Right, and I don't think there's much a way around addressing it head-on with parental power.  

Kids are probably going to masturbate either way, and no matter how much porn you give them, I don't think that will decrease the desire (I would argue that it can even *increase* it).


Some members suggested letting kids make up their own minds- but the simple fact is that adolescents of that age are not usually rational human beings (there may be rare exceptions)- raging hormones and maturing brains make a dangerous mix.  Infatuation is easily mistaken for love, they're vulnerable to cults, etc.

I definitely agree with you on that point, and considering those dangers, they're almost certainly going to screw up if given the opportunity.

And the more you try to help them, the more they resent you.


So, is it a dichotomy between protecting them and having them hate you for a few years- and do everything within their power to rebel- and let them screw up seriously while remaining their friend?


Usually, but I don't think it has to be.  There are a few alternatives.


1.  Personality cult indoctrination.


People can do rational things for irrational reasons- and that's precisely what this is.

Look into the sXe movement- these "straight edge" kids who are following a general philosophy (correlated with the music of the genre) of drug-free abstinence (also anti-religion).

It all comes from these musicians- who are old enough to be touting the message to kids for rational reasons.  Respectable people.

Once the child is part of that social group and indoctrinated into the movement, peer reinforcement kicks in, and then you're pretty safe.


It's not hard to get a child into something that is "cool", so that's one of the options.

I'm not necessarily recommending mindless personality cult worship- but if the right personality is there, there could be worse things.  Also, they'll grow out of it when they mature (probably), and it will have protected them in the mean time.

Note: Born again Christianity also does the same thing to a degree-- just not as easy to 'grow out of', and substantially more dangerous.


2.  Social isolation.


This isn't necessarily good for a child, but if an adolescent has very low self-esteem, and is socially isolated, he or she won't have the opportunity to get into that kind of trouble with peers.

This is usually correlated with other problems, though, such as cutting and risk of suicide.

It works, and children usually blame themselves instead of parents (due to self-loathing), but this is not necessarily the best ticket.



3. Actual isolation.


During this period, you could move to the middle of nowhere and home-school your children.

Being actually isolated is much healthier than social isolation, but will also prevent development of some crucial social skills.

Aside from that, this also isn't usually very practical.




The theoretical:



4. Synthesizing/simulating.

This would be a bit controversial, and might be prohibitively expensive.

You could hire a live actress or actor to 'date' your child.

The person could be placed in social contact, and manipulate the situations so that your child's infatuations are squarely placed on a "safe" target.

This character could have certain values that are explained to rationalize why he or she can not have sex with your child, and the person could continue to date your child throughout adolescence.  Your child's obsessive infatuation/commitment would likely prevent him or her from engaging with other peers.

It's very easy to have a stable relationship when one party is, by nature, accommodating with calculated precision (no drama to cause break-ups).  It could be socially educating, and provide positive reinforcement for self-esteem.

If done properly, it would be *very* good for the child.

The big question would be how a person would react upon discovering that some number of years of his or her life- and an important emotional relationship- were founded on a simulation.

The question might not need to come up if one found a good way to terminate the relationship.  The most gentle way of doing it would be making it necessarily long distance (when leaving for colleges), and allowing them to "grow apart" over a few months.

Another way is, possibly, having the actor declare an incompatible sexual orientation.



5. Consensual mechanical/chemical

Also likely controversial:

*Before* the age in question children can be quite rational, presented the right information.  It's the hormones, and the inability to repress those drives, that results in the irrational behavior.

If the child willfully submitted to a control mechanism before the fact, he or she *might* not blame the parent.


The simplest would be an anti-androgenic, or other chemical mechanism of delaying puberty (and thus sexual drive).  So long as the choice to take the medication was made, the child could remain rational enough to continue making that choice- and he or she could witness the dramatic chaos of his or her peers as proof.
After this, puberty could be restarted and the child would be better equipped to deal with it.

Chemical delay can be used safely for a couple years, though not much longer than that.


Mechanically:

To put it in primitive terms, the child could choose to put on a chastity belt, and put the key in a time-lock that opens in x number of years.

I'm sure there would be more practical high-tech solutions (e.g. implantation of control chip).

This brings up interesting, and likely controversial, questions of consent.

 

 

 

 

All things considered, #1 is probably the best bet.  #2 is unhealthy, #3 isn't practical, #4 would be very expensive and a little ethically dubious #5 has technological/legal limitations

 

It's about as bad as telling Children lies about Santaclause. *shrug*

Where a relationship is concerned, what's the difference if they never know?

 

If it makes them happy, and keeps them safe- there is some argument for it.

I don't think I'd ever want to lie to a child, but if one didn't have a problem with dishonesty, it's at least more well intentioned than some other myths we propagate.