Annie's Mailbox® by Kathy Mitchell and Marcy Sugar

LW1 -- I have nothing against teenagers thoughtfully and carefully exploring sex. But please remember that unprotected, unthoughtful sex can lead to unwanted pregnancies, abortions, wrecked families and sexually transmitted diseases. And some so-called "recreational" drugs are so dangerous that just doing them once may create difficulties for the rest of your life. (As an example, I got extremely drunk once... just once... when I was 16 years old, got alcohol poisoning, and caused permanent damage to my eyesight that I've been dealing with since.) I'm not saying not to live your life, or can never have sex, or can't drink reasonably and sanely, but please learn as much about the things you're considering doing and trying before you get carried away. And remember that you don't have to try every crazy thing out there just because others are doing it. Try not to toss aside your judgement and common sense in your desire to experiences more of what's out there in the world.

* * * * PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT * * * *

LW3 refers to the first letter on 8 January 2013, and was also discussed on 24 February 2013.

When I was nine years old I so looked up to my big sister who was 15. She seemed SO grown up! She wore make-up,
( not much because Mom wouldn't allow it). I couldn't wait to be 15 and be all grown up like her. I hit 15 and still felt like a dumb kid. And I do remember hearing my big sister crying over some girlfriend or boyfriend who hurt her.
My point is that there is no particular age or grade or schedule for growing up or qualifying for grown-up things. Enjoy being a kid a little longer with a parent who cares about you! Grown up privileges also mean grown up responsibilities. Alcohol can make you stupid enough to think you are OK to drive...until you kill someone. That is one situation your parents cannot bail you out of.Unprotected sex can leave you pregnant, which really cuts into your party time, or it can give you STD, which can put an end to a lot of lovely things you could have done. There are better ways to spend your energy and to get attention. Like music, dance, sports, community service.

LW1: It is normal for teens to want to break away from the restrictions imposed by parents. However, I encourage you to enjoy the freedom of your youth and to not be in a big hurry to experience the things you mention. I have seen a lot of people burn out their brains on drugs and/or alcohol, so I hope you learn how to get high on life. It's cheaper and ultimately more fulfilling. There is absolutely nothing fun about getting drunk. It only makes you stupid and sick. Dating can be fun or not. Find someone who values you and enjoys your company. Don't rush into having sex and please use protection if/when you do. The world doesn't need any more teen moms or unwanted children. Make some good friends who share your interests. Learn to play an instrument, dance, play sports, or volunteer. Don't be in a hurry to grow up. You will have many years to be an adult, not so many to be a carefree teen.

I was kind of with her for the "I want a boyfriend and to date" part, but she lost me with the whole "party, get drunk and having sex" part.
Yeah, if there is a guy you like, date him. Get to know who he is in a fun, laid back situation. You don't need to start sleeping with guys just because you turned 16. Most teen guys aren't very good in bed anyway. I doubt you'll regret waiting for your first time to be special, where as I can almost guarantee you'll feel shitty about yourself if you sleep with some guy just because you can.
Getting drunk is a lot of hype. On TV people can't have fun without drinking, a lot. But not everyone enjoys being drunk. Plus, getting bombed at parties with a bunch of people you don't know well puts you in a vulnerable position. YOU DON'T NEED TO DRINK TO HAVE FUN. YOU DON'T NEED TO HAVE SEX TO DATE.
The fact that you think sex and alcohol always equals fun proves that you are too young for either. Enjoy your last bit of childhood. Once you are an adult there is no going back.

LW1: Oh good grief, if she's 16 and hasn't done any of those things yet, she's doing great. Life will come at her fast enough eventually without people screaming capital letters about the dangers of doing almost anything. She'll be fine. I was like that at 16, and I'm sure many other thoughtful people were also back in the day.

LW1 - Oh, honey, I understand. Teenage years are tough. I, like you, waited for my first boyfriend to come along at your age. Most of my friends had them but I didn't. I wanted to be invited to parties and hang with the "cool kids" but I wasn't because they knew I wasn't the drinking the druggie type and they were all getting wasted and high and doing stupid things. Part of me wanted to be the "bad girl" and start drinking (I never had any desire to do drugs, though) but deep down I knew it would only lead to trouble and I never went through with it. I hated those years and felt like such a loser and I really looked up to others who had "lives" with boyfriends and parties.

Then - one week after graduation - one of the "cool kids" from those drinking and druggie parties got very wasted and went for a fast ride on his motorcycle. He hit a crack in the road and was thrown off of his bike and slammed into a telephone pole. The sad thing is, he didn't die instantly. He was conscious and suffered for awhile before dying. His whole life was ahead of him and he traded it in for alcohol and a wild ride. Then, throughout my freshman year of college, I heard about a lot of the kids I went to high school with who were flunking out of school because of drugs and a few of them got pregnant, too. That's when I really started thanking my lucky stars that I didn't get involved in that stuff.

One of my best friends is a recovering alcoholic. He told me he started drinking at 15. He, of course, regrets it. He didn't become sober until 39 years old. He said, "The earlier you start, the harder it is to kick the habit. If I could go back and show my 15 year old self what he life was going to be like if he picked up that first beer, I would do it in a second and spare myself years of damage and hate for myself." He has numerous health problems because of it.

As for the sex...don't be so eager to do it. What if you get pregnant? NO birth control is 100%. NONE. Do you really want to be pregnant at 16/17? Plus...the younger you start, the higher the number of partners you have when you get older and that can be a big turnoff. I can't tell you the amount of girlfriends I have that told me I was lucky that I waited (I was 22). I remember being 21 and my one friend got a new boyfriend said, "He's the 7th guy I've been with. It's so embarrassing. I hate that I'm 21 and have been with 7 guys already. I just feel so...slutty. You are so lucky!" And a number of my friends have been dumped when they told their new boyfriend the number of partners they've had.

At my age now (36), I am so very grateful that I never fell into that kind of stuff. I'm sure you're reading this and rolling your eyes but trust me...you don't want to get involved in that stuff. The urge to be the "bad girl" will pass and it's not worth giving into it. Your life will change and not for the better.
As for the guy you like...talk to your parents. 16 is not too young to date. But if they say no, then be friends with him for now. Good luck, sweetie.

LW2 - If his invitation said to call "them," then call "them." Since he said to call "them," I'm thinking that he'd bring his wife if you called him up and invited him out to catch up.

I guess I'm not yet far enough removed from being around the age of the LW, since I still don't really understand why most adults seem to think "going to school, studying and working at part-time jobs" vs "partying, drinking, having sex and doing drugs" MUST be an either/or thing. When I was in high school, almost everyone was doing both. Certainly there was the small group of burnouts who got high every day and never went to class, but they were very much the minority. I can think of many, many classmates and myself who all managed to do these things without ruining our lives one bit.

I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to do the 'bad things' as a teenager provided it's done in as smart a way as possible. Like, don't let it get in the way of school or your job. Don't drive after drinking or taking drugs. Smoking pot at a friend's house on the weekend is one thing, but don't put yourself in a dangerous situation with people you don't know. Safe sex only. Etc. I know the prevailing thought is that teenagers do not know how to be this smart, but from my own teenage experience, I don't think nearly as many are as dumb and reckless as older people think.

Alexandra - You make very good points. There are teens who dabble in drinking, drugs and sex and turn out just fine. But this girl says she hates being the perfect angel. Someone with an attitude like hers isn't going to "dabble." She's going to dive right in. Anybody who has intense urges like her will likely not try it a little. She'll go head first into the shallow end. She's also comparing her life to TV shows and that's NOT realistic at all.

Re: Michelle

True, but I guess that's why I feel there shouldn't be such a strong prohibition against teens doing these things. Absolutely forbidding it causes young people to REALLY want to do them and that seems to be what makes them dive right in and not be tentative or careful about it.

I'm also Canadian and from what I've observed/experienced, I think it's less common for Canadian teens vs American teens to be preached at about abstinence only, and I don't mean just sex. When I was a teen, most parents, teachers, etc. seemed to expect that we would do these things and therefore tried to teach responsibility about drinking and sex rather than simply "don't do it". My own parents never made it easy on me like some parents did, e.g. they weren't buying me alcohol, allowing me to throw parties, letting me have boys have sleep over, etc. but I knew as a young teen that they also wouldn't flip their lids if I got drunk at a party. They wouldn't have been *pleased*, but it seemed they accepted that it may happen and I distinctly remember my dad telling me "Try what you want to try, but don't ever drive and don't call me from jail".

While I agree entirely that it's wise to wait and all, I don't think the possible number of partners one will have in a lifetime should be a reason to not have sex. It's nobody's business how many people you've slept with. If someone asks, and especially a partner, the right thing to do is to kindly tell them to buzz off. And I personally find it's actually pretty beneficial to have loads of experience in that area.

Also, "be careful with drugs and alcohol" and "practice safe sex" is advice that everyone any age should take. I've been doing that cal for years and I could still ruin my whole life at any given moment.

LW1 -
"I know my life isn't a TV show"
No, you don't. Not if by "everything happening", you think it means "having boys over, getting drunk, going on dates, having sex and so much more".

Your parents don't impose restrictions because they want to jail you. They impose restrictions because, although you feel all grown up in a body that is capable of attracting a male and producing children, you're not. Your brain is not finished maturing, in particular the frontal cortex which controls impulsion. Right now, you think precious nothing about consequences, even though there are always some. To every act.

And let me tell you what the consequences of "having boys over, getting drunk, going on dates, having sex and so much more" can be: making stupid decisions that can cost someone's life and/or land you in jail because you were drunk, inflicting permanent damage on yourself because you were TOO drunk, getting pregnant, infected with STDs (some of them are not curable, others can make you sterile), being branded as "loose", "easy" and the town slut, not making it to the college of your choice (or to any college) because your grades plummeted, dropping out and having nothing but dead-end jobettes as a future prospect because you have no skills...

Do you really want any of that? This is the price of "having boys over, getting drunk, going on dates, having sex and so much more", and this is what television doesn't show you, because they want to keep the show fun and entertaining - without viewers, they get no advertising sponsors, and viewers turn on the telly to be entertained, not to be given a sermonette, get it?

Keep in mind everything feels more intense at your age - do you really think we're all so old and decrepit that we don't remember being 16? THAT's why your parents impose restrictions - because they know (sometimes from sorry experience) how easily teenagers can fall into excess, in their eagerness to be "all grown up", to "have a life" and to be "one of the cool kids".

This being stated, that doesn't mean you have to be a nun. There is a boy you like? Talk to your parents to see if you cannot start frequenting him in a quiet, supervised way. If they see they can trust you, eventually they will give you more freedom. If they say no, you can still hang out with him in the company of others and get to know him - if his interest is reciprocated. And if you insist on having sex, at least protect yourself, and keep in mind that no method is 100% failproof.

The fact that you mention TV shows at all indicates strongly that, deep down inside, you wish it WAS real life. Intellectually, you know that it isn't, but emotionally is a different story. And that is very dangerous, because human beings have a tendendy to act out what they wish would be real life, to try to make it real. Please don't. What you also risk making real is the "so much more" they don't show.

You only have two years to go before you are of age. I know that, in your intensity, you feel like it's a millions years, but trust me, it'll go a lot faster than you think. You can move out of your parent's home, turn wild and completely ruin your life if that's really what you want then, and nobody can stop you.

P.S.: "but I'm no different than last year"
Well, no, you won't be. We never turn into different people, we just add layers of knowledge and memories - in other words, we mature. I feel pretty much the same person I was when I was 16... Except that I'm calmer, intense in a more controlled, much better way, I've gotten rid a of a few faults and bad habits, I've developed discipline (discipline allows you to DO things), and I know and remember more things. Which makes you more confident, because the more the references, the better able you are to make the right decision when needed. But you know... we humans are works in progress until the day we die. That's one of the things that makes living interesting.

LW2 -
If he mentioned "them", then he intends to bring his wife along, and there is certainly nothing improper about that then.

Re: Michelle #7
"And a number of my friends have been dumped when they told their new boyfriend the number of partners they've had."
The only good thing about having a "past" is that it allows the woman to weed out the sexist pigs. The boys who dumped your friends likely had more partners than the women they scorned, but it's only okay when *they* do it. You DON'T want to unwittingly marry a man for whom your parts only come in two varieties, "brand new" and "used", and you only have value when you're in the "brand new" category. Yrrrch.

*I* had a "past" when I met my future husband at 17. And so did he. If he had pulled a double standard number on me, I would have kicked him on his keester so fast, he wouldn't have known what hit him. But that wasn't one of his faults - unfortunately for me!

LW1--"My grades and alcohol and this boy and drugs are all lurking in my mind. I'm tired of being this perfect little angel. I know I'm only 16, but what do I do?" You disobey your parents, go out and binge drink, do drugs, sleep around and if you're lucky, you'll either get knocked up before your senior year or you'll destroy the obviously few brain cells you have. Look honey, you're clearly not too bright if you think what you see happening on T.V. is real. My advice is to continue being "a perfect angel", study hard, get accepted to a good college or university and then set yourself up for a successful life wherein you have a loving husband and beautiful children. Don't throw your life away on sex, drugs and partying just because you think that's what "normal" teenagers do.

LW2--Either include the wife and be wholly transparent with regards to your intentions or forget about this little rendezvous altogether.

LW3--That's why adoptions should be permanently sealed.

Oh to be a teenager again. I know, Gossip Girl, 90210, Pretty Little Liars, etc. etc. make sex and partying look so cool. But there comes a lot of responsibilities with drinking and sex that you don't understand until you're older. (Ha! I never thought I would be an adult who used a phrase like that.) I agree with Alexandra. You can definitely experiment in high school while maintaining a job, good grades, even a good relationship with your parents. I loved pot in high school and I had sex (though, not a lot by any means) and I kind of experimented with alcohol my senior year (again, not much though) and I still made good grades and had a great relationship with my parents. It really doesn't have to be one or the other. What's alarming about this letter is she seems to equate “fun (totally unrealistic) lives on t.v.” with being a bad girl. 16 is still really young and I hope she doesn't start down a wrong path.

Are we really discussing women who have slept around in their past scare men away? I have a high number and I'm not ashamed of it. Though I take Volpe's approach and never give a specific number, my boyfriend knows it's a high number. He doesn't mind, just like I don't mind his high number. Again, we don't discuss specifics. It's neither one of our businesses. It happens when you don't meet your spouse when you're 19. If a man ever saw me as “used goods” then I would take Lise's attitude of being grateful to find out he was a sexist pig before we got serious.

Re: MT

"The fact that you think sex and alcohol always equals fun proves that you are too young for either."

Hehe, I must be too young too then ;)

Re: Michelle

I was on board with a lot of what you said, but there a few things I wanted to comment on:

"as for the sex...don't be so eager to do it. What if you get pregnant? NO birth control is 100%. NONE. Do you really want to be pregnant at 16/17?"

Sorry but that strikes me as fear mongering. No, no birth control is 100% secure, and yes, sex always carries some risk with it. But going about sex in a thoughtful, common-sense manner can reduce the risk to a pretty acceptable 0.1-1%. It would be much better to make sure that LW1 knows about protection and has access to it, rather than telling her it's all risky, because then she might go ahead and have sex without any protection at all (because if it's all risky, what difference does it make?)

"Plus...the younger you start, the higher the number of partners you have when you get older and that can be a big turnoff."

What is this, the 50's? That is baloney. Any guy who is "turned off" because you had a couple sexual partners in high school can go take a long walk off a short pier. Nuts to that. That attitude has changed a lot recently I find also.

""He's the 7th guy I've been with. It's so embarrassing. I hate that I'm 21 and have been with 7 guys already. I just feel so...slutty. You are so lucky!""

You friend was immature to be feeling that way about her sexual experiences. I was with probably that many by the time I was early 20's, give or take a couple. It is never something I was embarrassed about, never felt slutty. I don't regret any of them, either, as mostly they were lots of fun! And no, no one turned me away or dumped me when they "found out" I wasn't a virgin.

Speaking frankly, I had a fair amount of sex as a teen, but I didn't ever drink, I didn't go to parties or clubs, and I the only time I did drugs was when my dad smoked a joint with me - the kids at school were starting to talk about it, and he wanted me to try it at home, so I did, and it was fine, and I've never done it since. And I REGRET IT. I mean I don't sit around moping about it, but I wish I had done some more fun stuff as a kid. And because I didn't, I am now that 27-year-old going dancing and getting drunk at clubs on weekends!

My father issued two recurring warnings to my sister and me: "Don't let me catch you doing..." and "Be good, and if you can't be good, be careful."

He recognized that all kids experiment, take risks, etc., and he told us that we were doing all right if our parents NEVER found out. In other words, think about consequences, be discreet, put your foot down when anyone wants you to do something truly dangerous or crazy.

He also told us that alcohol was more dangerous than cannabis, and that the anti-drug propaganda we saw at school about cannabis was ridiculous, but it was still illegal and could land us in juvie, or jail when we grew up. He also told us that the rest of the anti-drug propaganda was right on target and we'd better pay attention to it.

The result was when one of our friends got in trouble, they always called OUR parents, who would call their parents. My friends also felt comfortable confiding in my dad and asking for his advice, because they knew he'd tell them the truth.

Sarah M., you're usually right on, and seldom make me laugh out loud, but "I have no objection to teenagers thoughtfully and carefully exploring sex" did it for me. Wow. And I have no objection to pigs flying to the moon if they can do it. As Lise pointed out, the brain isn't even fully developed by the teenage years - that's why there's a whole psychology involved in adolescent thinking, part of which is the "I know, I know, but it won't happen to me" brand of magical thinking. And I'm pretty sure we've all been there in one way or another.

But teenagers "thoughtfully and carefully" exploring sex? Not gonna happen! It's one of Mother Nature's bad jokes that when our bodies are all ready and hot to trot our brains are still learning to walk.

And I would love to take this statement and shove it in the face of TV producers everywhere: "On all of the TV shows, the juniors are having boys over, getting drunk, going on dates, having sex and so much more. " Whenever the writers and producers of irresponsible, BS television get called on the content of their programs and the effect it has on immature viewers, they always retreat behind the "it's just entertainment!" mantra. Screw that! They want it both ways. If what people see on televsion didn't affect behavior, there wouldn't be any advertising!

Re: Maggie Lawrence

There are plenty of teenagers out there having sex safe with their boyfriend/girlfriends... I don't know what the right answer it, but it seems pretty evident that teenagers are going to have sex whether we like it or not. All we can do is slap condoms on 'em and hope for the best.

LW1, please don't dive in and do all these things at once. It's not the least bit glamorous or fun to be puking your guts out after having a horrible sexual experience with a guy you barely know and the room is spinning and you have the worst headache of your life and you do or say something stupid that is caught on a smartphone and then follows you around the rest of your school days.

Hold off on the experimenting with drinking and drugs a little bit longer, if you can.

Absolutely talk to your parents about dating, though -- its definitely "normal" to be dating by 16 (although if your parents find out you are dreaming of drinking and getting stoned they may not be eager to let you date!).

You're in transition, becoming an adult, but it's a process. There's no finish line, and no need to rush and try to do everything all at once. Nobody learns how to swim by being tossed into the deep end of the pool -- that's a good way to drown. Put your toe in the water, test things out gradually.

You seem to have had a good head on your shoulders so far, so don't rush forward or be overly impulsive. You still have plenty of time to have all these new experiences -- and you should have them, if you want -- but I really don't recommend doing them all at once.

So I'm not suggesting you *shouldn't* want to experiment a bit, but I am suggesting you try to be smart and careful about it.

And never, never, never drink or do anything stronger without having some trusted friends around you. People do very, very stupid things while under the influence, and other people can take advantage of that.

@Zoe, #22, amen. Been that way from time immemorial, and the more a community tries to ignore or prevent the demonize the very natural biological urges, the more disease and teen pregnancy you end up getting.

@Maggie, it's up to parents to monitor and explain what their kids see on television and the internet. Part of the parenthood deal. Censorship ain't the answer.

LW2, I agree wit the Annies, you may be assuming too much of this long-ago old flame. You don't even seem sure he is still married, so just extend the invitation to him and his wife and take your cues from there.

LW3, I'm glad this worked out for you in the end. I appreciate your perspective on this, and it makes a lot of sense.

LW1: I wonder if your parents' attitude reflects their values, of wanting you to stay away from parties (to keep you away from the temptation of alcohol and/or sex) and dating (same things).

In addition to all the legal, health and social ramifications that might result from, say getting very drunk at a party, a few posters have it right: There are yokels out there that would take the picture and/or video with their iPhones and in seconds it's up on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter for all the world to see for a few good yuks ("Hey, see the funny video of that easy girl dancing half-naked to Ke$ha and then puking her ass off on her best friend, the furniture and everyone's new clothes! Hahahahahah!"). Even years later, that could have serious consequences (e.g., getting a job, accepted into a college or for a coveted scholarship, being "approved" by a potential boyfriend's family several years after you've turned 18, etc). Unfortunately so, as I've tried to point out in the past, but that's sadly a fact.

In any event, while I agree that 16 is a reasonable age to start dating (I'd argue for 14 or 15, if chaperoned), some parents have their children wait until they are 17. If that's the case – I noticed you didn't state what age you'll be allowed to date – then it's likely only a few months off, so be patient there.

Otherwise, do talk to your parents and get their point of view. Likely, they are not of the "I owe you ZERO explanation, now get out" type ... but reasonable folks who can explain things or in the very least clarify what may have been explained to you. When you do approach them, do so calmly and rationally, and they'll probably reciprocate.

Other than that, do you feel under pressure by being their "perfect little angel"? If you do (and by your comments, it appears that you do), talk to your parents and if you need help, get a trusted adult (e.g., a favorite teacher, high school counselor/principal/coach, the pastor of your church, etc.) and together talk through some of these pressures. It may be that it's not as bad as you think it is, and if it is, then the parents will at least understand how you're feeling and either change or explain things to you.

Your parents love you. They want what's best for you. They've done everything for you, sacrificed and been there for you. That much I sense from your letter. Please, make good choices and show them you want to be a good person.

"Adoption loss is the only trauma in the world where the victims are expected by the whole of society to be grateful." - The Reverend Keith C. Griffith, MBE


It is a cruel punishment to require relinquishing parents to bear the life-long anguish over the fate of their lost children when the relinquishment, in over 95% of the cases, was done as an act of caring. If concern for birthparents is genuine, then a compassionate legislature ought to provide some way that the birth-parent can learn of the fate of their children who were lovingly relinquished to a better life than they could give them. The social workers, whose determination to continue their protection, are really a determined to hold them to a life sentence. People who are parents would be more empathetic. Who really believes that a mother does not want to know of her child? “Protection” is a subterfuge on the part of agencies protecting their power and on the part of adoptive parents who have a real but irrational fear that their child would prefer the birthparents.


The adoptee's claim of his right to his own true identity rests on the fact that the loss of that identity and history represents a real personal injury. One's biological history is as much a part of the essential self as limbs or senses. To be deprived of knowledge of one's origins and ancestry is to be maimed as surely as to be deprived of limbs or sight. While legs are essential to our ready navigation, being aware of one's own human history is essential to our psychological well-being. The injury inherent in the destruction of personal identity is compounded by the callousness of others to a loss they cannot see. Were it a limb missing, there would be sensitivity to the loss and sorrow for the person so afflicted. The amputation of one's connection to humanity is not visible, and the afflicted person appears, outwardly, to be whole. But inwardly, there is an essential part missing, and the effects of this loss will vary among adoptees according to their own life experience. The adoptee's quest is reduced to a triviality by the social work professional's interpretation of it as a mere and mild curiosity. Curiosity is a shockingly inadequate word for the dynamics underlying the search, and yet there is no adequate way to translate the experience of isolation and unrelatedness to those who have no like experience. We cannot tell the “born” what it is like not to be “born”, but adopted. We cannot tell those who are securely rooted in human history what it means to appear into a world in which we cannot be connected with biological connections to other people. We can only continue to stand firm that we have a need and right to our own human histories, and this right must be recognized as a civil right that cannot be abrogated at the pleasure of others.


"All of the arguments put forth by people who think adoption records should be sealed simply aren't born out by the facts," said Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, which has long advocated for reforms in adoption laws, policies and practices, including open records.
The study reviewed past and current state laws; legislative histories; and the existing body of research on how sealed and open records impact affected parties.


"The reality is, in states with open records laws, there are fewer abortions, not more, and the number of adoptions increase," Mr. Pertman said. "This study gets at the core of the argument for adopted people and equal access to birth information. "For example, in Oregon -- one of six states that has re-established access to birth records for adopted people since 1996 -- abortions have declined since the law went into effect, at a rate similar to that in England and Wales when adoption records were opened, the study found. Adoption rates also increased in Oregon.


In Kansas and Alaska, which have always provided people with access to original birth certificates, the abortion rate is lower than the national rate, and the adoption rate is also higher than it is nationally, the study noted.


"Sealing records are a living symbol of the bad old days, when we hid unwed mothers, and stereotypes about them ruled the day," Mr. Pertman said. Such access not only is a civil rights issue, he added, but provides important information about an individual's mental and physical health history.

Re: Lise Brouillette (#14)

"The fact that you mention TV shows at all indicates strongly that, deep down inside, you wish it WAS real life. Intellectually, you know that it isn't, but emotionally is a different story. And that is very dangerous, because human beings have a tendendy to act out what they wish would be real life, to try to make it real. Please don't. What you also risk making real is the 'so much more' they don't show."

To the LW: If in fact this is the case, Lise is correct. Yes, there's a lot I wish were "just like TV," but I know it isn't so and won't be as such for a million years. Again, these shows you possibly refer to – "Family Guy" and "90210," among others – NEVER SHOW the consequences or the "so much more" that Lise refers to. As I've already stated, these teens are depicted as having parents who don't give a damn and who are so self-absorbed in their own self-interests that they don't give a second thought to their kid running around, prancing around the town in just a pair of underwear (or if it's a girl, a tube top and panties), going "WOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!" as they prance without a care in the world, ignorant to their so-called friends videotaping the goings on to post on YouTube/Facebook/Twitter/MySpace ... and you don't see the police making arrests and the kids' antics having serious, long-lived consequences.

"You only have two years to go before you are of age. I know that, in your intensity, you feel like it's a millions years, but trust me, it'll go a lot faster than you think. You can move out of your parent's home, turn wild and completely ruin your life if that's really what you want then, and nobody can stop you."

Lise – while that's true, I do gather from the LW that I don't think she wants to "turn wild and completely ruin" her life. I don't think that's what she truly wants. Honestly, if I read her correctly (and that's an IF), I am not sure what she wants. After all, with her still being immature emotionally and developing, I don't think most teenagers truly know what they want for themselves when they reach adulthood ... certainly, they're not thinking about being that mature, responsible adult at 16 or even 17. From what I recall about being a teenager and what I see with so many today, they don't think about their tomorrow; they only want to live for the moment, what feels good now and screw the consequences.

This is why she needs to listen to her parents; they'll explain why. Years from now, she just might appreciate it.

Re: Zoe
Don't forget the part about teenage boys not being very good in the sack. Let someone else break them in.

The viewpoint that allowing adults to secure their own original birth certificates will endanger the well-being of birth parents assumes that there are hordes of original parents out there in the world who wish to remain in hiding. The data from states and countries that have restored original birth certificate access to adult adoptees, however, shows that a tiny minority of original parents -- one to four percent -- express a preference for no contact.


The adoption system has done a great disservice by pitting original mothers against adopted people, as if the two parties must have some kind of adversarial relationship, and as if the original birth were so shameful, it must never be spoken of or referred to again.

Zoe, I think you and Mike are reading me wrong - or "wrong-ish". I KNOW lots of teenagers have sex - my little burst of mirth was with the idea that ANY teenagers go about sex "thoughtfully and carefully." HA! And we can't really "slap a condom on 'em" because we're not in the back seat with them. Or wherever teenagers do it, these days. One thing I found out as a teacher of teenagers that I found extremely alarming was how many girls, having taken their "safe sex" lectures to heart, saw nothing wrong with pleasuring their dates orally. And the reputations that spread like wildfire. Made me sick.

Mike, I challenge you to find anything I have said in any post that advocated censorship. Ever. That wasn't my point. My point was the hypocrisy of TV producers who hide behind the "Well it's just entertainment" while ignoring the influence they actually have - a negative influence. My dad, who was an airline pilot, as I might have mentioned, always cringed when he saw a show about hijackings because he knew that within 24 hours the airlines would start getting a stream of bomb scares from the usual nuts. If you're going to create programming for a huge audience and you know that a percentage of them are extremely vulnerable - either a little crazy or just immature - that should trigger at least a little sense of responsibility, don't you think?

Re: nonegiven

Haha, that's why I've never had sex with a teenager.

Re: Maggie

Gotcha! I'm always on board for pointing out how dumb teenagers are.

How many of us know a teenage who thinks, "Gee, all these adults really know what they are talking about, I guess I really should listen to them." ? How many of you thought that way? This young lady ask, "What should I do?". She was given some great advice but I believe she will do what she wants to do. Why she wrote in I don't know.

Maggie Lawrence, I agree with you. I love teens. They tend to be honest, enthusiastic, energetic, idealistic.

What they don't tend to be, as a group, is careful or thoughtful, or understanding of possible long-term ramifications, across a wide variety of issues: Driving. Friendships. Nutrition. Homework. Alcohol. Sex.

Because they are so enthusiastic and idealistic -- and subject to our culture's emphasis on finding True Love -- they tend to believe that Lightning has Struck, against all odds, and that they have found The One. At age 15. 16. 17. Without any idea of how much they'll change over the next few years, or how their lives will.

Or without any idea that Pretty Little Liars really isn't made FOR THEM but for people older and with the money and desire to by the products advertised.

It's not about censorship but responsibility. I saw where the makers of The Following were wrestling with questions of social responsibility, how far was too far. I think they, and makers of a lot of other shows, are right to be asking themselves those questions.

Yes, they have experimented with sex since time immemorial. They will continue to do so, no matter what adults warn.

I have really enjoyed and appreciated reading the advice for LW1. I particularly liked Michelle's post and appreciated some of the caveats that Zoe threw in. Just a couple of things I want to throw out there as food for thought:

Zoe wrote to Michelle: "Your friend was immature to be feeling that way about her sexual experiences. I was with probably that many by the time I was early 20's, give or take a couple. It is never something I was embarrassed about, never felt slutty. I don't regret any of them, either, as mostly they were lots of fun!" Yes, Michelle's friend WAS immature to be feeling that way about her sexual experiences -- which suggests that she really wasn't ready for them in the first place. That you (Zoe) never felt that way suggests that you WERE ready for them. Not everyone is ready for sex (and other experiences, for that matter) at the same time. So, kudos to Zoe for having sex at the right time for Zoe -- but I have to say, given the tone of the LW's letter, my guess is if she has sex right now, she will come to regret it and/or be embarrassed about it like Michelle's friend was. I could be wrong, but I'm betting she really is NOT ready for this.

Along those same lines, completely agree with Zoe, Volpe, Lise B and others who said that one's number of sexual partners is nobody else's business, and if a guy was upset by my number, I'd kick him to the curb. BUT...I still appreciate the point Michelle was trying to make regarding her friend who regretted how high her number was. The real point (in my opinion), isn't that some guys might be turned off by a higher number. The real point is that the LW, like Michelle's friend, may well come to regret starting so early and may well be embarrassed to have a "high" number at a relatively young age. If that point resonated with the LW at all, then she should definitely think twice about whether she is really ready for sex. While a couple of people here at the BTL have suggested they regret not having experimented more, I have to say that I have never met someone IRL who ever regretted NOT having sex or NOT doing drugs, whereas I have met a good number of people IRL who DID regret having sex (too young, or with a specific person, or too indiscriminately) and DID regret drinking too much and/or doing drugs.

Carla at #20 notes that her father told her how alcohol is more dangerous than cannabis. That is debatable, to say the least. I don't know how old you are, Carla, or how old your father is, but if your dad was smoking pot in the 60s and 70s and then telling you that alcohol is more dangerous than cannabis in the 80s and 90s, and if you are now preaching that today, you need to understand that today's cannabis is NOT the same as the cannabis your dad grew up with. I cannot cite the specific studies, but I read about studies showing that the THC content of today's cannabis is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than what it was 20, 30 and 40 years ago. Now, I have heard the argument that alcohol is more dangerous because of the fact that it is legal, and I can understand that argument. It's obviously a lot easier to gain access to a legal drug (even if you, yourself, are underage and it's illegal for you to buy it or consume it), than it is to gain access to an illegal drug. Moreover, kids who might think twice about pot because it's illegal won't bat an eyelash at illegally drinking alcohol, because in their minds it's not "really" illegal, since it will eventually be legal for them to have it, and it can't really be "that bad" or "that dangerous" if it's perfectly legal for people over age 21 to have it. So, if your dad's argument had to do with the fact that more kids are more likely to experiment with alcohol because it is easier for them to gain access to it and because they are less fearful of it because, gee, they see their own parents have alcohol with dinner occasionally, etc., and there's nothing wrong with that, then I totally understand what he's saying. But if he is trying to compare the drug content of pot to the drug content of alcohol and suggest that cannabis is "safer" -- I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Re: Lisa

"but I have to say, given the tone of the LW's letter, my guess is if she has sex right now, she will come to regret it and/or be embarrassed about it like Michelle's friend was. I could be wrong, but I'm betting she really is NOT ready for this."

That is a really good point that I didn't really consider. I think a lot of girls feel shame not because they weren't ready, but because they are made to feel shame by their peers, but in LW1's case I think you are right.

@Maggie Lawrence & hedgehog -- agree with both of you about the likelihood of teens "carefully, thoughtfully exploring sex." Many of them are going to have sex. SOME of them might manage to at least have "safe" sex -- condom and/or some other birth control -- but probably not every time. A FEW of them might even manage to have "safe" sex every time. Hardly any of them are truly "carefully, thoughtfully exploring sex." I know two women who, as teenagers, got pregnant and had abortions. Both of these two women were in long-term, monogamous, loving relationships. One of them is actually married to the guy she got pregnant with as a teen -- 20 years and two kids later, they are still very happy together. In both of these cases, I would tell you that these women, as teens in long-term, monogamous, loving relationships, really were "carefully, thoughtfully exploring sex." In fact, in both of these cases, they had been using condoms (not sure if the pregnancies were the result of "condom malfunction" or if it was "just that one time" that they didn't stop to put a condom on, etc.), and then after their abortions, they went on the pill because realized that was more reliable. All I'm saying is that I know both of these women and their then-boyfriends very, very well. These were honors students, sang in the choir, captain of the basketball team, etc. They didn't drink or do drugs. They weren't sleeping around. These were among the teens I'd have labeled "responsible" -- and still they wound up with unplanned pregnancies. These were among the teens I'd have suggested as being most likely to "carefully, thoughtfully explore sex." And yet they still wound up pregnant. Let's face it, I know adults who are neither careful nor thoughtful about sex.

And also agree with both Mike H and Maggie about television programming. Yes, Mike H is correct that it's up to parents to monitor what their little darlings are watching on TV. And yes, he is also correct that censorship isn't the answer. Totally agree with both points. But also agree with Maggie that it sure would be nice if the writers and producers of these shows spent even a millisecond thinking about the influence and impact their shows have on the kids who watch them. Or, barring spending even that millisecond thinking about the influence and impact their shows have on the kids who watch them, how about they at least just own up to the truth. The truth is that "sex sells" and the dollar signs are all most of them care about. Of course, the truth also is that is why it has to be up to the parents to monitor what their kids are watching and talk with them about this stuff and not expect someone else to do that job for them.

@Maggie, fair point, you didn't actually *mention* the word itself, but censorship is implied in the whole point of your comment -- whether by society or self-censoring to appease the masses, censorship is still censorship.

And I don't think it's hypocritical to say about an entertainment that it is "entertainment". Hell, have you paid any attention to the plots of most operas? Love, lust, betrayal, murder, prostitution, thievery, rape... and those poor impressionable audiences sometimes contained children!

I'm not a huge advocate of holding the creator responsible for what other people decide to do based on that creation. I think, frankly, such an argument completely side-steps the issue of *personal* responsibility. Of the person or the parents of the children.

Shouting "fire" in a theater is one thing. Having a character shout "fire" in a movie theater as part of a television show is something else. It's not equivalent.

Every modern media appliance, from tv to radio to iphone to a computer -- has an "off" switch and many also come with parental filters. Don't like the message a certain entertainment is giving? That's your right -- so don't watch it.

But don't suggest that nobody else can watch it or that the creators should adjust to fit YOUR preferences or that we all have to bend over backwards because maybe a few impressionable teens aren't getting enough supervision or communication or education from their parents. That's not the right answer *at all*. Not in a free society of mature people who are supposed to take personal responsibility for their own actions and for those of their children.

@Zoe -- no doubt about it, there are girls (and adult women, for that matter -- even "older" adult women) who are shamed by peers, society, what have you, when they have nothing to be ashamed of. So we agree on that, as well.

Re: Carla #20
Yours sounds like a cool, no-nonsense father to me!

@Maggie Lawrence #21
"the "I know, I know, but it won't happen to me" brand of magical thinking. And I'm pretty sure we've all been there in one way or another."
Oh yeah.

"If what people see on televsion didn't affect behavior, there wouldn't be any advertising!"
Right on!

@Zoe #22
"All we can do is slap condoms on 'em and hope for the best."
You're perfectly right about that. I think the main concern here, is that this girl seems just about ready to bolt like a spooked mustang.

@Esther Greenwood
"assumes that there are hordes of original parents out there in the world who wish to remain in hiding."
I don't know about "hordes", but there definitely ARE some who want to remain hidden. And, more importantly, who were promised they would.

"as if the original birth were so shameful"
Don't take for granted that no such births are ever shameful anymore. It is not the fact of being unmarried anymore that can be traumatic, but the possible circumstances surrounding the conception of the child. To give but an extreme example, you're damn right that a woman who was brutally raped and possibly through incest, will be very ashamed and most of them will want the whole thing "never be spoken of or referred to again".

I'm going to step out and just say that I think some of you are really taking the stereotypical stupid teenager and acting like all teenagers are like that. Most of them are normal people, with some delusions of invincibility no doubt. But thinking back to my high school years, I think ONE girl was pregnant, and she came to our school that way. I am sure there were some cases that never made it to the grape vine, but overwhelmingly the kids at my school were pretty grounded. Aside from a few bad apples who did hard drugs, slept around in an unsafe manner, and got stupid drunk, these were students who absolutely wore condoms, didn't do much drugs, and went to the odd party but kept it pretty safe. So I don't know where you're all getting the idea that all teenagers are having unsafe sex, getting abortions, and getting videotaped drunkenly throwing up on each other.

And teenage pregnancy is actually down, isn't it? Actually, I just read into it, and y'all in the US have to do something about your teenage pregnancy problem! LOL. Yikes! But nevertheless, it is down: "The Guttmacher Institute attributed about 25% of the decline to abstinence and 75% to the effective use of contraceptives." So what we're doing, while not perfect, seems to be on the right track.

@Maggie, I realize my message is coming off more strident than I really want it to. I still believe everything I said in #38, but didn't need to put it so forcefully, so apologies if it's coming off badly or seems too aggressive.

Re: Mike #38
I don't think that anyone was necessarily advocating censorship, just that TV/ movie producers are directly and deliberately marketing these shows with adult content to teens and younger viewers. And that these shows can have a detrimental effect on impressionable kids.
I do agree with you that parents must take an active role in monitoring what their kids are watching and in making sure that their kids understand that real life doesn't really work that way.

For those who said my friend was probably not ready and that's why she felt that...good point. I waited until I was 22 and with a boyfriend that I loved at the time. I have no regrets for waiting as long as I did. I did it because I wanted to...not because I was pressured by peers. I know my friend was around 15 when she started having sex. She probably wasn't ready. That's an excellent point.

Okay...I got a bit slammed about the number of partners thing. But to be honest with you, I get why some people get upset at a high number. One of those girls, btw, had been with close to 50 men by the time she was 21. Personally, that would make me run, too. High numbers in partners turn me off. But that's just me, I guess.

@Zoe (#41) -- my mother married my father when she was 19 and he was 25. To this day (nearly 50 years of marriage later), my mom likes to joke that my dad is just lucky he met her when her frontal lobe wasn't fully formed, or clearly she would have chosen her husband more wisely. I want to stress that they are happily married, and this is just a joke of theirs!

Honestly, I do believe there are plenty of good, responsible teenagers out there. They aren't all out making complete @$$es of themselves. Of course, it's easy to lose sight of that fact in the face of all the YouTube and Facebook evidence out there. As I've mentioned at the BTL before, I work with a collegiate organization for women at a nearby university. These women are all older than the LW, to be sure, but I do have some 17-year-olds and 18-year-olds in the group, on up to 24- and 25-year olds. I was in this same collegiate organization for women years ago at a different school, and while I certainly remember some of those women going a little crazy and "letting it all hang out" from time to time, no one was videotaping it, and if they were, the Internet was in its infancy -- hardly anyone even had e-mail at that point. So whatever video or photo footage that might have been taken didn't get broadcast. Sometimes I think that college women of today (and their younger high school counterparts) are no "crazier" than the women with whom I attended college, it's just that the ramifications of that behavior are so much more pronounced in the Internet Age. And photos/video of people behaving appropriately and following the law rarely go viral. So, it frequently SEEMS like it's more rampant today than it was before.

But at the same time, I will also tell you that one of the results of all this TMI being broadcast is that stuff that would have made me and my fellow collegiate women 20 years ago blush if photo/video footage of us engaged in those activities were broadcast somehow -- today, because it's "all over the place" now, some of the women I work with today don't bat an eyelash at it. So, some things HAVE changed, and it's not merely the fact that "well, of course it seems more prevalent because it's broadcast all over where before, if you weren't there to see it yourself, you didn't know about it or didn't see it." It's a combination of both. And that "it's all over the place" phenomenon does sometimes have a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy to it -- the more people see it (and see people they can identify with or relate to engaged in it), the less "wrong" or "inappropriate" or "shameful" it seems, and suddenly you're on this slippery slope where these things start seeming not so bad.

And finally, as I noted before, even the good, mature-for-their age, responsible teens out there make mistakes (just as good, responsible, mature adults do, for that matter). When I was in high school, I liked to point out that the nearby Catholic high school had some 20 pregnant girls, whereas at my public high school, which had at least TWICE as many students at it, NO ONE was pregnant. Of course, that wasn't entirely true -- it's just that the girls at my high school, if they got pregnant, they had abortions and most people simply never knew they were ever pregnant. Mind you, I don't want to give the impression that half the girls at my school had abortions -- that wasn't the case. Indeed, my guess is that even if you factored in the number of girls who had abortions, the pregnancy rate at my public high school, where sex ed was alive and well, was a lot lower than it was at the Catholic school, where sex ed was verboten.
And I agree with you that the fact that teen pregnancy has been declining (for quite some time, I believe), suggests we are doing something right.

Re: Lise Brouillette

The data from states and countries that have restored original birth certificate access to adult adoptees, however, shows that a tiny minority of original parents -- one to four percent -- express a preference for no contact.

96% to 99% of birth parents either want or are not opposed to contact. This is backed up by many studies. Most states are moving toward open records.

Re: Michelle

A high number like 50 at age 21 is alarming but not because of the number itself. Emotionally stable women generally don't hit 50 by that age. But there's a huge difference between 7 and 50. The former shouldn't be a turnoff, neither is the latter, but it might still scare someone away because of the implications.

Why does a high number turn you off? Removing some kind of acting out or mental illness from the equation, what is it about a two-digit number of sexual partners that turns you off? Just curious. I have found that people with a fair amount of experience - enough to give them confidence and a wide breadth of experience - make the best partners.

You know this makes me think - I don't even know what my number is. Not because I was drunk but because I have a piss-poor memory, and then when you start thinking, is it just straight up heterosexual intercourse we're counting? Cuz if you start thinking of all the other stuff. JEEZ. Does everyone else remember everything?

@Michelle & Zoe, RE: What's In A Number?

On the one hand, as I have already professed, one's number of sexual partners is nobody's business but one's own. On the other hand... a person's number MIGHT say something about who that person is, his/her values/beliefs about sex. Of course, the things is, the numbers can lie and/or be misinterpreted. The woman with a really high (however you want to define "high") number may well have learned from her past experience that she wishes to be far more selective in her partners today and/or may want to wait until she's married or in a committed relationship, which would certainly belie the somewhat understandable assumption that someone with a high number isn't as selective and/or has a more casual approach to/belief about sex. Similarly, the guy with a really low number (however you want to define "low") may simply have a low number due to circumstances and/or lack of opportunities and would actually hump anything in a skirt given the opportunity, as opposed to the somewhat understandable assumption that someone with a low number is more selective and/or has a less casual approach to/belief about sex.

I have a good friend whose number is pretty high. I was surprised when she told me this because in the time I have known her, she has been extremely selective and does NOT believe in casual sex. It turns out that when she was younger, she was date raped. She was ashamed, blamed herself -- and she wound up with a whole lot of self-hatred that led to some seriously self-destructive behavior, including a lot of indiscriminate sex. When she finally told someone what happened to her and got help, she completely turned her life around. Meeting her, as I did, more than a decade after all of that, one would never guess about her "sordid" past. It is not something she is proud of, but neither is she ashamed of it. She recognizes that she made any number of poor choices based on anger and self-loathing, but that going through all of that is part of what made her who she is today -- a strong, successful woman who knows herself and values herself and takes care of herself. She is always upfront about her sexual past with potential lovers because she believes it was an important baptism-by-fire, if you will, that helped shape who she is today. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm happily married, so I'm not dating and don't have to play the numbers game. But I would say that if I was, and I met a man who honest-to-God couldn't tell me his number simply because there've been too many to count and he long ago lost track of it, well, that would probably turn me off, too, because that LIKELY would mean that his beliefs about sex don't align with mine. Now, I wouldn't ask a guy his number anyway. But at some point I WOULD be having a conversation with him about what it does and doesn't mean to him, etc. We may never get down to actual numbers, but I would want to know what his beliefs and values about sex are, and if they didn't align with mine, well, then logically we wouldn't almost certainly wouldn't be right for each other. And again, the caveat to that is, the guy who lost track of his number because there have been too many to count -- but since then his views about sex have changed and do align with mine -- that I could be OK with. People can and do learn from their pasts (and not just sexual prowess, by the way!), and you have to be able to embrace that past and recognize that it's part of what created the person who now stands before you.

Let me be clear: I'm not judging anyone who holds different beliefs/values about sex from my own -- I just know that, for me, it would be important to be with someone whose beliefs/values about sex align with my own. I can be friends with someone with different beliefs (indeed, I AM friends with a number of people whose beliefs are different my own), and I can (and in a number of cases do) respect someone with different beliefs -- but I don't want to date or be married to someone whose beliefs on this particular topic don't mostly match my own.

And Zoe, for the record, yes, some of us DO remember everything. Of course, when you've only been with two people your entire life, and you are 42 years old, well, it's just not all that hard to keep track! LOL

LW2 -- just chiming in with all the rest here -- the guy said to call "them" when you're in town, so no doubt he intends to include his wife (or girlfriend or whatever -- won't you be surprised when it turns out he has male life partner?) whether that is your intention or not. You appear to be totally open to including his wife in this visit, which suggests that you are on the up and up and merely want to catch up with someone you once held dear, as opposed to an interest in rekindling an old flame. As long as that is true, give "them" a call. If it isn't, then don't.

the first letter reads like a fake

Re: Lisa

Okay fair enough! LOL I counted and got to 11, I think that's everyone and I actually remember all but one of their names. Actually make that 12... SHEESH. Most of them were one-offs though, or very short relationships.

Is the number thing cultural or what? I have to be honest that I've never given any thought to specific numbers. Lise - do people in your neck of the woods care about "the number"? I suppose I've wondered before, just because I wanted to know what I was up against (har har).

Mike, thanks for the addendum. While I wouldn't agree with society in general censoring my choices, (within legality) I'm very much an advocate of self-censorship - and I think you are, too, if you remember that self-censorship is one of the few things that stands between civilization and complete anarchy. Miss Manners once quoted a child whose definition of a lady she not only liked, but said was accurate: "A lady is a woman who wants to punch somebody in the face - but doesn't." And that's self-censorship. Really - self-censorship is what keeps me from giving the finger to other drivers, telling annoying people what I REALLY think of them, and slamming the phone down on charity solicitations. And I do that because I want to live in a world where other people self-censor.
Are we in any kind of agreement on that part of it?

@Zoe -- now, see, 12 doesn't strike me as that high, particularly as you are not 15. You kind of made it sound like you were in the 50s or 60s and just couldn't keep track. I honestly don't focus on the number. But let me put it this way, I think it's sort of like drinking -- if you had so much to drink the night before that you can't remember how many you had (and, in fact, can't remember much of the evening), that was probably a few too many. ;)

Re: EstherGreenwood #46
Esther, we're not talking about percentages here. Or at least I wasn't. Are you trying to tell me that, as far as you're concerned, because the 'nos' are in the small minority, they don't matter? Nice. I hope for your sake that you're never in a 1-4%.

1-4% of one million amounts to 10,000-40,000. That's a lot of people to be told, sorry, but the vote is in and you lose, your feelings are concerns are therefore nil and void. Better luck next time.

I don't care how few of them want to remain secret. The ones who do ought to have their wishes respected. Why does everything have to generic, like humans (especially women) are not allowed to step out of the "norm"?

@Zoe #51
Actually no, I don't think they do. I don't remember it being an issue with anyone I dated, and I don't know my numbers either.

The ex LOML had a bit of a problem with my numbers being higher than his (easy), but he comes from a part of the world where premarital sex just doesn't happen, at least not often, and not in a healthy way.

Whereas me... I was 16 when Flower Power and Make-Love-Not-War were in full swing, and the Pill was just in. It was pretty much WOO-HOO, dive in and pounce, especially since everything that could be caught back then was easily curable. He's a bit envious of that, I think!

Let's face it, I know adults who are neither careful nor thoughtful about sex.
******
Quite true, of course.

Still, an adult who is neither careful nor thoughtful about sex has a number of advantages over a teen in dealing with any fallout. At the very least, an adult generally doesn't have to worry about Dad and Mom throwing her out of the house.

Re: Lise Brouillette

Why not make a legal provision for the minority that want no contact to opt out of contact instead of denying contact and information to the majority that want it?

Re: Lisa

No no, not that high! Which is why it surprises me that I have such a hard time remembering, but not really, because my memory for this sort of thing is the pits. I barely remember high school. And I wasnt drunk through it all, I swear. Actually, booze doesn't cause me to lose my memory at all, so i dont think your rule applies to me :D

@Maggie, sure, self-censorship in the way you mention in your latest post -- akin to 'manners" -- is one thing, and a useful thing. I myself never use profanity in public places like stores or at work. Not because I think there's anything wrong with profanity at all -- in fact, I quite like a lot of profane language -- but because I don't think there's a need to subject other people, who may not agree, to my profanity.

But I still see that as different from entertainment, which people *have to watch by choice*. The people who are shopping with me don't have any say in overhearing what words I use, and that's why -- to use your term -- I have "manners" in public. So I'm still leery of putting too much of the onus on the producers of entertainment; the primary responsibility is on the viewer (or the parent of the viewer).

It's also where I tend to fall with art -- public art in public spaces should be relatively benign. Art shown in a museum, in a gallery that you have to buy tickets to and choose to walk into -- can be as offensive to as many people as they want, and it shouldn't be suppressed. If you find the work of a certain artist offensive, the proper response is to not attend the exhibition; not attempt to pressure the museum to close the exhibition or to shame them for exposing people to material you think is suggestive or immoral or might put the wrong ideas in people's heads.

I think most tv shows have tried to be appropriate -- certain content not shown during the day, certain content only after 10pm at night, certain comment not shown on network tv -- and maybe that hasn't yet fully translated to the internet, which would be an understandable concern.

But I think parents should be giving the right cognitive and emotional tools to their children from the beginning, to understand and interpret entertainment, to understand its not real, and to make sure they aren't overly influenced by it -- and that will be far more powerful than anything else we can recommend.

@Lisa, @Zoe, let's just say your discussion about "the number" would be seen as rather... charming but perplexing... in the gay male community.

If I had any qualms about how many previous partners a potential partner had had... I probably wouldn't have gotten out much.

So if straight men are really concerned about that sort of thing where women are concerned... they're crazy.

Re: EstherGreenwood
Frankly, I can't understand why you would want to make it an "either or". As far as I'm concerned, that was going without saying.

Off Topic for Nanchan--#37 Yesterday's BTL
I live in Iowa and would like to know where your sister's quilt is hanging as I have many quilting friends who would be interested in seeing it. I have seen many barn quilts but they have all been quilt patterns painted on wood hanging up to withstand the weather. There are some beautiful ones out there. Thanks.

Re: Lise Brouillette
Yep, I think you and I could solve the problem. Have open records with an option for either party to file a non-disclosure/no contact order. I don't know why our legislators can't seem to come up with a similar solution...lol.

Re: Mike H

Well, obviously, that's because women just can't handle their vaginas!

@Zoe, yikes! But don't look at me... *I* certainly don't want to handle them, either!

Re: Mike H (#58)

"So I'm still leery of putting too much of the onus on the producers of entertainment; the primary responsibility is on the viewer (or the parent of the viewer)."

I won't argue that the primary responsibility is on the parent to influence what his/her child is allowed to watch. We have things such as "parental control" and also our words. (And here's that "explaining why" thing again -- here, you tell your child why you don't want him/her to watch a given show, why it is bad, and so on.)

I think what some people argue is just the mere availability of a show, particularly in prime viewing hours when children merely COULD be in the audience and possibly watching said show, unsupervised and without the parents even knowing or caring. Y'know, the "oh well, at least he's not out running around on the street and with that 'bad' crowd ... oblivious that those same 'bad' influences are probably on their TV screens right under their nose, and they don't see it or don't get what the show is truly about.

Such as "Family Guy," which some argue is about encouraging deviant values and dirty jokes that the show's writers try to top with each successive episode. Or the teenage boys on "90210" having sex with the newest hottie at school every week ... . And the list goes on. Kids, flipping through the TVs unsupervised when they should be doing their homework to find something that's on, and after seeing "boring" shows ... they flip to see a fat man fighting with a guy wearing a chicken costume in a no-holds-barred brawl with scenes similar to the latest summertime action film, explosions and one trying to see how much the other can bleed and how much pain they can withstand from broken bones -- BTW, this was something seen on several episodes of "Family Guy" -- and they immediately keep it on, eyes fixated as the smutty plot unfolds.

Yes, parents DO need to take the upper hand and control of the TV. I speak sometimes of my sister and her brother-in-law and their two nephews (of 3 and 19 months), and so far, it's just shows like "Sesame Street" and "Mickey's Clubhouse." So far, so good ... and I sense that with their track record, they'll do a good job (maybe not perfect, but I'm sure good) monitoring their children's viewing habits as they get older and more able to reason and understand things.

But back to the main point of the letter -- my advice still stands:

* 1. What you see on TV is not reality, particularly many of the teen shows the LW is probably thinking of. So try to reconcile it emotionally.
* 2. If she feels pressure about being the "perfect angel," she should talk to her parents, a counselor, etc. and express her concerns and frustrations.
* 3. The LW should continue to walk the high road and respect her parents. Perhaps a few things -- such as the dating bit -- can be negotiated, but a few other things (e.g., only parties with responsible parents and ZERO alcohol present allowed) are not up for debate.

Thanks!

@Mike H -- not sure you'll see this, as I'm posting well after the fact. While I doubt this was your intention, as Zoe's response (#63) suggests in a pithy, humorous way, your post about numbers not being meaningful in the gay community highlights one of the big differences between homosexual sex and heterosexual sex. I'm pretty sure no one ever got pregnant as a result of a gay sexual encounter. I've waxed prolific on the double standard, and ironically enough, your post does unintentionally shine a spotlight on the double standard. You're a regular, so you already know that I have always said that while the double standard isn't fair or right, it exists for a reason. Women are expected to be more responsible and careful about sex than men are because women have more to lose. And if you are being more responsible and careful, that almost certainly also translates to being more selective, and being more selective almost certainly also translates to not having as many partners. If you take the "more responsible" gender out of the equation, as you do with sex between gay men, is it any shock that the result is that no one is all that concerned about numbers?

Now, you would know this far better than I would, but my understanding was that with the advent of AIDS, the gay community did start paying somewhat more attention to the possible negatives of sex with random strangers (and also more attention to using condoms). I have often wondered if one of the reasons that gay marriage, which I hardly ever heard anyone bring up prior to the advent of AIDS, has become a bigger deal for the gay community because of the advent of AIDS. Now, maybe it's just that I wasn't paying attention before -- perhaps gay men and women have been clamoring for the right to get married forever, and the real reason you hear it more now is that society has finally reached a point where it's (somewhat) more willing to consider it. Indeed, I am sure that is the much bigger part of the equation. But I also think that when catching a potentially lethal and not-always-so-treatable disease was added to the list of possible consequences of promiscuity, it did, perhaps, make some men in the gay community stop and think about the potential upside to being in a committed, monogamous relationship, and suddenly marriage looked more desirable.

If there are any lesbians out there reading this, I'd be interested to hear from you about the degree to which the lesbian community pays any attention to The Number. While in lesbian sex you obviously do NOT remove the "more careful, responsible" gender from the equation, you DO remove most of the big risks. My understanding (which is extremely limited on this topic, so I definitely could be wrong here) is that in addition to removing pregnancy as a factor, you also remove the vast majority of STDs. If ever there was a community that could "best afford" to be promiscuous, it would be gay women. Having said that, when I think of the gay women I know, pretty much all of them are in long-term, committed, monogamous relationships, and if they aren't, it's because they recently broke up with someone with whom they were in a long-term, committed, monogamous relationship, and they are very much looking for another long-term, committed, monogamous relationship.

@Lisa, many good and interesting thoughts, let me get through them as best I can:

1) There's historical evidence that part of the early gay rights movement (ie, pre-AIDS) was, in fact, interested in marriage rights, but due to the bigotry of the times they focused more on simply being allowed to exist openly without being killed, beaten, or fired from their jobs. There was a lot on their plate in those days, and a big uphill climb!

2) As for the gay community paying more attention after the AIDS crisis, yes and no. First off, lots and lots and lots of safe sex is still lots of sex. Secondly, certain activities are lower risk than others, and we're often much more casual about those certain other activities. But sure... one thing that happened is that many men in the pre-AIDS days would casually talk about hundreds and hundreds of partners (some in the thousands); now it's more common to hear about dozens or low hundreds.

But I think in some ways it's not AIDS that is really the factor, it's marriage equality itself. You see, back when everyone thought that we were disgusting perverted deviants incapable of forming healthy relationships, many of us internalized it and so went all out having as much sex as possible. I mean, why not? If we were destined for a life without love, we might as well have as much "fun" as we could have. So long-term relationships weren't highlighted or valued in our community because too many of us absorbed the message our society and our churches and our families were telling us.

As marriage equality has become more and more of a reality, though, all of a sudden gay couples, long-term, often monogamous, are being celebrated. Seen. Young gay men now realize it's *entirely possible* for them to date and fall in love and get married, and many of them are "looking for the one".

It's still ridiculously easy for gay men to have casual sex. Heck, if I were single, I *know* I could "get some", with a different partner every night, if I *wanted* to. And I'm no Johnny Depp.

But such activity -- while not stigmatized by any stretch in our community -- it's no longer the goal, the sole measure of how attractive you are, the only way to express yourself as a gay man.

And, listen, I was also being a bit facetious, because of course there are gay men out there who've never had a lot of partners... but by the same token I've *never* been in a conversation with a straight man who has had as many women partners in his life as the number of male partners I've had in mine... and I've been rather chaste compared to some of my other gay friends (and also monogamous for the last 8 years!).

Finally, though, I wanted to point out how ridiculous a standard it is for anyone to worry about, even considering the differences between men and women. If I score with someone who's been popular in the past, good for me! That generally means they actually know what they're doing. :-)

@Mike H -- thanks for the thoughtful response!

Perfect Angel sounds like a conscientious, mature young lady that her parents can be proud of. There are people in their 40s that are STILL doing the things you talked about, because either they're really immature, or they just never got the desire to do those things out of their system. The fact is: you don't need to do those things. If something feels wrong to you, then why do it?

LW1 - "I know that being a teenager means disobeying my parents"
This is the line that bothered me the most. I also suspect this is the impression she has gotten from all those TV shows. She believes she "should" do these things because people her age on TV are doing them. Just because it is on TV doesn't mean it is reality and that "everyone else" is doing it.
You assume that, In order to do these things portrayed, then you MUST disobey your parents. First off, you don't HAVE to do anything. Drinking, doing drugs and having sex because "everyone" else is will not win you the friends you desire. It won't necessarily make you popular or win you a boyfriend. It appears that these TV shows have left that impression - that it is the only way to get out of your "rut". Maybe you need to discover why you don't have close friends rather than trying to make friends by acting out and mimicking a TV show life that isn't real.

Re: Julie
I had a problem with that line also, but didn't know what to do with it. You handled it perfectly.