I’m with you too. My daughter is now 30, and she is confident, self-assured, and independent. She is a strong and caring person. And she never dealt with unwanted or teenaged pregnancy — although some of her friends did. When a teenager and becoming interested in boys, sure I provided some coaching. Often, young boys and their hormones are after “that one thing”. It is, frequently, a primal urge. And it’s different from the primal urges of women. I coached her accordingly.
Back when she was a teen — I wasn’t her friend, I’m her father. And you can bet I met her boyfriends. Not to read them the riot act or even intimidate them at all, but to establish my presence in their mind, and to let them know that they better treat my daughter well. I gave them rides to some of their dates and parties. He knew I was there. He knew she wasn’t just a girl, but she was my girl, and she had family who loved her.
I wasn’t his friend. I was friendly, but first and foremost I was his girlfriend’s father.
And I’d say that my father was a better judge of my character and intelligence than you are, and of the boys I hung out with.
Any father who thinks that a boy “sniffing around my daughter” must be met with threats is treating her as a possession, as well as implying that every male (including himself) cannot be trusted. Is that really the message those of you who defend that stereotype want to give?
That position is a bit extreme. Young boys typically have strong hormonal urges coupled with not fully developed brains to fully understand the consequences of their decisions. It would behoove fathers of young girls to coach their daughters, and to form a rapport with their boyfriends.
My daughter is not my possession. I am a steward of her, temporarily interacting with her on a daily basis during her formative years while she grows and matures, to help her be ready for her adulthood.
There’s something deliciously ironic when a guy who treats his daughter as property and makes violent threats to people interacting with her complains that objections to his threats of violence are too ‘hostile’.
I read an anecdote from the early sixties about how a father told his daughters to always carry a dime with them and if they were being pressured by their date into doing something further they were prepared to go (not very far in those days), hand the dime to the date and say, “I’m not sure; why don’t you call my father and ask him if it’s a good idea?” No calls were made.
Then when his eldest daughter was married, about 10pm on their wedding night he got a call from her. “Say, I’m going to put Larry on; he’s got this interesting proposition for me.”
“Not very far” is an often believed myth, but it’s clearly a myth. If teen sex in the 1960s was so rare, why was the teen pregnancy rate double what it is now back in the pure, clean days of 1960 when allegedly none of this sex was going on?
Just a thumbs up for this post. Well said, Nava. I knew girls, now strong, independent women, who would have kicked their father’s butts if they had an attitude like manson1972’s. And rightly so, for all the reasons you mention. Gawd, I hate this stereotyping shit.
The “nice girls” were often sent away to have their babies and have them forcibly removed from them at birth and placed for adoption, or managed to get an abortion (also often not their decision either).
There is a big difference from being a friend and being someone who makes it clear that you think his sole goal in taking your daughter out is to rape her. Word gets around, you know.
13 year old girls shouldn’t be really dating period. Going to a movie with a guy and getting picked up - by you - works. And 13 year old boys for the most part really don’t need to be accused of nefarious intent.
I was thinking more 16 or so, when the guy has a car.
I agree with this. That does not seem to be what Manson is advocating.
Being a friend to your daughter’s boyfriend is dumb in any case, since chances are he is not going to last long.
I’m guessing that story came from a church bulletin or something.
Now, giving the girl a dime with the understanding that she can call you if she needs you no matter what works a lot better.
Which is an excellent reason why birth control should be available before needed. Pretending that a girl who is not protected is going to wait for a doctor’s visit before succumbing to passion yields to exactly the things you mention.
Though I don’t get the “including himself” part, the core of my attitude on this (and I suspect manson1972’s and many other men) is a bedrock certainty that women, particularly young women, don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about in this area. From this side of the discussion you all sound like some man talking expertly about childbirth or menstruation. You don’t know. Youcan’t know. And what you think you know is almost laughable.
And here’s the bottom line: unlike the above analogy, wherein you’d expect the man to accept that something is outside his experience, you (the general female “you,” but maybe you specifically) will never accept that this is outside yours just because you don’t have testicles. So this will never be resolved. How about we leave it there?
I’m not seeing how any of the story involved the bride becoming Larry’s property.
Perhaps not but certainly the father telling the story* believed – truthfully or not – his daughter would have limits that her date would try to talk himself past. Really, as Voyager said, it’s really about letting your daughter know the lines of communication are open with an amusing coda on the girl’s wedding night.
