the fallacy of "lacking parental supervision"

was reading the article about the increasing sexual activity among teenagers. all i can say is that i'm not really convinced that there is this moral panic as suggested by the article, as they have simply taken some isolated cases to prove a certain point. even the survey conducted among 1000 teenagers did not highlight the sample size and demographic for us to truly ascertain how accurate it reflects the mindset of teenagers. it is after all, a paper that suggest that all thais in singapore are upset when suvarnabhumi airport was closed based on a few interviews at golden mile?

anyway, that is not the main reason why i'm writing this post. in trying to find a reason for this moral panic illusion, the "experts" attribute it mainly to a lack of parental supervision as the reason to why such problems surface. so technically, if one tightens parental supervision, the "problem" would be solved?

wrong. it will make matters worse in fact.

let's use this metaphor. parental supervision is like the leaves on a tree. with more parental supervision, you would shade more - likewise, with lesser parental supervision is like having lesser leaves on a trees, hence providing less shade.




hence, attributing these "problems" to a lack of parental supervision is like saying that teenagers these days are more exposed to the sun is because there is less leaves on the tree. so to solve the problem is to add more leaves to the tree?

but is the trunk and branches of the tree strong enough? having more leaves means more weight - a tree with weak trees and brances will simply break when more leaves are added.

the trunks and branches in these case refer to the rapport and trust between the parent and child. a parent-child relationship that lack rapport and trust will simply break down parental supervision is increased, without a strong rapport and trust to support it. teenagers will feel that their parents don't know enough about them, and can't trust their parents decisions as what's good for them. in fact, it would simply push the child to do what the "increased parental supervision" is suppose to prevent.

hence, what's lacking is not parental supervision - it is a rapport and trust between child and parent. but here comes the contradiction - if a parent trust a child more, why should a parent supervise their child more then?

with trust, the supervision is no longer active, but rather passive. what do i mean by that? when there is trust and rapport, a child is more willing to ask a parent about something he or she is curious about. when there is trust and rapport, a child is more willing to seek the advice of a parent when facing a dilemma or problem. hence, instead of actively supervising what the child is doing, the child comes to the parent, and the parent is updated of the child's activities without needing to actively ask or "interrogate". in another words, the tree need not extent its branches actively to shade the child, the child comes to the shade.



i would be lying if i were to say that i wasn't worried about my monkeys when they were relationships. you hear news of all those "moral panic", and you wonder about the possibility of things happening. but i decided not to give warnings or advices when they are not asked for. i decided to show that i trust them to make the right decisions as young adults. rather, i chose to hide my paranoia and worries behind, and chose to build trust and rapport instead. what happens in the end is that i get to tease those who are in a relationship, a sign that rapport has been build. at the same time, when they are facing dilemmas in their relationship, my advice is sought. even if i declared that i've not been in a relationship before to give good advice, the fact that the advice is still sought suggest a certain amount of trust.

only when advice is given when it is solicited will be heard by a teenager, where as an advice or warning given when it is not asked for will be nagging to a teenager. for advice to be solicited, there needs to be rapport. for warnings to be heeded, there needs to be trust. of course, i do nag and yes there are times when my advices are considered as naggings as well.

what our journalists need to do is not just point out the symptoms of growing numbers of poor child-parent relationship. net addiction, increasing sexual curiosity, etc. pointing out the symptoms without attributing it correctly to a poor child-parent relationship would only increase the amount of paranoia in parents, making them trust their child less and straining their relationship.

disclaimer: the choice of trees as a metaphor has nothing to do with the fact that i'm a floating log. :P