Question: My sixteen-year-old son wants to go on a supervised, three-week outing in anearby national forest. The boys will eat off the land as much as possible and learn to deal with nature on its own terms. I am reluctant to let him go, however. It scares me to think of him being out there somewhere beyond my ability to help him if he got in difficulty. It just seems safer to keep him at home. Am I right to turn him down?
Answer: I'm sure you know that within a couple of years, your son will be gone off to college or to some other pursuit, perhaps the military, and he will be entirely beyond your reach. Why not give him a taste of that independence now, while he is still under your care? It will be better for him to ease away from your influence than to have it come to a sudden end.
There was a moment during my teen years when my mother and I had a similar debate. I was sixteen years old and had been invited to work on a shrimp boat during the summer. The captain and crew were tough dudes who didn't put up with any nonsense. It was a man's world, and I was drawn to it. My mother was very reluctant to grant permission because she understood that there could be dangers out there in the Gulf of Mexico for four days. She was about to say no when I said, "How long are you going to keep me as your little boy? I'm growing up, and I want to go." With that, she relented. It turned out to be a good experience during which I learned what it is like to work whether or not I felt like it and I began to understand better how the adult world works. I came back grimy and tired but feeling very good about myself. My mother later acknowledged that she had done the right thing, even though she worried the entire time.
Yes, I think you should let your boy go to the wilderness, especially since it is a supervised trip. "Letting go" works best as a gradual process. It's time to get started.
Book: Bringing Up Boys
By Dr. James Dobson