That Scottish guy and his four year old daughter: A response

A few days ago on Facebook, I posted a video by a Scottish guy sitting in the front seat of his car, his 4 year old daughter in the back, her telling him that if she wants a boyfriend, she's gonna have a boyfriend, and him telling her he's going to commit violence to said boyfriend and his da. Then he tells her she's going to be a nun (as in, not have a boyfriend or husband), and shows her his cross pendant to let her know "who she'll be working for." I have since deleted that post (the video) along with the comments that people posted (unavoidable if I was to take down the video in the original post).

To those I offended by reposting that video - I apologize to you. 

When I first saw this video, I thought it was funny and not at all to be taken seriously. The guy was clearly (to me) being over the top and tongue in cheek in his role as the over-protective father. I got the feeling that this was a routine or skit these two might play out, as the responses and reactions seemed very practiced. 

People commented (both on my post and elsewhere on Fb) that the video was an exemplification of patriarchy, and that the father should be dialoging when it comes to dating/sex instead of trying to force his daughter to conform to his expectations of purity and control of her body (what she does and with whom she does it). At first I didn't get this perspective, but after more consideration, I could understand how some would take this view, and how women who as children had over-bearing fathers threatening future theoretical boyfriends might be bothered by the vid.

Then I had a realization that I was, on another level, uncomfortable with this video, myself. But not for the exact same reasons:

• Using religion to threaten personhood on any level is not okay. Period. In particular, the Cross, a symbol of love, sacrifice, and mercy, should never be used as a symbol of control or persecution. Ever. Even in jest. If it is, the person(s) has a lot to learn about what it means to follow Jesus and have a love-relationship with God and others.
• There exists an erroneous idea that dating and marriage are less than a consecrated celibate life. This is absolutely 100% wrong and is not the teaching of the Church. Marriage is a vocation as precious and holy as becoming a nun or a priest.
• Why is a four year old girl so insistent about having a boyfriend? Perhaps watching older siblings, there is an awareness of having a "significant other," and the idea could therefore be normalized at a young age. Fine. But here's the reality check:  We live in a hyper-sexualized culture in which children - YOUNG children - are inundated with sexual images and the omni-present quest for the "hook up" - not the premise of dating as a means of learning about yourself, about others, about how to establish intimacy and boundaries, about how to be healthy, etc. Middle schoolers are having oral sex these days, we are told. Why? Because a) they don't know what they're doing, b) they think it is normal, c) parents are checked out. We have become so jaded and desensitized to the hyper-sexualized pressures in every aspect of our media and culture that we may not even realize the issue exists. It exists. A four year old girl demanding to have a boyfriend SHOULD elicit parental response. But, instead of making a mockery of the issue by posting videos like this one, we can do more to protect and educate our young children about these images, suggestions, and the throw-away culture of "the hook up." 
• It is always best to talk with children and young people about dating and sex (age-appropriately, of course). This includes a well-formed holistic view of sexuality. Neither "you're entering a convent when you're 17 so don't even think about boys" nor "have recreational sex with whomever you please (at whatever age), just make sure you use a condom/birth control to protect against STDs and pregnancy, because that's the only real issue at hand here." It is a parent's responsibility to teach right and wrong, not to be controlling, but to give young people a guideline for empowered choices in the future.
• We have a responsibility to raise sons who may become fathers to be capable of having that conversation with their own daughters and sons. Most (not all) men of a certain age don't have the tools to have a conversation about sexuality. And let's face it, most daughters will go to their mothers for that kind of talk - so we also have to empower our daughters who may become mothers to be able to guide and teach, not control and threaten.