Not Under My Roof: Parents, Teens, and the Culture of Sex (26 page)

Few Dutch boys describe sexuality as a source of conflict with their par- ents.
4
While the sleepover can be, as Karsten puts it, a “little awkward,” boys usually enjoy or look forward to a girlfriend spending the night with them at home. Unlike their American peers, the Dutch boys do not experi-

ence sexuality as a vehicle or symbol of “breaking away” from home. In fact, through the sleepover boys affirm the value of
gezelligheid
and some- times even identify with their parents. Several boys say explicitly that they value the sleepover not just for its physical pleasures but for the experience of pleasurable togetherness with a girlfriend in the context of their every- day domestic setting. Part of the fun of a sleepover is, as Ben says, that “ex- tra atmosphere.” While Thomas and his girlfriend decided against having intercourse when they spent the night together, they did enjoy, he says, the
gezelligheid
. And indeed sometimes, “waking up next to the girl you love” means, as it does for Frank, being just “like mom and dad.”

As Natalie’s experience illustrates, girls’ sexuality is integrated into Dutch family life in ways that would be unimaginable to most American girls and their parents: three-quarters of the Dutch girls have received some form of sex education at home—including the encouragement, admonish- ment often, to use contraception and condoms—and they typically report or project being allowed to spend the night with a boyfriend during the second half of their teens.
5
Yet, permission for the sleepover should not be interpreted as an absence of reservations on the part of parents about their daughters’ sexual debut or lack of ambivalence on the part of girls about sharing something so intimate. Indeed, contrary to the impression received from Dutch parents, the negotiation of Dutch girls’ sexuality is more tension-ridden than that of Dutch boys. At the same time in most families, those tensions are negotiated in such a way that parents and girls remain connected, and the latter can integrate their roles as daughters and as sexual subjects.

There is, of course, a range in home environments. Some girls, like Nat- alie, project a relatively smooth negotiation in which parents support their daughters’ autonomous decision-making and in which girls initiate sex in relationships and at ages acceptable to their parents. Yet, as we know from Natalie’s mother (chapter 2), even in those families there can be bumps along the way. Ultimately, the smoothness of the negotiation hinges on accommodations from both sides—daughters’ choosing boyfriends that their parents like and parents’ honoring their daughter’s choices—as well as enough time for everyone to get used to the new situation: were Heidi to want a boyfriend to spend the night, her parents would acquiesce. They be- lieve, she says that “they have no business forbidding me anything in that area. They know I am reasonable enough to make my own decisions.” But

for her parents to feel comfortable with a sleepover, she knows, they would need to “know [the boy] well and like him, accept him.”

The transition is more fraught when there is little communication about sex at home, and when there are strong conflicts between parents’ desires and girls’ behavior. Margie learned about contraception at school; it was never discussed at home. When in a joint interview with her friend Fran- cine, Margie hears that Francine told her mother about her sexual debut at fifteen, she says, “I would never tell my parents!” Francine’s mother was angry when she learned that her daughter had sex at fifteen, but Francine does not regret telling her: “It is something that is yours, but I think you do want to share it with your parents. . . . I mean, I wanted to tell that to my mother. I don’t know. It was just on my mind. So I told her, regardless of the consequences.” Unlike Margie, who has no desire for a boyfriend to spend the night at home and spends the night secretively at his house, Francine would like her boyfriend to sleep over at home. Now that Fran- cine is approaching seventeen, she thinks she stands a chance that a sleep- over will be permitted once her mother gets to know her boyfriend: “I think it will be allowed. I hope so.”

But even without overt conflict, several Dutch girls indicate that sexual- ity can be tension-ridden. Fleur’s reaction when her parents gave her a sex education book was, “Get out of here with all those books.” Fleur does not fault her parents: “They meant well, but I didn’t like it at all. . . . But that is me, not them.” Even now, she says, it does not “feel good when I talk about that with my parents.” Marjolein is also not eager to discuss sex with her parents. “It is not like I’ll think, ‘Let me ask a question about that.’” She is not sure she would tell her parents if she were to have sex: “It would de- pend on what they think of him because if they don’t like him then it is a very intimate thing [to share].” But like Fleur, Marjolein is quick to mitigate the strength of her aversion, adding that when the topic of sex and contra- ception comes up at home, “we deal with that in a very relaxed manner.” Thus, rather than validate their initial aversion, both girls demonstrate that they do not view such discomfort around sex as entirely legitimate.

Differences and discomfort notwithstanding, as a daughter’s sexual de- but moves from the hypothetical to the real, talk about contraception usu- ally intensifies. The intensification of engagement comes from both sides. Petra’s parents are more conservative than most. When Petra had a serious boyfriend, they told her that a sleepover at sixteen after three months of courtship was out of the question: “They would rather I not go to bed with him so very quickly.” But her father added, “You are allowed to touch,” which Petra thought “was sweet of him.” And her parents did encourage

her to go on the pill. “They thought it would be safer that way.” At fifteen, Fleur was deeply repelled at the notion of telling her parents when she was considering having sex. However, as a sixteen-year-old she was, as we learned from her mother, Ria van Kampen, in chapter 2, passionately work- ing to persuade her reluctant parents to let her boyfriend spend the night, insisting that she was ready for sexual intercourse and using the pill.

Several Dutch girls say that although their mothers would accept their own assessment of readiness, they would encourage them to think things over carefully before making a decision. When Elizabeth had her first pe- riod, her mother “explained everything,” which gave Elizabeth a “safe feel- ing.” She also said: “If you want to go on the pill, I will allow you to. Be- cause I’d rather you go on the pill than come home pregnant really young.” Were Elizabeth to tell her mother that she wanted to go on the pill, her mother would “first talk about it with me, give the advantages and dis- advantages. She’ll say, ‘Think about it for a few days.’ If [after those days] I reach the same conclusion, she’ll say, ‘Okay.’” Marleen thinks that if she were contemplating having sex, she would probably tell her parents be- cause, she says, “You’d want to share it with someone. And [your parents] can give you advice.” Her mother would probably tell her to “do it safely” and ask, “Don’t you want to wait a little longer? Are you sure that you are ready?”

Thus, one way or another, most Dutch girls say their (potential) sexual debut has or will be brought into speech. This communication has both a controlling and an affirming component: girls are subject to ongoing ef- forts at social control, but they are also able to assert themselves as sexual subjects. Julia wants her parents to stop urging her not to have sex too eas- ily with someone. “They should know,” she says, “that I am not someone [who jumps into bed right away or does it unsafely].” Still, Julia foresees that when the moment comes, she will tell her parents about it: “I myself will want to tell them,” she says. “Not because they
have
to know, but I my- self, I will want to say it.” A friend of Julia’s did not want tell to her parents, but “they knew.” It came up in conversation and was not a problem. “Fun for you” was their reaction. Julia understands, “I also think it would be fun—if I were a parent. [I would also think fun], that you are experiencing all of that when you’re in adolescence. After all, it is all very exciting.”

The prospect of a boyfriend’s spending the night with them at home, like the prospect of sharing that they have initiated sexual intercourse, evokes a variety of reactions in Dutch girls. Elizabeth is confident that her parents would permit a sleepover, and she would quite enjoy having one: “Yes,” she says, “I think it would be
gezellig
.” But several Dutch girls say that

having a boyfriend sleep over at home would NOT be
gezellig
. Pauline has slept at a boyfriend’s house but not at home: “Everyone around me . . . I don’t think that would be fun.” Marjolein’s first response is also “Yak no.” But as she weighs the options, she switches gears, illustrating how the psy- chology of incorporation requires a certain cultural and emotional work:

I think [a sleepover] should be possible if you’ve known him for a while and your parents have known him. . . . I think sticking him in another room is so extreme in the other direction—with separate doors, hallway in between. . . . No, I don’t think I would want that either. Then it would be better [to have him] in my room.

In short, the Dutch girls experience some of the same fears of parental disapproval, desire for privacy, and ambivalence about sharing “a very intimate thing” as do their American peers. But their family cultures give them different options for resolving those fears, desires, and ambivalences. With a clearly demarked cultural space of acceptable sexuality, girls can integrate their sexual subjectivity with their roles as good daughters. That shared space comes with costs and benefits: in the negotiation of the ex- act parameters of the acceptable, parents are able to exercise some control, which may explain why, unlike their male peers, some Dutch girls do not want sleepovers at home. Normalizing sexuality in speech and practice also takes emotional work, which not all Dutch girls are willing to perform. At the same time, with a shared space for acceptable sexuality, it is easier for Dutch girls to ask for parental support, receive recognition for an emerging part of their lives, and speak about some of its excitement and joys.

The incorporation of adolescent sexuality into the Dutch middle-class household is part of broader pattern whereby teenagers remain firmly rooted in domestic life—and in the daily rituals that create continuity over time and produce commonality between family members. Thus, even as they become oriented toward life outside the household, they do not view the world of their peers and the pleasures of adolescence as being at odds with the world of their parents and the pleasures of childhood. Like chil- dren and adults, Dutch teenagers are expected to participate in
gezelligheid
at home, out of duty
and
desire.
6
The prime form of such participation is the evening dinner. To eat dinner together is a rule that virtually all Dutch

teenagers take for granted. Like Karsten’s, Frank’s parents want him “home on time for dinner,
gewoon
at half past five. . . . I can’t just say, ‘I don’t feel like [eating dinner together]. I’ll eat later.’” Karoline does not question din- ner: “I live with four people. . . . You have to take each other into account, not that one eats at one moment and another eats at another moment.”

Nor is participation in
gezelligheid
viewed by parents or teenagers as a gender-specific duty and pleasure. Regardless of their gender, teenagers are expected home for dinner, and they enjoy the togetherness the shared meal affords. Julia sees the shared dinner “as more social than duty” because “then you see each other.” For Monique, household rules foster the feeling of “we belong together. . . . You need to have something to hold the social- ness together, to keep a family together in a
gezellig
manner.” Ben calls him- self “not a family person,” but still, he says “eating together is something that needs to happen. It is one of the few times you are together. I have a family. I like them.” Lars appreciates the dinner rule. Otherwise, “you could never eat dinner
gezellig
together.” Because his parents work at night, Gert-Jan prepares the meal and eats together with his two siblings: “I think it is
gezellig
with the three of us.”

As part of being a
gezellig
member of the family, teenagers are expected to make an effort to share events and experiences with siblings and parents. This is true for girls
and
boys. Indeed, Dutch boys are more likely than their American peers to say they talk a lot with their parents.
7
Thomas likes talk- ing with his mother: “Yes, I think that is really
gezellig
: just always talking with her for a little while.” Berend, an only child, says he and his mother “know everything about each other, but that is reasonably normal. . . . She’s my mother. We’ve known each other my whole life.” Madeleine says it is important that “when something is going on, you need to tell each other, so that you don’t become strangers to one another. [You need to] talk often. Not have any secrets from each other.” When children fail to participate in
gezelligheid
, panic can ensue. When one of Monique’s siblings withdrew from the ritual of talking, it provoked a sense of crisis in other family members: “Oh no, the family is falling apart.”

The mandates of
gezelligheid
also require young people to demonstrate a certain amount of consideration for other family members and to take into account their needs. Especially in families with few explicit rules, there are exacting unspoken expectations that children demonstrate attune- ment to other family members without probing. Dorien’s parents raise her in a “free” manner and trust that she will behave in a “social” way, which means, she explains, “Doing things for each other even if you do not like

doing it. . . . You help each other.” Gert-Jan’s parents are not strict at all, but when Gert-Jan’s mother returns home after work “you are right away supposed to offer her something to drink” since his mother “pays attention to those small things.” Thomas is also “allowed to do a lot,” but he ex- plains that leniency has a price: “I have to be nice to [my mother] and help her now and then.” When Thomas forgets to take clean laundry upstairs on his own initiative, his mother becomes angry: “I’ll say, ‘Tell me that I
have
to do it.’ ‘No that [impulse to help] should come from inside of you,’ she’ll say.”