Not Under My Roof: Parents, Teens, and the Culture of Sex (27 page)

Some girls say that the mandates of
gezelligheid
can be a bit much, sug- gesting that these mandates constrain them more than their male peers. Pe- tra’s parents would like her to stay home every night: “They think that is
ge- zellig
, nice at home, together, doing something with all of us. [Our family] is close-knit. . . . [But] I can’t be home every evening.” Julia enjoys having dinner with her parents, but when they tell her “come and sit downstairs” for a shared breakfast, she says, “I purposively don’t say anything. And I hope they notice [that I don’t enjoy that].” Fleur is content with her home life: “We have it,
gewoon gezellig
.” Her mother would like her to tell her when she is in love: “She is
very
curious.” But Fleur does not want to share that much. Monique, now eighteen, says household rules are important: “You need to hold your family together.” But when she was sixteen, togeth- erness did not appeal: “I am myself. I am my own person, my own me. Get away with those rules. I am going my own way.”

Tensions notwithstanding, few Dutch teenagers question the premise that sharing experiences and taking other family members into account are important because shared experiences and mutual understanding fos- ter trust and feelings of connection. Sam believes it is important to do things “like celebrating Saint Nicholas. . . . [Doing] the
gezelligheid
things: seeing each other regularly, so you don’t grow apart too much.” Diana also believes it is important to do things together, like celebrating birth- days: “Otherwise you start living parallel lives. Then you don’t know how the other person is thinking. . . . [When] you know how the other per- son feels and thinks . . . you can trust each other.” Parents and teenagers need to know “more or less what is going on inside of another person,” says Pauline: “So that you can take it into account if something is going on. [They] also need to show understanding, not hold onto something unilaterally.”

The belief that neither parents nor teenagers ought to act “unilaterally” during adolescence results in an exercise of power that blunts its sharp edges, while requiring the young to exhibit a self-motivated “sensibility”

and attunement to the household rules. The word “agreement” captures the blunting of power and the demands that come with it. When Heidi was younger, she accepted her parents’ rules without questioning them. But now that she is fifteen, her parents no longer tell her what to do. As in Karsten’s family, the main rule in Heidi’s family is: “keep to your agree- ments.” An agreement, Heidi explains, is “something both parties agree to. Not that one party says: ‘You do this.’” Peter’s parents changed their ap- proach “now [that] I am becoming more sensible. . . . Now I am getting a say. I never used to have that. But now we first talk about things. It is not like, ‘Keep your mouth shut and do it.’ Now we first talk about it. That is why I don’t speak of ‘rules’ but of ‘agreements.’”

Boys and girls alike speak to the importance of “indulging” one’s par- ents. The significance of indulging each other is not just that it makes pos- sible a system of control that is not unilateral but also that it keeps young people and parents on the same page. Madeleine’s parents are not “really indulgent, that they let you just go your own way.” Her parents set rules. But they do not tell her, “You HAVE to do this or that. . . . [They don’t tell me what I have to do with] my job and hobbies. They are not like that. And I can talk to them about everything. They are open minded. They are not old fashioned. They do stand in this time.” For parents and teenagers to relate well, Madeleine says:

Parents should not be too exacting in the demands they make of their chil- dren because at this age that can make certain people contrary. And commu- nicate: when something is going on, you need to tell each other, so that you don’t become strangers to one another. Talk often. Not have any secrets from each other. Each side has to indulge the other a bit.

Sam echoes the same theme of the importance of mutual indulgence: “Both [parents and teenagers] need to give in a little bit. So the child shouldn’t try to go his own way too much and the parents shouldn’t im- pose too much.” Julia says “it is not very handy” when parents simply com- mand, as she has seen happen with some of her friends:

I think it needs to be discussed, what you yourself think. Not that that means that you need to get it your way immediately. But so that your parents can respond with: “Yes, but this and that [reason]”—so that they can tell you why [what you want] is not good. But they need to know how you see things, I think. Then they can also steer you in the right direction, like [by saying]: “Oh that is strange.”

The exercise of control through connection not only assumes the pos- sibility of agreement but also produces a certain essential similarity be- tween parents and children. Indeed, many Dutch teenagers emphasize how much they and their parents agree. Even when she and her parents seem to disagree, says Diana, it turns out that “we all want the same thing any- way. . . . Usually, only one of us thinks differently and then that needs to be set straight.” Hans views his family as “sort of average” in how they deal with things. He thinks that parents and children should establish “good rules” together. . . . So the [rules are ones] you both kind of agree with.” Tanja has heard of “other [kids] who always have fights with their par- ents but I always agree with [mine].” When Lars and his parents disagree, “we consult,” he says: “Usually something comes out of that which lies in the middle. Then I am able to convince my parents or they convince me.” When Niek and his parents fight, they also “talk it out” and eventu- ally move in each other’s direction because “if you both want something different, you’ll have to.”
8

But sometimes there are undeniable differences and conflicts of interest between parents and teenagers, and the language of agreement becomes a tool in a power struggle. Marleen thinks her parents are too uptight. They do not like it when she comes home late or fails to help around the house. Marleen recounts how her parents communicate their displeasure using the mandates of
gezelligheid
: “[They say] I am not keeping to my agreements. . . . That I am asocial, messy, that I am not taking anyone into account.” Berend’s mother does not want him drinking and eating as he pleases. Hence, he says, she “had agreements that I was not allowed to take [cookies and soft drinks] except when I asked.” But those “were more [a question] of her making an agreement with me, then that I was making agreements with her.” There is good reason that his mother thought there was an agreement: sometimes, Berend explains, “I say I agree but later I do it my own way anyway, just out of laziness.”

Even when conflicts concern matters weightier than cookies and clean- liness, the mandates of
gezelligheid
can be a way for parents to exert con- trol through connection. In his own words, Peter is not “an easy child.” He lacks discipline. Still his parents do not punish as they did when he was younger. They discuss. Well aware that the discussions are aimed at changing his behavior, Peter says, “I do hate those discussions.” His par- ents “don’t yell,” but, he says, “they say they are disappointed . . . [which is] is one of the worst things.” Peter’s parents were
very
disappointed when they found out he was selling drugs. Prior to that discovery, Peter had en-

joyed a great deal of latitude. But in its aftermath, Peter no longer has the trust or the freedom he once did. To get back to the “old level,” Peter says, “I am trying to keep to my agreements as much as possible” and to “do everything my mother asks.” Peter says his parents have always considered his needs. Now he is trying to reciprocate, and he has noticed that when “you are not always just doing things for yourself,” things “become more fun, more
gezellig
.”

Even as the mandates of
gezelligheid
are a formidable force anchoring young people to home, sexuality and other pleasures of adolescence draw Dutch teenagers, like their American counterparts, toward peers and away from their families of origin. From age fifteen and sixteen on, Dutch girls and boys increasingly want to “go out,” which, in the Dutch context, means going out to cafés and discos with groups of friends. In such cafés and dis- cos, which draw a mix of high school and college students as well as work- ing youths, Dutch teenagers usually drink alcohol, sometimes smoke ciga- rettes, and occasionally smoke marijuana. Such venues for going out are also prime places—next to school and sport clubs—for teenagers to meet potential boyfriends and girlfriends. Because going out lessens parental control and increases exposure to danger, when, where, and how often girls and boys are allowed to go out can be sources of conflict.

However, the notion that, from the mid-teens onward, the young can- not be forbidden from doing what they want inspires parents to let their children remain relatively free. Parents and teenagers alike believe that when the former are too strict the latter do whatever is forbidden—sex, alcohol, or smoking—
secretively
. Thus, blanket prohibitions are viewed as unwise and counterproductive, and Dutch sixteen-year-olds, unlike their American counterparts, rarely encounter rules at home which purport to prohibit their entry into “adult” activities altogether. Instead, parents meet their teenage children’s exploration of the pleasures and dangers of grow- ing up with a “vigilant leniency,” tolerating exploration within distinct pa- rameters. Part of the bargain of “vigilant leniency” is that the young must meet their parents part way, not keep their activities
stiekem
, and not veer too far off course from what “can and cannot be done.”

Not all parents practice “vigilant leniency.” A minority of the Dutch teenagers describe their parents as unequivocally “strict.” Petra says she has always been taught “that when they say that I have to do something, then I

just have to do that.” Now sixteen, that lesson about unquestioning obedi- ence to her parents continues unaltered. Strict parents tend to impose non- negotiable decisions about when teenage children are allowed to go out and what time they must come home. Marcel’s father, for instance, decides what time he must come home: “I’ll try to make it a little later, but in the end he makes the decision.” And when Marcel and his father disagree, “he usually gets his way.” Pauline’s parents regularly tell her she cannot go out on nights when she wants to. When she is not allowed to go out, Pauline gets “angry. . . . I have a hard time accepting it.” Her parents’ response to her anger is: “You just have to accept it when we say, ‘No.’”
9

But more commonly parents seek their children’s agreement with their decisions about teenagers’ going out. When Marjolein was fifteen and first wanted to go out, her parents’ initial response was: “Well, no.” Eventually, they made “an agreement” with their daughter that she would be allowed to go out once a month. Over time, the agreement loosened, and now that she is sixteen Marjolein’s parents are “quite lenient.” Marjolein thinks that is good: “[Otherwise] eventually you are going to do it
stiekem
and then you spend all evening feeling a bit . . . No, I think that is bad.” It is not often that young people go out
stiekem
, says Marjolein. “You see it occasionally.” The other day, Marjolein was at a party “and suddenly, a mother shows up. Oh that is really horrible. She really shows up to pick her daughter out of the crowd, [saying] ‘Hey this is not what we agreed to.’” But Marjolein’s parents always know her whereabouts. Nor does Marjolein “mind staying home now and then.”

While most teenagers are admonished to be careful and not drink too much, few have been told not to drink alcohol altogether. Fifteen-year-old Fleur says her parents “don’t like [that I drink], but they have not said, ‘I don’t want you to drink.’ That they have not said at all. They don’t forbid me to do it.” Her mother has said, “You do have to look out.” Her parents have told her about their own experiences: “They don’t get drunk now, but they have gotten drunk. I think they think: ‘It is part of [life].’” Likewise, Berend is sure he is allowed to drink if he wants to, although his mother “would not really like it.” She would not tell him not to drink because “she cannot start to forbid me everything. . . . It is normal to [drink alcohol].” Elizabeth’s parents also do not forbid. Instead they encourage her to form and exercise her own judgment:

[My parents] do not say, “You are not allowed to [smoke, drink, do drugs].” They know: if kids want to do it, they will do it anyway. I am free to do it. They give me a lot of information about what drugs, alcohol, and smoking

do to you. Not to disapprove, but . . . to reach your own conclusion that it is bad for you.

While most Dutch teenagers are allowed to drink in moderation, they know that their parents do not want them to get drunk, smoke, or start experimenting with drugs. The first time Hans came home drunk his par- ents “had to laugh hard.” But the second time, “they were angry,” and they made Hans stay home in the evening for a week. Frank’s mother has told him that if he does not smoke tobacco until he is eighteen, he will receive free driving lessons. But even so, she also said to him: “If you do want to smoke, don’t do it
stiekem
but come and smoke
gezellig
at home.” Heidi’s parents “would not object” if she wanted to drink alcohol. Although they would disapprove of drunkenness or drugs, they would not forbid it. But “they would forbid it if they
could
,” she adds.

Like Heidi, several other Dutch teenagers say parents simply lack the power to forbid. When Sam started smoking marijuana regularly after school, his parents “of course did not think that was very great. They said fairly often that I should not do it too much and that I needed to think about school.” But they never told him point blank to stop: “They know quite well that if they say that, I will do it anyway.” Likewise, Gert-Jan be- lieves that if he wanted to smoke, his parents would have few weapons to stop him. “They cannot really say: ‘You will not smoke.’ You are going to do it anyway, if you feel like it. They cannot hit you anymore. . . . They cannot do anything really.” Of course, parents could tell their children to leave the house. But Gert-Jan doubts any parent would do that “only because you are smoking.” Still he proclaims with emphasis: “I do have respect for my parents, of course. I know
what can and cannot be done
.”