To begin, let me say that I am stupefied by the insistence that most to all young persons develop sexually “before graduating college.” This argues that everyone goes to college (partly to become sexual beings, if not already so) – and wonderfully shows the middle-class, college-educated-ness that is LRC. That being said, I am a middle-class, college-educated high school teacher who would like to (try to) shed some light on the initial situation.
I teach currently at a predominantly poor (98% free or reduced lunch), urban high school – and (without any concrete data) the majority of my students are sexually active. Prior to this, I taught at a highly diverse, highly competitive selective enrollment school (24.9 ACT average) – and again (without any concrete data) the majority of my students were sexually active. I use “sexually active” here as a more general term, meaning the person with some level of regularity performs a sex act – this does not mean specifically vaginal intercourse, but other forms of intercourse (and outercourse) as well. (Before anyone implicates me as some sort of pedophile or pederast, I want to say that any good teacher would have a sense of this information, because it shows that you listen to your students. High school students are loud and lack many filters - you hear things, this is why we are all mandated reporters).
With this small and in no way scientific sampling – I would conclude that “Yes, most teenagers/high school students are (at some level) sexually active.” In addition to this, I could reference Freud (and the majority of psychoanalysts) who would argue that sexuality (drive) develops at an even younger age. However, the “normalcy” of the friend’s problem (if we are to call it that) does nothing to explain his perceived depression. Rather, (without having ever spoken to the man) I would think either he (like some who have posted on this thread) feels pre-martial sex to be immoral (ergo, his daughter has sinned, he has failed as a father) or he vehemently hates the boyfriend (“How could she have had sex with him?” becomes the question, again his daughter is tainted – he fails as a parent). Both of these lines of reasoning involve him feeling a sense of failure, explain to him that this is not the case (you may want to cite the daughter’s “good grades” as contrary evidence). Additionally, explain that the only way he can fail is if he doesn’t ensure that his daughter is practicing safe, consensual sex acts.
As to the numerous posts on the morality of pre-martial sex and normalcy as moral certitude, I would like to (again, try to) bring some levity to the situation. Ideology is the primary agent here, and Yogi Berra’s “Nobody goes there anymore, it’s too crowded” becomes a wonderful quote to focus on (it is not normal for persons to have pre-marital sex, however it is normal to have sex before marriage). The discourse over the normalcy of pre-marital sex is a waste of time – depending on how one approaches the topic, numerous conclusions can be reached (all relatively sound), that is all I want to say about that. So, to the question of morality, it seems that (as applied here) morality functions in an amoral/immoral dichotomy (either it is immoral to have pre-marital sex or morality has no bearings on the issue) – here we are missing the more important third term: moral. My argument is that it is moral for persons to practice pre-marital sex (here I mean safe, consensual sex acts). As a matter of utility, it appears to be of the greatest utility to have a developed sexuality prior to entering into (perceived) monogamy. And, (contrary to what I assume will be a rebuttal) one does not, and cannot, develop a strong sense of his/her own sexuality via masturbation or solo sex acts. Thusly, in order to assure that a marriage (or any extended monogamous or perceived monogamous relationship) can properly function – pre-martial sex must take place (now I wait for the few of you who will raise: “I never had sex until marriage and we have been married for 50 years!” – you are the minority in this country and I congratulate you, but from a utilitarian position, it is not feasible to apply your standards across the population).