Topic awaiting preservation: dating rituals (Page 1 of 2)

How far is too far when parents want to control their children's love life? My sister's conservative friend cannot go on a date with her new boyfriend without a chaperone. I think some involvment of parents isn't bad, but is that going too far.

A date with a chaperone ? How old is she ... 12yo ?

I believe it is wrong for parents to let their children date at a very young age like leaving them at the mall or dropping them off at the movies as young as twelve years old. If you have been to the cinemas on a Friday nite its full of young teens checking every one out.. There is holding hands and kissing. Honestly, there is so much time for that when the kids grow up...Its like the parents are letting them grow up too early by taking their dolls or tinker toys away....A lot has to do with maturity.
I know its a good oulet for socializing and it may be innocent but for the parents to take them like on a date and drop them off seems like its going a little to far..

Back in the 70s in my culture it was traditional for my sisters and myself when we started dating to take another sibling along.. But when my younger sisters were out it was ok for them to go out alone but they were not under age....I do not think anything is wrong with a chaparones..if it warrents...

A lot depends on how old, and what is meant by chaperone (older brother, her parents, etc..) - answer that and we can move on.

(Edited by DL-44 on 02-16-2006 20:53)

Maturity has alot to do with responsibilities, risks and social standards. But the effects of the changes in appearance, and voice are not to be overlooked. Still in cultures where boys and girls come of age (and are given more responsibilities) sooner they also mature sooner. In most modern cultures young people mature as they start worrying about their independent future. This is around the age of 16 to 21.

In countries (or cultures) where teenagers are kept well informed about the responsibilities and risks that they will have to face in not so distant future teens also act more responsibly. But teenagers must be given freedom in order for that information to have any effect. At least a sense of freedom does just as well because in one way or another irresponsible behaviour must be followed by consequences. But kids must be told about them before there's actually any for them to be applied.

My opinion is that taking away freedom from kids will only make them rebell more and make them act irresponsibly. Kids must take that freedom from themselves by themselves and they must be taught how to do that and why. Of course this is only possible when the person in question is intellectually and physically sufficiently developed. Kids should be able to make alot of important and difficult decisions by themselves at the age of 14 if they are properly educated.

Parents should think about the social standards before they actually force them on their kids. Are really all of those rules there for a reason? Are some of them just traditions? What are the connections between those rules and their religion. Does the religion state those rules or have the religious leaders done so? Should your child have freedom to choose? Or do you think of yourself as the allknowing and wise?

But then ... where reason ends, religion takes over.

edit: typo typo typo ...

(Edited by Arthurio on 02-16-2006 23:35)

quote:

---

Kids should be able to make alot of important and difficult decisions by themselves at the age of 14 if they are properly educated.

---

I find this hard to believe.....14???? Why

Here in the US, laws force parents to be the responsible party, for their children up until the age of 18.

Until they reach that age, ALL parents should be involved in ALL aspects of "rearing" their child.

Without question.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

If parents do their job correctly up until the point when their children start dating, then the chances something not good will happen are incredibly low.

Let's see.

I started dating when I was about 10 years old, I would meet my girlfriend in town or the park, probably with her friend and holding hands would probably happen, I would eventually want to leave and play with my friends and if things got really crazy I might have kissed her on the lips.

I was 13 when I kissed a girl properly, this was after school yet still on the school grounds, it was incredible.

The rest as they say is history, I won't get into the juicy bits but suffice to say at the end of my teenage years I was experienced enough to enjoy my 20's and look a girl in the eye and I've never been chaperoned!

i believe what you guys mean is a chaperon. (without the 'e' cause chaperone is something different. )

http://www.answers.com/chaperone&r=67

either spelling appears to be acceptable.

The title "Dating Rituals" also intrigues me. I will wait till James02 answers the questions of age etc' before I add my two penneth on the subject.
"Dating rituals" makes me think of dancing 'round fires naked, body painting and some token sacrifice to the moon, Aphrodite or Baccus.

::tao:::: ::cell::

Great link btw DL. I've just downloaded the Firefox extension. Thanks for that

::tao:::: ::cell::

quote:

---

jade said:
I find this hard to believe.....14???? Why

---

Maybe you should ask yourself: why not? Assuming that you have a teenager daughter. Try to put yourself in her situation. Does telling her that "she is not old enough to decide for herself", "she is not wise enough" etc make her confident about herself? Will it help her learn to make difficult decisions? Maturity is all about being able to make the right decisions. By restricting her life unreasonably she won't remember you as the one who didn't take her toys away. - This part was all hypothetical please don't take it personally.

I don't know about the US but around here teenagers at the age of 14 or above can be held responsible for their crimes. However the charges are somewhat milder.

reisio: exactly my point

Good one Blaise. It's like that around here as well. 10-year olds don't have sex in the bushes ... they might just hold hands and in the extremest of cases one of them might kiss the other on a cheek. And guess what they are completely satisfied by that.
At the age of 14 kissing becomes a bit more common.
Some have had sex before they reach 17. I'm not really sure if I should approve that. But this is their decision.

In IT communities someone who tries to control all aspects of something or everything is called a "control freak".

Bring back bundeling! But make sure there are no knot-holes in that board.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

What is "bundeling" ?

::tao:::: ::cell::

quote:

---

Tao said:

What is "bundeling" ?

---

"back in the day" (think 1800's and earlier perhaps), it was common for a suitor to come visit an available young woman. In areas where the trip would be far, it was common for the man to spend the night. For a variety of possible reasons, he would spend the night in the young woman's bed with her.
To avoid any uncouth behavior, the man would be wrapped - his whole body more or less bound in sheets, so he would be unabkle to violate the wholesome young lady. There would also usually be a borad dropped between them, fitting into the head and foot of the bed so as to remain secure, dividing them from each other (think cheap family restaurants...the boards they use to divide booths from each other).



(Edited by DL-44 on 02-17-2006 19:02)

I thought you meant the activity where young kids used to jump on top of each other shouting 'BUNDLE!'

LOL brilliant discription. Thank you DL, I have never heard that term before, or the very bizarre behaviour it describes.

::tao:::: ::cell::

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_(tradition)

didn't even work

To answer some questions:
My sister's friend is a sophamore in highschool.
The chaperon is my sister (also sophamore, approved by the friend's parents).

Excellent ideas all. I think you hit the nail on the head, Resio, that if parents do the hard work of bringing their child up right when they are young, they will hopefully stick to that course through their dating life. Fortunately my parents are strong believers that everyone has their own choices and their own path to walk. Unfortunately, I think some parents can't allow their children the chance to make choices and make mistakes. They want to live their child's lives for them.

I have heard recently that this protectiveness of watching children like hawks is a "generational" thing. That this generation's parents are trying to make up for their own childhood through the lives of their children. Any thoughts?

quote:

---

James02 said:

My sister's friend is a sophamore in highschool.
The chaperon is my sister (also sophamore, approved by the friend's parents).

---

This is not in any possible way "going too far" or being a control freak. This is responsible parenting.
This is a perfectly acceptable arrangement, IMO.

I think far too many parents opt *not* to take such steps.
Parents having "done their job correctly" is an awfully vague thing. I feel I have behaved in such a way, as a father, as to allow my daughter (11 years old now) to have learned from both her good and bad decisions, and to live responsibly. But responsibility is a relative term. The level of responsibility that can be expected of a 14-15 year old is far different from the responsibility expected of an adult.
Having raised your child "correctly" cannot account for the other person - leaving a teenage girl unsupervised with a new boyfriend is the type of situation that can turn ugly really easily (yeah, maybe I can be a little paranoid...but do you read the news often???).

To suggest that sending an older sibling as a chaperon for a highschool sophomore and her new boyfriend on a date is in any way overly controlling is plain silly, IMO. To *not* do so would be careless and irresponsible.

Some clarification required again please.
At what age is a person referred to as a sophomore (I think this is the correct spelling, as opposed to "sophamore")? I realise this must be linked to schooling, so it may be a term used for a particular age range.
I think if "bundeling" referred to earlier had been spelt properly "Bundling" I would have found the meaning myself also

::tao:::: ::cell::

Sophomore = 2nd year of highschool - usually around 15 years old.

Thank you once again Mr DL. It may be just me, but I have a hard time understanding some American terms like this. I suppose this is why some software actually gives us the option to install "English (UK) or English (American)".

::tao:::: ::cell::

I know a hopeless cause when I see one
This is one of those threads where noone actually listens to what others have to say. Incl. me because I know I'm right and I'm sure you feel the same way about your opinion. So I'll just stop here.

Arthurio: I don't see where you've actually addressed the question anywhere in your posts

How can you "just stop here" when you haven't actually adressed the point of the post?

I should say here at the start that I do not have any children of my own, but I have faced this question many times in the past when I was working in childrens homes. I know this is a completely different senario than yours James02 but these are my thoughts.
Kids are pressurised from a very early age by the constant bombardment of the specialised media advertising, devoted to selling "stuff" to children. As is the case with the advertising "creatives" of such media companies, who will use any means that their legal department will clear to gain a bigger slice of the market.
The slogan "sex sells" applies here and you can find examples of it in music, fashion and "teen magazines" in fact most advertising uses it to a greater or lesser extent.
This I feel, puts pressure on children to conform to the medias idea of normal through the most powerful of channels, peer pressure, and this in turn challenges parents who are made to feel overbearing if they attempt to restrict their childrens activities.
Now to be more specific to James02 and his question, well, as specific as I can be without all the relevent details.
A fifteen year old supervising another fifteen year old, I don't think so. If it matters enough for you to be concerned about a fifteen year olds behaviour then don't entrust it to another fifteen year old.

quote:

---

James02 said:

How far is too far when parents want to control their children's love life?

---

That claws at my throat, "children's love life". Children do feel love of course and as we all know, love is a powerful emotion, but the emotional maturity of children leaves them very vunerable and we as adults need to be there to guide and protect.

I wanted to add more but I am getting called away, so I will post this as is and come back to it later if needed.

::tao:::: ::cell::

Sex is one of the most powerful forces in our lives.

Where sex is not demonized by the religious, sex crimes are less seldom seen.

In societies where sex is seen as 'dirty' or 'evil' or 'wrong' society puts a great deal or pressure on young people who are wondering why anything that feels so good, should be considered wrong.

So you get people feeling bad and or guilty about sex and this can lead to abuse or other malfunctions of the psyche.

The US is a good example of such a society, sex everywhere you turn and at the same time, the bible-thumpers screaming about how wrong it is. Lots of guilt down there. Canadians are a bit less repressed, but lately more of the xian nitbars are coming up here to try to screw us up as well.

I don't know how old my daughter was when she first started enjoying sex, but I hope it was fairly early and always a great pleasure for her. I certainly never did anything to inhibit her sexual drive or curiosity.

But I kinda like the idea of a chaperone for a young couple, could lead to a nice menage a trois.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

... lol ... seems that I can't give up on this forum yet

(Edited by Arthurio on 02-19-2006 19:00)

quote:

---

Where sex is not demonized by the religious, sex crimes are less seldom seen

---

.

Diogenes.


I will have to disagree...Here in the DA office for Harris county in Houston...There are so many sex crimes that it is just unbelievable how many are committed by juveniles.

In fact when I go down the elevator I have to pass the bulletin board where they list daily cases...Many are child sexual abuse, sexual aggravated assault and murder. But the most involve sexual assualt.. This is on a daily basis. Many are sex with a minor by teenage boys...So how does religion play a factor in these many cases. Why is religion always the scapegoat in the regard to repression that make people act against the law. This is so outer limits.


I bet if you did a study on these criminals you would see most never went to church or embraced any religion... Religion does not view sex in a negative way. The masses of media outlets(TV, Movies, Girly Magazines, Videos, Music, Paris Hilton) us the body as a degration of the human spirit for instant gratification becasue its make money. This is not the reason the human body was created for...only for sexual pleasure.. There are other more important means that the human body was created for.

(Edited by jade on 02-20-2006 16:41)

Well thanks Jade, Texas is one of the most sexually repressed areas on the face of the earth, rivalled only by Georgia, a few other states and the Islamic countries.

Hell, you are living proof.

Why not bring back the chastity belt?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Well thanks Jade, Texas is one of the most sexually repressed areas on the face of the earth, rivalled only by Georgia, a few other states and the Islamic countries.

---

That does not anwser my comment. What about all the rapes and un consentual sex between persons expecially young teenagers as young as 14 yrs old? What is your answer??? Give the young on the threshold of purberty condoms to encourage sex or chaperones...

quote:

---

Hell, you are living proof.

---

Proof of what ...that I encourage abstinence for many reasons?

(Edited by jade on 02-20-2006 22:02)

Ok, let's take a GIANT step back for a moment -

We are not talking, even remotely, about whether or not people should enjoy a healthy sex-life. We are talking about sending a young girl out, for all intents and purposes with strangers, on her own.

Sexual repression, the true nature of sex, healthy views of sex, proper age for the start of sexual relationships, etc, are WELL beyond the scope of this discussion.

Before running off and huge tangents, can we at least address the actual question posed by the original poster here?

Now, first of all, at 14/15, I certainly would not be prepared to accept graciously that my daughter was having a sexual relationship at all. However, more importantly, the kind of sexual activity that worries me is the non-consentual kind.

The vast majority of reported rape victims are teenage girls.
The vast majority of reported rapes are perpetrated by someone the victim knows.
The vast majority of rapists are males age 14-25.

Rape by persons who are described as someone who "would never hurt a person" are very common.
It is not uncommon for rape to end in murder.

My daughter is intelligent.
My daughter is a black-belt in Taekwondo.
My daughter is allowed a fair amount of leeway and personal freedom.

My daughter will not be going on dates alone with a 'new boyfriend' in the foreseeable future.

And nothing you guys have posted even addresses the actual issue - if you have something to add that is an actual response to the question posed, or to my comments, I am all ears.

---------------------------------------

As for the 'menage a trois' -
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/08/teen.dismembered.ap/
Yeah, gotta love those teen threesomes......





(Edited by DL-44 on 02-20-2006 23:06)

Ok, this is one of those really dangerous converstaions. This is a time when everyone will be wrong in someones eyes, and everyone will be right.
So "Little Suzies" conservative parents are afraid that if she goes out on a date she is going to end up rutting like a wild dog in the back of her boyfriends Hemi-Cuda. Then she's gonna get pregnant, drop out of school, get hooked on drugs, and really just flush her life away. All because "Little Suzie" had SEX. (I could be wrong here, but I think this is the fear.) Now there are a lot of ways that you can make sex dirty, but not so many make it look ugly like this. If "Little Suzies" parents were to take the "3Rule" approach to sex, "Little Suzie" (IMHO) would be just fine.
Rule 1: Sex should be consensual.
At any time anyone can say "NO" and everyone goes to a neutral corner. If your not at all sure, say no. If you are sure, move to rule two.
Rule 2: Sex Should be safe.
I don't mean just condoms, dental dams, gloves and the like. Those are the mainstays of Rule number two. I also mean having sex on a motorcycle going 95mph, is not safe. If things are not safe go back to rule one. If things are safe, move to rule three.
Rule 3: Sex should be fun.
Sex can be a whole lot more than ripping each others clothes off and playing at hide the sausage. If you are not having any fun before the clothes are even undone, go back to rule one. Sex should be fun and enjoyable, if your not having fun or are scared, rule numero uno should go in effect. However, if you have reach this point, you should be having fun, because the basic criteria are met.
Now I know someone is going to tell me "wait until marriage" or "wait until older". Notice, I'm not putting any dates or times on this. It's up to each persons values, and beliefs on when they should have sex. And even after 40 years of marriage, the "3Rules" still apply.

Now as an aside, I really believe sex would not be such a big issue if the United States, as a whole, didn't try to make sex immoral, nasty, and icky. If the U.S. were to treat sex like many other countries do, as a wonderful beautiful act, then there would be fewer issues over it. And we could spend quality time education all the young people in the U.S. about sex, instead of blushing about it, speaking in whispers, and generally being puritanical about the issue.

One of my favorite lines I like to use when educating about being more open about talking about sex is; Sex is hereditary, chances are if your parents didn't have sex, neither will you.

Disclaimer: These days I'm a bit of a smut peddler, so telling me I'm dirty or nasty is moot at best.



F1_edit: DL's right, and made that reply as I was typing. Sex isn't the issue, but like everyone else, I got off track.

(Edited by F1_error on 02-20-2006 23:13)

For sure this is why there is always a need for chaperons..not only to supervise the children but anyone who would want to harm your children on an innocent date...by taking advantage of them since they are under age
if that be the case.

My son is 18 and very mature and I trust him... I would never presume to send him out with a chaperone... Then again I was not the kind of mother who would drop him off at the movies or mall or at a person house that I did not know very well when he was younger. I was protective and cautious...Most of the time my house was grand central station with all my children's friends for parties. I guess you could say I or my husband were the chapereons most of the time.

DL got me thinking. And I believe that 14/15 is an ok age to start dating, as long as they are given the same rules I was at that time. You go "out" some where (ie. school dance, run for a slice, movie, etc..) then you come right home. After a while of doing this "out & back", if they want to deviate from the plan (ie. slice then decide to go to a movie) you have to call home, and give an update, and an exact time to be home. In these days of everyone has a cell phone, this is alot easier. Now if I were to deviate from said plan, I was grounded, and not allowed to continue to date that person. That seemed to work for me, up until I left home.
Now this whole "chaperone" issue is up to the parents value system. I'm pretty sure that if my Mom had been able to, I would have had a chaperone when I began dating (I'm still introduced as her "baby boy"). But if you are going to have a chaperone, it should not be someone from the same age group. That IMHO is asking for trouble. You could have someone you trust from church or scouts or a neighbor you trust, do the chaperoning. Maybe even do a "double date", Mom & Dad go out with "Little Suzie", but sit at a different table. But it's up to the values the parents have and hold dear, that is what is most important (even if it's values I don't agree with). If they were parents without values, then I would think them to be unfit parents.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

And nothing you guys have posted even addresses the actual issue - if you have something to add that is an actual response to the question posed, or to my comments, I am all ears.

---

Sorry DL-44, I thought I had, in part at least.

Question:
"My sister's conservative friend cannot go on a date with her new boyfriend without a chaperone. I think some involvment of parents isn't bad, but is that going too far."
Answer:
"Now to be more specific to James02 and his question, well, as specific as I can be without all the relevent details.
A fifteen year old supervising another fifteen year old, I don't think so. If it matters enough for you to be concerned about a fifteen year olds behaviour then don't entrust it to another fifteen year old."

Perhaps this was not specific enough to the instance that James 02 was talking about, but I did say I was getting called away at that time. The only other thing that I wanted to add to my initial post is this.
The emotional maturity of children leaves them very vunerable and we as adults need to be there to guide and protect. How this is done will vary from family to family, but it should be a natural part of the structure of family life. Not seen as some arbitrary rules to control the lives of our young ones.
Specifics, well you have me there, I can't give specifics to such a generalised question as "How far is too far?" Unless you want an example of locking them up in thier room untill they reach the legal age of consent. That is too far.
Diogenes, nearly all of the posts I have read of yours seem to spit hate. You seem to delight in the thought of mocking religious people. Now it seems the whole state of Texas has your considered displeasure. Is this attitude of deliberately mocking and trying perhaps to enrage not called Flaming?
It most certainly does not help towards a balanced and meaningfull discussion. Also anything of worth you might have to offer is lost in these diatribes.

::tao:::: ::cell::

(Edited by Tao on 02-21-2006 13:15)

quote:

---

Diogenes, nearly all of the posts I have read of yours seem to spit hate. You seem to delight in the thought of mocking religious people. Now it seems the whole state of Texas has your considered displeasure. Is this attitude of deliberately mocking and trying perhaps to enrage not called Flaming?
It most certainly does not help towards a balanced and meaningfull discussion. Also anything of worth you might have to offer is lost in these diatribes.

---

I totally agree...I know there is a different side of Diogenes if he would allow us to see it..
Maybe his negative outlook on life issues stems from something experienced by a religious. But that is another post discussion

Sorry, Tao, I should have been more clear - my comment was directed at Dio and Arthurio, and not meant as a general comment.