Absolutely fuming, please help me calm down before I do something.

[TrappedinSuburbia]

Came home today lunchtime, went to speak to ds (16)who was lying in bed (ie get the washing hung out that I asked you to do before I left this morning).
He stayed in his room the rest of the day, I was up in the next room tidying ds (5) room for a while, not a peep from next door, assumed he was on computer or such like.
Roll on past dinner time, shout them both for dinner.
Roll onto ds (16) leaving for football training (im out in front garden) followed by his girlfriend!
I say 'where did you come from' to which she said 'i've been here all day' as they were both leaving.

What would be your conclusion.
Mine is they were up in his room bloody shagging, I did not see her in the room and the way he was lying in bed there could have been someone in it (I obviously wasn't thinking along those lines though).
I'm bloody raging, the total disrespect, younger ds could have walked in, not to mention teenage pregnancy.

QuickLookBusy: Dont attack a parent for wanting to protecting their DC.

I don't think you will find anyone on this thread who has done that. Nor has anyone advocated telling 16-year-olds that as it was legal, they should have sex.

The argument has mainly been between those who said that they absolutely forbade their teenagers to have sex under their roofs under any circumstances, whether those teenagers believed they were (or indeed were) ready to have sex, and those that felt that teenagers who were ready (or believed they were) should not be forced to have sex in what was could possibly be seen as dangerous and squalid (but almost certainly uncomfortable) locations.

Which side of that argument do you fall on and which side, if any, do you think is attacking the other for wanting to protect their children?

Numerous posters have actually attacked the parenting of those who wouldnt allow a 16 year old to have sex in their house.

Stating things such as "Do you realise the consequences.. your child will leave home/hate you/have sex in an alley way" or "You are stupid if you think your 16 year old will listen to you" or "You cannot tell a 16 year old what to do"etc, etc. All attacks on peoples parenting skills.

There has also been bitchiness.."maybe the OP should try having sex herself" or words to that effect, has been posted several times.

I think its pretty clear which side of the argument I'm on.

The argument has been about 16 year olds having sex, not teenagers. There is a world of difference between a 16 year old and an 18 year old.

What I really don't understand is how forbidding a 16-year-old, who is ready and intends to have sex, from having sex in the parental home protects that child?

What would you have done if your daughter had been having sex at 16?

The Beast-My DDs have grown up talking about relationships, sex and about waiting until you are older.

They have grown up thinking 16 is too young for sex.

Classmates started having sex at 14, 15 and 16 my DDs and their friends felt sorry for them. They told me of girls whose parents had persuaded them to go on the pill "just in case", girls whose boyfrinds said they would finish with them if they didnt have sex, and girls who were doing it because no sooner did they have a "steady" boyfriend, then their parents would tell them they could stay the night in their room.

I am so proud of my DD, who had the self respect and confidence to wait until she felt she was ready.

I didnt need to answer the question you have asked, because she didnt have sex. Maybe I am lucky to have a teenager who listens to her mum and dad. Or maybe we just had high expectations which we made clear from a young age.

Why is it assumed that those teenagers who wait till they're older than 16 to have sex are thought to have 'confidence and self respect' with the implication being that those who start at 16 have low self esteem.

It could be that a 16 year old makes a well thought out decision to engage in a sexually fulfilling relationship with someone they love. ALthough their parents might not be happy with this decision, they may decide to respect that 16 yr old and allow them to enjoy that sexual relationship in a warm, comfortable room where they have peace and (within reason) undisturbed time.

When my kids get to that stage I would really like to allow them the right to make that decision themselves and act on it with support.

So, basically, the stance of the OP that she was not going to allow her son have sex in her house, even if he was going to have sex elsewhere is totally irrelevant to your situation.

Because your children did not have sex before they were 18, you have nothing to say to those parents whose children are going to have sex at 16, despite those parents' best efforts to dissuade them from doing so.

This sounds remarkably like gloating to me and it adds nothing to the shared knowledge on how children should best be protected.

FWIW none of my daughters had sex before they were 18 either, but had they indicated that they were ready at 16 despite my misgivings about it, I would not have forbidden them to have sex under my roof but my wife and I would have done everything in our power to make their experiences safe, whether by helping them go on the pill or allowing them to have sex in a safe environment.

I absolutely fail to see how banning sex under the parental roof in any way protects children from any danger and none of the people who have done this are prepared to explain how it does.

I am only stating my experience.

As I have said my DDs have told me about friends who are having sex.

Many were having sex, not because they had made a "well thought out decision" but because of the reasons I outlined..being persuaded to go on the pill, parents letting boyfriends stay over etc etc.

Three ds all now grown. I allowed their steady girlfriends to stay over but not casual relationships. They also had to ask me first out of respect. I also spoke to them re protection and made sure the girls parents knew although only when they were under 18. as it happened they all only had one girl to sleep over. I benefited from this when got divorced. they respected my new partner with no problems and none of us are embarrassed around eachother. they even attended the birth of their baby sister now 8.

x posted TheBeast

I am only trying to defend those parents, who like the OP do not want their children to have sex at 16 in their home.

As I have said, many posters have attacked these parents.
Many have said that parents shouldnt believe a child who tells them they are not having sex at 16. That their child is "doing it somewhere"!
Many have said their relationship will suffer if they dont let them have sex in their home.

I dont agree with any of that.

Saying to a teenager "I dont want you to have sex at 16, but if you do, I'll let you do it at home" is sending mixed messages.
If you make it clear from a young age that sex at 16 is too young, in my experience (and that of many friends with older teenages) your children might just listen to you.

QuickLookBusy But this topic is about whether 16-year-olds who are going to have sex should be allowed to have sex in the parental home or not. That was the OP's complaint.

You support those who have stated that even if their children had made a well thought out decision to have sex at 16, they would still be barred from having sex under the parental roof. You chided people for allegedly attacking these posters who, according to you, were merely protecting their children. The logic of your argument predicates that barring children from having sex at home in some way protects them.

It seems to me to be extremely hypocritical for you to attack posters like me without being prepared to say how children who had made a well thought out decision to have sex at 16 are "protected" by being barred from having sex under the parental roof.

It seems quite clear that neither you, nor any of the other posters who claim than banning sex in the home for 16-year-olds protects them, have any explanation for this alleged phenomenon, yet you keep repeating it.

Sorry, also cross-posted.

However, we are not addressing those children who don't have sex till they are 18 whether you persuaded them about this or for their own reasons.

The issue is about 16-year-olds who decide for good reasons (even if you disagree with them) to have sex.

Even if I accepted that some of them would bow to their parents' wishes and not have sex at all, surely you must accept that some of these 16-year-olds will have sex. And my question remains, how does barring them from having sex in the parental home protect them?

When talking about protecting children, I was refering to protecting them against pressures to have sex, from boyfriends, peers and parents.

Also, the actual place a 16 year old has sex is, for me , a secondary consideration. If I had found my daughter had been having sex, my first thought would not have been "Where did she do it?"

That I can understand and I think most of the people who you think have taken a view opposing yours would agree that those are laudable aims and would have done the same.

It is a bit insulting to suggest that those parents whose views differed from the OP's were applying pressure on their children to have sex but, subject to that, if the topic had been "Should I protect my 16-year-old against pressures to have sex, from boyfriends, peers and parents?", I think there would have been near unanimity in support of your view.

But that is a cop out in terms of this thread because, unlike you, the OP's primary consideration was in fact the place where sex took place. She accepted her son would be having sex despite her disapproval and the whole of her objection was to him doing it in her house.

TheBeast, I'm just driving by here to say that I'm really enjoying your posts on this topic and your attempt to keep the focus on the issue.

I wish UQD would answer your question, too - I think it's a perfectly fair one.

Sorry, am newish to MN. Didnt realise it was like an exam-a question is set, answer it!

Was under the impression it was somewhere where people had "discussions," and that sometimes posters divereged from the origional points and a wider subject was covered.

As I have repeated several times my origional intention (by giving real examples of my own DDs experiences) was to defend the OP, and others who didnt agree with the baying mass, who in my opinion were making widley exaggerated and alarmist posts about what would happen to their child and their relationship with them, if they didnt let them have sex at 16 in their house.

Consider me ticked-off! Will in future stick to the origional question, and will not slip off the point!

I've already given my answer in a roundabout way, by saying that isn't necessarily the question we should be asking. It's a very loaded question and not asked in a genuine spirit of curiosity - it's a rhetorical attempt to paint me into a corner. Because whatever answer I give will be met with some smug illustration of how that would never work in practice.

"TrappedinSuburbia Thu 22-Jul-10 19:53:02
No they will not be having sex in my house."

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

and you were wondering why he didn't tell you she was there?

Holy thread necromancy, Batman.

oops, sorry, can't understand how that happened. I thought I was looking at the the "posts in the last hour"

ignore me