter.
715, I think, gets to the heart of the disagreement between me (at least) and LB. My parents were on the "reasonably accepting" end--my mom was, at least--and yet I still kept the *fact* that I was having sex secret (I prefer to think of it as "private"), and would never have even dreamed of asking about a sleepover. I *did* talk to my mother about all sorts of things, and the rule that anyone I dated or was friends with had to come home and meet the parents was absolutely firm. I think that not knowing who your kids are messing around with is appalling and dangerous; I just don't think that it's the inevitable result of a "no sleepovers" policy. I don't see why it isn't completely possible to say that one doesn't think it's really wise for teenagers to be treated, sexually, as full adults *and* that they should nonetheless have all the information and access to support/contraception/health care/etc. that adults have, just in case.
still insist on meeting any young men who want to date one's daughter.
Or any young women who want to date one's son. Or men who want to date one's son. Or women who want to date one's daughter.
I don't see why it isn't completely possible to say that one doesn't think it's really wise for teenagers to be treated, sexually, as full adults *and* that they should nonetheless have all the information and access to support/contraception/health care/etc. that adults have, just in case.
But for God's sake, don't infantilize them.
I really like 716's articulation of the unawareness/suspicion/acknowledgement/endorsement continuum.
720: Indeed. Because nothing pisses people off more. Shit, even PK hates being infantalized.
(And I know you're being sarcastic, Teo, but I'm right anyway. We adults are used to the sarcasm of the young.)
Yeah, I'm not really the best person to argue with on this issue. I'm not far enough removed from the age in question.
Maybe so, but you're old enough to make a pass at, and that's really all that matters.
Shit, now I've painted myself in a corner. I was going to email you in re. my big cross-country drive, and now I'll seem all predatory.
Go ahead and e-mail me, but I'm pretty sure I'm not on your route.
I did, and you might be surprised. But I admit I haven't looked at the road atlas yet.
Son, I have to warn you about the dangers of predatory older women.
I'm with those above who are saying it's one thing for parents to maybe know what is going on versus actually endorsing it. Sames goes for alcohol. You can't control your kids and, if you try to, they will rebel twice as hard. All you can really do is try to teach them lessons and hope they negogiate the landscape wisely. Above all else, they need to know you are always there for them if they fall, but you can't carry them across into adulthood, they have to make that (sometimes difficult) journey themselves.
I really don't get the parents who take the attitude that "well they're gonna do it anyway, they might as well have sex or drink in my house where at least I know they're 'safe'". That really only promotes the bahvior. Kids need to feel that parents are parents and not their buddies so they can understand boundaries. When I was a teenager, I was deathly afraid of getting a girl pregnant. My mom put the fear of God into me about what effect that would have on my life before I was an adult. So, instead, of course oral sex was pretty frequent, but no intercourse until I was out of high school. I remember feeling almost like a freak because most of my friends had done it by then (and, esepcially as a guy, there was alot of peer pressure). But, looking back, I can imagine that if my mom had instead taken the approach that "oh, it's ok if your girlfriend stays over night here or, sure, you can stay at her house" that it would have been perceived as an endorsement to do whatever we wanted.
... and, as for alcohol, one time a bunch of us were at this guy's house and his mom had even bought us the booze (what a loser!) and I end up blacking out and cracking my head open on their back patio. Now, I got drunk my fair share of other times too, of course, but this just goes to show they're really not keeping anybody any safer (and that guy really turned out bad, not surprisingly).
719 -- Of course. I've only been down this road with a daughter so far (and, of course, when I was playing for the other team, was one of the young men who wanted to date someone's daughter).
still insist on meeting any young men who want to date one's daughter.
I thought your policy was to insist on evidence of their having read Gravity's Rainbow.
All right, who's been searching for tempting defiance teofilo cute tia and ending up at my blog?
713: People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones
Huh?
730:
They tend not to know their place, son.
729: "the dangers" s/b "God's gift"
All right, who's been searching for tempting defiance teofilo cute tia and ending up at my blog?
I'm sure I don't know what you're talking about.
737: You were going to mock me for having a surname that means "penis."
I love this blog. It's really my kind of blog, you know?
Dagg I cannot brook your missing Weiner's joke.
744: Weiner's joke was so gossamer, I saw right through it.
Hm, I once had a Turkish friend whose surname, in English, (like "Koontz" but exactly like the English word) meant "vagina". What are they doing in that part of the world?
No no no. "I remind you of the man." And then I say, "What man?", and so on.
749
There's a Croatian football player called Dado Prso. Prso/Prsa is the slavic word for 'tit'.
Condaleeza is also pretty close to some Czech slang/swear words.
I'd say, at least as far as sweden, All 12 year olds, most 13-14 year olds and a significant minority of 15-year olds aren't ready to have sex I guess it may vary in other cultures.
738: Yeah, that's kind of the charm, though, isn't it?
Also, give! What does "Condaleeza" mean in Czech?
The swedish film "Show me love" had some limited arthouse success in the states. In one subplot, a 13 year old loses her virginity, which is portrayed as unremarkable. I remember being a little surprised no US reviewer mentioned it. I wonder if the subtitler emitted the character's age (the actress was older).
I see that Yanks have not given up on prudery while I was on holiday. On funny names, viz:
http://www.markcosgrove.com/uploaded_images/mustapha-729572.gif
Googling, I see the character was fourteen, but that her age can't very well have been emitted from the subtitles, since it's a plot point.
751 reminds me of this gem of an interchange.
David, have you seen Swedish Wedding Night? I saw it 30+ years ago and loved it. I was the only one in the theatre laughing, because Swedish films were supposed to be grimly serious.
I was afraid someone would bring that up.
google turns up this site, http://www.marcram.com/index.php?m=200510, which suggests "Condaleeza in Czech phonetic translation is „kunda lízat“ which means *terrible word for… female genetalia* and „to lick“"
760: Nope. It's based on a novel by that dude who killed himself. Didn't know he wrote any humorous books, or maybe it's only the movie.
After reading his biography, I wonder whether I was supposed to be laughing. But there was one character, a milkmaid, who talked lyrically and at length about her love for her cow, and another love scene between the city cousin and the country cousin which was hilarious by any standard. Perhaps it was black humor, and everything does end badly. It seemed like a parody of movies about the idyllic / "Deliverance" countryside
It sounds like the Swedish Cold Comfort Farm.
I've googled some more, and the novel is described as humorous, with dark undercurrents. You probably were supposed to laugh.
I should read Dagerman, he sounds intriguing. I've barely read any Swedish fiction, to be honest.
The movie was fun.
At the time I felt that it was a parody of Bergman combined with a parody of the various kinds of countryside films.
If you're too shy to ask straight out, try getting some engraved invitations printed up that say something like "The Honor of a Kiss is Requested". Then you can just fill in her name and hand it to her. Totally classy.
Look for a closeup of such a card, possibly shot with a vaseline-smeared lens, in Guy Maddin's next movie.
