Protective Parents Need Educating.

[amicus]

Teenage Venus


from your posts:

"You see the above is a reason so many on here seem to consider you talk through your anus. It may be your opinion that life is more complex than I see it - YOU state it as fact. And it may be your opinion that my opinions on sexual relationships are 'lighthearted' ; Again, you assume they are, so in your mind that becomes a fact."


"Sex is like most forms of recreation - safety precautions and after-treatment in case of accident have improved. (Night after' pills, availability of abortion)."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`


Perhaps you just automatically rebel against anyone who says something in a firm manner with assurance of the veracity of the statement. Perhaps you are still rebelling against the control exerted by your parents as you matured.

Perhaps you are past of most, not just on this forum, who insist that there are no 'truths' no absolute meanings to anything and that all opinions are equal. That ethics and morality are situational, relative to the circumstances one finds oneself in at the moment.

Yet you say with some certainty that "Amicus speaks through his anus..."

My contention which has drawn fire from all quarters is basically this, 'that there is a rational, logical and absolute system of ethics and morality than can be derived from the nature of man; that there is a moral 'good' and a moral 'evil' that can be comprehended and used to formulate ones personal morality and code of ethics...."

Most think there is no such system of morality inherent in the nature of man, they prefer instead to create some 'humanistic' system of ethics and morality that covers all behavior non judgementally.

I disagree.

The second quote from one of your posts:

"Sex is like most forms of recreation - safety precautions and after-treatment in case of accident have improved. (Night after' pills, availability of abortion)."

I think that is an important assertion, I would like your permission, since it is your thread, to post a poll with the following question:

"Should Sex be considered a form of Recreation"

As you may suspect, I hold a differing 'opinion'. However, that 'opinion' is based on some serious consideration as to the role 'sex' plays and has played, in the history of mankind.

Sexual promiscuity and loose morals are not a new phenomena. Usually it was most evident in the lower class peasant types, even to the level of incest.

Even ancient societies recognized that the sexual behavior of humans was to be viewed differently than the sexual habits of animals. People can breed like rabbits following the internal urge to procreate at every fertile cycle.

Given that humans are different than breeding animals responding to hormonal surges...just how is man different and why?

Every civilization has had a 'preferred' morality and ethical code. However, only in the past half century, with the advent of reliable contraception and the availability of abortion opened a new horizon as to what is 'moral'.

It may not appear so to you, but you are as 'hidebound' and as dogmatic as you accuse the old Amicus of being, when you assert, as you do, that 'sex is a form of recreation, a pleasure that should be enjoyed.'

So look in the mirror and welcome yourself to the group you identify as those speaking through the anal orifice.

Aside from that, I enjoyed your last few posts, it seems you have cranked up the level of your vocabulary and the preciseness of your argument another level. Well done.

Amicus...

 

[Teenage Venus]

{b]AMICUS[/b]

Perhaps you are past of most, not just on this forum, who insist that there are no 'truths' no absolute meanings to anything and that all opinions are equal. That ethics and morality are situational, relative to the circumstances one finds oneself in at the moment... etc.

Far be it for me to start a theological debate on here with you old man. That statement reveals how little you take in of what I have said on here and elsewhere. (I have opinions, I form them, moderate, adjust them, as I gain knowledge and elicite facts.

Yet you say with some certainty that "Amicus speaks through his anus..."

A typical error you make. Without checking, I said something like, ' Your postings give me the impression...' - no certainty about that, merely an observation.

Most think there is no such system of morality inherent in the nature of man, they prefer instead to create some 'humanistic' system of ethics and morality that covers all behavior non judgementally.

Passing over the preceeding part of that, this statement is again stated by you as fact - it is not - merely your opinion.

I think that is an important assertion, I would like your permission, since it is your thread, to post a poll with the following question:

Please feel free. It may have some interest.

Sexual promiscuity and loose morals are not a new phenomena. Usually it was most evident in the lower class peasant types, even to the level of incest.

I would differ on this: Indications are that 'loose morals' and incest is certainly - and always has been - prevelent in all classes. Actually, historically it was the ruling classes that indulged in this, throughout mythology, and such civilisations as in ancient Eygpt kept it in the family to perpetuate their dynasties.

Given that humans are different than breeding animals responding to hormonal surges...just how is man different and why?

Again an opinion stated as if implying impirical fact: You assume human females are different. I question that. Ask any female with the urge to bear a child. You saying hormones don't play a part?

Every civilization has had a 'preferred' morality and ethical code. However, only in the past half century, with the advent of reliable contraception and the availability of abortion opened a new horizon as to what is 'moral'.

Again you assert an opinion as fact. Whilst agreeing that each section of civilisation has set their own moral standards. I do not agree with your 'only in the last 50 years....'

Standards appear to have fluctuated throughout the centuries. Things like incest have been fully acceptable in many many societies - still are in some. Indeed fathers were required to break in daughters before marriage in several societies.

As you may suspect, I hold a differing 'opinion'. However, that 'opinion' is based on some serious consideration as to the role 'sex' plays and has played, in the history of mankind.

Nice you admit that is an opinion, for once. My opinions are also based on what I have gleened and given consideration to.

Perhaps you just automatically rebel against anyone who says something in a firm manner with assurance of the veracity of the statement. Perhaps you are still rebelling against the control exerted by your parents as you matured.

Far from it. Someone asserting an opinion is not what I rebel against. Shooting off one's mouth, stating opinions as facts is what I question. More so when they 'manufacture' facts to back up their statements.

As for rebelling against my parents: Mother was gang-raped, so I do not know my father. Circumstances left Mum with little alternative but to comply with her 'benefactors' who happened to be religious weirdos. I do not rebel against her, I have empathy for the circumstances she was in. I know she loves me, and I love her.

It may not appear so to you, but you are as 'hidebound' and as dogmatic as you accuse the old Amicus of being, when you assert, as you do, that 'sex is a form of recreation, a pleasure that should be enjoyed.'

Poor oild AMICUS. There you go again - accusing me of asserting. Check back: I said, "In my view, sex is there to be enjoyed -" That is less than subtly different. I assert nothing - just give my view.

I'm saddened that your miss-reading and miss-quoting had you resorting to making yet another statement of (in your eyes) fact. And then resorting to stating as a fact that I'm as hidebound as yourself. It seems patently evident to me that you can NOT distinguish between what is fact and what is your opinion. (If it is your opinion, then in your eyes it is fact.) I do feel for you on this, as it appears to cut your circle of friends on here down considerably.

Sadder than that, I feel most don't take you seriously - however right in some things you may be, or however good your intentions - because your postings give the impression to me at least, of you having a blinkered, tunnel-visioned outlook on life where the only thruths are those you believe, and everyone else is wrong and against you.

So look in the mirror and welcome yourself to the group you identify as those speaking through the anal orifice.

I don't need to look in a mirror to see which group I belong to. I belong to the one which have opinions, and express them as such. But am willing to be convinced my opinions are erroneous. And at no time am I aware that I catagorically stated you or anyone else spoke through their ass: I do say that certain comments from certain posters - including yourself - give me the feeling that they are 'talking' through their behind'.

In your case, much of your previous posting strengthens this conviction.

Aside from that, I enjoyed your last few posts, it seems you have cranked up the level of your vocabulary and the preciseness of your argument another level. Well done.

Thank you. Do you think you could reciprocate?

 

[amicus]

Well, Teenage Venus, you do the 'social', subjective thing quite well...

What about the real question of an 'absolute' morality or ethical system that would afford you the ability to actually 'know' that what you did or are doing is right or wrong, good or bad?

Or will you evade that, as most do?

Amicus

 

[Teenage Venus]

What about the real question of an 'absolute' morality or ethical system that would afford you the ability to actually 'know' that what you did or are doing is right or wrong, good or bad?... Or will you evade that, as most do?

I can't see anything to evade! Only something you pronounce as the 'REAL' question!!!!! Where you dig that up from I can only hazzard a guess, so won't bother doing so. I have no views or feelings about any mythical 'absolute' or ethical system that would afford me to 'know' anything.

I consider I know - irrespective of any 'system' - when I am doing right or wrong. For me, my right or wrong is whether I feel comfortable within myself with what I am doing. If it intentionally hurts/harms - or is liable to hurt/harm myself or others - then in all probability it is wrong. If it helps, or gives pleasure to myself or others without causing harm, the probabilities are that it is okay.

What criteria others use to distinguish right from wrong - if they do - is of their choosing. No laws, or systems will - in my view - change my inner feelings.

If it were made illegal to have sex before the age of 25, or the death penalty became universally mandatory, or eating peanuts before 11am was mandatory, were part of any "absolute' morality or ethical system, this would not change my inner feelings on the right or wrong of the morality of such things, any more than banning religion would stop some people praying.

No 'system', ethical, unethical, moral, immoral, amoral, or anything else can give one the ability to actually 'know' right from wrong. All that can do is inform you of whether it is judged right or wrong in the eyes of the persons having set the system up. It will NOT stop me from using my own criteria, whether I follow that hypothetical system or not. Only in my own consciousness will I decide which is which.

That 'question' is as logical to me as asking, "Could God make a mountain he could not destroy?" For starters, that pre-supposes that the person required to answer believes in God anyway.

Footnote: If anyone wants to chip in feel free,

 

[gauchecritic]

Footnote: If anyone wants to chip in feel free,

I think we're all chipped up. When Ami goes back to asking the same inflamatory questions in his own inimitable style I tend to call it a day rather than repeat everything I've ever told him.

He'll come up with a 'new'* one soon enough.

Gauche

*New being the old one in different words. With his prodding and testing boundaries I'm often lulled into the hope that he's actually soliciting opinions with a view to some kind of modification. I've been wrong every time so far.

 

[BlackSnake]

Why should I treat sex any differently?

I'll try to cut to the quick here. In answer to the above question. "It's mamma's baby, daddy's maybe"

I think about how I treated so many young girls when I was in middle school. I fear the thought of ever having a girl. Strict? She would hate me. If I would be able to raise a girl to 18 without her getting pregnant, I would count it as a victory. She could hate me all she wants. It wouldn't matter.

It's just as easier for a young boy to get laid as it was when I was a little boy. These days the girls encourage it. I use to convince them how cool they would be and how well they would fit in with everyone else. I'm hearing blowjobs on the middle school buses.

Parents should try to keep their kids virgins....forever, but don't fill their heads full of bull-shit in the process.

I think the hardest thing for a parent is to is their child get hurt (emotionally). It's going to happen, and they know they can't stop it, but they will try. Try hard and fail, but will continue to try knowing that they will fail again.

 

[Teenage Venus]

I think we're all chipped up. When Ami goes back to asking the same inflamatory questions in his own inimitable style I tend to call it a day rather than repeat everything I've ever told him.

Ha, ha, ha. I thought a younger slant on his 'questions'!!! may give him chance to - to use his words - 'crank up the level of his vocabulary and the preciseness of his argument to another level.' Wishful thinking, I guess. He appears to have reached his plateau many moons ago. He remains in the same rut, it seems, and when at a loss to answer logically, introduces some other questionably worded 'question', with the either added insult or provocative invitation. It amuses me as a diversion from study. Keeping him happy on here cuts down his time stirring on other threads.

I can see how he found it difficult to answer mature adults, as I don't think he is exactly aquitting himself too well with a still wet behind the ears, uneducated teen.

 

[BlackSnake]

TV, when did you give your first blowjob? Why?

 

[Teenage Venus]

TV, when did you give your first blowjob? Why?

Well THAT is rather a personal question to ask a young lady. Worse - it presumes I have done so. Shame on you. Besides, one is not allowed to write about sex with persons under 18 on here: LIT is an ADULT site . Stories get bounced if they contain anything actually realistic or truthful concerning sex - legal or otherwise unless you make the persons 18+, or pretend one is a goblin or dragon

I think you will need to ask me that question on one of the children's chat forums on MSN or YAHOO, etc.

RE-your, "Why should I treat sex any differently? I'll try to cut to the quick here. In answer to the above question. "It's mamma's baby, daddy's maybe" I didn't really get this. I advocate care, responsibility, precautions, whatever the 'recreation'. What you seem to be saying is, 'I had my fun, but damned if I'll let my children.'

Maybe remembering your teen years, you should concentrate more on education rather than the "Strict? She would hate me. " attitude. That way, she may love and respect you, and your wishes, rather than hate you, and go her own way, and defy you.

 

[BlackSnake]

Well THAT is rather a personal question to ask a young lady. Worse - it presumes I have done so. Shame on you. Besides, one is not allowed to write about sex with persons under 18 on here: LIT is an ADULT site . Stories get bounced if they contain anything actually realistic or truthful concerning sex - legal or otherwise unless you make the persons 18+, or pretend one is a goblin or dragon

I think you will need to ask me that question on one of the children's chat forums on MSN or YAHOO, etc.

RE-your, "Why should I treat sex any differently? I'll try to cut to the quick here. In answer to the above question. "It's mamma's baby, daddy's maybe" I didn't really get this. I advocate care, responsibility, precautions, whatever the 'recreation'. What you seem to be saying is, 'I had my fun, but damned if I'll let my children.'

Maybe remembering your teen years, you should concentrate more on education rather than the "Strict? She would hate me. " attitude. That way, she may love and respect you, and your wishes, rather than hate you, and go her own way, and defy you.

The 18 rule applies to stories. You can just say that you rather not answer the question. Any way, it's not meant as an attack.

"It's mamma's baby, daddy's maybe" ...girls get pregnant not boys. You know that it's the girl's baby, but you can only believe it's the boys.


You know that's a load of crap don't you? Talk is cheep. If you don't allow your child to be in a place where shit happens, then that shit won't happen to them.

I have a younger sister. Though I screwed my friends sisters, I wouldn't allow them to touch mine. Most of my sister's friends ended up pregnant before high school. Mine graduated high school, but hated my guts. She was kept safe from harm. It was my only goal. She was able to make her own decisions once she was old enough to do so.

Yes, I had a lot of fun, but I don't want some guy treating my daughter like I treated so many.

Being able to talk to your children is good, but what do you think she will be thinking about when some boy is rubbing her clit?

ps. To hell with being your kids friends...keep them safe.

 

[Teenage Venus]

Any way, it's not meant as an attack.

I certainly didn't take it as such, rather, I was having a snide dig at 'Adult' sites that - in my view - treat adults as kids, especially when allowing 'mythical' creatures, but not legal sex-age sex stories, unless you make the persons over 18. It seems hypocrytically pathetic to me. But I was ever opinionated.

You know that's a load of crap don't you? Talk is cheep. If you don't allow your child to be in a place where shit happens, then that shit won't happen to them.

May I repectfully call that comment an equal load of crap. Unless you tie them to your apronstrings 24/7 you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Put a 9pm curfew on them and they will drop their panties at 8pm. All school buses I travelled on were venues for blowjobs and actual intercourse. (ALL.) Stop 'em at home and they do it 'behind the bike shed' at school. (Or in the gym, lab, empty classroom, toilets, showers, etc.)

It also seems you have two standards of ethics: Boys can, but girls can't!

May I say you had - in my view - rotten principles: Shag your mate's sisters, but not let them have yours.

Being able to talk to your children is good, but what do you think she will be thinking about when some boy is rubbing her clit?

If you have given her guidance, rather than being a big ogre, chances are she will not have them rubbing her clit. If she does, she will be thinking less about 'fuck Dad', and more on the lines of taking care and behaving maturely.

ps. To hell with being your kids friends...keep them safe.

THANK YOU. That reinforces the title " Protective Parents Need Educating. and the reason I started it. I think you just proved the necessity for such education. WELL DONE.

 

[BlackSnake]

You're replies are mostly correct.

I do have a double standard when it comes to girls and boys. Again boys don't carry children. Nothing chances that.

In my neighborhood, if you don't say no, then you said it's ok. I told my friends a million times. Don't fuck my sister. She was a real pain in the ass, but my mother would have killed me if anything happened to her. They didn't give a fuck about their sisters.

Lucky for me, my wife isn't interested in having children. If we do, I really hope that it's not a girl. I hope that I would be as hard as I say, but I probably won't. I would probably give her whatever she wants just like I do with my wife.

 

[Teenage Venus]

Lucky for me, my wife isn't interested in having children. If we do, I really hope that it's not a girl. I hope that I would be as hard as I say, but I probably won't. I would probably give her whatever she wants just like I do with my wife.

This begs the reply, 'I hope for the sake of any children that you do NOT slip up.

However, like most parents, you would probably do your best for the unwanted child.

 

[Weird Harold]

I do have a double standard when it comes to girls and boys. Again boys don't carry children. Nothing chances that.

Biology certainly does make the consequences more lasting for girls thanit does boys, but only as far as pregancy is concerned. However, STDs have no gender bias, so a double standard is really rather pointless.

In my neighborhood, if you don't say no, then you said it's ok. ...

The effect of the social environment is something that has to be considered when it comes to "protecting" children. Parents have to know and understand what peer pressure their children are under and help them learn to deal with them.

I think teaching your sister to say NO effectively would have provided more protection than a big brother who couldn't always be around to intefere with whatever SHE might want.

"Nobody else controls their sons, so why should I?" is a very weak argument for not teaching your sons to respect others and themselves enough to recognise an unspoken reluctance and take for a NO.

 

[cantdog]

.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Aren't we talking about different sets of rules for boys and girls here?

Reading between the lines, I think we're mostly concerned about our daughters getting pregnant by accident, and here we have different ideas on how to prevent this from happening. One side saying "teach the girls how to protect themselves, and then let them enojy sex", the other saying "lock them up, protect their virginity, protect them against their own sexual desires" - a view I usually hear expressed from old-fashioned muslims who care more about The Family Honour than their daughters' happiness.

What about the boys? What are we teaching them? "Here's a condom, son, now go and bag something, and remember - if that thing breaks, there's still the chance that you're not the father!"

Yes, our sons won't get pregnant, only our daughters will. BUT, our sons will make other people's daughters pregnant, and what then? Will they be loyal and supportive to their lovers and say "no matter what you decide to do, to keep the baby or to have an abortion, I'll be there for you" - or will they say "how do I know it's mine?" and then badmouth the girl all over town?

Do we have any moral obligation to look after our sons? Or should we concentrate on locking our daughters up and cover them in veils, whereas we pat our sons on the back when they go out to fuck tonight's choice of girl?

You might give your son a lecture on sex and protection, but do you also teach them sexual ethics?

 

[amicus]

Well, well,well....amicus muses contendedly with pipe and slippers at his call...

This has turned into a rather interesting thread. Nice of the wet behind the ears Venus to pose the question about Parents needing an education to deal with their rambuctious hormone driven teens.

Upon reading each post to catch up, my first thought was that the regulars had pretty much shied away from the ongoing debate.

And I thought, hmmm...yes, Venus has come right out and said what they practice and believe but seldom say, "Whatever feels good must be right..."

A 'pleasure based' ethical and moral system, I think that was called Hedonism (The Doctrine that pleasure is the highest good..." But that was back with the Greeks and the Romans when words actually had meanings.

In this modern enlightened age, words have no absolute meanings, they are just used to communicate between those who agree, in part, with the meaning of the words used.

Ahh, but I erred again, as I have so often, in misjudging the true depth of the depravity of the 'non' absolutists on this forum.

Teenage Venus said:

"No 'system', ethical, unethical, moral, immoral, amoral, or anything else can give one the ability to actually 'know' right from wrong. All that can do is inform you of whether it is judged right or wrong in the eyes of the persons having set the system up. It will NOT stop me from using my own criteria, whether I follow that hypothetical system or not. Only in my own consciousness will I decide which is which."

"No system...can give one the ability...to 'know'..." writes our young Venus.

If there is a true tragedy among the youth of this nation, that bone chilling statement exemplifies it.

With her code of ethics in hand, let the youth of the world go forth and murder, rape, pillage and plunder with out regard to right or wrong, for these things cannot be known.

Sighs...how sad.

"Only in my own consciousness will I decide which is which." said the young Venus.

Hear the words of all the tyrants in the history of man. Hear the justification of the pogroms of Stalin, the Ovens of Adolph and the poison gas of Saddam. Hear it and listen well my Lit friends, it is the voice of the future.

Worry not about the Homeland Security Act, fear instead this child and millions like her, who decide that 'her own consciousness' requires your property or your life. She will take it with out a backwards glance or a shred of reluctance for it, 'pleases her.'

What the Liberals have wrought has come home to perch somewhat uncleanly on your shoulders.

Yeah, I know, "There you go again..." (With apologies to the late President Ronald Reagan.)

Amicus the anonymous orifice...

 

[gauchecritic]

The big problem is, he really believes it.

What were you saying about homeland security? Hitler? Stalin? I didn't quite get your meaning.

Gauche

 

[BlackSnake]

Biology certainly does make the consequences more lasting for girls thanit does boys, but only as far as pregancy is concerned. However, STDs have no gender bias, so a double standard is really rather pointless.

It is not pointless. Both are equal up until that point. I don't think we need to go into the teenage pregnancy issues that are bond to be repeated.

edited to add:
Most of what I am hearing sound like it comes without personal experience. Know the worries and fears of a parent, then give your thoughts and opinions.

Don't you think that the lessons children can learn are much to harsh? Should they not have a chance to enjoy the blissful ignorance of youth?

 

[Weird Harold]

Aren't we talking about different sets of rules for boys and girls here?

Reading between the lines, I think we're mostly concerned about our daughters getting pregnant by accident, and here we have different ideas on how to prevent this from happening. One side saying "teach the girls how to protect themselves, and then let them enojy sex", the other saying "lock them up, protect their virginity, protect them against their own sexual desires" ...

I think the coversation has been just a bit skewed by the fact that a good proportion of the participants either were daughters or have daughters -- the intial proposition certainly addressed only over-protected daughters and started us off on that foot.

What about the boys? What are we teaching them? "Here's a condom, son, now go and bag something, and remember - if that thing breaks, there's still the chance that you're not the father!"
...
Do we have any moral obligation to look after our sons? Or should we concentrate on locking our daughters up and cover them in veils, whereas we pat our sons on the back when they go out to fuck tonight's choice of girl?

You might give your son a lecture on sex and protection, but do you also teach them sexual ethics?

A very good point -- If people would teach their sons sexual ethics, there would be much less need to teach daughters to protect themselves or protect them "for their own good."

There is also a much wider issue than just what children are taught about sex or how they're protected against exposure to sex. "Sexual Ethics" is only a very small subset of "Ethics" or "Morals" -- If our sons and daughters have a good grasp of how to behave in ANY circumstance -- respect for indivuality, respect for privacy, respect for others' beliefs, etc -- then "Sexual Ethics" is taken care of without ever mentioning S*E*X to your children other than the specifics of biology and STDs.

 

[Weird Harold]

Most of what I am hearing sound like it comes without personal experience. Know the worries and fears of a parent, then give your thoughts and opinions.

Don't you think that the lessons children can learn are much to harsh? Should they not have a chance to enjoy the blissful ignorance of youth?

I can't speak for other's personal experience, but I am the father of two daughters and the grandfather of two granddaughters. I grew up in the 1950's and 1960's the oldest of five boys with one older sister.

The world is a harsh place and children have to learn to survive in it by the time they're adults. The "blissful ignorance of youth" is a myth. Children aren't blind or deaf and, short of nailing them in a barrel and feeding through the bunghole, they ARE going to be exposed to the harsh realities of the world long before their parents would wish.

Children who are taught to deal with harsh issues, like illness, death, sex, violence, etc, as the issues arise -- within age-appropriate limitations tailored to the individual child's abilities -- are better able to cope with those issues on their own as adults than children who are "protected" from the harshness of reality and have everything dumped on them at some "magic" age of adulthood.

Just as an example that has nothing to do with sex:

On my birthday, my granddaughters, ages 6 and 10, gave me an impromptu "driving lesson." The details of the advice they gave me isn't relevant, but the fact that they were essentially correct in what they said IS. They didn't have all of the nuances of everything down pat, but they demonstrated an awareness of the kind of things a good driver should know and have five and nine years respectively to expand on their understanding before they get to legally put it into practice.

If all children started learning the principles of good driving the way my granddaughters' have begun to do instead of trying to learn everything in one eight-hour clasroom course and four hours of supervised driving (if the school even has the resources for actual driving time,) then the new laws restricting teen drivers wouldn't be needed.

The same principle of gradual learning by observation and casual conversation that is teaching my granddaughters about driving works for learning about personal relationships and sex -- there are a LOT of fundamentals that children can learn without things getting explicit or graphic; fundamentals that make the difference between being prepared for a relationship and stumbling and stuttering through a traumatic "first date."

It doesn't matter whether a child is male or female, they WILL learn from watching the adults around them and their peers. The only question is whether they have enough rapport with their parents to discuss what they observe and learn the right things from what they observe.

 

[SlickTony]

My only thought in all of this is how much it would suck to be 45 years old and still have a teenaged kid hanging around!

I am 52 and my son is 15 (sigh)

As for the old patriarchal dream of being a woman's first and only--if he's no good he won't be able to prevent her from realizing something is missing.

 

[BlackSnake]

Weird Harold,

I hope that I have the wisdom, if the time comes.

 

[vargas111]

Unfortunately, protection does work sometimes. My wife is very represeed sexually and our two daughters at almost 30 still do not have boyfriends. Maybe (I hope) they are more sexually active than they let on, but the appear not to be eager to be having sex. I really do not think they even masturbate!!!! It pains me deeply that their mother has passed on to htm her aversion to passion and desire to have sex!

 

[doormouse]

I'm not even going to read prior posts after reading this page alone... eww too heated LOL

I totally agree with the topic in 'some' ways. But really, why teach kids things they don't need to know?

The only thing I was pissed at my Mum for, I got my period without knowing what it was, and thought I was sick.

My kids are young, but they already know certain things they should know about their bodies, without compromising their innocence.

Sex, they'll learn about when they're old enough. I'm protective, but for their sake, not to keep them in the dark for any specific purpose.

As a parent, you follow your own instincts, and shouldn't be badgered for choosing to do so.

*shuts up now.