But what about birth control?

[Nakia]

Ah, I just love it when I'm obliged to agree with the Pagan (Mergath) AND Christian points of view.

 

;)

Rosie

 

I find myself in that exact spot so often here. I love it too!

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

I felt my tone matched the poster I was responding to. She was being straightforward' date=' so I was too.[/quote']

 

well, I'm not one to argue with feelings

[Plucky]

I don't know what the blue pill is, but the condenscension in your post really doesn't seem necessary.

 

Hmmm, I didn't think there was any condescension. :001_huh:

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Hmmm, I didn't think there was any condescension. :001_huh:

I think it was a misunderstanding. The comment was strange and I still don't understand it.:confused:

[Rosie_0801]

Warning: this is going to be badly worded. I promise I have tried to edit before clicking submit, so this is the best I can manage!

 

I've just been thinking about this thread and wondering why there is such a huge gap between biology and social expectation (the no sex before marriage thing, and yes I realise that not everyone believes this. I'm not married after all.)

 

I'd rather my kids waited until marriage, (in theory, me not being married, and all.) I think that is best because I really don't think having had multiple sexual partners is healthy for most people, most women anyway. I think that is best because people don't tend to want to get married until they feel confirmed as a person. That they know who they are and what their values are; socially, politically, environmentally etc. You can't choose the right person for you until you are sure of who you are. I know people grow over time, but that's developing, not doing a complete personality make over and being a totally different person.

 

Biology clearly has no problem with teenagers being sexually active. Society does because these kids aren't grown up yet. I didn't feel properly confirmed as a person until I was about 23, because my university studies had a great impact on me. If college attendance wasn't so widespread and expected, people wouldn't have all those new ideas around them to disrupt the course of who they would become. If we all finished school at 15 and went to work, we would be adults. Very young adults, but adults all the same. We would be convicted in who we were because we would be being it. We would be being it because there would be so few options to choose from. I'm sure women didn't agonise over career choice back when they could only be teachers, nurses or secretaries, for example. Getting married at 15 would be ok, because that's what adults do. Now though, there's another three years of high school, and preferably another four of college. How was biology supposed to know that would happen, let alone accommodate for it? Simply saying "ok, people are now adults at 15" wouldn't work because we all know they aren't and our society can't make it so.

 

 

If you could pull my meaning from that mumbo jumbo, congratulations. I'm sick and I suspect less coherent than I think I am.

 

:)

Rosie

[Jugglin'5]

I think it was a misunderstanding. The comment was strange and I still don't understand it.:confused:

 

Re. "The blue pill" was a refernce to The Matrix, and obviously a poor choice of metaphor since it obscured what I was trying to say. I meant that I can't accept that view of the capacity of teenagers to choose to live according to a set of principles. The failures do not justify a universal throwing off of moral expectations. We all fail. How would it be if we all just determined to follow our "instincts" in all things? Forgive anytypos- I am typing on a cellphone.

[Lovedtodeath]

Thank you for clarifying. I love the Matrix and I had totally forgotten about the blue pill. lol

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

Rosie - I get what you're saying and it made a lot of sense to me.

 

If I waited until I felt confirmed as a person, or really knew who I was and what I wanted to do with my life, I wouldn't have had sex until I was .... well until I was in my mid-30's.

 

I think you've hit on something with biology and society being out of synch.

[Lovedtodeath]

Aren't teen pregnancies a greater risk to the mother and the baby?

[IsabelC]

77% of young people have had sex by the time they are 20. I guess that figure could be a bit high, since it is based on people's own reports, and presumably the stigma of being a virgin (particularly for boys/young men) might tempt some respondents away from answering truthfully. But still, it's fairly certain that the majority of older teenagers are sexually active. So it is also a fact that at least some of the teens whose parents are saying "Oh, but I know my child will stay pure until marriage" are mistaken. Maybe nobody here. Maybe home schooling makes a difference?

[Rosie_0801]

Aren't teen pregnancies a greater risk to the mother and the baby?

 

I think it depends what you mean by teen. There's a lot of physical development between 13 and 19, isn't there? An 18- 19 year old is fully developed, so there is no reason why there should be any greater risk than for everyone else. I guess there would be more risk the younger you go.

 

Rosie

[IsabelC]

Yes, pregnancy is more taxing on the body of a girl / young woman who is still growing. The age at which one has finished growing and has laid down the fat deposits that occur during puberty will of course vary from one girl to the next.

[Melissa in Australia]

Warning: this is going to be badly worded. I promise I have tried to edit before clicking submit, so this is the best I can manage!

 

I've just been thinking about this thread and wondering why there is such a huge gap between biology and social expectation (the no sex before marriage thing, and yes I realise that not everyone believes this. I'm not married after all.)

 

I'd rather my kids waited until marriage, (in theory, me not being married, and all.) I think that is best because I really don't think having had multiple sexual partners is healthy for most people, most women anyway. I think that is best because people don't tend to want to get married until they feel confirmed as a person. That they know who they are and what their values are; socially, politically, environmentally etc. You can't choose the right person for you until you are sure of who you are. I know people grow over time, but that's developing, not doing a complete personality make over and being a totally different person.

 

Biology clearly has no problem with teenagers being sexually active. Society does because these kids aren't grown up yet. I didn't feel properly confirmed as a person until I was about 23, because my university studies had a great impact on me. If college attendance wasn't so widespread and expected, people wouldn't have all those new ideas around them to disrupt the course of who they would become. If we all finished school at 15 and went to work, we would be adults. Very young adults, but adults all the same. We would be convicted in who we were because we would be being it. We would be being it because there would be so few options to choose from. I'm sure women didn't agonise over career choice back when they could only be teachers, nurses or secretaries, for example. Getting married at 15 would be ok, because that's what adults do. Now though, there's another three years of high school, and preferably another four of college. How was biology supposed to know that would happen, let alone accommodate for it? Simply saying "ok, people are now adults at 15" wouldn't work because we all know they aren't and our society can't make it so.

 

 

If you could pull my meaning from that mumbo jumbo, congratulations. I'm sick and I suspect less coherent than I think I am.

 

:)

Rosie

I completly agree with you.

[Melissa in Australia]

What age teen is everyone talking about?

 

I have always thought that 17 and above is a fine time to get married and have children. I was married at 18, and had children .

 

Nearly everyone I know( female, not male) was married from 18 up.

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

What age teen is everyone talking about?

 

I have always thought that 17 and above is a fine time to get married and have children. I was married at 18, and had children .

 

Nearly everyone I know( female, not male) was married from 18 up.

The first thing I thought when I read your post was, "What century do you live in?"

:001_smile:

But seriously, you realize that your experience and circle of friends is not the norm today, right?

[Melissa in Australia]

The first thing I thought when I read your post was, "What century do you live in?"

:001_smile:

But seriously, you realize that your experience and circle of friends is not the norm today, right?

 

It is the norm of today where I live.

 

Not in my circle of friends though. I don't actually have friends.

[ciyates]

The first thing I thought when I read your post was, "What century do you live in?"

:001_smile:

But seriously, you realize that your experience and circle of friends is not the norm today, right?

 

I guess that would depend on your circle. 18 is a perfectly acceptable age where I am from, most places we have been stationed and where we currently live.

[Renee in NC]

Aren't teen pregnancies a greater risk to the mother and the baby?

 

No. There is a risk at very young ages, but being a teen does not make you high risk as long as there are no contributing factors. There are higher rates of low birth weight babies in teens, but I do believe that contributing factors are more important than the age of the mother.

[Renee in NC]

The first thing I thought when I read your post was, "What century do you live in?"

:001_smile:

But seriously, you realize that your experience and circle of friends is not the norm today, right?

 

I would say that it is more the norm than you think. It just isn't the norm for middle class, suburban America.

 

I think it is ridiculous to tell your teens/young adults "don't have premarital sex" at the same time you are telling them, "don't marry until you finish college and are settled in your career!" That is about a 10-15 year gap between physically ready and "life" ready.

[Catherine]

I don't agree that having an expectation, and simultaneously acknowledging that it is an expectation that is, in apparently 77% of cases, not met, compromises that expectation. Acknowledging it would at least protect the child a bit more against becoming a teenage parent, if the parents were not opposed to the use of birth control. I realize that many are however.

 

When kids are given to believe that they are staking their moral status on remaining virgins, but know they will be loved and supported if they do become pregnant, it must be confusing.

 

I think one reason that evangelical teens are so much more likely than college-bound east coast teens to become pregnant is this very universal moral expectation. If you perceive yourself to be in a struggle against the forces of nature (hormonal drive) and it's a moral issue, the stakes are overwhelming and it become easier to ignore them and accept that you are a "moral failure". If you simply want to avoid an outcome that would compromise your future plans, and have no moral imperative hanging over you, it's easier to choose to wait or choose to use birth control.

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

I would say that it is more the norm than you think. It just isn't the norm for middle class, suburban America.

 

I think it is ridiculous to tell your teens/young adults "don't have premarital sex" at the same time you are telling them, "don't marry until you finish college and are settled in your career!" That is about a 10-15 year gap between physically ready and "life" ready.

 

Sorry. I stupidly assumed we were speaking of American culture. I guess we'll have to check the census records. And BTW, I am not in "middle class, suburban America." United States, but not suburban, and the definition of middle class is changing.

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

It is the norm of today where I live.

 

Not in my circle of friends though. I don't actually have friends.

 

I'm sorry that you don't consider any of the number of people you know who obviously have at least young marriage age in common with you as friends. Unless you feel no loss at that fact, then to each his/her own.

[Renee in NC]

Sorry. I stupidly assumed we were speaking of American culture. I guess we'll have to check the census records. And BTW, I am not in "middle class, suburban America." United States, but not suburban, and the definition of middle class is changing.

 

I wasn't trying to be offensive with my statement. The particular post in question came from someone who is not American, hence my comment. I am sorry that it came across so badly!

 

I know plenty of people who married young, but most of them did not come from the perspective of families who assume their dc will go to college and have a career. Suburban was the wrong word - I don't know what word would describe it (I think middle class would have been enough.) And by middle class I didn't mean any particular income level but rather a mindset - our children will go to college, have a career, do better than we did, etc. By income, we are not middle class at all, but from a societal standpoint I am middle class due to education and background. A middle class parent assumes that their children will stay dependents until they finish college and maybe even grad school.

 

I would say that less people get married young now than even 10 years ago because a young couple can simply move in together and have children. I know *tons* of people who have done just that. They are 18-22, live with their SO in their own home, and have children. They just aren't married - it isn't a societal expectation anymore.

 

I think the only things that have changed in 100 years is that couples who get pregnant are no longer expected to marry, it isn't a scandal if a couple lives together without being married, and most people have access to and have no moral problem with artificial bc. The behavior hasn't changed in 100 years, just how it is viewed.

 

Of the people I know who married young, most did so because living together without marriage was not accepted in their belief system. My SIL's parents did not want her to marry at 19 - they asked her if she and my brother couldn't just live together for a few years first. It wasn't morally acceptable for my brother and SIL, so they married.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Renee in FL

[FeFe]

While I certainly cannot speak for everyone, I know that it just did not seem to matter. You know, the whole youth doesn't realize it's own mortality sort of mind set. I knew all about bc, knew what the risks were but for some reason I was unable to make the connection that those risks applied to me not just others.

 

 

This was me too. I'll add that my parents never talked to me about BC though or s_x for that matter. Everything I knew I learned in s_x ed or from conversations with friends.

[Melissa in Australia]

sorry , off topic.

Edited July 16, 2010 by melissaL

[Wheres Toto]

I don't agree with young marriage partially due to some of the things mentioned in Rosie post, which match up with my personal experience. I married Ex-h at 21 years old. I was still in college and as a result of getting married and having oldest dd, ended up not finishing until I was in my 30's. My views of things changed a lot from my early 20's to my early 30's (even separate from my college experiences, which were pretty untypical). I grew up, ex-H did not, we divorced. (obviously there's more to it but that's the basics).

 

In an ideal world, I don't think a woman (or man) should get married until they have gone to college/job training/etc. and are able to support themselves without depending on someone else. Doesn't mean that a woman can't be a SAHM (I am) but she should have the training/skills to support herself and her family if it becomes necessary. No woman should be locked in to an unhealthy marriage because they have no other options, and of course, death happens as well.

 

Given my view of early marriage, I obviously don't find it realistic to tell dd that she should wait until marriage to have sex. I do want her to be in a committed relationship, be sure that the man feels the same way she does and that he is at least someone she could see being married to in the future.

[dirty ethel rackham]

I don't know what the blue pill is, but the condenscension in your post really doesn't seem necessary.

And here I thought the blue pill was a "Matrix" reference.

[Murphy101]

I agree that society and biology are out of sync and that is a major contribution to the problem.

 

I met dh right before my 16th birthday, got engaged a few weeks later and got married at 19. We were not practicing Christians then. I don't come from a christian family and his was only Christian on the census form and Easter with grandma.

 

We've been very happy and I wouldn't change marrying young.

 

I think the entire knowing yourself before marriage is a myth. Heck, I'm still not sure I'm there yet! And the adverse is also true. There's a lot of people who don't marry or divorce later in life bc they just aren't willing to change and grow with each other anymore. They are very set in their ways.

 

As for teaching my kids about birth control.

 

I tell them if they aren't willing to risk a baby, they shouldn't have sex bc sex causes babies at least some of the time and they need to presume THEY will be that some of the time.

 

I tell them we are catholic and believe bc and sex outside marriage is wrong and why we believe that.

 

I explain the medical cautions of using birth control and having sex.

 

I explain the emotional aspects of sexual relationships.

 

I explain that when they become a parent, they will be expected to be there 100%, which means marriage, not just a paycheck and biweekly Saturday babysitting.

 

Regardless of whether it would be my ds or dd, as long as they were married, the couple and baby would be welcome to live with us until they got on their own feet.

[vonfirmath]

77% of young people have had sex by the time they are 20. I guess that figure could be a bit high, since it is based on people's own reports, and presumably the stigma of being a virgin (particularly for boys/young men) might tempt some respondents away from answering truthfully. But still, it's fairly certain that the majority of older teenagers are sexually active. So it is also a fact that at least some of the teens whose parents are saying "Oh, but I know my child will stay pure until marriage" are mistaken. Maybe nobody here. Maybe home schooling makes a difference?

 

This is a really weird stat because it does not match the experience of the teenagers I grew up with. 17% of the teenagers in my high school "Sunday School" ended up premarital sexual relations.

 

11% of my first cousins did.

 

Even among my peers in the public school, the figure was not as high as 70%. I know some were, but I'd have been very surprised to discover it was as high as 1 in 2.

 

What group of people was asked to get this stat?

[lionfamily1999]

I will take this one step further by saying that birth control has little value to the abstinence crowd. Premarital sex and birth control are BOTH sins. Both are wrong, not that one is more wrong than the other. It does not make sense to teach that premarital sex is wrong but since wrong will be done anyway, here is a way (birth control) to hide that wrong and keep doing it anyway. It is similar to using one lie to cover up another. People fail in all sorts of ways, not just sex but in coveting, lying, murder, cheating and we don't provide them ways to keep on doing those types of wrongs either. If a child steals, we don't say, "Well, it's wrong but since you are going to do it anyway, here is a large bag to hide the goods in." This aversion to birth control is not born out of some prudish aversion to c@ck talk, but because we discredit it.

 

Then there is the whole attitude toward pregnancy. It is a natural result of sex. Plain and simple. It is not something to be mourned like a death. It is not viewed as THE END. What is mourned is the fall from grace that person has inflicted on themselves. We mourn the suffering person has inflicted on themselves and innocent persons. Pregnancy will change the course of a young person's life but it doesn't end their life. Pregnancy is not the enemy.

That was incredibly well said :D

 

To your second paragraph... Dh and I were talking about "joy" the other day. My brother and his wife are pregnant with baby number two, their older child will be two October. In our family, the news was greated with squeels of delight (I'm still grinning ear-to-ear). However, it was met with condolences else where. Dh (an agnostic) was saying how much the world has tramped down what WAS the joy of life. Pregnancy is a big drag, kids are nails in the coffin, marraige is just a break between divorces or ancient practice that should be done away with, and sex is just an outlet for a moment's pleasure.

 

I agree with you completely that new life, pregnancy, itself is joy. It should be seen as such. The circumstances around it might be less than ideal, but a child, a new life, should be seen as a joy. It's a new little light in the world, a trembling whisp of hope, a baby is the embodiment of wonder and potential. Marraige is such an incredible thing, to join and become one, to make it so that you never stand alone, to have someone always there to rely on. And sex, it's communion with that person that makes you whole. It's not the dry mechanics, it's not the persuit of the big 'O', it's a moment when the whole world can go to the pits and you and the one you love are contentedly wrapped up in each other. It's a respite, all those things are respites. Birth is a respite from loss, marraige is a respite from lonliness, parenthood is a respite from straight adult forward plodding, and sex is a respite from the world.

 

It's sad that those things that are the epidome of joy have been so scuffed up and knocked around that they're viewed as one step above loss of life to so many.

Warning: this is going to be badly worded. I promise I have tried to edit before clicking submit, so this is the best I can manage!...<unfortunatly I ran out of room and had to edit down your beautiful post :(>If you could pull my meaning from that mumbo jumbo, congratulations. I'm sick and I suspect less coherent than I think I am.

 

:)

Rosie

Well, Rosie, you did a WONDERFUL job of explaining the whole shebang in a perfectly respectful (wish you taught sex ed in schools) manner.

Re. "The blue pill" was a refernce to The Matrix' date=' and obviously a poor choice of metaphor since it obscured what I was trying to say. I meant that I can't accept that view of the capacity of teenagers to choose to live according to a set of principles. [b']The failures do not justify a universal throwing off of moral expectations[/b]. We all fail. How would it be if we all just determined to follow our "instincts" in all things? Forgive anytypos- I am typing on a cellphone.

:iagree:

 

I don't agree that having an expectation, and simultaneously acknowledging that it is an expectation that is, in apparently 77% of cases, not met, compromises that expectation. Acknowledging it would at least protect the child a bit more against becoming a teenage parent, if the parents were not opposed to the use of birth control. I realize that many are however.

You are assuming that all children's parents tell them to abstain and all children are raised to see that as the best decision. That's simply not true. Many parents, even on this board, do not believe that teaching their children to abstain is the right thing to do. More parents believe that their children should try to abstain, but no worries if they can't. Not too many parents, in comparison, actually tell their children they MUST abstain.

When kids are given to believe that they are staking their moral status on remaining virgins, but know they will be loved and supported if they do become pregnant, it must be confusing.

:iagree: ETA, that's a confusion that most Christians struggle with. Being forgiven, even though you don't deserve it, being loved, even though you aren't good enough to merit it. It's nice, impov, that parents get to model that to their children.

I think one reason that evangelical teens are so much more likely than college-bound east coast teens to become pregnant is this very universal moral expectation. If you perceive yourself to be in a struggle against the forces of nature (hormonal drive) and it's a moral issue, the stakes are overwhelming and it become easier to ignore them and accept that you are a "moral failure". If you simply want to avoid an outcome that would compromise your future plans, and have no moral imperative hanging over you, it's easier to choose to wait or choose to use birth control.

I was one of those. The girls that got preg at the same time as me were also east coast college-bound teens. The girls that got pregnant and got abortions were also east coast college-bound teens. I was the only pregnancy at my church, and my mother did not believe in the Biblical teachings on sex. All the rest had signed the contract and pledged to remain pure. Incredibly, they did.

I don't agree with young marriage partially due to some of the things mentioned in Rosie post, which match up with my personal experience.

I'm curious, when you say "don't believe in" what do you mean? (Asking with sincerity, I've seen the sentiment and now I want to know what 'not believing in' young marraige actually entails.)

And here I thought the blue pill was a "Matrix" reference.

It was.

Edited July 16, 2010 by lionfamily1999

[Nakia]

 

 

I agree with you completely that new life, pregnancy, itself is joy. It should be seen as such. The circumstances around it might be less than ideal, but a child, a new life, should be seen as a joy. It's a new little light in the world, a trembling whisp of hope, a baby is the embodiment of wonder and potential. Marraige is such an incredible thing, to join and become one, to make it so that you never stand alone, to have someone always there to rely on. And sex, it's communion with that person that makes you whole. It's not the dry mechanics, it's not the persuit of the big 'O', it's a moment when the whole world can go to the pits and you and the one you love are contentedly wrapped up in each other. It's a respite, all those things are respites. Birth is a respite from loss, marraige is a respite from lonliness, parenthood is a respite from straight adult forward plodding, and sex is a respite from the world.

 

It's sad that those things that are the epidome of joy have been so scuffed up and knocked around that they're viewed as one step above loss of life to so many.

 

 

 

Absolutely beautiful post. Thank you.

[Wheres Toto]

I'm curious, when you say "don't believe in" what do you mean? (Asking with sincerity, I've seen the sentiment and now I want to know what 'not believing in' young marraige actually entails.)

.

 

Poorly worded on my part. I don't believe early marriage is a good idea in general. Obviously specifics vary but I think most young people in their late teens/early 20's aren't ready for everything a marriage entails. Divorce is more common the younger you are when marrying. Statistics are subject to interpretation but here's one link http://www.divorcestatistics.org/ and the higher divorce rate for younger marriage is widely accepted even among religious counselors. I do believe that practicing Christians may divorce less but this is not necessarily a sign that they have a good, healthy marriage - just that they don't believe in divorce.

[Aubrey]

I don't agree with young marriage partially due to some of the things mentioned in Rosie post, which match up with my personal experience. I married Ex-h at 21 years old. I was still in college and as a result of getting married and having oldest dd, ended up not finishing until I was in my 30's. My views of things changed a lot from my early 20's to my early 30's (even separate from my college experiences, which were pretty untypical). I grew up, ex-H did not, we divorced. (obviously there's more to it but that's the basics).

 

I married dh when I was 19 & he was 20. We were both still in school. We got pg w/ #1 after 9mos. I finished my BA at 21 & my MA at 24. Dh finished his BA at 23, I think. Maybe he was 24, too. We did get help from our parents, & it was hard at times. One semester, we traded the baby off between classes, working an alternate sched, but once a week, I had a baby w/ me for Adv Phil.

 

My broad life phil views have not changed since I was about...12. Since I was 4, I wanted to have children & hs. Since I was 10, I wanted to write. Since about 12, I've known that I wanted 4 dc. The only surprising thing about me is how much I haven't changed. It's nice, though, because where people wouldn't listen to me when I was 12 because I didn't know what I was talking about, I can say the same things now, & they think I've gained so much wisdom from 10 yrs of marriage/parenting. :lol:

 

I have become more laid back about some things, but that's only because of dh's personality & family. Everything else has seized up. Honestly? Marrying young is not something I'd probably advise anyone to do, definitely not many, BUT for dh & me? I think we needed the intensity of forging through life together to challenge us. At this point in life--I just turned 31--if I weren't already married, I wouldn't get married. People drive me too batty, & I'm too inflexible.

 

Anyway, I'm not suggesting this is a model & that I believe in young marriage as a result. I'm not even suggesting that my marriage is an incredibly healthy one to be emulated, lol. During hard phases, I've wondered if it was hard because we married young, though, & over & over again, I've come to the same conclusion: difficult as it has been, it would have been harder for us to live w/ ea other the longer we waited. We would have just become too set in our ways.

 

Dh thought I was trying to kill him when I put his meds in the med cabinet because he liked to keep them spread across the counter. He thought I was nuts when I wanted to keep the coffee pot in the pantry. We fought & made up a lot that first yr. Anyway, I don't think that would happen as well or easily now.

 

In an ideal world, I don't think a woman (or man) should get married until they have gone to college/job training/etc. and are able to support themselves without depending on someone else. Doesn't mean that a woman can't be a SAHM (I am) but she should have the training/skills to support herself and her family if it becomes necessary. No woman should be locked in to an unhealthy marriage because they have no other options, and of course, death happens as well.

 

I basically agree w/ this, but I also think that we extend our dc's childhoods too long, & it's that that causes the problem. I think we could realistically raise kids to be responsible by about 16 or so. Four yrs of college or trade school or something, & they'd be 20, give or take. Some would want to go to grad school & be older, some younger. But there would be a system that acknowledges their ability to be responsible at much younger ages instead of expecting a "holding pattern" for 10 yrs or so.

 

Sometimes I think hormones & teen pg is a problem partly because it's the only adult activity they're allowed ("allowed" in the broad sense). If teens could do something of significance earlier (they can, but they're often held back by lack of adult support/resources or even adults trying to hold them back so they don't "grow up too soon"), sex would be less of a lure.

 

My friends who had concrete career plans that they were able to practice to some extent before college--sports medicine, art, etc--were the least involved in boys & the shallow relationships often fostered by highschool dynamics. I think *that* is a good response to the teen pg rate.

 

Given my view of early marriage, I obviously don't find it realistic to tell dd that she should wait until marriage to have sex. I do want her to be in a committed relationship, be sure that the man feels the same way she does and that he is at least someone she could see being married to in the future.

 

This is what I think premarital sex does to people. If you click on the book, the "see inside" feature gives you almost the whole story. Not for littles, not for everybody, but vivid & gripping. Imo, it's an emotional loss, whether or not one believes it's a moral loss.

[Lovedtodeath]

Aubrey and Martha :hurray:

[MASinNC]

hmmm... I'm 40+ and didn't know that antibiotics & the pill don't mix. Does it make b/c less effective? Thanks for the information (not that I need it anymore --- but I'll have to pass the info along to my DD some day.)

 

I, too, agree with Cadam. If you don't plan on doing it, why carry b/c? In fact, if you carry b/c, aren't you more likely to give in to the "temptation" to have s****** relations?

 

BTW, I love your Aunt Frances quote. So true!

[MASinNC]

Aubrey,

 

Thanks for the well-written, thoughtful post. I agree with most everything you said. However, my DH was 29 when we were married, and I was 22. We've been married for 25 years, and have 2 wonderful children, 12 & 10. (Yes, we waited quite awhile to have DC!) I think the first year of marriage is the same no matter how old you are --- adjusting, compromising, etc. to others. Luckily, the first year both parties work hard at the relationship and WANT to make it work, which helps. So, the lesson is ladies, if it bothers you, SPEAK UP soon. The longer you wait, the harder he will resist. Speak up while he's still "compliant"!

 

Melody

[Aubrey]

Aubrey,

 

Thanks for the well-written, thoughtful post. I agree with most everything you said. However, my DH was 29 when we were married, and I was 22. We've been married for 25 years, and have 2 wonderful children, 12 & 10. (Yes, we waited quite awhile to have DC!) I think the first year of marriage is the same no matter how old you are --- adjusting, compromising, etc. to others. Luckily, the first year both parties work hard at the relationship and WANT to make it work, which helps. So, the lesson is ladies, if it bothers you, SPEAK UP soon. The longer you wait, the harder he will resist. Speak up while he's still "compliant"!

 

Melody

 

Oh, I didn't mean that the 1st yr wouldn't be hard no matter what. I meant that I was deliriosly happy to be married 10 yrs ago & was willing to make compromises. Not that I'm not happy to be married now, lol, but if I were *starting* out now, well...I wouldn't start. At *this* point, I've learned that I like privacy & quiet too much. If I'd had a chance to learn that about myself, I would have made the "wiser" decision to stay single. I'm glad I married young enough to be unwise, because *for me* it has meant a fuller life.

 

I'm not far enough along in my particular journey, though, to know how that applies to advice I'd give other people. My only point is that the very thigns that make young marriage unwise for a lot of people...might work in the favor of a few.

 

I'm totally unclear & messing up my words now, so I'm stopping. :o

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

I wasn't trying to be offensive with my statement. The particular post in question came from someone who is not American, hence my comment. I am sorry that it came across so badly!

 

I know plenty of people who married young, but most of them did not come from the perspective of families who assume their dc will go to college and have a career. Suburban was the wrong word - I don't know what word would describe it (I think middle class would have been enough.) And by middle class I didn't mean any particular income level but rather a mindset - our children will go to college, have a career, do better than we did, etc. By income, we are not middle class at all, but from a societal standpoint I am middle class due to education and background. A middle class parent assumes that their children will stay dependents until they finish college and maybe even grad school.

 

I would say that less people get married young now than even 10 years ago because a young couple can simply move in together and have children. I know *tons* of people who have done just that. They are 18-22, live with their SO in their own home, and have children. They just aren't married - it isn't a societal expectation anymore.

 

I think the only things that have changed in 100 years is that couples who get pregnant are no longer expected to marry, it isn't a scandal if a couple lives together without being married, and most people have access to and have no moral problem with artificial bc. The behavior hasn't changed in 100 years, just how it is viewed.

 

Of the people I know who married young, most did so because living together without marriage was not accepted in their belief system. My SIL's parents did not want her to marry at 19 - they asked her if she and my brother couldn't just live together for a few years first. It wasn't morally acceptable for my brother and SIL, so they married.

 

Okay, I understand... I also owe you an apology because I was a little quick to take umbrage. Sometimes I get frustrated because I experience many people who define the world by their limited experience. And yes, I realize the irony of me assuming you did that, based on my limited experience! :tongue_smilie:

[spradlin02]

Sometimes I think hormones & teen pg is a problem partly because it's the only adult activity they're allowed ("allowed" in the broad sense). If teens could do something of significance earlier (they can, but they're often held back by lack of adult support/resources or even adults trying to hold them back so they don't "grow up too soon"), sex would be less of a lure.

 

I've always put this in the context of rebellion, but I think I agree with this thought.

[lionfamily1999]

Poorly worded on my part. I don't believe early marriage is a good idea in general. Obviously specifics vary but I think most young people in their late teens/early 20's aren't ready for everything a marriage entails. Divorce is more common the younger you are when marrying. Statistics are subject to interpretation but here's one link http://www.divorcestatistics.org/ and the higher divorce rate for younger marriage is widely accepted even among religious counselors. I do believe that practicing Christians may divorce less but this is not necessarily a sign that they have a good, healthy marriage - just that they don't believe in divorce.

I used to think that anyone who married before 25 was either antiquated (Gramma married at 21) or crazy (parents married at 23 and 25). Then I met dh :p

 

I've stopped being very sure of myself where marraige is concerned (not my own ;) ). I met dh, we dated for less than a year and we were married. If I hadn't been 18/19 my parents would not have allowed it. Granted, we're only a little over a decade in, but I would not have changed this for the world. Ironically, we've grown up together and we've found that the experience has brought us closer. It was crazy to step from parents' home into his home and to literally join the adult working world already wearing a wedding ring. All the same, I think I am a better person for it, I think I missed a lot of dangerous issues because of it.

 

Now, I look at my dcs and have to think, if you've found the one and you want to go through college or start out your adult life married, that may just be the best thing. I know it's not for everyone, I've heard many horror stories (my grandmother's being one). All the same, I guess I'm glad that they'll be too old for that decision to rest in my lap. I'm so glad that God's made it so it isn't my decision, because I'm nearly positive I would choose the wrong thing. As much as I want them to grow, I also want them to stay my little ones and that means that those sorts of adult decisions rest better on their shoulders than my own :p

 

All that mess just to say, I understand where you are coming from, but it's so different from where I am that I wanted to really know what you meant, iykwIm.

Aubrey,

 

Thanks for the well-written, thoughtful post. I agree with most everything you said. However, my DH was 29 when we were married, and I was 22. We've been married for 25 years, and have 2 wonderful children, 12 & 10. (Yes, we waited quite awhile to have DC!) I think the first year of marriage is the same no matter how old you are --- adjusting, compromising, etc. to others. Luckily, the first year both parties work hard at the relationship and WANT to make it work, which helps. So, the lesson is ladies, if it bothers you, SPEAK UP soon. The longer you wait, the harder he will resist. Speak up while he's still "compliant"!

 

Melody

I think you can speak up at any time (my mom and dad are STILL getting to know each other's quirks after 40ish years of marraige), but wanting to make it work makes ALL the difference.

[cathmom]

Aren't teen pregnancies a greater risk to the mother and the baby?

 

I have read articles that say that, at least healthwise for the mother, having the first baby at 18-20 years old is the optimal time.

 

I think you've hit on something with biology and society being out of synch.

 

I agree with this. However, I also think that teenage girls aren't necessarily interested in sex, but are conditioned to think that they should be having it and pressured into having it by teenage boys. I once read a book by Judge Judy, and she said that she would not tell girls that having sex in wrong, but that it's stupid because the girl will not get anything out of it (except maybe pregnancy, an STD, a reputation, etc). I think what many girls want is actually love and acceptance, and sex is just the price they pay to get it.

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

I have read articles that say that, at least healthwise for the mother, having the first baby at 18-20 years old is the optimal time.

 

 

 

I agree with this. However, I also think that teenage girls aren't necessarily interested in sex, but are conditioned to think that they should be having it and pressured into having it by teenage boys. I once read a book by Judge Judy, and she said that she would not tell girls that having sex in wrong, but that it's stupid because the girl will not get anything out of it (except maybe pregnancy, an STD, a reputation, etc). I think what many girls want is actually love and acceptance, and sex is just the price they pay to get it.

 

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that your opinion is that teenage girls do not experience physical sexual pleasure (the big O)?

[Sara R]

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that your opinion is that teenage girls do not experience physical sexual pleasure (the big O)?

 

Probably not with your average teenage lover. Just guessing here.

[Rosie_0801]

I think the entire knowing yourself before marriage is a myth. Heck, I'm still not sure I'm there yet!

 

Really? You never came to a point where you thought "I know what my stance is. I know what issues are important to me." I can't imagine how someone could think people still in the floundering stage should go right ahead and marry anyway. I think we must be using similar words to mean different things. Or maybe dissimilar words to mean similar things. :confused:

 

Rosie

[Wheres Toto]

Really? You never came to a point where you thought "I know what my stance is. I know what issues are important to me." I can't imagine how someone could think people still in the floundering stage should go right ahead and marry anyway. I think we must be using similar words to mean different things. Or maybe dissimilar words to mean similar things. :confused:

 

Rosie

:iagree:

I know when I was younger (even an older teenager although I may have been fairly sheltered) most of my perceptions of things were formed by what my parents told me. It took me time and more exposure to a variety of situations and people to really make some of these ideas my own, while rejecting others.

 

I'm almost 41 years old and I still find myself learning new things and occasionally accepting the validity of a different viewpoint (from these forums quite often) although by this point they are far less likely to truely change my own convictions.

[elizabeth]

Probably not with your average teenage lover. Just guessing here.

 

You are the best! Well stated truth.:lol:

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

Probably not with your average teenage lover. Just guessing here.

 

well, that certainly makes sense....but I do think teenage girls are interested in sex, even if they don't experience pleasure from the act, they surely know pleasure is just around the corner and keep seeking it?

 

I mean, I totally understand the whole "girls use sex to get love" and "guys promise love to get sex" aspect of this issue. But aren't the average teenage girls just as horny (am I allowed to say that word) as teenage boys, just not as able to find release?

[Rosy]

I'm in the "Aubrey" camp, as well as the "not if I have anything to say about it" camp and many of the other abstinence-oriented ones.

 

My kids aren't at that point yet, but I have no intention of "preparing them" for the possibility of sex before marriage. I have no problem with the idea of talking about sex, about my convictions, basic biology, advanced biology, sex after their married, etc., even about different forms of bc and how they work, but it makes no sense to me to instruct them on how to go against what they've been taught to believe their whole life.

 

Of course there are kids who choose not to have sex, and I dearly hope mine is one of them. So there are three possibilities-kids who choose to abstain, kids who do not, but do not use birth control, for whatever reason, and kids who do not abstain, and do use birth control. And my earlier observation stands: it is clear from some of the posts in this thread that an unplanned teen pregnancy is what some parents choose over allowing or encouraging their child to use birth control to prevent pregnancy, if the kid does not choose to stay abstinent.

 

The problem is that young adults are not predictable, and even with good intentions, like the rest of humanity, do not always do what is right or what they plan to do or not do. Given that, the choice for me is clear: ensure the child is prepared for any eventuality, while making my values on the topic clear. My values may not be their values. I'm struck by how many of the responses to this thread suggest that others prefer to count on abstinence, or failing that, welcome a grandchild, but the third alternative, birth control, is discouraged.

 

That's not how I look at it. I feel that I should not teach my kids to do something immoral or to plan for immorality. I don't teach them how to avoid the cops if they're tempted to shoplift, where to find clean needles if they want to use drugs, how to cheat on a test if the pressure to make good grades gets to be too much, how to nurse a hangover, etc. It's not just birth control that is discouraged, it is any sexual act or any activity that will directly lead to one. I don't see anything wrong with "preferring to count on abstinence". There are MANY people in my social circle who successfully practiced abstinence until marriage.

 

I would say that it is more the norm than you think. It just isn't the norm for middle class, suburban America.

 

I think it is ridiculous to tell your teens/young adults "don't have premarital sex" at the same time you are telling them, "don't marry until you finish college and are settled in your career!" That is about a 10-15 year gap between physically ready and "life" ready.

 

Why do people (not you specifically) seem to think that teens and young adults are enslaved to their sexual desires? It is far from impossible for a young person to avoid sexual sin. Just teaching kids "don't do it" isn't enough, but between teaching them to avoid compromising situations and giving them proper guidelines while they're still at home, it is definitely possible for kids to make the right choice. Yes, they need supervision and guidance. Yes, they need to be encouraged to get involved in activities that they are passionate about. YES, they need to feel loved by their parents. Yes, they need to find other kids with similar convictions to have relationships with. Yes, it takes planning, preparation and guidance from the parent, and yes, the teen/YA has to want it for himself or herself.

 

well, that certainly makes sense....but I do think teenage girls are interested in sex, even if they don't experience pleasure from the act, they surely know pleasure is just around the corner and keep seeking it?

 

I mean, I totally understand the whole "girls use sex to get love" and "guys promise love to get sex" aspect of this issue. But aren't the average teenage girls just as horny (am I allowed to say that word) as teenage boys, just not as able to find release?

 

I think it is more of a curiosity and a desire to attach and feel loved, not a physical need as much.

[Jugglin'5]

nt

Edited July 17, 2010 by Jugglin'5
tmi

[Murphy101]

well, that certainly makes sense....but I do think teenage girls are interested in sex, even if they don't experience pleasure from the act, they surely know pleasure is just around the corner and keep seeking it?

 

I mean, I totally understand the whole "girls use sex to get love" and "guys promise love to get sex" aspect of this issue. But aren't the average teenage girls just as horny (am I allowed to say that word) as teenage boys, just not as able to find release?

 

 

Yes. Girls have the same libido issues as boys. Yes girls want and like sex. And yes, they will find that also develops an emotional bond. Boys do too for that matter.

 

I'm so sick of a few bad apples tainting the entire orchard.

Some guys are jerks and some gals have no libido.

But most of either have healthy normal sex drives and most are seeking more than a bump in the night connection with another person.

 

For all the talk about these poor girls and these horrid guys, there's lots of young men getting their hearts broken too.

 

Really? You never came to a point where you thought "I know what my stance is. I know what issues are important to me." I can't imagine how someone could think people still in the floundering stage should go right ahead and marry anyway. I think we must be using similar words to mean different things. Or maybe dissimilar words to mean similar things. :confused:

 

Rosie

 

Well if so, then it was before I met dh at 16. Certainly by marriage at 19 and first baby at 21.

 

I wasn't sheltered at all. Really I've always held strong opinions, always been eager to discuss and learn and possibly change my mind due to that learning. I converted to Catholicism after not being raised in any faith whatsoever.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by floundering stage. Maybe I'm still foundering and don't know it! :tongue_smilie:

 

Maybe you mean more confident? If so, sure I'm more confident about my inadequates now. Lol. Seriously though, I have more confidence in dh, but I wouldn't say that is age based as much as the result of having spent nearly 20 years with him. I have more confidence in some areas of parenting, but again is that because I'm nearly 37 or because I've spent 15 years having babies? Seems to me people are real quick to blame youth, but it doesn't seem to me as though that's necessarily accurate.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am not encouraging my dc to get married at 16. I was blessed to find love at that age, but that doesn't mean they will too.

 

I certainly hope they are able to support their families and live full lives whatever path those lives might take.