When should people become sexually active?

[secretanchitman]

i'd say 17-18...

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I don't see how having sex changes your priorities any more than doing other sexual(and safer) acts would...

Then you're a different person. Although I find it hard to believe that you can't envision how it would change someone's priorities and complicate things.

When I was 15 I did everything with a girl, except sex.. it changed nothing about me... when I eventually did have sex, it didn't change me either... why would it ? How is it relevant to the rest of your life?

 

[engineereeyore]

when they're married.

 

[maziwanka]

i actually have no clue.

ideally, i think its when you're old/mature enough to realize the significance of your actions. however, we all know that reality is very different...

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

18. Not when you're living under my roof. When you go to college, you can go experiment, I don't care, but don't screw yourself up.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Or maybe you would have found potential undreamed of. You can't know. That was my point. For some people their 'grand ulltimate' is just being with someone else, or caring for a family (I'm like that). *shrug*

The point is to give the person time to reach whatever potential they have. You can't honestly say that you think that marrying off at age 12-14 would benefit society because at least one of them might reach their potential as a nuturer. :roll: Given time, they would probably marry and reach that potential anyways.

That is like saying, I am going to allow for all bears to be taken from the wild and trained as circus animals because at least a few of them will enjoy it and reach their full potential. There social order lets them reach there potential in the wild.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Or maybe you would have found potential undreamed of. You can't know. That was my point. For some people their 'grand ulltimate' is just being with someone else, or caring for a family (I'm like that). *shrug*

The point is to give the person time to reach whatever potential they have. You can't honestly say that you think that marrying off at age 12-14 would benefit society because at least one of them might reach their potential as a nuturer. :roll: Given time, they would probably marry and reach that potential anyways.

That is like saying, I am going to allow for all bears to be taken from the wild and trained as circus animals because at least a few of them will enjoy it and reach their full potential. There social order lets them reach there potential in the wild.

You phrase it like I'm saying everyone should be forced to marry. I'm not. However, if someone decided at 16 that what they cared most about was family life, who are we to tell them that they're wasting potential by pursuing that instead of work, or school, or whatever? I still am not a fan of your 'time' argument. You cannot establish they will have time, and you cannot establish that they will change with time. Furthermore you cannot establish that potential is inhibited by early sex or marriage (ie they can develop after those things as well as before them). Given all that is seems to me like the answer is individuality; allowing each person to do for themselves what they feel is right.

Moreover this post was about when people should be sexually active (which is entirely different than getting married). The marriage aspect was raised only to establish that sexual activity used to be accepted much earlier than it is now (and is still accepted much earlier most places in the world than in the puritanical US).

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
You phrase it like I'm saying everyone should be forced to marry. I'm not. However, if someone decided at 16 that what they cared most about was family life, who are we to tell them that they're wasting potential by pursuing that instead of work, or school, or whatever? I still am not a fan of your 'time' argument. You cannot establish they will have time, and you cannot establish that they will change with time. Furthermore you cannot establish that potential is inhibited by early sex or marriage (ie they can develop after those things as well as before them). Given all that is seems to me like the answer is individuality; allowing each person to do for themselves what they feel is right.

Moreover this post was about when people should be sexually active (which is entirely different than getting married). The marriage aspect was raised only to establish that sexual activity used to be accepted much earlier than it is now (and is still accepted much earlier most places in the world than in the puritanical US).

You see that all the time on stupid day time shows where teenagers want to have kids. Guess what. Most of the time they aren't ready for it. The reason. Society is different and men/women aren't ready for it till later on in life.

To reach their potential to be independant you either need to be the one exception to the case, or you need time to grow in the society that fosters such possibliities. You may find a few exceptions to the rule, but in most cases kids don't become independant in todays society till they are out of college making money on a career. (If they have a career where they can support the kids and family they foster), fine let them do whatever they want. But you are pointing out one exception, saying well "who is to say" if a person's potential isn't a nurturer at age 12-14. So the one case out of the millions where a 12-14 year old is suitable in today's society to raise kids, (they maintain an independant living standard and they can care for their kids) you point it out like it validate your claims. LOL.

My points are logical and the time issue makes sense when you hold it up to today's society. Our society is one where it would be highly difficult to try out your options and figure out your potential before age 12. Some people don't even get married till their late 30s nowadays (which is unheard of in precious eras). The reason for this in most cases (except for the few you will inevitably point out to somehow try to rationalize your argument), they had other goals and ambitions they had to attain first.

I really just give up. If you want to have s3x with 12-14 year old girls, have at it. Just don't complain when society locks you up, because your ruined the girls potential. Why do you think it is abhorrent for a teacher to sleep with a little girl? Because it will probably ruin her potential (no matter if she consented at that age <she doesn't know any better, she hasn't seen all the possiblities for her life> )

I knew a girl in Middle School and High School. Was on track to being valedvictorian and was a great violinist, started having sex with one of the teachers, became emotionally unstable... the last I saw of her, she rides in a motorcycle in a bike gang, rarely comes home, and her hair was in cornrows. She dropped out of High School BTW. If you don't see that as tragic, I feel sorry for you, and you should probably be locked up.

**EDIT**
BTW, in past societies where the woman freely chose to marry at age 12-14, society was set up to allow that. Society is different now. More opportunities.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
You phrase it like I'm saying everyone should be forced to marry. I'm not. However, if someone decided at 16 that what they cared most about was family life, who are we to tell them that they're wasting potential by pursuing that instead of work, or school, or whatever? I still am not a fan of your 'time' argument. You cannot establish they will have time, and you cannot establish that they will change with time. Furthermore you cannot establish that potential is inhibited by early sex or marriage (ie they can develop after those things as well as before them). Given all that is seems to me like the answer is individuality; allowing each person to do for themselves what they feel is right.

Moreover this post was about when people should be sexually active (which is entirely different than getting married). The marriage aspect was raised only to establish that sexual activity used to be accepted much earlier than it is now (and is still accepted much earlier most places in the world than in the puritanical US).

You see that all the time on stupid day time shows where teenagers want to have kids. Guess what. Most of the time they aren't ready for it. The reason. Society is different and men/women aren't ready for it till later on in life.

To reach their potential to be independant you either need to be the one exception to the case, or you need time to grow in the society that fosters such possibliities. You may find a few exceptions to the rule, but in most cases kids don't become independant in todays society till they are out of college making money on a career. (If they have a career where they can support the kids and family they foster), fine let them do whatever they want. But you are pointing out one exception, saying well "who is to say" if a person's potential isn't a nurturer at age 12-14. So the one case out of the millions where a 12-14 year old is suitable in today's society to raise kids, (they maintain an independant living standard and they can care for their kids) you point it out like it validate your claims. LOL.

My points are logical and the time issue makes sense when you hold it up to today's society. Our society is one where it would be highly difficult to try out your options and figure out your potential before age 12. Some people don't even get married till their late 30s nowadays (which is unheard of in precious eras). The reason for this in most cases (except for the few you will inevitably point out to somehow try to rationalize your argument), they had other goals and ambitions they had to attain first.

I really just give up. If you want to have s3x with 12-14 year old girls, have at it. Just don't complain when society locks you up, because your ruined the girls potential. Why do you think it is abhorrent for a teacher to sleep with a little girl? Because it will probably ruin her potential (no matter if she consented at that age <she doesn't know any better, she hasn't seen all the possiblities for her life> )

I knew a girl in Middle School and High School. Was on track to being valedvictorian and was a great violinist, started having sex with one of the teachers, became emotionally unstable... the last I saw of her, she rides in a motorcycle in a bike gang, rarely comes home, and her hair was in cornrows. She dropped out of High School BTW. If you don't see that as tragic, I feel sorry for you, and you should probably be locked up.

For someone accusing someone else of being irrational, that post comes off as really crazy. Your post displays considerable bias and it ceratinly seems as though you're unwilling to accept that people, even within your own culture, may have opinions (rational and logical ones) different than your own.

You remind me of an evangelical coworker of mine who leaves the room to pray whenever we talk about what he considers to be sexual matters, like my vasectomy.

You're proabably not as nuts as that though... hopefully...

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: djheater
For someone accusing someone else of being irrational, that post comes off as really crazy. Your post displays considerable bias and it ceratinly seems as though you're unwilling to accept that people, even within your own culture, may have opinions (rational and logical ones) different than your own.

You remind me of an evangelical coworker of mine who leaves the room to pray whenever we talk about what he considers to be sexual matters, like my vasectomy.

You're proabably not as nuts as that though... hopefully...

Like I said from the beginning. It is just opinion. Take it as such. I am just getting frustrated at the fact that PrinceofWands only argument is that there could be a case. "Could" mind you that one person would be different from social norms so it should be allowed to lower the social minimum age. If you are talking about macro social order, one minute case doesn't screw up the bounds at all. If one person dies from a defective handgun, do you outlaw all handguns. By no means.

Again, genetically nothing wrong with having sex with a 12-14 year old, but in a society with more choices it would be wrong IMO and BTW the opinion of the majority to allow 12-14 year old to start having sex and kids when there is so much opportunity out there. Again it is about limiting their opportunities which a person does if the opportunities are so vast in developed nations as they are now. So if you want to marry a 12-14 year old, go right ahead, but do it in a society where 12-14 year old girls are limited in their opportunities and it is allowed in society. (I would much rather provide those same girls with opportunities to be better than just baby making machines, but to each his own). If you don't do that, you go to jail in this society.

Also, BTW, did I ever mention religious reasons? No, I used reasoning on how I believe (IMO again) society works. Don't label me as puritanical and religious right unless you know me.

**EDIT**
But on the issue of Right-Winged Fundies, those guys are pure evil.

 

[Accipiter22]

we were asked this in health class once. The kid next to me said '5.because 4 is too young"

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
we were asked this in health class once. The kid next to me said '5.because 4 is too young"

I had a coworker at my internship that used to say, "between 4 and 80 and up to 4 minutes dead." He was just joking, but still <shudder>

 

[jpeyton]

Sex is a natural activity for teens.

Leagues of religious zealots and societal influences (at least in the USA, lots of other countries around the world are more progressive) have artificially placed a barrier around natural human sexual activity.

Studies have been done that strongly suggest a link between the repression of teenage sexual activity and a tendancy towards agressive social behavior. After looking at our ever expanding prison population, this makes perfect sense.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Sex is a natural activity for teens.

Leagues of religious zealots and artificial societal influences (at least in the USA, lots of other countries around the world are more progressive) have artificially placed a barrier around natural human sexual activity.

Studies have been done that strongly suggest a link between the repression of teenage sexual activity and a tendancy towards agressive social behavior. After looking at our ever expanding prison population, this makes perfect sense.

What studies? That is quite interesting actually. Our genetics are definitely not in sync with our social order. Most males are sexually attracted to a girl that is in their teens because by nature it is a good time for baby making. But our ever expanding society is causing us to need more time to become independant.

BTW, more studies point out to aggressive behavior in kids of single mothers (which in most cases are poor or young or both). You have kids making babies they can't support, and they become deadbeat dad's (because they want more out of life taht were taken from them by making a baby) you not only limit the opportunity of the new parents, but also the opportunities of the child. Social order must be maintained.

They either need to revise the human genetics, revise social order (both unlikely to happen), keep a minimum social norm on sexual age limits (which they do), or abort the baby (which raises many other social issues <which I will not write about> ).

**EDIT**
Kinsey and the sexual revolution were a good thing for society BTW. But it has many bad social problems as well.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
You phrase it like I'm saying everyone should be forced to marry. I'm not. However, if someone decided at 16 that what they cared most about was family life, who are we to tell them that they're wasting potential by pursuing that instead of work, or school, or whatever? I still am not a fan of your 'time' argument. You cannot establish they will have time, and you cannot establish that they will change with time. Furthermore you cannot establish that potential is inhibited by early sex or marriage (ie they can develop after those things as well as before them). Given all that is seems to me like the answer is individuality; allowing each person to do for themselves what they feel is right.

Moreover this post was about when people should be sexually active (which is entirely different than getting married). The marriage aspect was raised only to establish that sexual activity used to be accepted much earlier than it is now (and is still accepted much earlier most places in the world than in the puritanical US).

You see that all the time on stupid day time shows where teenagers want to have kids. Guess what. Most of the time they aren't ready for it. The reason. Society is different and men/women aren't ready for it till later on in life.

To reach their potential to be independant you either need to be the one exception to the case, or you need time to grow in the society that fosters such possibliities. You may find a few exceptions to the rule, but in most cases kids don't become independant in todays society till they are out of college making money on a career. (If they have a career where they can support the kids and family they foster), fine let them do whatever they want. But you are pointing out one exception, saying well "who is to say" if a person's potential isn't a nurturer at age 12-14. So the one case out of the millions where a 12-14 year old is suitable in today's society to raise kids, (they maintain an independant living standard and they can care for their kids) you point it out like it validate your claims. LOL.

My points are logical and the time issue makes sense when you hold it up to today's society. Our society is one where it would be highly difficult to try out your options and figure out your potential before age 12. Some people don't even get married till their late 30s nowadays (which is unheard of in precious eras). The reason for this in most cases (except for the few you will inevitably point out to somehow try to rationalize your argument), they had other goals and ambitions they had to attain first.

I really just give up. If you want to have s3x with 12-14 year old girls, have at it. Just don't complain when society locks you up, because your ruined the girls potential. Why do you think it is abhorrent for a teacher to sleep with a little girl? Because it will probably ruin her potential (no matter if she consented at that age <she doesn't know any better, she hasn't seen all the possiblities for her life> )

I knew a girl in Middle School and High School. Was on track to being valedvictorian and was a great violinist, started having sex with one of the teachers, became emotionally unstable... the last I saw of her, she rides in a motorcycle in a bike gang, rarely comes home, and her hair was in cornrows. She dropped out of High School BTW. If you don't see that as tragic, I feel sorry for you, and you should probably be locked up.

**EDIT**
BTW, in past societies where the woman freely chose to marry at age 12-14, society was set up to allow that. Society is different now. More opportunities.

So you want me to accept that my views are invalid because they're pointing out individual experiential exceptions while you talk about 'this one girl you knew in high school'? Hypocritical much?

You put way too much stock in 'society'. I personally don't believe in it/accept it as a pre-defined reality. I'm much more individualistic in my views. Which is what I've been saying this whole time - we have a core difference of outlook/opinion that makes it impossible to reach compromise. I likewise think you put FAR too much emphasis upon career and money. These things are only important to people that think they're important, and the rest of us get along quite well without any focus or interest in them. But again, this is because of basic differences in our values and personalities. Neither of us is right (for anyone except ourselves).

What I see as tragic is that there is a 'society' which tries to force an illusory concept of reality upon others that, when they don't share it/live up to it, destroys them. If I were 12-14 again and was with someone interested and who felt themselves ready I have no doubt that I would be having some form of sex with them...especially if I retained the knowledge that I have right now (as to how completely awesome physical intimacy is). The ONLY thing that I see sex changing in a person is their view of sex - either it makes them dislike it or like it more. Otherwise they are EXACTLY the same person they were before (at least I was, as were others I've discussed this with).

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: djheater
For someone accusing someone else of being irrational, that post comes off as really crazy. Your post displays considerable bias and it ceratinly seems as though you're unwilling to accept that people, even within your own culture, may have opinions (rational and logical ones) different than your own.

You remind me of an evangelical coworker of mine who leaves the room to pray whenever we talk about what he considers to be sexual matters, like my vasectomy.

You're proabably not as nuts as that though... hopefully...

Like I said from the beginning. It is just opinion. Take it as such. I am just getting frustrated at the fact that PrinceofWands only argument is that there could be a case. "Could" mind you that one person would be different from social norms so it should be allowed to lower the social minimum age. If you are talking about macro social order, one minute case doesn't screw up the bounds at all. If one person dies from a defective handgun, do you outlaw all handguns. By no means.

Again, genetically nothing wrong with having sex with a 12-14 year old, but in a society with more choices it would be wrong IMO and BTW the opinion of the majority to allow 12-14 year old to start having sex and kids when there is so much opportunity out there. Again it is about limiting their opportunities which a person does if the opportunities are so vast in developed nations as they are now. So if you want to marry a 12-14 year old, go right ahead, but do it in a society where 12-14 year old girls are limited in their opportunities and it is allowed in society. (I would much rather provide those same girls with opportunities to be better than just baby making machines, but to each his own). If you don't do that, you go to jail in this society.

Also, BTW, did I ever mention religious reasons? No, I used reasoning on how I believe (IMO again) society works. Don't label me as puritanical and religious right unless you know me.

**EDIT**
But on the issue of Right-Winged Fundies, those guys are pure evil.

All I will say to this is, read my above post about our differing views of the importance and relevance of 'society'.

 

[Josh7289]

This poll is completely wrong. "When should people become sexually active?"

It should be: "When would/did you become sexually active?" There is no universal answer to this. Some 13 year olds can have sex and be fine with it, but many other people don't believe in sex until marriage, while others are simply not mentally mature for sex until a much older age than those their same age.

Personally, I said "Wait til marriage" as that simply seems to be the "ideal" answer, but I have no problem with people having sex before marriage, as long as they don't get pregnant.

 

[Scouzer]

16, usually

 

[HomeAppraisersWife]

Well, I voted to wait until marriage, b/c that was my intention, and honestly it's what I think is best. (No, I didn't stick to my original plan, but at least I was engaged ;-) )

 

[SilthDraeth]

When the individual decides to have conscensual sex.

 

[thereaderrabbit]

18+ and whenever they are ready.

 

[SagaLore]

It would be nice if we perfected an implanted birth control that caused no side effects, and cured all STD's.

Then it really comes down to "when are you emotionally mature enough to have sex?"

But because of pregnancy and std's, I'd say the longer you wait the better. When you're 18, you could have a baby, but you can take care of the baby. When you're 13 - 16, you should be enjoying your childhood and not having to become a parent. Plus you aren't mature enough yet to be mentoring a child.

 

[spamsk8r]

I honestly do think that waiting 'til marriage is the best plan. Not the easiest plan, but definitely best in the long run.