Age, Sex, and The Taking Of Virginities.

[Jester]

My friend got a girl pregnant when he was 10. Age isn't always relevant to virginity. But it should be.

Why? *devil's advocate*

So this came up in the "Are You A Virgin" thread and I would like to know your opinions on it.

Basically, Why SHOULD age be relevant to sexual activity. My answer is pretty much in the quote, But I know that some of you might think differently on this.



Yeah i'm not doing it right am I?

 

[Green]

because sex can get little kids pregnant too, can't it? i'm a guy so i wouldn't know :x

 

[Tailsy]

I wouldn't approve of a ten-year-old having sex. But if they're gonna do it, they're gonna do it. What are you going to do, sterilise them? You can educate them until you're blue in the face, but they'll probably still do it if they want to. Even if you wrap them up in cotton wool and pretend it doesn't exist.

I think you should be mature and responsible enough to handle having sex - and that's not always age-relevant. Fourteen-year-olds can be ready for having sex, while an eighteen-year-old isn't. It's a case-by-case basis.

Although I wouldn't say ten-year-olds should be having sex. That's sort of gross.

 

[Murkrow]

I don't think it's age particularly, but more maturity, though that can't really be measured.

What mainly ticks me off about some young people (well not necessarily young but for the most part) having sex is that they're doing it because it makes them 'cooler' and acting as if there's nothing in the world more important than being able to have sex. Or even thinking that it automatically makes them mature if they do it. To me, it's things like that that prove that those people aren't that mature.

Probably gonna get flamed to hell and back for saying this knowing some of the people here but I think that keeping sex until after marriage isn't such a bad idea.

 

[Lili]

I can't really say that 'kids shouldn't be having sex', since I myself have gotten into some pretty, er, intimate situations. But to me it really doesn't matter what age you have sex at, as long as you're smart enough to use protection: diaphragms, condoms, nonoxyl-9, etc. And make sure that your mature enough to handle the consequences and make choices if they come your way.

 

[nyuu]

Probably gonna get flamed to hell and back for saying this knowing some of the people here but I think that keeping sex until after marriage isn't such a bad idea.

What purpose is served by having people legally tied together and then having immature sex? There is pretty much nowhere where you can't get married at about 15 or 16, anyway. Despite this, though, having sex to be cool is stupid in the same vein as smoking to be cool or listening to crappy music to be cool, yes.

But uh. Why would trying to ban it or discourage it before marriage make it any less edgy or cool in the eyes of the people who you say are doing it because it is cool and edgy.

(However, I don't know of anyone who's having sex to feel ~cool~. They do it because they're curious and horny, right? Maybe I don't know the right people)

 

[surskitty]

Use protection. Condoms, especially; STDs are bad.

I don't care how old someone is as long as everyone involved wants to and they're comparatively safe about it. :|


Also, it would really suck to find out that your partner is into some fetishes that you are completely Not Okay with after you're already married.

 

[Murkrow]

What purpose is served by having people legally tied together and then having immature sex? There is pretty much nowhere where you can't get married at about 15 or 16, anyway. Despite this, though, having sex to be cool is stupid in the same vein as smoking to be cool or listening to crappy music to be cool, yes.

But uh. Why would trying to ban it or discourage it before marriage make it any less edgy or cool in the eyes of the people who you say are doing it because it is cool and edgy.

Well considering how a lot of marriages end in divorce now anyway I guess it wouldn't make much of a difference. Also this is assuming the marriage isn't forced or anything either.

But I'm mainly just thinking that if a couple is willing to get married, then they're most likely ready for sex. Not to say that you can't be ready before marriage or that you will be ready in all cases after marriage.

Also I'm not really thinking of marriage as a legal contract here, but more of just a meaningful relationship in general, really. I just said marriage since you hear more about ideas of no sex outside of a marriage rather than relationships.

The stuff about that didn't really have that much to do with what I said about people doing it because it's cool. There are always people who continue do stuff that are discouraged or banned (sometimes it's 'cooler' because of that). I was basically saying that I like the idea of saving sex until marriage since it shows restraint, unlike the people who do go around sleeping with whoever they find. I didn't mean to say that these people shouldn't have sex outside of a marriage, just that the idea appeals to me personally.

 

[nyuu]

Not to say that you can't be ready before marriage or that you will be ready in all cases after marriage.

But I'm mainly just thinking that if a couple is willing to get married, then they're most likely ready for sex.

So I was glad we agreed on that first one. Then you said the second thing that is pretty contradictory. Which is it you cannot have it both ways. It is totally possible that marriage does not solve all the problems for most people. You don't need to append an apology to a statement acknowledging this. Say what you mean.

Also I'm not really thinking of marriage as a legal contract here, but more of just a meaningful relationship in general, really.

That is kinda too bad. Marriage is a legal thing, even if it is covered in spiritual bows and ribbons. If you mean to discuss something else, you should say something else. People will assume you mean marriage when you say marriage.

I just said marriage since you hear more about ideas of no sex outside of a marriage rather than relationships.

"I heard this in the news so it doesn't need to be right or coherent"?

I'm kinda confused here. I guess the point of this post is that I don't see the point of your post.

But anyway: If you're not putting yourself or your partner in any real danger and nobody is being exploitative, then it is possible that no harm is being done. Thoughts on this claim?

 

[Saith]

But anyway: If you're not putting yourself or your partner in any real danger and nobody is being exploitative, then it is possible that no harm is being done. Thoughts on this claim?

While I agree, how do you tell what's harmful or exploitative? Weak bondage could be considered harmful, and dirty talk can be insulting. Homosexuality can be considered harmful, too. No real evidence, mind, lesbians have the lowest STD rates, but still. Bad for your soul or something.
Not in your right mind, so also exploitative to take advantage of one of those crazy gays~

And at what age do you have the mental capacity to choose to shag? I could say 20 years old, and you may disagree, but there can't be a line (although, there is).

Can you fuck a retard? The person may not be able to decide properly. That's why beastiality is illegal, right? It's considered rape. So then, can retards never be allowed sex etc.

A lot of problems with your statement.

 

[Autumn]

Homosexuality can be considered harmful, too.

Elaborate. Oh wait...

No real evidence, mind

Don't say something as deliberately provocative as "homosexuality can be considered harmful" and then not have the balls to back it up. That's just flamebait.

 

[Zuu]

Don't say something as deliberately provocative as "homosexuality can be considered harmful" and then not have the balls to back it up. That's just flamebait.

0/10

did you even read it

 

[Autumn]

0/10

did you even read it

yes and this statement confuses me. am I missing something obvious?

 

[Zuu]

the whole post is sort of a devil's advocate situation. i'm 99% sure that he doesn't view homosexuality in a bad light ("bad for the soul, or something" sorta gives it away).

i probably shouldn't have responded so harshly because i'm in a pissy mood but yeah

(it's not the best post ever, granted)

 

[Autumn]

the whole post is sort of a devil's advocate situation. i'm 99% sure that he doesn't view homosexuality in a bad light ("bad for the soul, or something" sorta gives it away).

I was wondering if it was devil's advocate but for some reason decided it wasn't and then posted that. Meh. :/

 

[Zuu]

i see. carry on, then

 

[xkze]

And I think that allowing, if not encouraging, marriage when your hormones start going insane is a good thing.

excuse me for popping in here but

 

[Zuu]

/especially/ with raging hormones, a marriage does not make bad decisions concerning sex good or even okay decisions.

marriage is just a legal contract for god's sake, i can marry a stranger on the street and i will not suddenly develop a ~deep and meaningful bond~ with them out of nowhere. and then have beautiful, amazing, or safe sex with them.

 

[xkze]

if I may use an extended simile here,
what you are suggesting is like suggesting that the best time to build a house in the middle of yellowstone park is when the first reports start coming in of the caldera starting to become unstable.

I don't even kind of understand where you're coming from.

 

[ultraviolet]

I mean, around 13 is when the average person's hormones start going insane, and they present you with someone who they encourage you to, effectively, experiment on. And I think that allowing, if not encouraging, marriage when your hormones start going insane is a good thing.

okay so let's make it so people get married at the most difficult point in a teenager's life, yeah. many people don't even know what sexuality they are until way into their late teens or later, many people don't even know how to handle the idea of sex and relationships and most people who are going through crazy hormones aren't really mature enough to handle a full-scale relationship, let alone one that will last for the rest of your life. why on earth would you ask kids who have just left childhood to decide on a life partner? they aren't even a quarter the way through the average life span and pretty obviously lack the life experience to make such a huge decision. :/ and honestly if this is the time to experiment with what your hormones are telling you, why would you ask a thirteen-year-old to go and get married while this is happening? isn't that kind of counter-productive? 'yeah go and experiment with your sexuality... but uh, don't cheat on your husband/wife or do anything that would upset them.'

Because I was brainwashed from birth to believe that sex outside of marriage is bad, bad bad. Of course, this was a shepherding church. Among other things.

yes but why do you think this? 'because they told me' isn't a valid reason for anyone to believe anything; you should have your own reasons why you believe something. you say that you were brainwashed; this sounds like you don't really accept this or you don't entirely agree. it's in the church's best interests for you to believe what they say, not yours.

Although, I suppose a sort of sex contract could slow STDs spreading, but it has to be a person-by-person thing. IMO, anyway.

uh yeah so how would this work exactly? considering that many STDs don't actually present themselves with symptoms for ages or until well after they've stopped being contagious? why couldn't people just use protection? in developed countries it works pretty well, and I think it's a great invasion of privacy to have to fill out contracts detailing what kind of sex you have (which would be inevitable if you were to keep track of STDs). despite the massive amount of education about STDs there are still plenty of adults who don't know how to recognise or prevent the spreading of STDs so I think that's really an area to work on rather than a contract that would be both hard to implement and probably ineffective anyway.


personally I think a good legal age of consent is around fifteen-sixteen but considering that most teens don't really pay attention to that anyway then I guess it's a moot point. I lost my virginity when I was fifteen-sixteen and it was great! but I know someone who lost hers at twelve because she was drunk and now she sleeps with pretty much everyone. it's entirely case-by-case, but I think it is a good idea to suggest an ideal age. legal age of consent of course has to be implemented anyway but there isn't a lot you can do about underage teenagers having sex with each other except to say 'no, don't do that' which never works.

edit:

Look. When your hormones go insane, you start wanting to have sex. Correct?

NO you are generalizing massively! when your hormones 'go insane' it does not mean you should or are ready to have sex. at all. puberty is the stage where you gain sexual desires and the tools to use them, yes, but sexual desire and wanting to have sex are entirely different, and who you have sex with is an entirely stupid way to decide who you want to marry.