10/13/2004
EXPLAINING THE POISON
Yes, Sam, I’m happy to explain why I asked the question I asked in the below post. It started about a week ago when my wife came home after a “mom’s night out” at my stepdaughter’s school. My wife started talking about how all the other moms were dealing with questions their kids (mostly first-graders) had about sex, and we both were a little taken aback at how casual sexual attitudes had become. I mean, I’m in my early thirties, so it’s not like I belong to a bygone era, but since when do first graders know bubkis about sex?
No, I am not naive–I am aware that sex play is a part of childhood for many kids. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that the parents of my stepdaughter’s classmates are roughly my age. We grew up in the “just say no” era when we were taught that smoking will kill you (faster than you would die otherwise, at least) and drugs were dangerous–so we all drank instead, and the truly rebellious engaged in unusual levels of sexual experimentation.
Within 7-8 years of our graduation, alcohol was a bit more under control and the presence of uniformed police in many schools put the kibosh on drugs–so the kids started having lots of sex, prompting the “virginity pledge” movement. Now sex is (slightly) more under control–but the kids are starting to get violent.
So it just seems to me like all we’ve done is trade one form of socially-inacceptable rebellion for another, and I started to think that maybe, back in the day, we’d have been better off if we would have just let kids smoke. Tobacco doesn’t affect your ability to drive, it doesn’t lower your inhibitions, yada yada yada. And I just wondered if I was way off base in my thinking, so I thought I’d pose the question.
Anyway, it was an interesting discussion. And I’m with Bryan : the way some of you qualified your sex advocacy, I feel like I should be able to suggest the use of a special non-addictive tobacco which could be delivered in a fashion that didn’t have any adverse health effects at all.
7 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Yeeeow. First grade???
As I recall my childhood, girls were just plain icky till about age eleven, kind of intruiging-but-terrifying until I was about fourteen, and only truly interesting when I got to be fifteen or so.
(Incidentally, I didn’t mean to sound like I was pissily demanding an explanation from you; I was just curious, since you’d mentioned in your previous post that you’d say why you wanted to know if someone cared.)
I’d still say porn is the least harmful of all of those that you mentioned — yes, there are qualifications there, as Bryan and you pointed out. But I think that the chances of Something Bad Happening — addiction, serious harm, jail, et cetera — are much less drastic with porn than anything else you cite. I see your reasoning with tobacco, I really do. But I think that the risk of addiction to pornography is much less than the risk of addiction to tobacco.
(I’d also say that educating one’s children to use alcohol responsibly is a good idea — it was never a big forbidden, mysterious thing in my home when I grew up, so I never really craved it or was terribly curious about it. So I never went overboard in college the way I saw so many people do when freed from their previous limits, and never saw the what the big deal was about getting as drunk as possible.)
Comment by Vidiot — 10/14/2004 @ 1:36 pm
As someone who works with college students, and whose wife works with high school students, I believe that sex is not in anyway under control. I believe that unprotected sex is more rare, but I think high school age kids are having some sort of sexual relationship now more than ever. What has been growing is the “friends with privlidges” kind of relationship where kids who are “just friends” have a sexual relationship almost just for the sake of passing time. One collge student I work with said that she could not believe the number of kids from her sister’s class that were having sex, and she’s only a few years older. I don’t think this is an isolated trend.
Comment by Jon — 10/15/2004 @ 11:22 am
The problem with equating “magic cigarette” to “protected sex” ought to be obvious. The fact that you don’t think there’s any problem in equating the two pretty much shows an understandable preexisting bias on your part.
Personally, I think teenagers ought to have all the sex they can stand. Young males, especially, who redirect the natural sexual drive into other avenues usually end up worse off for it.
Hell, if some Saudis had had more sex before 2001, some buildings’d probably be standing in New York City. How’s that for out-of-right-field?
Comment by M1EK — 10/15/2004 @ 1:46 pm
My first comment got ate, so I’ll make a shorter one.
“magic cigarettes” != “protected sex”. One is easy, the other impossible. When you equate the two, you betray an (understandable, given your profession) bias.
Personally, the more sex the better. Young males who repress or rechannel their natural sexual drive into other pursuits usually end up causing trouble. Two buildings might still be standing in the good ole’ USA if Saudi Arabia hadn’t had such upstanding morals regarding sex.
Comment by M1EK — 10/15/2004 @ 1:53 pm
You used the h-word, M1EK, which kicked your cmment into moderation.
I will say that I don’t think premarital sex is the equivalent of racism, drug abuse, or petty crime. It’s hardly the worst thing a teenager can do.
Comment by Mark Hasty — 10/15/2004 @ 2:32 pm
aight. so, here’s the “inside story” on teen sex. it happens. it will happen. it also can be, but does not have to be, a bad thing. protected teen sex is not only a possibility but a reality, thanks to places like Planned Parenthood. i think the only kind of sex that needs to be “under control” (sex isn’t exactly a disease) is sex that makes people feel bad about themselves, and/or is unprotected. i do not, however, think that sexual tension has anything to do with the twin towers. but that’s another kettle of fish entirely. and mark, thank you for that last comment, it clarifies your initial question a lot.
Comment by lvrz — 10/16/2004 @ 9:40 pm
Following the thought on discipline, I think if the attitude for almost all of these vices was “disciplined acceptance” and not the knee-jerk “forbidden! FORBIDDEN!!” response that most people enforce, perhaps we would have far fewer problems with these things. Hey, maybe teenagers would even be responsible! How many times have we (I’m 19) done these sort of things simply out of rebellion to the rules? I know a few people who will go so far as to overtly admit that that is why they had sex/did drugs/etc–not out of any desire for experimentation but out of gross rebellion of the establishment.
Comment by infamous — 10/17/2004 @ 3:06 pm