What's wrong with sex?

[Draka]

This is the very point I am trying to debate. Are you insinuating that sex at age 16-17 is negative behaviour? If so, how do you base such a conclusion?

It most certainly can be. At 16/17 years old most children still do not have the education or maturity to handle the adult repercussions of having sex. STDs at any age are devasting, why should a child have to go through that? Pregnancy...children having babies...can very much be a negative thing. Not to mention the obvious thing that could be considered negative behaviour...simply not feeling ready for such an act...let alone the possible repercussions, and going through with it because they feel pressured into thinking it's part of a normal teenage relationship when it isn't.

So the message to wait until they feel fully comfortable with not only the idea of even having sex, but the possibility of dealing with one of the many possible side effects is, indeed, a good message to put across. If that happens to be 16 or 17 for a person, then so be it...and if that happens to be 22 for someone else...just as well.

 

[McBell]

This is the very point I am trying to debate. Are you insinuating that sex at age 16-17 is negative behaviour? If so, how do you base such a conclusion?

Because when I was 16-17 I thought I understood all there was to know about sex, relationships, STDs, etc.

Now that I am a bit older, I realize I didn't know any where near as much as I thought I did back then.

How many children at age 16-17 are honestly ready for children?
Most of them are not even close, yet there they are, popping out kids 'cause they think they know it all.

 

[Makaveli]

Anyways, the main focus was "telling your kids to wait to have sex." Wait? Wait for what? Marriage? Eighteen? Why? I of course, being the big scary anti-religionistic atheist, had a big rant in front of my TV about how the whole "sex is bad" message is a bunch of Christian propaganda. I mean, yeah, two 8 year olds shouldn't be experimenting, that's psychologically damaging, but I mean come on.

What's wrong with waiting? The ancient Spartans had a system whereby if a man wanted to "get with" his wife, he had to slink out of his barracks, travel to his wife's homestead, do his business, and then return without arousing suspicion or being detected. The whole point was to increase the pleasure of the act, through infrequency. Again, there is nothing wrong with waiting, and I think it is a far wiser thing to wait until emotional maturity instead of having sex at a young age and then having to weather the consequences, whether they be unwanted pregnancies or disease.

When I have kids someday, I for one don't want my television telling me how to raise my kids. Teens mature sexually at different rates, and, besides, sex is a beautiful thing. It can be a sacred bond, or at the very least, a great stress reliever if conducted in a safe, healthy way.

The television is a pervasive appliance in almost all American homes and is the medium of choice for contacting the greatest amount of people, one of the reasons I no longer watch it (I hate propaganda and advertising more than I enjoy programming). If you don't want your future children to be indoctrinated by the television, all you have to do is turn it off .

The positive aspects of sex are not disputed, but kids really shouldn't be experimenting when they aren't emotionally ready for it, which was probably the message of the PSA you so dislike.

Now I know what most of you are thinking, "What about babies? What about STD's?" Well, what about them? I'll bet a hundred bucks your kids have heard and understand the dangers of that stuff. Why? Public schools. They cram all that crap down kids' throughts by like age 10. Why is it that we can teach our kids about AIDS and condoms at age 10, and then forbid them to have sex for almost a whole decade?

You have a point, and the teaching seems rather counterintuitive when you put it that way. However, teaching people about the dangers of sex and how to prevent them, and then saying "don't have sex until you're an emotionally mature individual," is a logical scenario.

I dunno, to me, when a teen feels ready for sex, they are ready. Even if they are not, I am a firm believer in the lessons learned from trial and error. Am I the only one out there that holds this radical, "politically incorrect" view? I would love to hear thoughts and insight on this topic.

Adolescents feel they are ready for many things when they are obviously not. There is a reason car insurance for teens is so high, and why they aren't allowed certain substances until 21. For every teen that is ready for the consequences of sex, there are ten that weren't and probably regret their youthful indiscretions.

 

[Sunstone]

I think most people in their late teens, early twenties are psychologically mature enough for sex. Whether they are prepared for responsible sex, however, is another matter. That seems to depend largely on their education.

Of course, the exceptions -- the people who are not mature enough for sex -- tend to mess up in rather spectacular ways.

 

[Comicaze247]

What's wrong with sex?

Not enough people know how to do it well.

EDIT: But in all seriousness, I think the true reason behind telling adolescents to wait is because sex, at least the first time, has very strong emotional effects. Then came the doctrine, which completely overshadowed the original reasons those rules were created in the first place.

 

[challupa]

Our society views sex quite differently from some societies. I watched a documentary on an African tribe that believed it was necessary for all the young people within the tribe to have sex with each other to see who they were most compatable with. Their society did not allow marriage until they had tried out several partners. Their society also supported any pregnancies because the community raised the children. In many ways I think we are poorer for the loss of community that allowed child raising to be entirely the responsibility of one set of parents who in many cases are too young to do so effectively. In our society as it stands, I agree that we need to educate our children about the dangers and responsibilities of sexual activity and not leave their education up to their peers. We are sticking our heads in the sand if we think they won't experiment so it is wiser to educate them early so they can at least make informed decisions (well most of the time lol). At least they'll have the info!

 

[DallasApple]

It most certainly can be. At 16/17 years old most children still do not have the education or maturity to handle the adult repercussions of having sex. STDs at any age are devasting, why should a child have to go through that? Pregnancy...children having babies...can very much be a negative thing. Not to mention the obvious thing that could be considered negative behaviour...simply not feeling ready for such an act...let alone the possible repercussions, and going through with it because they feel pressured into thinking it's part of a normal teenage relationship when it isn't.

So the message to wait until they feel fully comfortable with not only the idea of even having sex, but the possibility of dealing with one of the many possible side effects is, indeed, a good message to put across. If that happens to be 16 or 17 for a person, then so be it...and if that happens to be 22 for someone else...just as well.

This sums it up nicely.

Love

Dallas

 

[Watchmen]

science_is_my_god, how old are you? I'm just trying to better understand your POV.

 

[Panda]

Are we talking about casual sex or more long term relationships?

Casual sex isn't exactly complicated as long as both party's know that that is what is happening and as long as you use protection.

 

[Father Heathen]

Although I obviously don't support the religious angle of abstinence, it's obviously better to approach sexual activity in a cautious and responsible manner. Because it you treat sexuality with a reckless and immature attitude, it's very easy to find yourself in a real mess real quick.

 

[DallasApple]

Are we talking about casual sex or more long term relationships?

Casual sex isn't exactly complicated as long as both party's know that that is what is happening and as long as you use protection.

I believe "casual" and "sex" put together are a contradiction in terms.

Its better termed if you want to go that route as "meaningless" sex.Where neither one of you mean a thing to each other than getting some sex.Getting the act done for the sake of sexual pleasure.The person you are with it doesnt even matter what there name is.Because that is meaningless.You're just havign sex..the same as you are just going to the bathrooom to relieve your bladder or bowels on or in a toilet.

Which I suppose there is nothing wrong with for some people..(or doesnt affect either person in a negative way)

Love

Dallas

 

[McBell]

I think most people in their late teens, early twenties are psychologically mature enough for sex. Whether they are prepared for responsible sex, however, is another matter. That seems to depend largely on their education.

Of course, the exceptions -- the people who are not mature enough for sex -- tend to mess up in rather spectacular ways.

Yes.
They are the ones sitting the abortion clinic waiting room, the adoption agency, the hospital because her boyfriend, who loved her so much to have sex with her, beat the hell out her because she had the nerve to get pregnant after all he went through to get down her pants...

 

[Panda]

I believe "casual" and "sex" put together are a contradiction in terms.

Its better termed if you want to go that route as "meaningless" sex.Where neither one of you mean a thing to each other than getting some sex.Getting the act done for the sake of sexual pleasure.The person you are with it doesnt even matter what there name is.Because that is meaningless.You're just havign sex..the same as you are just going to the bathrooom to relieve your bladder or bowels on or in a toilet.

Which I suppose there is nothing wrong with for some people..(or doesnt affect either person in a negative way)

Love

Dallas

Well you are having sex because it feels good and you both just want a night of physical pleasure. What is wrong with that?

 

[science_is_my_god]

It most certainly can be. At 16/17 years old most children still do not have the education or maturity to handle the adult repercussions of having sex.

I like how you say most children. That means that there ARE children out there that CAN handle sex. Now, trust me, I'm not saying that there are a lot of kids like that, but hey, that's why I think it should be a judgement call, not an "all kids need to wait."

STDs at any age are devasting, why should a child have to go through that? Pregnancy...children having babies...can very much be a negative thing. Not to mention the obvious thing that could be considered negative behaviour...simply not feeling ready for such an act...let alone the possible repercussions, and going through with it because they feel pressured into thinking it's part of a normal teenage relationship when it isn't.

What doesn't kill us makes us stronger. There comes to be a point in a persons life where they have to step outside of a safety net and experience the real world for themselves. Besides, like I said, teens KNOW how to use protection thanks to public schools. Whether they choose to use protection or not is their choice, and babies and STD's are a consequence of that choice. Learning about consequences of your actions is something that can only be done by trial and error. Simply stepping in and controlling a teens life is very unfair, as it is not your life to live.

So the message to wait until they feel fully comfortable with not only the idea of even having sex, but the possibility of dealing with one of the many possible side effects is, indeed, a good message to put across. If that happens to be 16 or 17 for a person, then so be it...and if that happens to be 22 for someone else...just as well.

I would agree with that message, however, much to my dismay, that is NOT the message the commercial portrays.

 

[Draka]

I like how you say most children. That means that there ARE children out there that CAN handle sex. Now, trust me, I'm not saying that there are a lot of kids like that, but hey, that's why I think it should be a judgement call, not an "all kids need to wait."

There may be some out there that can, but rarely the ones who think they can. Ask most adults who had sex as a teen and thought they were mature enough at the time and they usually say now that they really weren't. Hindsight is 20/20 you know.

What doesn't kill us makes us stronger. There comes to be a point in a persons life where they have to step outside of a safety net and experience the real world for themselves. Besides, like I said, teens KNOW how to use protection thanks to public schools. Whether they choose to use protection or not is their choice, and babies and STD's are a consequence of that choice. Learning about consequences of your actions is something that can only be done by trial and error. Simply stepping in and controlling a teens life is very unfair, as it is not your life to live.

Not all teens know how to use protection thanks to public schools that are stuck in the "abstinence only" programs. Not all teens have that many friends and support systems in place either. Also, no one is talking about stepping in and controlling a teen's life, BUT one: they ARE minors and still require adult supervision and two: it would be irresponsible parenting to give the impression that it's okay to go out and have sex as a kid.

I would agree with that message, however, much to my dismay, that is NOT the message the commercial portrays.

I know what commercial you are talking about and the only flippin thing it says is to tell your kids to wait. That's it. It doesn't say to what age. It doesn't say until married. Just wait. The specifics are obviously left to the parents to discuss with the children. Not to mention the kids in that commercial certainly don't look to be even 16 or 17 years old anyway so I really don't know what your hang up is. Well, I guess I kind of do. You're 19 and you obviously started having sex at least a couple years ago and now are all offended at the commercial for no logical reason.

 

[Rakhel]

Besides, like I said, teens KNOW how to use protection thanks to public schools.

I had sex ed in the 6 grade, the 8th grade and in the 10th grade. All 3 were completely different from each other and almost contradicted each other. My favorite video from sex ed about protection had a segment about putting a condom on a banana.

Whether they choose to use protection or not is their choice, and babies and STD's are a consequence of that choice. Learning about consequences of your actions is something that can only be done by trial and error. Simply stepping in and controlling a teens life is very unfair, as it is not your life to live.

I have 2 teens and much to their dismay, my husband and I are ALWAYS talking to them about sex. How guys may act and what to expect from their peers. As well as telling them that while we don't approve of either of them having sex before they leave the house, IF it should happen we would understand, and that we are open to any questions either has. We have also suggested an age limit as to when to start expirementing with sex(25yrs old).

 

[DallasApple]

I saw the commercial last night.These were children..pre-teens..possibly early teens..I'de say 11, 12,13 years old tops.The boys voices hadn't even changed yet and the girls were not "developed"..And it was staged like the children were talking to their parents through the camera..the over all message was mom and dad..talk to us about sex..dont "worry'" I'll still be your "pumkin head" "sweet cheeks"..(they gave the differnt nick names their parents called them) and several of the children said "tell us to wait"..another would say "yeah tell us to wait"..But the main jist was the children telling the parents they wanted them to just talk to them about the subject of sex..

It wasnt an announcer that came on and said ..parents tell your kids not to have sex..It was children asking for their parents to talk to them.and I can agree with the "tell us to wait" part for that age group with zero reservations.There are 9 and 10 year olds having babies today.And yes the fathers are in that same age group.

I have a 13 year old son.(he's my youngest)..I have no problem telling him to "wait" to have sex.I know him better still than he knows him own self.And he is still just a child..He is not ready to start having sex..I dont care if his body is..(he started puberty at 11)..his voice has changed already from the high pitched Mickey Mouse squeek to the the deeeeeep hi mommy!But he still plays with action figures!..

I almost got the feeling it was like a warning..You better start giving us some advice because we are curious..and kids our age are already haivng sex.And we are being influenced by others..So parents do your job.

Love

Dallas

 

[Jeremy Mason]

LoL
At least you left Mohammad out of it.
But still, to drag Jerry Lee Lewis into it.....

I couldn't find any pictures of Mohammad.

Sorry Jerry.

 

[Rakhel]

I couldn't find any pictures of Mohammad.

Sorry Jerry.

Or at least not one that would send half the world into fits?

 

[Jeremy Mason]

This is the very point I am trying to debate. Are you insinuating that sex at age 16-17 is negative behaviour? If so, how do you base such a conclusion?

I started having sex at fifteen and at of course, I thought it was great. Then, my girlfriend, 14 at the time, thought she was pregnant. For two and a half weeks we were so frightened and confused about the way we were going to handle it. I wish that feeling on know one. I was too embarrassed to go to the store at fifteen to buy condoms and my girlfriend was too embarrassed to ask her mom if it would be OK to go on the pill. Negative behavior depends on the outcome of that behavior. Understand?

]But just as valid as the other...

Are you agreeing with me?

Define "children." Define "adulthood."

As far as this discussion goes, an adult is someone who can make good decisions based on their means. Children do not have the means to support a child financially, emotionally and spiritually.

Man, when I was eight, I was too busy playing mario on my NES.

When I was eight, ATARI was just coming out.