Birth control at 14

[Levite]

I personally plan to make it clear to my children from a fairly early age-- let's say 11 or 12-- that when the time comes that they plan to become sexually active, whenever that time might be, it is of vital importance that they have birth control and the knowledge of how to use it properly. And if they lack either, they may always come to me to get them, without fear of judgment.

If I've raised my child right, I should be able to trust him or her that they will not recklessly turn themselves into sluts, but will make relatively decent decisions. Naturally, all teenagers make some bad decisions, especially when it comes to socializing, sex, and intoxicants; but openness and lack of judgment at home can lead to better communication and a willingness of kids to turn to their parents for support and advice, which can help minimize or alleviate the usual sorts of bad decisions.

Far better for them to have sex safely than unsafely. Far better for them to know that they can always feel safe coming to me than to believe that if they come to me with problems, I will simply judge them and punish them for their choices.

[Shuddhasattva]

Originally Posted by MysticSang'ha

No, it's as ridiculous to assume people be celibate or practice abstinence widespread for many years past sexual maturity as it is to ban sugar consumption or driving cars. When marriage at 16 was typical, abstinence was more realistic. When marriage at 25-30 is more typical, abstinence becomes more of an issue that can't be ignored.

It has much less to do with older marriage times (which are themselves a result of a matrix of factors, including promiscuity) and more to do with, since another poster brought Freudian concepts into the mix, the stimulation of the Id combined with the disabling of the superego caused, by accident or design, by modern society - and again, I want to point out that the world is bigger and older than the modern American/European society, and the old ways are still working in many places.

[painted wolf]

Yes, she would go on birth control... and not the kind that requires her to think about it for it to work.

I grew up in a very economically depressed area... one of my friends in school had gotten pregnant at 12. She miscarried early, but her mother immediately after put her on birth control. If she hadn't she likely would never have made it through high-school.

My son is going to learn about his reproductive rights and responsibilities in stages as he grows up... I don't want to stigmatize or mythologize sex, it's too important a subject in today's world.

wa:do

[dust1n]

Originally Posted by Shuddasattva

Reliance on abstinence means no pregnancy. It's only when abstinence isn't relied upon. And this is because people see very little reason to be abstinent, because they're taught abstinence in the context of dogmas, and in the grip of a highly sexualized media-society.

Reliance on abstinence means no pregnancy to me doesn't seem to mean that the 14-year-old here is relying on abstinence, but that the parents of a 14-year-old here are relying on abstinence. I don't see why parents can't rely on abstinence and then find out why there daughters are pregnant. It seems, like, kids don't have the full capacity to have anything more than very little reason, or don't see the problem with having responsible, safe sex, so still have it regardless. The idea that 'one isn't relying on abstinence the moment they have sex' seems like a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Now granted, I think abstinence should be discussed. It just can't be 100% relied on because kids aren't.. well, reliable. Mainly because their bodies are, in effect, wanting to not be abstinent more than anyone else.

[painted wolf]

Reliance on abstinence also doesn't protect a girl from rape.

wa:do