Thanks for writing. That, again, brings up a couple of the unanswered questions (asked, over and over again, and always ignored, which as mentioned makes me assume that people are running away from parenting questions, not addressing them):

4) Why are people assuming that when two teens have sex, as I did my first time, that it simply can't possibly be a beautiful thing? And that it's absolutely, always, to be prohibited until--well nobody on the For God's Sake, Everyone Should Always Wait! side is really talking of sex as joyous in any way, until your post, but--until they're "prepared" for it, as if sex were like compulsory military service, or like brokering a Mideast peace deal?

5) Why, as another asked below, is the Chilling Danger! of utter destruction invoked, when the fact is that the most that most of us suffered when we had sex as teenagers was a broken heart? If a broken heart or some emotional suffering happens, who died, made someone God, and decided that no-one under 18 should ever, ever risk having some emotional suffering?

6) Did those prohibiting sex before 18 prohibit it for themselves?

No-one is answering any of these good questions. Why not?

she wasn't dead...

Thanks for your response in turn. I'm glad you had a great experience. I don't want to denigrate that.

I think two issues are getting confused here: teens having sex and parental response to teens having sex. The issue here isn't really whether the LW should "let" his kid have sex. I don't think that's a choice he can control, perhaps should not be able to control. But the issue of whether he sanctions it, or sanctions their chosing his house to do it in (without asking permission first) is the real issue. It's one of boundaries. And about the specific roles parents play.

It struck me that the LW didn't approve of teen sex, was worried about the consequeces for his son, and therefore made a house rule. And I think that's fair. It also sounds like it's based on the LW's personal experience. Maybe he was a teen when he concieved his son and he doesn't want to see his son saddled with similar burdens? Maybe there's a history in the family of unchecked sexual behavior and he's seen the consequences and doesn't want his son to suffer the same? For whatever reason, he made a choice based on his ethics, and as the head of the house he has that right. Now, whether the son decides he is ready, he is having a good experience, and will find a place to have that expereince is another issue.

And let me add that if the father said "I found out my kid had a girl over. I'm okay with it because I think sex is natural and good, but I believe he should respect my ground rules of letting me know he's inviting a girl over and is practicing safe sex" I would have been supportive of that, too. Parents make ethical choices. They decide what the do/don't consider acceptable behavior, and hopefully they try to instill these values in their kids (which the kids, of course, may ultimately reject).

My biggest problem was Cary's assumption that prohibiting sex must invariably mean sex is preceived as a problem or some terrible thing.

I have read NOT ONE post advocating prosecution for statutory rape. The posters who mentioned are pointing out VALIDLY that there are parents and grandparents who WILL prosecute for statutory rape, and the LW (and his son) do not know if the girl in question bears the genetic material of that type of person.

Saying "This has happened and could happen" is in no way the same as saying "This ought to happen."

Jeesum. Read, people, READ.