Sexuality and Teens

[Keldoth Wolfram Dekel]

In many countries through the world, there is a stigma about the two parts, things of a sexual nature, and teens being mixed, but is this really necessary? There's many reasons given, and many ways it's done. There are laws limiting viewing of this kind to being over 18, and there's the Abstinence Only sex education.

Now to be fair, I'm not going to get into Abstinence Only, that would be an actual rant, I take serious issues with this teaching technique. But it basically teaches teens that sex is bad, even if their in a completely caring and emotional relationship.

There's some stigma against teen sexuality in our society that tells us all sex is bad till your 18 or married, thoughts on it?

[FastChapter]

Contrary to my own practice, I'm against people having sex until they hit eighteen years old. That's pretty much all I got.

[Keldoth Wolfram Dekel]

But why?
And doesn't it seem rather.... not unfair but more expectant to ask something of teenagers that you yourself did not follow?

[Fireball0236]

How are you sure he did not wait till he was 18 himself? Some people decide this for themselves.

[John_and_Yoko]

[message deleted]

[The Luigiian]

Keldoth, sexuality is something that a lot of kids think they understand but they don't. It's actually far more emotional than anybody would ever have you believe.

You ever wonder why a lot of guys treat women like [censored], "screw 'em and leave 'em"? They're emotionally immature. They don't get that sex=emotions=emotional bond with another human being.

That's why the age of consent needs to be 18. If you think the immaturity of sexual partners is bad now, just wait till you see kids just getting out of Pokemon trying sex.

Your virginity is something you can never get back. If you're not old enough to fight, you're not old enough to [censored]. Period.

[RobbieThe1st]

I think they do need to be fully educated about sex as they become sexual beings (perhaps even before), and it should be done in such a way that bias doesn't enter into it. In other words, sex itself should not be presented as though it were something taboo (it does produce babies as its primary function, after all), but the potential dangers of IRRESPONSIBLE sexual behavior should be mentioned as well--not only unplanned pregnancies, but STDs and such.

I think this is the best that can be done regarding limiting actual sexual behavior in teens until they're independent and emotionally, mentally, and financially prepared to take the consequences. Beyond that, people are going to make mistakes, they're not always going to listen--but many of them (perhaps most) will do so. They should be trusted.

I completely agree.

The main problem with current methods is that most teens are predictably contrary - If having sex is taboo, I think you will find that more teens are going to be having sex than if it was not such a taboo subject.

What I want to know, though, is what's with the stigma on masturbation? I have NEVER understood that, and I've encountered it a lot in the media....

I wondered that also.


-RobbieThe1st

[John_and_Yoko]

You ever wonder why a lot of guys treat women like [censored], "screw 'em and leave 'em"? They're emotionally immature. They don't get that sex=emotions=emotional bond with another human being.

[Keldoth Wolfram Dekel]

See now, I can understand that Yoko. If my textbook taught me that, I would be all for it.
But it doesn't mention condoms.
Not once. Through the entirety of the textbook.


And Lui, I agree with your view, however, 18 is not a magic number. People don't hit their 18th birthday and a package of sexual maturity arrives in the mail. It's going to be different for each and every person, it's not a numerical definable thing, and it can't be treated as such. There are some 16 year old's in relationships who are ready to have sex and I'm sure many 20 year olds in relationships that are so not.

Plus, you'll notice, regardless of the stigma and age of consent laws, kids still have sex, at the exact same rate in abstience programs as in others, with lower contraceptive use rate. Not only is that sex they may not be ready for that's dangerous sex they may not be ready for.

[John_and_Yoko]

The main problem with current methods is that most teens are predictably contrary - If having sex is taboo, I think you will find that more teens are going to be having sex than if it was not such a taboo subject.

[FastChapter]

I lost my virginity when I was 17, and at the time I thought I knew enough to make a responsible decision. I'd even convinced myself that I wasn't thinking with hormones. In retrospect, hormones was all I was thinking with, and I didn't know nearly as much as I thought I did at the time. And God only knows if I would have been able to justify anything if I were younger.

I should point out that I had no idea whether or not my partner had any kind of diseases, including HIV or AIDs, and I wasn't using condoms. That little encounter could have done an incredible amount of damage.

*shrug* The reason so many things are made unavailable to people under 18/21 years old is because the decision-making skills of the brain don't fully develop until after the vast majority of people hit 18 years old. That's the same reason teen drivers have such outrageous insurance rates to begin with, and they go down over time.

That, and honestly, I have yet to talk to anyone offline or online that is under aged and can put sex into the proper context that it needs to be put into. Especially with straight couples, where pregnancy can occur.

[John_and_Yoko]

[message deleted]

[Verilidaine]

You know, I've always found this subject the most interesting if you look at it from the more biological point of view. Cognitively, we don't finish developing until the 21+ mark, and our decision making skills are pretty poor as teenagers (though personally I think mine were better when I was a teenager, but probably just because I was way more uptight and just said "no" to everything without considering it...).

But the thing is, girls start being able to have children at 12, 13, 14. Granted, it takes the first few years after menstruation starts for the body to even out a bit, like it needs trial runs or something, but that doesn't change the possibility. So if we can have children that young, it stands to reason that we probably did have children that young at some point. And even with hormones in the food and the age of puberty getting lower, I don't think there was probably ever a time when girls started menstruating at 18+.

So what changed? Did we used to be more mature as teenagers? Or was it just necessary for survival? If we were more mature, was it because we were in more serious environments? Or less stigma around sex meant more education about it and therefore less irresponsible behavior? Or was there simply no room for any irresponsible behavior whatsoever?

[epion04]

You know, I've always found this subject the most interesting if you look at it from the more biological point of view. Cognitively, we don't finish developing until the 21+ mark, and our decision making skills are pretty poor as teenagers (though personally I think mine were better when I was a teenager, but probably just because I was way more uptight and just said "no" to everything without considering it...).

But the thing is, girls start being able to have children at 12, 13, 14. Granted, it takes the first few years after menstruation starts for the body to even out a bit, like it needs trial runs or something, but that doesn't change the possibility. So if we can have children that young, it stands to reason that we probably did have children that young at some point. And even with hormones in the food and the age of puberty getting lower, I don't think there was probably ever a time when girls started menstruating at 18+.

So what changed? Did we used to be more mature as teenagers? Or was it just necessary for survival? If we were more mature, was it because we were in more serious environments? Or less stigma around sex meant more education about it and therefore less irresponsible behavior? Or was there simply no room for any irresponsible behavior whatsoever?

I would think the young age at which humans are able to reproduce has much to do with and is a left over from when human life expectancy was something like 30 years. Back then you would almost have had to have had kids by that point just to see them old enough to reproduce themselves. As time has gone on, and life expectancy has risen, so would the age of "responsibility" I would think. Now not only is it completely unnecessary to have children at that age, but is even socially shunned; and for good reason in most cases.


Another though I have heard on this topic at one point was that years upon years ago, as a child you got up and helped the family survive in any way you could from the time you were big enough to walk more or less, now days not only is there more time in which to raise kids, but they do not need grow up as fast. Think about the times before child labor laws, I would bet maturity wise some of those 12 year olds could out do a fair few of out current highschool population. The physical capability is still there, just not the need anymore.


Before I beat a dead horse any further, Just one last thought here, look that the age where a young girl becomes fertile, now look at the age at which young girls today ( most at least, in a real life example my 8 yr old sister )become fascinated by baby dolls and the idea of a kid....

[Luca Fox]

What should be talked about is pregnancy, STDs, and prevention. The whole [censored] abstinence campaign is a waste of my damn money. Why should anyone care whether two people think they're ready to have sex and go for it? Shouldn't they rather be trying to protect them from the harmful parts of it and making them aware of the responsibilities they'll have by law if something goes wrong?

My mom was only sixteen when she had my brother and he was planned in advance by both of my parents.