Okay, I agree with Ezra about this. Most of these positive trends in teen behavior are certainly positive, but I don't see why teens having less sex, as such, is a good thing. There's nothing wrong with seventeen year-olds getting it on while mom and dad are out of the house.
« Do Work | Main | George Bush Wants Kids to Get Sick and Die »
Teen Sex: Fun!
16 Jul 2007 11:18 am
Comments (80)
I used to think that, too, when I was young and foolish. Now that I am older and wiser (parent of 17 y boy and 15 y girl) I can see how mistaken I was in my yoot. Mind you, anything that the police I don't know is fine by me but kids are stupid and mine, particularly, don't clean up after themselves.
Teen sex often leads to teen pregnancy, which is, y'know, bad.
"Teen sex often leads to teen pregnancy, which is, y'know, bad."
Which is why God invented the condom and anal sex.
Cool. Back to back posts that show you need to have some kids before you'll understand a parents perspective on certain topics!
I don't get enough time with my kids. I need more vacation. While I'm away working and they are staying home alone you seem to think it's ok if they are having sex in the parentless house.
Utopia that ain't.
There's nothing wrong with seventeen year-olds getting it on while mom and dad are out of the house.
Uh, STDs?
BTW, I think its hilarious this blogpost will come up when pervs go looking on google for "Teen Sex!"
Condoms fail. Anal penetration has health issues.
Is it better to be cruel or generous? Is it better to be cowardly or brave? Is it better to be prudent or foolish? I ask because it seems that there's an attempt to contrive a morality based upon pleasure rather than -- for want of a better word -- virtues.
Mastering sexual impulses was anciently viewed as a Good Thing.
Re: STDs and pregnancy -- Matt's objecting to using the prevalence of teen sex itself as a negative social indicator. There are separate stats for teen pregnancies and STDs, and everybody agrees those are bad. Say teen pregnancies and STDs are flat, but teen sex is up -- that's not necessarily a bad thing, but a study with those results would be reported as "teen sex up! Where are we going, and why are we all in this handbasket?"
"Back to back posts that show you need to have some kids before you'll understand a parents perspective on certain topics!"
You might be referring to my post above. If you are then I haven't well stated my case. It's not that I didn't understand the parent's perspective until I was a parent. It's that I never took the parent position until I was a parent. Lest any think this is hypocritical I simply want to point out that in each case I adopt the pro-me position.
Also, I never tell my kids not to do something "wrong". I tell them I don't want to hear that they've done something wrong. I don't want to catch them, I don't want the police to bring them home, I don't want to have to talk to parents about their behavior. I will say only that my children are a constant disappointment. As I mentioned in my first post, they don't clean up after themselves.
If we lived in a society which raised its kids to be resposible with sex from an early age, didn't impose a f*cked-up religion-based value system on sexual conduct, and in which teens and pre-teens weren't subject to enormous social pressure to conform to sexual norms depicted on TV, I'd be in total agreement with Matt.
Unfortunately-
While I'm away working and they are staying home alone you seem to think it's ok if they are having sex in the parentless house.
No, he's not saying that it's okay for your kids to be having sex when they're at home alone--that would be incest. He's saying that it's okay for your kids to be having sex when their parents aren't present but their friends are.
Matt, you should bring this up the next time you do a bloggingheads with Bob Wright, intellectual sophisticate, media mogul and father of teenage daughters.
Matt, I agree with your post, but I hope you understand why no Democratic candidate or office-holder, above the rank of dogcatcher, is going to sign onto the "teen sex -- when it's safe, it's fun!" plank.
Really, this is one of the stupider mini-debates ever. Teen sex will lead to more teen pregnancy, which is bad, and more teen STDs, which is also bad. Given the understanding that human biology is a powerful driving force and that we won't ever eliminate teen sex, which is why Republican "abstinence only" initiatives are so dumb--this "forget abstinence" idea is equally dumb. It would indeed be a Good Thing for society if teenagers didn't screw quite so much.
Well, in principle teens having sex may not be a necessarily bad thing, but in the real world it is very often the occasion for irresponsible and downright dangerous behavior. Much like teen driving in fact (see below).
Re: Condoms fail.
So do seatbelts, but no one ever seriously suggests we shouldn't wear them, or that we shouldn't harp on teenage drivers to use them
Matt, you should bring this up the next time you do a bloggingheads with Bob Wright, intellectual sophisticate, media mogul and father of teenage daughters.
I would pay money to watch that.
So do seatbelts, but no one ever seriously suggests we shouldn't wear them, or that we shouldn't harp on teenage drivers to use them
Well, I really don't think that I want to explain to my hypothetical children that, should the situation arise where they feel the need to engage in some furtive car-borrowing when they're below driving age, they should always make sure to wear a seatbelt and be safe.
Rather, I'd take the position of LowLife and yell and scream something along the lines of "don't you dare ever end up caught driving without a license, don't force me to have to clean up your remains off the street, and don't ever, ever touch my car keys." We can go through the acceptable rites-of-passage-of-teen driving when my child gets a permit.
On the flip side, prudish attitudes towards sex lead to Southerners getting married younger than other Americans because they are told they can't have sex without getting married and tend to take this religiously to heart more than other Americans. This leads to confusing lust with true, mature love and ends in getting married way to young just so they can finally have sex. These marriages fail more often than not, which is why Southerners are more likely to be divorced than Northerners. What's really better, experimenting when young, getting that out of your system, protecting yourself and then getting married when ready or being repressed, marrying the first person you're sexually passionate about and then being divorced at 22?
"Mastering sexual impulses was anciently viewed as a Good Thing."
This was seen as a Good Thing for women. Men have pretty much always been allowed to be total whores and still be seen as socially acceptable while women had to be chaste. Don't forget, what kicked off the sexual revolution was the introduction of the pill.
While I don't think teenage sex is per se a "good thing," I'm increasingly scared of the religious right-wing's tactics in fighting it. Ever heard of "purity balls"? It's one thing to say "Kids, wait. You're not old enough" and quite another to try and control your daughter's sexuality.
And think about Mr. Wilson down in Georgia. Ten years for getting a bj from a girl two years younger than him.
By the way, unwanted pregnancy and STDs are bad at any age. With STDs, I'm not quite seeing why its any worse for a teenager than it is for an adult, other than you've got to live with the herpes for longer.
I think the problem here is in large part the imprecision of the term teenager. I don't think too many of us think 13 year olds having sex is a great idea (button your lip Derbyshire). On the other hand, I suspect most of us don't see a big problem with 19 year olds having active sex lives. As the parent of a 14 year old who can't seem to hang on to a retainer or a cell phone, I'm pretty certain sex isn't a great idea for him yet.
Um, all of the dangers mentioned here apply to older people having sex as well. Why is it unacceptable for teens to take these (very mild) risks, but totally cool once they hit 20?
Also, Klein's Tiny Left Nut makes a good point above. This article refers to "teenagers", but they actually studied "high school students". There's a sense in this country that high school students need to wait until they're out of high school. People don't seem that concerned with what a 19 year old college sophomore does. This applies to drinking as well as sex.
Lowlife, my comment was directed at Matt, not you. First he argues that maybe all this talk about we in the U.S. being under-vacationed should be quelled because productivity might suffer and then follows up by encouraging kids home while their parents are at work to have some good ole sexual fun.
As a former teenage fornicator I have sympathy with that position but don't feel that Matt's libertine lifestyle has led him to be fully appreciative of the priorities of parenting. For that reason I've issued a strict rule that Matt Yglesias is not to be allowed into the house while I am away.
Condoms fail.
Many people have married HIV-positive partners and they have sex lives. Not one of the partners has yet come up HIV-positive which makes me wonder if condoms really fail or not.
Condoms fail.
Almost never. The idea that condoms fail often is a creation of social conservative propaganda. If used correctly, condoms are incredibly effective.
Teenagers have sex. They are going to continue to have sex. You can't stop it with an advertising campaign. Sex has the best advertising campaign in the world, the constant, insistent pulse of hormones. The best that you can do is parent them well, teaching them to respect their bodies, to understand the risks (both emotional and physical), and how to best protect themselves against those risks. Just say no does not work. Several hundred thousand years of evolution is just too much for the average teenager to resist.
You'll change your mind when you have daughters of your own, Yglesias.
I agree with Matt. More parents should leave home for extended periods (and tell me before they leave).
Freddie, are you saying that the percentage of teenagers who have sex, and how often they have sex, is constant throughout time and different societies? I'm not a fan of "just say no", but that seems unlikely to me.
You'll change your mind when you have daughters of your own, Yglesias.
Just daughters, though? If Matt + woman only cranks out boys, his attitude towards adolescent sex will remain unchanged?
As a former teenage fornicator I have sympathy with that position but don't feel that Matt's libertine lifestyle has led him to be fully appreciative of the priorities of parenting.
Sure, but does it make it any less valid? The teens are stakeholders in this debate, too, and I'm willing to bet they come down as pro-teen-sex here. A parent's perspective is not the only relevant one, nor, necessarily, the one that ought to be embraced by third parties in the general society.
Freddie, are you saying that the percentage of teenagers who have sex, and how often they have sex, is constant throughout time and different societies? I'm not a fan of "just say no", but that seems unlikely to me.
No, I'm not saying that. I do think it is worth pointing out that saying "kids these days" happens no matter what. I think everyone pretty much always thinks kids are crazier, doing more drugs and having more sex, in their time than they used to. Teenagers did have sex in the 50s, 40s, 30s.... I don't mean to suggest that those things don't vary with time. But I don't think you can realistically stop teens having sex, and like Ezra and MY, I don't see a particular reason why we should try. Sure, teen pregnancy and STDs should be avoided. But people think that teen sex is bad on its own. Why?
As a former teenage fornicator I have sympathy with that position but don't feel that Matt's libertine lifestyle has led him to be fully appreciative of the priorities of parenting.
Sure, but does it make it any less valid? The teens are stakeholders in this debate, too, and I'm willing to bet they come down as pro-teen-sex here. A parent's perspective is not the only relevant one, nor, necessarily, the one that ought to be embraced by third parties in the larger society.
That's not to say, per se, that I think parents are wrong in their concern; merely that "parents think otherwise" is an insufficient argument.
Again, my sense of the divide for many people I know is that teenagers from 17 and up it's not a such a big deal, 15 and down not a very good idea, and 16 well, who the fuck knows. Depends on the 16 year old I guess.
"Why is it unacceptable for teens to take these (very mild) risks, but totally cool once they hit 20?"
For starters, pregnancy at 20 is not nearly as unfortunate as pregnancy at fifteen.
Really, everybody. No-brainer.
Re Henry at 12:45 (Why is it unacceptable for teens to take these (very mild) risks, but totally cool once they hit 20?)
I would imagine that the risks of accidental pregnancy goes down as a person gets into his/her early 20s, or at least by his/her late 20s. It's probably a safe bet that a 27-year-old is more likely to use birth control, and use it properly, than a 17-year-old.
Also, the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy are probably less devastating to a 27-year-old -- educationally, professionally, emotionally, economically -- than to a 17-year-old.
The worst of all possible worlds is the Houellebecquian dystopia where the cool beautiful teens have sex regularly and the socially awkward, the outcasts, the physically unattractive get no sex. The sexual free market is creating the same winner-takes-all mentality that we see in every other sphere of life. We need to help the losers - either by subsidising and encouraging prostitution or by returning to a more repressive system.
I agree with Matt. More parents should leave home for extended periods (and tell me before they leave)... Steve Duncan
I've now left instructions that in addition to Matt Y, Steve Duncan is also forbidden from entering the house when I am not at home.
The arguments of teen libertarians aside, I have no problem with a system in which everyone younger than 18 tries to have sex and everyone related to them who is older than 18 tries to stop them.
If an unexpected grandchild comes along after their age of emancipation I'll be very happy to welcome that baby into the world. Before then however my children can wait to have sex and I'll be doing my best to help them resist the impulse.
It's got nothing to do with marriage or Christian morals for me. After all ... I did it. Instead, it's about responsibility and risk and priorities. It's a rare 15 year-old (or 16 or 17) who can hold down a job and finish high-school while caring for their child as a single-parent. Pregnancy for a high-schooler means lowered educational and career prospects as well as hardship for their parents. So no, I don't feel too guilty about advocating abstinence for children under the age of 18.
_
I like Matt the best of the lefty bloggers (I wouldn't read and comment here if I didn't appreciate his work), and I share his opposition to the war and neocon foreign policy, but every now and then he makes a post like this that reminds me that he and I inhabit different moral universes.
M.o.D.
Any comment that invokes Houellbecq is always welcome, but I think if we can't get single payer through, subsidized escort services for the under 18 set is going to be a tough sell. On the other hand, we may pick up a few Republican votes that way.
Something that also needs to be pointed out is the transition from high school to college. At my prep school, an anonymous poll found that we were more sexually active than the national average (we had one pregnancy, by a girl who refused to use condoms, always wanted to have a kid and seemed to have issues stemming from the fact her birth parents - she was adopted - had her around 14, so she was a bit of an outlier). However, it seemed that we had an easier time transitioning to handling the freedoms of college, also with regard to drugs and alcohol. The ones who would nearly kill themselves drinking and got an STD in the first week seemed to come primarily from religious high schools and religious families in the Midwest and South.
What is "sex?" For the purpose of the study, I am assuming it is coitus.
I'm curious, though, how people define "sexual activity." Are people upset at a certain line? Kissing, making out, first base to third, oral sex, mutual masturbation?
Where do the people advocating abstinence draw the line? What do you tell your teenagers? Making out is ok, but no touching female breasts? No removal of clothing? No mutual masterbation? At some point you're expecting teenagers to engage in "sexual brinksmanship." And that may be the goal, but perhaps we should be explicit that we are not expecting teenagers to not date prior to turning 18 years old.
I think most parents expect their teenagers to engage in some sexual activity, such as kissing. And if you do not think this is appropriate, I assume that you will not allow them to date before they turn 18.
"There's nothing wrong with seventeen year-olds getting it on while mom and dad are out of the house."
Ignoring the risk of an STD (and no, a condom is not a 100% solution there), there's the risk of unmarried, teenage pregnancy. Now, I know Matt's smart enough to find the obvious links between children born out of wedlock and poverty - and yet he says there's "nothing wrong" with it.
If that's an example of "progressive concern", then I think we need a lot less of it.
And don't mistake this for some kind of "moralizing" about out of wedlock children - it's not. It's a simple utilitarian look at the common consequences of it.
Teen pregnancy wouldn't be such a terrible thing if we started expecting people to start behaving like responsible adults sooner than age 25. I say start expecting people to be adults in their midteens. They're plenty cognitively smart enough by then, but are basically encouraged by society to act like helpless freeloaders for another 5-10 years. How many famous people in history were highly accomplished geniuses by their teens, and ask yourself why that doesn't seem to happen much anymore (barring the odd science or math freak). There is absolutely no reason why you couldn't teach a kid everything he needs 18 years to learn nowadays in 13 years, and have him holding down a responsible job by age 14. This view of adolescence as developmental limbo is way overrated.
"Ignoring the risk of an STD (and no, a condom is not a 100% solution there), there's the risk of unmarried, teenage pregnancy. Now, I know Matt's smart enough to find the obvious links between children born out of wedlock and poverty - and yet he says there's "nothing wrong" with it."
Ripping off someone above, seatbelts aren't a 100% solution either. Nothing in this world is 100% safe. For instance, it turns at that the danger of getting food poisoning from chicken is 1 in 25,000 (worse than the 1 in 2 million chance of sushi). I once got bad food poisoning from pizza, which was worse than anything I've ever gotten from having sex. This means in my experience eating pizza has been more dangerous for me than having sex, which probably is because I always use condoms. Does this mean I should never eat pizza again? All this moralizing does it help create marriages between people who are too young to know the difference between love and lust, then have kids at 20 and a divorce at 22. Is that really better than in the North, where 17-year-olds start having sex and probably won't get married until around 28?
Steve H: I would imagine that the risks of accidental pregnancy goes down as a person gets into his/her early 20s, or at least by his/her late 20s. It's probably a safe bet that a 27-year-old is more likely to use birth control, and use it properly, than a 17-year-old.
I think that, like most of these discussions, this is turning into a discussion about sex education and proper use of birth control. What you say, Steve, is true. Some would say that the solution is to prevent teenagers from having sex. Others, like myself, would say that the solution is to educate them.
And yes, inexperienced people are more likely to misuse or not use birth control. But if you wait til you're no longer a teenager to have sex, you'll still be inexperienced.
Of course, teenagers do have a tendency to make bad decisions, and I won't argue that. Still, we should be celebrating an increase in the use of birth control, not a decrease in the percentage of teenagers having sex. A decrease in the percentage of teenagers having sex only shows that teenagers have internalized the idea that sex is dangerous, when in fact most people manage to have sex without ruining their lives, just as most people manage to drive to work in the morning without being involved in a car crash.
This view of adolescence as developmental limbo is way overrated.
Agreed. We treat our teenagers like morons or infants and then are suprised when they don't act in a responsible fashion. Look at this thread. 17-year-olds are not given much credit for even being able to roll a condom on. It's not rocket science to use a condom effectively. We put a gun in 18 year old's hands and send them to Iraq, but we don't think somone a year younger is responsible enough to use rubbers?
(When I say morons or infants, I mean in the larger culture. I'm not insulting the parents out there, saying that they treat their teenagers this way.)
subsidized escort services for the under 18 set is going to be a tough sell. On the other hand, we may pick up a few Republican votes that way.
Senator Vitter, maybe.
I tried to make the same argument about marijuana smoking, but somehow it never caught on.
With a seventeen year old son myself, it is hard to be so complacent about kids getting it on when their parents are away. But my cautionary tales of sexual instruction for my son are based on bald appeals to self-interest. The conversations are generally opportunistic, not planned, and go something like this:
"Hey bud."
"Hey dad."
"Did you hear about Tom Brady?"
"Yeah."
"Man, he's going to be paying that woman the rest of his life."
Or, like this:
"Dad, was Mr. Monroe a good student when you were in high school together?"
"Yes, he was very smart, and an excellent baseball player."
"How come he still lives in that boring, shit hole [Home Town], where you grew up, and works in a warehouse?"
"He got his girl friend pregnant."
"Wasn't she using birth control?"
"She said she was."
As far as I'm concerned, one of the major social improvements on the sexual front since I was a teenager is the proliferation of condom brands and advertisements, and apparently greater social and aesthetic acceptance of their use, which puts young men in a less dependent, more self-empowered position.
In the seventies, I think we were all still a bit too dazzled by all the (still relatively new) contraceptive technologies for women. Condoms were seen as clunky and unpleasant dinosaur-era throwbacks to our parents' and grandparents' time, something that called up seamy, old-fashioned images of soldiers on shore leave or rum-fueled Jazz Age groping in rumble seats. The rising concern with AIDS and other STD's brought condoms back big time, where they have had additional benefits in the contraceptive realm.
Re: How many famous people in history were highly accomplished geniuses by their teens, and ask yourself why that doesn't seem to happen much anymore (barring the odd science or math freak).
Famous and accomplished teenagers were pretty rare in history. I can think of Mozart and maybe Alexander the Great (though even he was 18 when his career began). Can anyone come up with any others?
17-year-olds are not given much credit for even being able to roll a condom on. It's not rocket science to use a condom effectively.
Oh no. I think we all recognize they are fully capable of rolling on a condom. They are also fully capable of driving a car without going 80 miles an hour, without burning rubber when they pull away from a stop sign, and without crashing into trees. Their actual performance doesn't always match their capabilities.
Condoms suck, anal is hard to facilitate, and oral sex leads to a slightly higher incidence of throat cancer per recent studies: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/70495.php. Who's up for some Thai-style inner-thigh rubbing?
I'm relieved that even young Matt accepts that teenagers should have sex in the house only when the parents aren't home.
Their actual performance doesn't always match their capabilities.
True. True of some adults, too.
I just object to the broad brush stroke that makes teenagers out to be dumb as rocks (or George W.). Some are, some aren't. Are they as mature as adults? No, but we don't know how much of that is the culture. The culture at large encourages teens not only to do wild, naughty things, but it also promotes the idea that these teenagers don't have the ability to be serious and to do the right thing. It lowers the bar for them and discounts them at the same time.
I'm sorry. I just think someone should speak up for the idea that teenagers are not complete imbiciles all of the time.
I've always thought there was a catch-22 in this debate.
If a teen is responsible enough to abstain from sex when you tell him to, he/she is responsible enough to engage in safe sex.
If you have a teen who you don't trust to have sex safely, how can you trust him not to have sex?
If you have a son, STDs and unintended pregnancy should be major concerns. Kervick gets it mostly right. Emphasize condom use and the idea that you can have a lot of fun without going all the way and avoid a lot of the risk. Of course, oral sex may not be as much fun without a knowledgeable partner. As for daughters, you have the same concerns. But a lot turns on your view of abortion. I'm all for it. But if you're not, you should probably be carefully monitoring their use of birth control.
The poor kids raised under Abstinence-only ed receive no info about condoms, lube, foreplay, etc. other than what they can glean from untrusted sources. If ma, pa & school are mum, it's up to Li'l Jimmy & Janey on the schoolyard or whatever they can get from around their internet/cable filters. Abstinence only education is a fucking crime and its proponents should be rounded up and introduced to buttplugs W/OKY!
Speaking from personal experience?
"Famous and accomplished teenagers were pretty rare in history. I can think of Mozart and maybe Alexander the Great (though even he was 18 when his career began). Can anyone come up with any others?"
Rimbaud wrote his major works exclusively between 17 and 21. (His older lover Verlaine had published his own first book at 22).
Numerous kings and nobles were leading armies early - Henry V was commander of the English forces fighting a major Welsh rebellion at age 16. Later, he fought the French army led by the Dauphin Charles, who had just turned 18.
Saul Kripke wrote his first philosophy papers at 16, and was teaching doctoral level courses by 19.
Music and math are the big prodigy producers. Besides Mozart, Samuel Barber, Chopin, Mendelssohn and Saint-Saens were all prodigies.
Byron published his first book at 18.
Pascal wrote his first paper at 16, and invented a calculator at 19. Other math prodigies were Gauss, von Neumann and Norbert Weiner.
Frank Lloyd Wright starting working as an architect at 20.
John Cheever had his first major publication at age 18 in The New Republic (about his own expulsion from prep school). Pushkin first published at 14 and was widely celebrated by the age of 18. Nerval's translation of Goethe's Faust at 20 was heralded by Goethe himself. Shelley had published four works before he was expelled from Oxford at 19.
"I don't get enough time with my kids. I need more vacation. While I'm away working and they are staying home alone you seem to think it's ok if they are having sex in the parentless house.
Utopia that ain't."
I agree that it is pragmatic not to give permission for fun, sex and rock-and-roll in parents' absence, so kids would not leave mess. So in case of mess one can unleash parental wrath. But what do you do if you discover a box of condoms in your son's drawer? I say -- shut up. Good for him.
One other thing is that teens are almost bound to do some stupid things. Given alternatives, I guess consensual and responsible sex is not that bad. For example, teens kill themselves driving 85 mph in 35 zone. They die of alcohol poisoning. They can do stupid and dangerous stunts. And then we can have cautious young people who do not do anything at all. Even the latter excess is dangerous.
Re: Accomplished teens
Thanks for some more examples. Though they do seem to cluster at the late end of the teen years. The original poster mentioned that music and math breed young prodigies even today, and that seems to be mainly what we find in the past too (with some poets thrown in as well). In regard to kings, many of them had their throne thrust on them early by the death of their predecessors and as such did not really gain their positions through early displays of their own brilliance and wisdom. Some screwed up pretty bad (e.g., Richard II), others proved to be geniuses.
Somehere on another thread I recall we were talking about the fact that men did not tend to marry until their 20s in days past and I think there's a hint there that even in the far past there was an age of life when men at least were not judged to be fully adult yet and so ready for all the adult responsibilities. They may have called it "appenticeship" instead of "adolesence" but it was definitely there.
A thing I am surprised nobody has mentioned: contra Ezra and Matt, the fact that fewer teenagers are having sex is not necessarily a bad thing. It really depends on why they're not having sex.
If a teenager makes a thought-out decision not to have sex, that's a good thing. It means he/she is taking responsibility for him/herself, and is likely to have a happier life as a result of learning to take care of him/herself. If a teenager makes a drunken or otherwise pressured decision to have sex, and soon regrets that decision, that's a bad thing, for the obvious reason that it results in more regret than happiness (the regret lasts longer, and the sex may well have been bad anyway).
My speculation is that, in these times, a decline in teenage sex means fewer teenagers having sex for the wrong reasons, not an increased number of teenagers who are thwarted from having sex despite wanting to do so. (The latter group exist, of course, but I don't know why they'd be increasing in number.)
"In regard to kings, many of them had their throne thrust on them early by the death of their predecessors and as such did not really gain their positions through early displays of their own brilliance and wisdom. Some screwed up pretty bad (e.g., Richard II), others proved to be geniuses."
Both commanders I mentioned above had living fathers at the times I mentioned (of course, Charles was never a good general even decades later. But he was an extremely wily intriguer and conspirator from the age of 16, the greatest skill he showed throughout his reign).
It was not only kings who would lead armies at extremely young ages. Jean II Le Maingre's first campaign was at the age of 12 in Normandy, was knighted at 16 in Flanders and was requested by the Teutonic Order to assist them in Lithunia at 18. He defeated the greatest knights of the day in the fabled tournament at St. Inglevert at 23, and was made a Marshal of France at 25 in 1391.
Christian the Younger of Brunswick was made a bishop at 17 in 1616, was a senior commander at 22 and was sole commander by 23.
Jan Willem de Winter was a lieutenant by 16 in the Dutch navy, promoted to lt. general by 22 by the French army and became commander of the entire Dutch navy by 35.
The great Turenne was a captain by 15, given high praise by 18, was recruited by France by 19 and immediately made a colonel, was promoted to major-general by 23 and Marshal of France by 32 in 1643.
Gaston of Foix was already a general by the age of 21, and within a year, was commander of all French forces in Italy during the War of the League of Cambrai.
Horatio Nelson, of course, was a post captain at the age of 18. And the Navy didn't have purchase; he got that on merit.
Um, I think we'll all agree that young people make good soldiers. That's been true as long as we've had wars, and it's still true today.
Polygamy is for those who are mature enough to handle it - the elderly. But they're too tired...
In any event, a lot of kids who have sex are not emotionally prepared for the consequences of it. This is particularly true of girls (who are actually more physically ready for it, of course), but there's a significant segment of boys this can be just as true for, a segment that is largly overlooked in the simplistic boys-will-be-boys perspective on human nature. And I don't mean STDs and pregnancy. I mean the more prosaic but traumatic things - the rejections, the sense of physical awkwardness, the inability to communicate, all that crap that makes can make teenagehood and young adulthood hell and carry over into really bad habits (need I list all the ways this frequently manifests itself in adulthood?) for years or decades.
This not to mean kids should be shielded from experience. It does mean that they need to be cultivated emotionally by their parents to be much more ready for these things than is typically the case in modern America where we infantalize our children emotionally.
Bottom line, even if the kids are ready physically, if they're not ready emotionally, they need structures to help them deal with the disjuncture. And as a culture we are running away from that one, and fast.
Until that time, teenage sex is something that should be discouraged. If you really want the best for your kids. If you don't really want that, then by all means...
Does this country have a giant stick up its collective ass or what? Judging by the comments, we're still Puritans. More sex! More cocktails! More pleasurable activities like massages and expensive cakes!
I, too, find this display of American puritanism very pathetic.
Teach your kids to be responsible and practice safe sex and there won't be any more problems than if you try the "abstinence only" route; but you'll get rid off much of the hypocritical moralising, the guilt, the shame and the lack of knowledge.
I can't tell you how glad I am not to have grown up in the US.
Brilliant teens: Thomas Chatterton
Condoms fail: I wasn't thinking of the disease aspect. I was thinking of the pregnancy risk. You don't base a morality on statistics.
And, sexual relations don't become moral simply due to the advance of years. Morality isn't an on/off switch. It's better to do what's best than to do what's better and it's better to do what's better than do what's just ok. Etc. It's better to have sexual relations within a socially sanctioned/reinforced relationship than with a long-term privately committed relationship. It's better to have sexual relations within a long-term privately committed relationship than during an semi-anonymous hook-up. Etc.
And not simply due to the risk of children. Sex is a catergory to itself as a moral act: it's sex. It reflects who we are and how we relate to others and the world more accurately than our other acts.
Forgive me for saying something that will undoubtedly get more than a few people upset, but I would amend Matt's comment thusly, based on demographics: "There's nothing wrong with seventeen year-olds getting it on while mom and dad are out of the house -- assuming the family is white, middle- to upper-middle class and 'mom and dad' actually live in the home."
Sadly, the high degree of fatherlessness in the black community helps demonstrate that something can go profoundly wrong when seventeen year olds are left happily "fooling around."
(And, yes, PC-niks, I'm a black man saying this.)
It's better to have sexual relations within a socially sanctioned/reinforced relationship than with a long-term privately committed relationship.
Sigh. So if you're gay, and don't live in Mass., what do you do? I guess sex with your partner can never be as "moral" as the married couple down the street.
Anyway, I thought we were talking about teenagers, not adults. I think once you get into sexual morality amongst adults, you get into waters in which people are going to have wildly disagreeing viewpoints that are very personal.
I'd agree with you on a middle ground: generally, it is better to raise children in marriage than outside marriage. (I say generally: its not good one when spouse beats the other spouse or the children and, on the flip side, I don't think a kid like Harry Letterman has a great deal of disadvantage coming from unmarried parents.) But this is way off topic.
Re: Sex is a catergory to itself as a moral act
Here's something I disagree with. I think sex is no different from other human behavior and we can encompass it with the same general moral principles we apply to all others dealings between people, like the Golden Rule, for example.
Re: It reflects who we are and how we relate to others and the world more accurately than our other acts.
I also disagree here. How and what people do in bed is a very small part of life, and selfishness or kindness in the boudoir are apt to be reflected in a person's other dealings too.
ACtually, for many American teenagers, what happens (or, as importantly, doesn't) happen in bed is often a HUGE thing, much bigger than it would be for someone who has matured emotionally.
Teenagers are prone to totalize and internalize their experiences. While for some kids it's just mutual orgasms and recreational fun (if a girl is lucky enough to find a boy that actually cares and can do that, which teenage girls seem to indicate is rare), for a lot of kids it plays a disproportionate role in the definition of their identity.
Precisely because the vision of the world that is presented to them is so hypersexualised and therefore makes sex much bigger than it really is; it's not just puritans and prudes who contribute to that, but those who react to them!
Do you want your 15-year old child to learn lessons like: I am not worthy of being treated as a romantic equal? I am sexually incompetent? I am not good enough to deserve good romance and sex? I must be a freak? I need to lose my intergrity to get what I want?
Rare is the American child who has been emotionally prepared in the most rudimentary ways to encounter such questions.
Because your kids are normally not going to talk to you about *those* lessons that they are learning while you're out of the house. And then 15 years later you wonder why your adult child is having trouble in his/her marriage, cannot seem to hold a lasting relationship, or cannot seem to embrace him/herself. And if they don't count your blessings; you got lucky, through no virtue of your own.
So, Liam, instead they should learn lessons like, "my boy bits or girl bits are dirty and shouldn't be touched", or "sex is a dirty thing that guarantees pregnancy 100% of the time", or perhaps "sex, like alcohol, is something only adults partake of, therefore upon reaching that age I can magically have as much as possible, irregardless of the consquences."
My god, its like suddenly everyone blocks out of their mind that fact that teenagers have been having sex THROUGHOUT HISTORY. And yes, that does mean 13-19 year olds. Nowadays there are less young teenagers getting pregnant. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? That is much more important than whether or not teenagers having sex is a good or bad thing. Does anyone here think you have to be 20 years old to have sex? To enjoy sex? To be mature enough (whatever that means) to appreciate sex? Liam, rather than oversexualizing our kids, it sounds like you'd tell them that "teh sex" leads to all social ills. Or, more correctly "teh teenage sex".
Because we all know that being adult means you will always have sex within a socially mandated partnership by socially mandated means using socially mandated preventative methods that always work.
You really want teenagers to act "adult" when it comes to sex? Then treat them as such.
I don't think Liam was trying to say at all that all sex between unmarried people, or even teenagers, is bad. I think he was trying to say that no one should be pressured into having sex under circumstances that turn out to be no good for them at all. Which probably a majority of girls in our culture (all cultures?) have experienced.
TampaB
Oooh, who's being hysterical here? I didn't advocate prudery or mystification of sex; quite the contrary, in point of fact that you seem to miss... The gravamen of my concern is about the responsibilities of parents given the emotional infantalization of youth highly that is encouraged in a consumer capitalist culture, and infantalization that keeps teenage consumers more in touch with wants than needs. That's a relatively new development in human history, and it cannot be wished away.
Sex is a powerful drive, but no one ever died because they did not have sex in a given [name your time period of choice]. Sex can be a wonderful experience (and I would hope we all wish that for our children); but often (even for adults) it's not. What makes it more likely to be wonderful? What makes it less likely? Some answers will cover most children, but other answers are more child-specific. Hectoring me about being insufficiently sex-positive (I'm a very sex-positive person; I just view sex realistically rather than in illusory terms) is cant. How do you best prepare your children for that reality?
Sex can be a wonderful experience (and I would hope we all wish that for our children); but often (even for adults) it's not.
Often it's not? Most of the time it's pretty great for me, and I'm a woman. (I guess we're supposed to be harder to please in bed.) I hope everyone's rate here is better than "often" having bad sex. Otherwise, it would be better just to turn to masterbation.
By the way, remember the crucifiction of Jocelyn Elders? Who had, you know, a practical solution to all of this. Masterbation has the same STD/pregnancy rates as abstinance. Why doesn't the Right ever talk about that as a solution?
Yeah, I already know the answer.
Re: ACtually, for many American teenagers, what happens (or, as importantly, doesn't) happen in bed is often a HUGE thing
For teenagers everything is a huge thing. A quarrel with a friend is the end of the world. A pimple is a life-destroying disfigurement.
Ear
By the volume of discussion in the media over less-than-wonderful sex lives across America, one gets the impression that it is often true that people are not having as much wonderful sex as you say you are....
for a lot of kids it plays a disproportionate role in the definition of their identity
This can be just as true for kids who don't get laid as for kids who do, if not more so.
Of course the right answer here is: people should start having sex when they're ready and willing for it. (So easy!) Since the issues with sex are largely psychological, a simple rule like "Don't have sex until you turn 20" hardly cures all ills, and even introduces new ones.
To the extent that kids have sex to establish their autonomy and independence from their parents, emphasizing their immaturity and helplessness is quite likely to backfire. To the extent that kids have sex because everyone else is having it, once again emphasizing their immaturity and helplessness is likely to backfire.
Of course no one said parenting was easy.
Barbar
As I expressly noted - it's not just what goes on in their bedrooms, but what doesn't. I will say that I know people who got scarred by youthful sexual experiences than youthful sexual non-experiences; the latter group actually seemed to tend (tend) to be more self-assured as sexual adults. But simply cheering sex on is simplistic, and that's what folks were prompted to do by the post by MY.
Comments closed July 30, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
It's better than "nothing wrong." If more teens had sex, fewer would enlist in the military (where having sex is difficult) and there would be less war. Teenage sex will save the world.
Posted by Brian | July 16, 2007 11:27 AM