MANY parents restrict their daughters from being able to date until they're 16, but have pretty much no rules at all for their sons when it comes to that. Do you think that's right and if you had a teenagers would you place an equal age restriction when it comes to your son and daughter dating?

It is a bit of a double standard. I'd likely keep my kids on equal leashes.

I've always said if I have kids, ain't EITHER of them dating until they're 16.

I'd let my kids date at 10, since chances are they'd be just as gorgeous as their dad and would have bitches all over them.

I think it would depend on my kids - how responsible they were - not their genders. My parents didn't set rules for us when we were kids. We didn't have curfews and we didn't have a set age at which we could date, but we were also pretty responsible and we were also very involved in extracurricular activities that kept us busy. Dating was a big issue and they trusted us.

Is 16 supposed to be the magical number for maturity or soemthing? Dating is something that comes with an individual being responsible to handle a casual relationship. My children would be able to have friends of the opposite sex at any age.

Well 16 is closer to being an adult than 14 or 12, at 16 it stands to reason the kid would have a later curfew so wouldn't need to cut their date short at 9 o' clock to come home for bed. And at that age they start driving, depending on where you live, they can get a license at that time so they can go out driving on their own. And some 16 year olds have jobs which means they make their own money to pay for their dates instead of getting it from Mom and Dad. It makes more sense to let them start dating at 16 than 12 or 13 or 14.

Nystyle709 wrote:

Dating is something that comes with an individual being responsible to handle a casual relationship.

I see. I guess the locks don't come until until well after 20 then. xD

Nystyle709 wrote:

I'm not quite sure what you were getting at....but MY point is....there is no set age to decide when you'll be ready to date and then just do it. Socializing ( ) with the opposite sex and building friendships and casual contact with people forays you into dating naturally. No normal 16 year old would be ready for a serious relationship anyway so it doesn't matter if she/he 'dates' at 16 or at 12. Establish friendships with people first.

Gee, I was sure you'd be the first to get it.

I actually do agree to a point.

I would feel the absolute same for each of them. I don't think I would want to see a child of either sex getting too serious before 16 or so.


Overall, my son dating freaks me right out. He is only 11 and I am already getting a taste of how nutty these chicks are.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

Gee, I was sure you'd be the first to get it.

I actually did, but I know how you hate having me be such a smartass. Congratualte me. That actually took some restraint.

I actually do agree to a point.

Nystyle709 wrote:

You want congrats? *tosses you a Kudos coin.

Don't worry, I told God to hold off on the lightning.

It is a double standard, however, I can understand why parents tend to be more keen on keeping their teenage daughters on a tighter leash when it comes to dating regulations than they do their sons -- simply because girls are, generally, more likely to be taken advantage of by someone who takes an interest in them. Most teenage boys under the age of sixteen aren't as appealing to the opposite sex as girls are. What I mean is that a fourteen year old girl might attract older guys (with their own cars and apartments) with less than honorable intentions. By contrast, a bike riding fourteen year old boy is generally not going to lure an eighteen year girlfriend.

But that would be why you make your kid bring their date into the house to meet you, and if you don't like them, you can throw them out and call off the date.

I don't really get the "16" thing, period. Once they start high school, I think parents should (depending on the personality of the kid) start extending some social leeway. Allowing the kids to go out in groups at first and then slowly transition into 1 on 1 dates.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

You want congrats? *tosses you a Kudos coin.

A simple congrats would've been nice. Looks like you're trying to hone you're smartass skills. Got a long ways to go if you're gonna beat me!

Don't worry, I told God to hold off on the lightning.

Damn, I'm still worried then. It's not like you know God. No way you could tell him what to do.

I have a twin boy and girl, if I dare set rules for one that didn't automatically apply to the other I would never hear the end of it. My daughter can have her little BF's once she gets later into middle school/early HS, but any "dates" would have to be in a group. None of that one on one shit until she works up "credit" proving that she can a) be trusted with boys and b) knows how to handle herself. Unfortunately for her brother, he's gonna have to be chained that standard as well.....else (like I said) I wouldn't hear the end of it.

Nystyle709 wrote:

Damn, I'm still worried then. It's not like you know God. No way you could tell him what to do.

I gave you kudos. That's the modern congrats!

I actually do know God, hence how I know I can't tell him what to do. (Again, that was a joke I'd assumed you'd get)

My parents had that double standard. I wasn't allowed to "officially" date until I was 16 (I did before then anyway, just was casual and sometimes sneaky about it). I don't remember there being any age regulations on my brothers, the only rules they had to contend with was basically a curfew.

I didn't date during my teens (being gay in a town of 10000 people doesn't give you a whole lot of options ), my little sister didn't date, but my older sister was in her first relationship at around 14.

Personally, I wouldn't care when my kids started dating. The only thing I'd care about is that they're practising safer sex, and I'd prefer it if they'd keep it in their pants until they were at least 14.

Nystyle709 wrote:

My response was sarcasm....which you obviously didn't get.

Oh I got it alright. Just having a little fun.

Marc wrote:

I have a twin boy and girl, if I dare set rules for one that didn't automatically apply to the other I would never hear the end of it. My daughter can have her little BF's once she gets later into middle school/early HS, but any "dates" would have to be in a group. None of that one on one shit until she works up "credit" proving that she can a) be trusted with boys and b) knows how to handle herself. Unfortunately for her brother, he's gonna have to be chained that standard as well.....else (like I said) I wouldn't hear the end of it.

I totally agree. My daughter's twelve and she's already getting to the point where she's talking about boys a little more than I would prefer, but I know that it's only going to get worse from here, and that trying to restrict her from interacting with them would be a fools hand to play and would probably wind up having the exact opposite effect. She's entering the eighth grade next month, and if she wants to go to one of their little "school dances" with some guy friend of hers, then okay. Her mom and I will just make sure we keep her on a narrow leash while interacting with boys. And like you said, the more she proves she can be trusted, the more leeway we'll extend her. But the "16" thing to me is silly.

I think "16" is good for formal, nighttime, "alone" dates. 13 or 14 for daytime or group dates.