She’s an adult now, but he had apparently been doing it for years. Not that that makes it okay, but she was a minor when he started doing this.
I agree, it was likely for publicity, otherwise he wouldn’t have discussed it in public. It probably happens a lot more often (by other misinformed parents), you just don’t hear about it because your neighbor isn’t announcing it to the world.
Your earlier statement was “And any father who needs to know whether his daughter is a virgin is a sick fuck.”, it was also directed, at least in part, at me.
No, it’s literally exactly what you were saying. You said, and I quote “Or, you know, mind his own business” and “Even minors should have a right to privacy with respect to their own bodies.”
Which is it? Should parent’s mind their own business or are you “not saying that parents’ shouldn’t be aware whether their minor children are sexually active”?
There’s a difference between needing to know if your child is sexually active and hyper-focusing on vaginal penetration. I’d ask my child if they were sexually active. I’d offer advice and set age-appropriate boundaries. I would not ask them exactly which acts they have participated in. I cannot see why I would ever need to know whether or not any particular act has already occurred.
Jesus, my son WAS molested and I didn’t ask probing questions. I asked enough to understand the scope of what had occurred so that I could report it, and then I backed off. He was six and I didn’t feel like I had the right to know any more detail than what he was comfortable sharing beyond what I absolutely needed to know to keep him safe.
This isn’t/wasn’t about monitoring her for unsafe sexual activity. This was about a father fetishizing female virginity as a sacred status. Trying to spin it, to distort it into something that was “bad means to a good end” is ridiculous.
Way back in the late paleolithic when I was a teen around about the time I was 14 the docs doing my school physicals started taking me aside and asking me if I was having sex, saying that if I did I would need to start going to a gynecologist to either get birth control or a regular check for STD’s or both, and if I was concerned about how my parents would react he could tell me how to get that done on my own because my health was more important than a fear of how the adults in my life might react. There was no discussion of hymens, and they would mention that sex included more than just a penis in a vagina. Which at the time certainly didn’t strike me as a “virginity check” but more a rational approach to sexuality. It still does.
If someone is sexually active at 14 or 15 then waiting until 21 to start worrying about reproductive health is waiting too late. Maybe things have changed, but I heard the “wait until 21” was for sexually INactive girls.
That’s not how I read it. There is a big difference between “being aware” and “needing to know.” The former implies you were reasonable, maybe just asking. The latter implies that you need to have definitive proof.
The latter is fucked up. The former is not. It’s reasonable to want to know. It is reasonable to ask, so you can help your kid navigate this complex area of life. It’s not reasonable to need to know, as that suggests controlling behavior.
TI needed to know, and that is exactly shows he is controlling, which suggests that he is abusive (in other ways)–just like you said.
I don’t know that a pelvic exam is a requirement for “worrying about your reproductive health”. Most STI tests can be done with a urine sample. You don’t need to look at someone’s genitals to prescribe BC, or give them information about other methods. Pap smears aren’t recommended for anyone before 21. If there aren’t any problems–pain, bleeding, whatever–it doesn’t appear that a pelvic exam has any real purpose. It doesn’t make any sense that if you’ve fucked a guy a doctor needs to take a look at your parts, just in case. Just in case what?
No prescribed birth control of any kind should be given to a woman of any age without a Pap smear and pelvic exam done beforehand. And Broomstick, you are correct that a woman who is not sexually active, whether by choice or circumstance, can probably wait until she is 21 for her first pelvic exam, but 18 is better.
And it has always boggled my mind that women who engage in casual sex with multiple partners can still have panic attacks over pelvic exams, whether done by a male or female doctor. It’s as sexual as the dentist examining your teeth.
Look, I have zero bodily modesty. Had everything reproductive technology has to offer me, and it was never a deal for me. But I am sure as hell not going to judge other women for being bothered, and I am especially not going to decide that a woman who has had multiple sexual partners is somehow less worthy to have concerns over who touches her.
Look, tying access to BC and STI testing having additional medical procedures done–medical procedures that are expensive and invasive–is a relic of an incredibly paternalistic system that feels free to reduce women’s choices “for their own good”.
Look, here are the current recommendationsby the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:
Bolding mine. There’s no reason for a pelvic exam if you have no symptoms. The idea that once you’ve had sex you need to be “checked out” is an artifact of the whole “becoming a woman” myth. The insistence on an pointless, invasive exam before you can get medical care that you need hurts women.
I did not, in fact, say, “pelvic exam”, I said a visit to a gynecologist. At which point a pelvic exam might be done, or might not - I’m not a gynecologist so it’s not the sort of decision I feel qualified to make.
You do if you’re fitting a diaphragm or IUD - or are you committing the common flawed assumption that birth control begins and ends with condoms and The Pill and nothing else? Even so, birth control pills shouldn’t be handed out like candy - there needs to be a physical exam AND a history taken. Some women really shouldn’t take hormonal birth control.
Not normally, no, but if there are genital warts from an early age (because being raped or molested as a youngster can lead to that) or possibly some other issue that might be warranted.
Well, hell, I don’t know, I’m not the one who suggested it for the average teenager. If there’s some indication of an abnormality, yes, definitely it might be called for. If a doctor wanted a (hypothetical) daughter of mine to get a pelvic exam before age 21 I’d certainly ask *why *the doctor thought she needed one, but I would at least listen before ruling it out.
Yeah, sort of boggles my mind, too. They are nothing I’d do for fun, every single one I’ve ever had was highly professional and very clinical, and I’ve never felt the least bit violated or traumatized and always the very opposite of sexy.
Now, someone who did have abuse or rape or something horrific in their past, I can understand those folks might have issues (or might not), but women who’ve never been mistreated in that way, who have had sex with multiple partners? But people are funny about doctors.
Incorrect. In fact, your own cite lists getting an IUD a reason for getting a pelvic exam prior to the device being inserted. Getting fitted for a diaphragm also requires one, although that device is probably not as popular/common as it used to be.
But seeing a doctor for reproductive health and information tailored to your individual self is NOT “an artifact”, it’s a sound medical practice.
Your continued insinuation that there is NEVER a need for a pelvic exam is getting tiresome. Yes, there are reasons for women to get a pelvic exam even at a young age. Fortunately, such reasons are not terribly common but they do exist. Young women with such conditions should not be denied a needed and useful exam - even if it is invasive - because no, in that case it is NOT “pointless”.
Who determines if such an exam is needed? I hope it would be a doctor, someone actually trained to make such a determination.
I have never said that a pelvic exam was never needed. I said that the idea that having sex was in and of itself a reason for a pelvic exam was outdated and paternalistic. Then you doubled down and said that “if a woman starts having sex at 14 or 15, waiting until she is 21 to start caring about her reproductive health is a bad idea”. You are the one that drew a connection between having a pelvic exam and caring about your reproductive health.
Yes… and what about the statement that "“if a woman starts having sex at 14 or 15, waiting until she is 21 to start caring about her reproductive health is a bad idea” says that a pelvic exam is mandatory? It doesn’t. That’s you reading more into the statement than there is.
I don’t view a pelvic exam as a horrific invasion that must be put off until after someone or something else has entered the vagina. When it makes medical sense a pelvic exam is appropriate and that could be any age depending on circumstances that a doctor is far more qualified to determine than you or me. You’re the one who construed my statements to mean “line 'em at age 14 and start the vagina probing”, which is not what I said at all.
That was the line I responded to. I responded with:
Somehow you are turning that exchange into a claim that you never called for pelvic exams and I said they were never needed.
Look, the recommendations have changed since we were young. It turns out, routine pelvic exams when there are no symptoms don’t tell doctors much and there was never much reason to do them, whether or not someone is sexually active or wants to go on the Pill. I don’t know why you keep doubling down. Admit you learned something–I did, too. I knew that “deflowering” was not reason to do one, but I thought there was some medical reason to do one at well-woman checks starting at 18. Turns out, even that isn’t needed.
You are doubling-down on ignoring that there actually ARE reasons to do pelvic exams early - such as fitting a woman for a diaphragm or prior to inserting an IUD. Any particular reason you’re ignoring that? Or are you ignorant of the fact that there are options beyond the Pill for birth control? Or are you somehow convinced that pelvic exams are inherently traumatic and/or abusive or something?
Like I said - there are reasons to have them done early, although it’s a good thing those reasons aren’t too common. I’m not at all sure what you think I learned here that I didn’t already know.
You and Joey_P seem to have over-the-top reactions to this whole topic. I find it puzzling.
Look, Manda Jo, women need a complete physical, including a pelvic exam, before getting any kind of prescribed birth control, because the doctor (or PA-C or ARNP) can determine what is best for her, or inappropriate which is often the case, and discuss with her how it is to be properly used.
For as long as the Pill has existed, there has been discussion about making it OTC (and I’m pretty sure it can be purchased from a pharmacist in at least one state) and the medical and pharmacy boards have usually shot that one right down.
I never once said there was never a reason to do a pelvic exam. You said, explicitly, that any woman who has sex should have a pelvic exam. That having sex meant you were “supposed” to get a pelvic exam. I never said there weren’t other reasons, I said that having had sex was not, in and of itself, a reason. I provided good cites demonstrating this.
You literally said anyone having sex should be getting pelvic exams. Do you see that you said that?
Not according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, as cited in post #49.
No one has said anything about it being OTC. It’s pretty clearly a good idea to have your medical history taken, your blood pressure, and discuss options and side effects with a doctor. There are real risks associated with hormonal BC and people on it need monitoring. What is no longer recommended is the routine pelvic exam as part of that visit–because unless there’s reason to believe there’s a problem, no one has ever been able to show that digging around down there tells the doctor anything new.
No - that is your interpretation of what I said. I’m done going round and round with you on this, particularly with you refusing to acknowledge what I’ve said or examples I’ve given of circumstances where, yes, a pelvic exam on someone under 18 is medically warranted. You just keep doubling-down on it - now it’s “anyone” having sex needs a pelvic exam, not just women. Sure, get the men up in stirrups, too… I’m not even going to ask how you expect that to happen.
True. And some people shouldn’t be on it at all. What do you expect them to do, just cross their legs and say “no”?
If a pelvic exam you’ve experienced involved “digging” in such a sensitive area I’d question the competency of your doctor…
… except I know you don’t mean that literally. So get a grip already.
And there ARE circumstances where a pelvic exam can, in fact, tell a doctor “something new” about a patient - your own link gives examples of women who SHOULD have pelvic exams more frequently than average, like those exposed in uterero to DES. Or where a physical abnormality is suspected. Or for some types of non-hormonal birth control. Or after a sexual assault which is a type of sexual activity even if a wholly involuntary one, and one that can occur a hell of a lot earlier than 18 or 21 or whatever arbitrary age limit you set.
But I’ve given up, Manda Jo. Somehow you’re convinced a pelvic exam is a horrific thing no one should be subjected to prior to age 21 no matter what. So… that’s it. Reply all you want, this is my last post in response to you on this. Other people have been more rational about this than you.