When should people become sexually active?

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Youngest mother

Granted that's an odd situation, but it really is pretty common to conceive at 12-14 (historically speaking). After a few years working on my history degree I've read about it so much that it's quite obviously common.

If Society was set up for a girl to reach her full potential by 12-14 (like they did in before the Modern era), I would say go for it. But now human potential has changed. People have more opportunities and longer lifespans (meaning more schooling/education and more years to reach full potential). To limit a person's potential is one of the greatests forms of abuse in my opinion.

A 12 year old girl could have been smart enough to be a world famous surgeon in modern society, but because her parents sold her as a sex slave or a bride to the highest bidder in some countries, she could never reach that potential. That is tragic.

Generally I'd agree with you, but there are caveats. No one has a guaranteed lifespan. Death can come at any time. Dying before you experience intimacy is certainly a tragedy as well.

What if someones 'full potential' was as a nurturer and parent? Or in a supportive role in a relationship? I'd be perfectly content to accomplish nothing beyond that. Not everyone has the same goals and values remember.

Giving a person time to attain their potential, whether it is as a nurturer and parent or a world leader is the socially right thing to do. How is someone to know that a person has reached his or her potential unless they give him/her time to reach it.

Your argument is, well this girl could possibly have only the potential for being a nurturer, but you don't know that because you would not have given the girl time. This is a fallacious argument. Mitigating factors of disease and tragic accident aside (which no human can really know), a person should be given time and opportunities to grow as an individual to who they are suppposed to be.

BTW, you can experience intimacy without it being sexual. A father can be intimate with his kids (sharing life goals and teaching wisdom), and it is not sexual. A friend can be intimate with another friend with out it being sexual. Mother Theresa lived a great, wonderfully rich life, without it being sexual. Why does ATOT believe that sex is the end all and ultimate thing in life? Oh I forgot, it is because ATOT is a small microcosm of today's society and views, which are seriously flawed in many ways.

**EDIT**
Granted that sex is a social and genetic construct in which to pass on your genes and information, a key purpose in life, but it is not the only thing that can be fulfilling in life.

 

[Platypus]

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Platypus
Who cares, people should mind their own business.

The desire to understand the interactions of others is fully realized when we can use that knowledge to help shape a better society.

In other words, "You say that now, but when you're locked out of your house and there's a stone-cold a$$ rapist on the loose in your 'hood, I'm guessin' you'll change your tune."

That is completely unrelated and illogical. What does an 'ass rapist' have to do with what age people should be allowed to engage in sexual relations? Does having them too early turn you into a rapist? Is that really what you're implying? What right do you think you have to shape society into your own views on how early or late you can do things to your own body? Personal freedoms anyone?

I appreciate the counter argument but compare apples to apples next time, not some crackpot scenario that's completely unrelated to the topic.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Youngest mother

Granted that's an odd situation, but it really is pretty common to conceive at 12-14 (historically speaking). After a few years working on my history degree I've read about it so much that it's quite obviously common.

If Society was set up for a girl to reach her full potential by 12-14 (like they did in before the Modern era), I would say go for it. But now human potential has changed. People have more opportunities and longer lifespans (meaning more schooling/education and more years to reach full potential). To limit a person's potential is one of the greatests forms of abuse in my opinion.

A 12 year old girl could have been smart enough to be a world famous surgeon in modern society, but because her parents sold her as a sex slave or a bride to the highest bidder in some countries, she could never reach that potential. That is tragic.

Generally I'd agree with you, but there are caveats. No one has a guaranteed lifespan. Death can come at any time. Dying before you experience intimacy is certainly a tragedy as well.

What if someones 'full potential' was as a nurturer and parent? Or in a supportive role in a relationship? I'd be perfectly content to accomplish nothing beyond that. Not everyone has the same goals and values remember.

Regarding ancient cultures here's an interesting set of comments I snagged from this paper about Chinese genealogies in the dynastic period

Regarding young marriage: (this is why it was important to marry girls young)
Female age at marriage has a great effect on total fertility, whether we take a conventional or a patrilocal, family-centered approach. Especially since age-specific fertility rates tend to decline in the second half of the fertile period from age 30 on (though biological fecundability does not seem to change much until the 40s), a delay in marital age means taking away an important chunk of the most fertile years of a woman's life. Assuming, for example, a total fertility rate of 10, delay of marriage by three years probably cuts at least one child out of the TFR. So a maximally pronatal family strategy in a patrilocal, patrilineal family system will mean bringing in a daughter-in-law as soon as she has passed puberty; this will also, of course, have maximal fertility affects on the aggregate demographic regime.

Regarding actual ages: (not definitive, by ANY means)

...her findings demonstrate that the ages in the Song followed the same pattern outlined above for the Ming-Qing period: women had a much narrower range of marriage ages, 89% marrying between the ages of 14 and 21, and 54% between 15 and 18; the mean and median age were both 18. Men, on the other hand, had a slightly later median (20) and mean (20.8) age, and the difference between the median and the mean shows that they had a much wider range: to encompass 90% of the marriage ages, we need to expand the range to 14 to 29, and we should remember that we are dealing only with members of the high elite here.


Thought you might be interested... it is a fascinating subject... I've always though that the dark ages really poisoned the idea of the past. While it's clear it was a rough and generally miserable time, I don't think it was as bleak as many people make it out to be.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: Platypus

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Platypus
Who cares, people should mind their own business.

The desire to understand the interactions of others is fully realized when we can use that knowledge to help shape a better society.

In other words, "You say that now, but when you're locked out of your house and there's a stone-cold a$$ rapist on the loose in your 'hood, I'm guessin' you'll change your tune."

That is completely unrelated and illogical. What does an 'ass rapist' have to do with what age people should be allowed to engage in sexual relations? Does having them too early turn you into a rapist? Is that really what you're implying? What right do you think you have to shape society into your own views on how early or late you can do things to your own body? Personal freedoms anyone?

I appreciate the counter argument but compare apples to apples next time, not some crackpot scenario that's completely unrelated to the topic.

You misunderstood the nature of the conversation, we're not debating, we're just engaging in a free spirited exchange of ideas. Lighten up poindexter.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Youngest mother

Granted that's an odd situation, but it really is pretty common to conceive at 12-14 (historically speaking). After a few years working on my history degree I've read about it so much that it's quite obviously common.

If Society was set up for a girl to reach her full potential by 12-14 (like they did in before the Modern era), I would say go for it. But now human potential has changed. People have more opportunities and longer lifespans (meaning more schooling/education and more years to reach full potential). To limit a person's potential is one of the greatests forms of abuse in my opinion.

A 12 year old girl could have been smart enough to be a world famous surgeon in modern society, but because her parents sold her as a sex slave or a bride to the highest bidder in some countries, she could never reach that potential. That is tragic.

Generally I'd agree with you, but there are caveats. No one has a guaranteed lifespan. Death can come at any time. Dying before you experience intimacy is certainly a tragedy as well.

What if someones 'full potential' was as a nurturer and parent? Or in a supportive role in a relationship? I'd be perfectly content to accomplish nothing beyond that. Not everyone has the same goals and values remember.

Regarding ancient cultures here's an interesting set of comments I snagged from this paper about Chinese genealogies in the dynastic period

Regarding young marriage: (this is why it was important to marry girls young)
Female age at marriage has a great effect on total fertility, whether we take a conventional or a patrilocal, family-centered approach. Especially since age-specific fertility rates tend to decline in the second half of the fertile period from age 30 on (though biological fecundability does not seem to change much until the 40s), a delay in marital age means taking away an important chunk of the most fertile years of a woman's life. Assuming, for example, a total fertility rate of 10, delay of marriage by three years probably cuts at least one child out of the TFR. So a maximally pronatal family strategy in a patrilocal, patrilineal family system will mean bringing in a daughter-in-law as soon as she has passed puberty; this will also, of course, have maximal fertility affects on the aggregate demographic regime.

Regarding actual ages: (not definitive, by ANY means)

...her findings demonstrate that the ages in the Song followed the same pattern outlined above for the Ming-Qing period: women had a much narrower range of marriage ages, 89% marrying between the ages of 14 and 21, and 54% between 15 and 18; the mean and median age were both 18. Men, on the other hand, had a slightly later median (20) and mean (20.8) age, and the difference between the median and the mean shows that they had a much wider range: to encompass 90% of the marriage ages, we need to expand the range to 14 to 29, and we should remember that we are dealing only with members of the high elite here.


Thought you might be interested... it is a fascinating subject... I've always though that the dark ages really poisoned the idea of the past. While it's clear it was a rough and generally miserable time, I don't think it was as bleak as many people make it out to be.

I think you misunderstand, in those times, a person potential was limited by social constructs of the time. A woman's potential almost never went beyond being a mother or nuturer. A man's potential almost never went beyond being a "bread-winner". Nothing wrong with that. People were happy, and they got it on at a young age (while Married BTW <i.e. when they were ready to be independant> ). Today a person's choices and potential has greatly increased (woman can be more than just nurturers, men can be more than just "bread winners"), also making it very unlikely to reach that potential at a young age. That means you limiit the person chance of reaching their potential by limiting the time they have to reach it.

 

[Ausm]

When they can afford to take care of the kids they produce.

Ausm

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Youngest mother

Granted that's an odd situation, but it really is pretty common to conceive at 12-14 (historically speaking). After a few years working on my history degree I've read about it so much that it's quite obviously common.

If Society was set up for a girl to reach her full potential by 12-14 (like they did in before the Modern era), I would say go for it. But now human potential has changed. People have more opportunities and longer lifespans (meaning more schooling/education and more years to reach full potential). To limit a person's potential is one of the greatests forms of abuse in my opinion.

A 12 year old girl could have been smart enough to be a world famous surgeon in modern society, but because her parents sold her as a sex slave or a bride to the highest bidder in some countries, she could never reach that potential. That is tragic.

Generally I'd agree with you, but there are caveats. No one has a guaranteed lifespan. Death can come at any time. Dying before you experience intimacy is certainly a tragedy as well.

What if someones 'full potential' was as a nurturer and parent? Or in a supportive role in a relationship? I'd be perfectly content to accomplish nothing beyond that. Not everyone has the same goals and values remember.

Regarding ancient cultures here's an interesting set of comments I snagged from this paper about Chinese genealogies in the dynastic period

Regarding young marriage: (this is why it was important to marry girls young)
Female age at marriage has a great effect on total fertility, whether we take a conventional or a patrilocal, family-centered approach. Especially since age-specific fertility rates tend to decline in the second half of the fertile period from age 30 on (though biological fecundability does not seem to change much until the 40s), a delay in marital age means taking away an important chunk of the most fertile years of a woman's life. Assuming, for example, a total fertility rate of 10, delay of marriage by three years probably cuts at least one child out of the TFR. So a maximally pronatal family strategy in a patrilocal, patrilineal family system will mean bringing in a daughter-in-law as soon as she has passed puberty; this will also, of course, have maximal fertility affects on the aggregate demographic regime.

Regarding actual ages: (not definitive, by ANY means)

...her findings demonstrate that the ages in the Song followed the same pattern outlined above for the Ming-Qing period: women had a much narrower range of marriage ages, 89% marrying between the ages of 14 and 21, and 54% between 15 and 18; the mean and median age were both 18. Men, on the other hand, had a slightly later median (20) and mean (20.8) age, and the difference between the median and the mean shows that they had a much wider range: to encompass 90% of the marriage ages, we need to expand the range to 14 to 29, and we should remember that we are dealing only with members of the high elite here.


Thought you might be interested... it is a fascinating subject... I've always though that the dark ages really poisoned the idea of the past. While it's clear it was a rough and generally miserable time, I don't think it was as bleak as many people make it out to be.

I think you misunderstand, in those times, a person potential was limited by social constructs of the time. A woman's potential almost never went beyond being a mother or nuturer. A man's potential almost never went beyond being a "bread-winner". Nothing wrong with that. People were happy, and they got it on at a young age (while Married BTW <i.e. when they were ready to be independant> ). Today a person's choices and potential has greatly increased (woman can be more than just nurturers, men can be more than just "bread winners"), also making it very unlikely to reach that potential at a young age. That means you limiit the person chance of reaching their potential by limiting the time they have to reach it.

I think if you believe that in the modern period we are any LESS influenced by social\gender\cultural constructs it's YOU who misunderstand. BTW, I was not taking a position just documenting the findings of one researcher.

 

[Xonoahbin]

Maturity level for it is around 18 I say.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: djheater
I think if you believe that in the modern period we are any LESS influenced by social\gender\cultural constructs it's YOU who misunderstand. BTW, I was not taking a position just documenting the findings of one researcher.

Of course they were influenced back then, every society is influenced by the society and time that they lived in. What I am saying is that are society is different than the societies of the past and thus the way we regard social norms are quite different as well. If you cannot see that in my posts, you are either: one, not reading my posts, or two, so set in believeing that it is acceptable to be sexually active at a very young age that you will not take a open look at other people opinions.

Of course my opinions are my own, but I find them logical enough that most people will tend to agree at least to a point.

 

[mattpegher]

Although biologically our species is designed to begin procreation at about 13, our society has become too complex to allow this. Not only the possible outcome of pregnancy but the emotional consequences of sexual activity suggest that we delay until the individual is an adult. Since some are mature earlier than others, the only generalized age determinent should be when the person is legally an adult, and therefore responsible for themselves.

That said, 18 seems to old for most and under 16 to young.

 

[Bryophyte]

My mom requested that I wait until after I'd graduated from high school, so I waited, oh, a few days and lost it the next week. Hehe. I was 17.

I think 17-18 is reasonable.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: mattpegher
Although biologically our species is designed to begin procreation at about 13, our society has become too complex to allow this. Not only the possible outcome of pregnancy but the emotional consequences of sexual activity suggest that we delay until the individual is an adult. Since some are mature earlier than others, the only generalized age determinent should be when the person is legally an adult, and therefore responsible for themselves.

That said, 18 seems to old for most and under 16 to young.

Agreed except for the age differential. But that is a matter of complete opinion, where no one can base true solid facts other than life experiences on it.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Youngest mother

Granted that's an odd situation, but it really is pretty common to conceive at 12-14 (historically speaking). After a few years working on my history degree I've read about it so much that it's quite obviously common.

If Society was set up for a girl to reach her full potential by 12-14 (like they did in before the Modern era), I would say go for it. But now human potential has changed. People have more opportunities and longer lifespans (meaning more schooling/education and more years to reach full potential). To limit a person's potential is one of the greatests forms of abuse in my opinion.

A 12 year old girl could have been smart enough to be a world famous surgeon in modern society, but because her parents sold her as a sex slave or a bride to the highest bidder in some countries, she could never reach that potential. That is tragic.

Generally I'd agree with you, but there are caveats. No one has a guaranteed lifespan. Death can come at any time. Dying before you experience intimacy is certainly a tragedy as well.

What if someones 'full potential' was as a nurturer and parent? Or in a supportive role in a relationship? I'd be perfectly content to accomplish nothing beyond that. Not everyone has the same goals and values remember.

Giving a person time to attain their potential, whether it is as a nurturer and parent or a world leader is the socially right thing to do. How is someone to know that a person has reached his or her potential unless they give him/her time to reach it.

Your argument is, well this girl could possibly have only the potential for being a nurturer, but you don't know that because you would not have given the girl time. This is a fallacious argument. Mitigating factors of disease and tragic accident aside (which no human can really know), a person should be given time and opportunities to grow as an individual to who they are suppposed to be.

BTW, you can experience intimacy without it being sexual. A father can be intimate with his kids (sharing life goals and teaching wisdom), and it is not sexual. A friend can be intimate with another friend with out it being sexual. Mother Theresa lived a great, wonderfully rich life, without it being sexual. Why does ATOT believe that sex is the end all and ultimate thing in life? Oh I forgot, it is because ATOT is a small microcosm of today's society and views, which are seriously flawed in many ways.

**EDIT**
Granted that sex is a social and genetic construct in which to pass on your genes and information, a key purpose in life, but it is not the only thing that can be fulfilling in life.

I agree that sex doesn't have to be everything to everyone, but it's a lot to many. Just because YOU don't see it that way doesn't make it wrong for others who do. We're not being any more close-minded by holding sex up than you are by holding it down. Different perceptions is all.

There is NO comparison between intimacy with children, spiritual intimacy, and sexual intimacy. I'm not saying one is better than the other (even though I do have my own ranking system), but they're not the same and one is NOT the other.

Actually my logic isn't any more flawed than yours. You are arguing for time, time, time, time, time. Well, not everyone has time. Also you have no way of knowing if you will change over time. Not saying you won't, but you can NOT argue that you absolutely will find some other maximum potential than what you feel earlier. You are arguing only for the tragedy of not exploring. I'm arguing for the tragedy of not experiencing before it's too late. You can always explore later. You can't experience after you're dead.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: djheater
I think if you believe that in the modern period we are any LESS influenced by social\gender\cultural constructs it's YOU who misunderstand. BTW, I was not taking a position just documenting the findings of one researcher.

Of course they were influenced back then, every society is influenced by the society and time that they lived in. What I am saying is that are society is different than the societies of the past and thus the way we regard social norms are quite different as well. If you cannot see that in my posts, you are either: one, not reading my posts, or two, so set in believeing that it is acceptable to be sexually active at a very young age that you will not take a open look at other people opinions.

Of course my opinions are my own, but I find them logical enough that most people will tend to agree at least to a point.

And what I said, and what I'll say again since you missed it, is that our society is no different than societies of the past. The same fundamental forces drive us, our culture responds to it in different ways, and it's only those cultural forces which cause us to think those ways are better (or worse).
You're caught up in thinking I believe one thing or another, I'm not debating, or trying to prove anything, I'm simply investigating opinions. You've got yours, good for you.

***oh I think I get it, you've got me and Princ of Wands confused a bit ***

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: mattpegher
Although biologically our species is designed to begin procreation at about 13, our society has become too complex to allow this. Not only the possible outcome of pregnancy but the emotional consequences of sexual activity suggest that we delay until the individual is an adult. Since some are mature earlier than others, the only generalized age determinent should be when the person is legally an adult, and therefore responsible for themselves.

That said, 18 seems to old for most and under 16 to young.

That is a fvcking perfect post. Could you take your 'good sense' stick and wave it around over by P&N for a while?

 

[xtknight]

I don't think anybody is really ready until they're at least out of high school. Anything earlier than that is just ridiculous IMO. These 'young' relationships are just destined for failure. I see more in a relationship than just sex. I'm saying that as a man. I guess I should stick my ...err...logic... elsewhere.

 

[Platypus]

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Platypus

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Platypus
Who cares, people should mind their own business.

The desire to understand the interactions of others is fully realized when we can use that knowledge to help shape a better society.

In other words, "You say that now, but when you're locked out of your house and there's a stone-cold a$$ rapist on the loose in your 'hood, I'm guessin' you'll change your tune."

That is completely unrelated and illogical. What does an 'ass rapist' have to do with what age people should be allowed to engage in sexual relations? Does having them too early turn you into a rapist? Is that really what you're implying? What right do you think you have to shape society into your own views on how early or late you can do things to your own body? Personal freedoms anyone?

I appreciate the counter argument but compare apples to apples next time, not some crackpot scenario that's completely unrelated to the topic.

You misunderstood the nature of the conversation, we're not debating, we're just engaging in a free spirited exchange of ideas. Lighten up poindexter.

Interesting, a personal attack and a complete dodge of a completely logical response to your free exchange of ideas. I'll take my logic and reason elsewhere

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: Platypus

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Platypus

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Platypus
Who cares, people should mind their own business.

The desire to understand the interactions of others is fully realized when we can use that knowledge to help shape a better society.

In other words, "You say that now, but when you're locked out of your house and there's a stone-cold a$$ rapist on the loose in your 'hood, I'm guessin' you'll change your tune."

That is completely unrelated and illogical. What does an 'ass rapist' have to do with what age people should be allowed to engage in sexual relations? Does having them too early turn you into a rapist? Is that really what you're implying? What right do you think you have to shape society into your own views on how early or late you can do things to your own body? Personal freedoms anyone?

I appreciate the counter argument but compare apples to apples next time, not some crackpot scenario that's completely unrelated to the topic.

You misunderstood the nature of the conversation, we're not debating, we're just engaging in a free spirited exchange of ideas. Lighten up poindexter.

Interesting, a personal attack and a complete dodge of a completely logical response to your free exchange of ideas. I'll take my logic and reason elsewhere

...and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Bryophyte
My mom requested that I wait until after I'd graduated from high school, so I waited, oh, a few days and lost it the next week. Hehe. I was 17.

I think 17-18 is reasonable.

I can only hope that my daughters will do the same

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Bryophyte
My mom requested that I wait until after I'd graduated from high school, so I waited, oh, a few days and lost it the next week. Hehe. I was 17.

I think 17-18 is reasonable.

I can only hope that my daughters will do the same

Why? What is the difference if protection is used?

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: DaShen
I am at the wait till marriage camp (for practical reasons).
- I don't want to give it up to someone I am unsure if I will be able to share affection with for a lifetime.
- I don't want to be a father before I am married and ready.
- I don't want to have a relationship I cannot handle till I am ready. (girls get clingy/controlling with physical relationships which isn't a bad thing in a marriage, but is bad if you aren't married)
- I will be ready when I decide to marry someone.
- I want to be able to work on a deeper relationship with my SO before putting sex into the picture. (Really get to know them and figure out how to be compatable with them)

Genetically though, it is best to have kids around 16-21 (or so I have heard not sure if it is true). But our culture is different now, people are not independant till there mid 20s because of social constraints usually. If you aren't independant (i.e. you cannot take care of yourself), you aren't ready for marriage. Another way of saying that, if you can't totally take care of yourself, how can you expect to take care of anyone else.

I like your view on things. :thumbsup:

Of course, flirting around is normal at 16 and stuff. But being sexually active? When you're still living at home? Jesus...what are you crazy? Develop a solid friendship/relationship before sex. You might notice that your relationship will last longer if not all you think about is sex.

 

[eits]

16 is ok

 

[Bryophyte]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Bryophyte
My mom requested that I wait until after I'd graduated from high school, so I waited, oh, a few days and lost it the next week. Hehe. I was 17.

I think 17-18 is reasonable.

I can only hope that my daughters will do the same

Why? What is the difference if protection is used?

I think that life is a lot less complicated if you don't combine being in middle or high school with being sexually active. It's also easier to deal with raising an unexpected child if you're an adult than if you're a child.

 

[notfred]

Whenever they want? Who am I to say what other people should do with thier own bodies?

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: notfred
Whenever they want? Who am I to say what other people should do with thier own bodies?

What about your dependants for example? When should parents expect their children to begin having sex.

Bryophyte raises an interesting point, her mother asked her to wait, indicating that her mother was aware that she would not want to.