Free Not Under My Roof: Parents, Teens, and the Culture of Sex by Amy T. Schalet Page A

the American concept of “falling in love,” which is usually thought of as distinct from “sexual attraction,” the Dutch concept of verliefd zijn , which means “being in love,” blurs, rather than sharpens, the line between love and lust. Houden van , in turn, describes the more sta- ble and long-term love for romantic partners, parents, siblings, and friends. Dutch parents communicate this relationship-based view of teenage sexu- ality by the words they use to describe their children’s feelings and attach- ments. Like Jolien Boskamp, parents typically refer to romantic relation- ships as verkering (courtship). And they describe their children, even young teens, as capable of experiencing being “in love.”
    Loek Herder remembers that her son was “interested in girlfriends at a very early age and then he was also often intensely in love.” Helen de Beer says her daughter is ready to have a boyfriend, for after all a person “is never too young for romantic love.” Mariette Kiers, the only Dutch parent to mention the role of hormones in relation to adolescent sexuality, synchro- nizes rather than opposes physicality and emotionality. Considering what makes a person ready for sex, Mariette Kiers says: “At a certain moment those hormones begin to rage and, who knows, it may be the love of your life.” In other words, hormones may rage but love lights the fire. Notable amidst Mariette’s description of the interweaving of biology and emotion- ality is her recognition of female sexual pleasure:

    Look hormones start raging, that starts at age ten. . . . At a certain point, a person becomes more adult and then sexuality also acquires a more adult character. . . . Yes, and then you don’t just kiss. But something happens to you. I mean [something happens] with your emotions too. . . . There is a biologi- cal component, of course: it starts with kissing, that is preparation and then if you are making love the right way, then you become wet . . . that is biological yes. But in addition to [the biological] there is something very emotional. . . . Of course, at sixteen you can . . . you do really love. Of course, you can [love] when you are ten years old.
    Outside the family, the frame of relationship-based sexuality and the language of love also prevail. One popular sex education curriculum is, for instance, entitled “Long Live Love,” which conveys the notion that teen- agers can fall in love and that sex is (ideally) about love. Government- sponsored safe-sex campaigns have also built on a relationship-based model of sexuality. One such campaign dictates, for instance: (1) you fall in love; (2) she feels the same; (3) you kiss; (4) you use a condom. 10 In sex education, relationship-based sexuality translates into a general emphasis on relationship skills. The Dutch government delegates decisions about the specific content of sex education to local civil society groups. It does how- ever dictate “target goals,” including teaching students “that they can apply their own thoughts, attitudes, and feelings and make them clear to others, and that they can empathize with the feelings, attitudes, and situations of others.” 11
    Among the interviewees, a subtle but significant intra-class difference emerges in how parents discuss their wishes that teens develop their sex- uality in an emotional and relational context. Lower-middle-class Dutch parents are particularly eager to see their children form monogamous and long-lasting relationships. Hannie de Groot and her husband believe that “you have sex with someone when, in any case, you know that person quite well. We hope that it isn’t when you meet someone in a disco that you go to bed with him the same evening.” But Hannie won’t quantify “knowing quite well” because, she says “it also has to do with the [kind of] being in love. Is it superficial or are you totally crazy about the person.” Loek Herder thinks neither of her sons has had