Daughters should be protected, sons should be left alone

I'll introduce the problem through a few comic strips (in spanish, but they're quite easy to understand) Daddy I got myself a romantic partner! Our child is not answering the phone. Introducing your significant other to the parents If I have a son, I will bring him on adventures and teach him how to pick up girls. If I have a daughter, anyone touch her I'll turn into John Matrix

In other words, from the father's view, if your son gets a GF, cool, good for him. If he is KidAnova, it's kinda weird, but he's also a bit of a champion. If your daughter gets a BF, especially at an early age, something terribly precious has been lost, and her BF is Evil and Guilty until proven innocnet (or suitably high-status, it's amazing how accomodating some parents can be to a rich/powerful/respected boyfriend).

One thing I can't stomach either is parent who know full well what their kids do but choose a Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. What's the kid supposed to do when they have a problem? Or do they only want to hear about it when there are major problems and most of the harm is done.

Now how common are this attitudes in reality, how flexible are they?

edited 23rd Aug '11 1:26:59 PM by GoodGuyGreg

It's largely because the daughter can get pregnant, while the son cannot. Granted, the son can get a girl pregnant, but he can walk away from that. A daughter cannot.

Or at least, that's what I imagine the reasoning is...

...Fuckencia/o???

The daughter can walk away, it's called abortion and, failing that, adoption. And why can the son walk away anyway? One would expect immense peer AND parental pressure to force him to take responsibility for his actions: why is it that only girls are punished for having sex?

Yes, Fuckencio/a, Trollencio/a, basically the new Fulano/a and Mengano/a, i.e. "John Smith" or "Wossname". They're starting to use it for compnies and countries to: Trolleria S.A. , Fuckilandia, etc.

edited 23rd Aug '11 1:32:12 PM by GoodGuyGreg

Well, not everyone endorses abortion, you know. Adoption is naturally a decent option, of course, but most parents don't have that mentality.

As for sons, I mean there is nothing legal binding him to the girl. Sure, he'll have to pay child support, but he doesn't have to marry or stay with her.

I'm talking about the former. Obviously no-one should foce you to build your life around someone you don't want. On the other hand, keeping the child is her choice and her choice only, so why should he be forced to pay if she decides to keep it against his wishes?

Anyway, I don't think this is just about abortion and getting pregnat. At all.

He should be forced to pay because he "done the deed," so to speak.

Sure, it's basically sexism, but there is a slightly justifiable thinking process behind it. It's still sexism though because it's not equal justifiable thinking.

Personally, if I have kids, I'm going to harp on them on this issue regardless of gender. Also, I can't think of a single one of my female friends that has parents like this. I think this is more in traditional countries, since it appears to be dying in (most) parts of the US—or at least, mutating into a more fair thinking process to both sides...

Abort ALL the babies!

But yeah. No matter how you look at it the girl is in for many more consequences should she get pregnant.

Anti-natalism is a legitimate posture, just don't force it upon others.

I think there's also a tendency to view male sexuality as predatory and female sexuality as...non-existent. So your daughter's boyfriend is a scary interloper trying to take advantage of her, while your son's girlfriend is at worst neutral, and at best a sweet thing who will come over for dinner, demonstrate good manners, and then help clean up afterward.

Or: Getting a steady significant other turns a kid into an adult. But...while being a man is preferable to being a boy, being a woman (old & bossy) is a step down from being a girl (young & cute). Your son is improved by growing up, but your daughter is ruined by the same process.

In any case, it's all kinds of fucked up.

I never thought of it this way... this overlaps with Kawaiiko and Christmas Cake, among others...

edited 23rd Aug '11 1:56:47 PM by GoodGuyGreg

Pregnancy may not be parent's main conscious, explicit concern when they protect there daughter more than their son, but it's probably the reason why our societies evolved such strong social norms.

It may be possible to engineer a society in which those norms don't make as much sense (for example with guaranteed child support from the father), but our norms won't adapt before we do that, and even then, it would take some time.

This isn't specific to kids - a Casanova will always get more respect and admiration from his peers (and society at large) than a slut. You can say that's unfair, but can't blame parents for doing what gets their child more respect.

Amazing? Parents have to protect their daughters from pregnancy in the years between menarche and catching a husband. A rich boyfriend has the resources to provide for them if forced to do the right thing, while a poor one does not.

Being a virgin for too long does get you less and less respect (at age fourteen can already be an embarassment if everyone else did it), not to mention accusations of being Holier Than Thou and/or an Innocence Virgin On Stupidity (I really wouldn't like my daughter to be The Ingenue or suffer a Regenta)

edited 23rd Aug '11 2:20:21 PM by GoodGuyGreg

Well acording to Freud it is because the father feels jelousy of the boyfriend of his daughter.

edited 23rd Aug '11 3:47:31 PM by Baff

There might be a bit of truth to that. It's like feeling jealous of your firend's new friend, the same way your mom feels jealous about your girlfriend, and the more attatched your parents are to you the more suspiciously they view your friends...

But yeah, Overprotective Dad acts in a specific way.

Baff@No fruedian stuff in this discussion becuase I don't want to get out the brain bleach.Besides I think it should go for both genders.I think both girls and boys should stay virtous before marriage.Boys should also take responsibility if they impregnate a girl and I will get out the shock gun if they plan on leaving town in the dead of night.I am kidding about the shotgun but I am not kidding that some boys should not skip out on their responsiblities when they make the mistake of impregnanting a girl.

Indeed, they should be virtuous. Virtues, are, by defintion, good habits and attitutdes. What, specifically, they are, is a Your Mileage May Vary thing. To me, chastity is not a virtue. Faithfulness towards a committed lover and Conscentiousness in the use of protection, on the other hand, are things I absolutely condone.

edited 23rd Aug '11 3:52:56 PM by GoodGuyGreg

"Oedipus complex denotes the emotions and ideas that the mind keeps in the unconscious, via dynamic repression, that concentrate upon a boy’s desire to sexually possess his mother, and kill his father"

Bleh... from a modern, "sex is not evil" perspective, I would still say chastity is a virtue because it denotes someone with self-control.

Baff@I warn you don't make me set up a picture of a fat,hairy guy in a bikini so I can scare you out of your wits.

I think the reason why is natural parental protectiveness.Fathers will always see their daughters as their little babies and are protective if any perceived threat wants to do harm to their little girls.

I have seen everything.

But about guys and girls the answer is quite simple. If a guy can get many girls he has a lot of value. If a girl gets with too many boys she looses value.

That is the sexist predisposition that exist in all societies. Is like, the more doors a key opens, the better the key, but if a lock can be open by too many keys then it is less valuable.

Taken literally, that's pretty dumb. I prefer to think of it as "child wants mom all to himself, especially if dad diverts her attention from child, which can be very frustrated ... as child grows older, those feelings make no sense any longer".

When one is frustrated with someone, "I want to kill that person" is a basic pulsion that'ss easily repressed or rationalized away. Doesn't mean you actually want to kill that person, the same way "I want to fuck that person" doesn't mean you actually want to rape them on the street, or even seduce them for that matter (sometimes it's just not convenient, others you just aren't interested at all in that person beyond the original basic pulsion).

So a very young child wanting to kill his dad so he stops stealing their mom away from them is far less shocking or even remarkable an occurrence than it may seem at first glance. Why baby girls aren't expected to feel the same way baffles me: I expect baby girls to like the warm breast of their mom as much as the next toddler.

^"Looses value"? That a pun?

edited 23rd Aug '11 4:07:13 PM by GoodGuyGreg

That's why I say they should make male chasitity belts and make sure men have the same standard as womanly virtues.Men need to keep it in their pants and devote to one woman if they can.Men also need to think how their actions affect others.

I'm surprised no one's mentioned the old societal norms of a boy who has had sex has become a man and a girl who has had sex has lost something/reduced her perceived value. It's a lingering thing. And that girls have historically been perceived as weaker and in need of protection. Add this to the father's role as protector of the family and you get this situation. Yes, this is changing, but it's a slow change.

Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is about having sex. It doesn't make you any more of adult than you were before.

Also, if any of you have ever watched daytime talk shows, you'll find that mothers of sons who are being claimed as fathers will say that the girl is a whore and that their sons don't need to be dragged down by them. So it's not just the fathers that can be a weird issue.