How devastating is it to find out your high school teenage daughter is having sex?

Football Dad wrote:

I have three boys, all grown and out of the house. They did not have sex in High School even though they were popular, good-looking kids. You want to know why?

I told them that if i found out they were having sex, they'd be sent to work on my brother's farm in Kansas until it was time to go to college. No ifs, and or buts.

I have talked to them about this now that they are older and married. They still claim they didn't have sex while in High School, although all three said that they have had premarital sex starting in college.

High School is too young. As parents, it is your job to make sure this doesn't happen unless you want a grand child living in your house.

So many progressive folks on LRC think it is a good idea. Watch an episode of 16 and Pregnant or whatever that trashy MTV show is called and then defend your point that they are old enough to have sex.

Dumb Fvcks.

Football Dad wrote:

I have three boys, all grown and out of the house. They did not have sex in High School even though they were popular, good-looking kids. You want to know why?

I told them that if i found out they were having sex, they'd be sent to work on my brother's farm in Kansas until it was time to go to college. No ifs, and or buts.

I have talked to them about this now that they are older and married. They still claim they didn't have sex while in High School, although all three said that they have had premarital sex starting in college.

High School is too young. As parents, it is your job to make sure this doesn't happen unless you want a grand child living in your house.

So many progressive folks on LRC think it is a good idea. Watch an episode of 16 and Pregnant or whatever that trashy MTV show is called and then defend your point that they are old enough to have sex.

Dumb Fvcks.

937; wrote:

Candela, you may be good at science and math but, at least from the evidence on here, are absolutely abhorrent at moral reasoning, or argumentation in general.

You have made sweeping claims then backed off by adding the qualifier (4 pages later) that it only reflects "your own personal beliefs" and you are not trying to tell people what to do. Then you further backtrack by saying you will no longer address moral issues. All of this without actually providing any premises to support your claims (sweeping or otherwise). Instead, you blame people for trying to be relativistic about their moral arguments. This may be the first time (and if what you said about the majority of people around you agreeing with, it could very well be) the first time you have made a sweeping claim without any support and been called out on it. If so I am very sorry for you. Pre-marital sex may or may not be immoral but not seriously considering or making a moral argument until after college (I assume you're a grad student) certainly is.

Then when people try to make arguments by comparison (something you were fond of earlier) you find a point to distinguish it on and say their entire argument fails. For example, you said the example about driving never being perfectly safe is invalid because unlike driving premarital sex is not necessary in todays society and thus they are impossible to compare. However, on page 2 you compared a psychopath's stealing to premarital sex, then when people said that stealing, unlike premarital sex, is illegal you responded, "My analogies are valid. Shocking perhaps, but no less valid. If it is the "shocking" part that bothers you, then I can see why so many are irritated. But you can't possibly be bothered by the reasoning." (page 8).

Similarly, in response to your argument that your family has never failed a class, been homeless, had an STD, and so on, people aptly responding that that is a worthless argument. They said the conclusion was irrelevant (you responding that just because a 45 year old parent is older does not mean he knows more about parenting then 22 year old you) and your premises were faulty. You have tried, and failed to hide these flaws in your argumentation with sounds and fury signifying nothing.

On page 7 you said, “All that I said was that I personally thought it was wrong.” In fact this is the first time you said you personally thought premarital sex is wrong. All the other times you were basing your assertion on premarital sex being (for the sake of brevity this is only on page 3, though nothing you say until page 7 contradicts these statements though there are more examples): something people feel guilty about "deep inside" and "universally immoral."

On page 3 you said, "If you're not religious, then you have nothing to reference to tell you whether X is good or bad other than what your "gut feeling" is telling you -- we'll say it is some sensation in your brain that is there because you evolved that way.

So it comes down to either: what percentage of the population has a religion telling them that premarital sex is wrong, or what percentage of the population evolved such that their brain is causing them an undesirable "guilty" feeling?”

The above quote is also where some of the arguments that you are religious came from. You do not qualify, as you later do, that you don't actually think any religions prohibit premarital sex, and you imply that religion is the source of morality for people (unless they evolved it some other way).

"Most people on earth (> 90%) *claim* to be religious, and they are ignoring their religion and doing something that is wrong." Page 3.

The clear implication here is that the religions that most people on earth (>90%) follow all say premarital sex is wrong. You backed away from this later on page 7 after people made the accusations that you are a bible thumper. When they persisted to give more weight to your numerous religion posts rather than the one disavowing it you called them illiterate.

Throughout this thread you have contradicted yourself and revised your opinion all the while insulting people who call you out on it. Some would think this is clear evidence that you are a troll. I will give you the benefit of the doubt (and maybe I'll get a fun response) and just assume you have never attempted any form of moral reasoning before and for the previous 22 years it has been enough for you to say "it is wrong" and leave it at that.

Moral reasoning is an important part of adulthood, and you are just taking your first steps so I understand if you want to give it up for the "impractical" argument. But next time you want to make a moral argument try to anticipate people asking why. At its simplest level you should have a syllogism is support your claim (eg. Weapons that cannot discriminate between innocent people and combatants are wrong. Nuclear weapons cannot discriminate between innocent people and combatants are wrong. Therefore, nuclear weapons are wrong).

Obviously, a simplest syllogisms will rely on religion for their backing because you cannot question the premises without questioning the religion (or interpretation of it) and that was your first thought though you lacked the knowledge and/or conviction to back up your arguments. But with most premises, especially about basic topics like murder and genocide, you will find that even though it is possible to argue about premises ad infinitum you will not need to because of there is an overlapping consensus.

Rather than returning to your cave of science and math and pretending that you did take the first steps toward adulthood accept this for what it is. Try to figure out your own beliefs. I personally think you will feel guilty if you do not.