Asklemmy

Replace sex with alcohol and maybe the issue will be more obvious for you. Knowingly providing a minor who is not my child with a “safe place” to drink is actually a larger liability.

Trying to compare safe sex with alcohol consumption is wild. One is actively harmful to the human body (and even more so to a developing one), and the other is not. I'll let you guess which one is which.

There many places to have and enjoy sex. The key is not telling them to go fuck in the car or a pubic bathroom. It’s far more likely it will occur regardless. I have walked into my kitchen and interrupted oral sex.

Not worth the trouble, wouldn’t allow them in a bedroom door or no door ever.

So you know it would occur regardless, but you also don't want it happening behind closed doors. Given those constraints, the kitchen scene is only natural.

This didn’t result in high fives but insteads discussions and and me informing the other teen’s parents. To be clear there was also no punishment.

Discussions on safe sex, great. Discussions on privacy, cool, though you could have just offered the privacy they needed. Informing on the other party's parents, oh boy; unless you actively know their parents to be knowledgeable and reasonable, you may have placed that teen in danger. They were lucky to not have been in any trouble.

The condoms are the safety net.

I have made it very clear to my children that I cannot know because then I am legally required to intervene.

Condoms are a safety net against STDs. Sexual safety extends beyond protecting against STDs, and you, as a parent, are responsible for that. If anything goes wrong (e.g. emotional discomfort after the act, physical discomfort, broken condom, etc.), you would want to be the first person your child approaches; this "I cannot know" mentality is actively harming that.

My state has zero exceptions around this.

I am sorry to hear that. However, based on that and your previous statement about walking in on oral sex between (I presume) your then-underaged teen and their then-underaged partner, you were complicit in helping those juvenile criminals avoid legal persecution by not informing law enforcement.

To be clear, I'm just making light of your heavy focus on legality and liability.

It’s a nuanced approach. It’s possible they are being used for water balloons.

You are making excuses to justify offering condoms while still disallowing sex. Water balloons? Come on now.

And before you quote me on "disallowing sex" and say that you've never said that, saying that you "cannot know" or else you "would intervene" is very clearly doing that.

My state has laws that I do not agree with but which I must abide by.

The entirety of your arguments have been rooted in concerns about legality and liability. With that in mind, are you saying that if your state does have a Romeo and Juliet law, you'd be fine with offering a private and safe space for your children (I.E. their rooms) to have safe sex with anyone they want within the confines of that law?

Morality vs legality is an entirely different subject that I'm not going to delve in right now, but based on that statement, it shows which one you value more.

I am approaching the issue without emotion or judgment.

"I am being logical" is such an overdone excuse used to justify arguments. It's also a highly reductive mindset to use in regards to your children.

I literally said others are free to choose their own liability risk which you chose to ignore.

Oh, I'm not ignoring it. It's just that being free to choose my own "liability risk" does not automatically exempt me from giving my own opinion on how you are dealing with this issue.

Or you can get another kitchen scene. Right in front of your salad.

Your feelings on the topic are not going to sway me.

Fun!