Should children be having sex?

[Robert A Whit]

Robert W: I argue NO and parents should not speak in a way that kids believe amounts to approval.

I found this on the internet.

Condoms Issue: Should Children Have Sex?
Published: October 10, 1991

Re "Parental Rites" by Anna Quindlen (column, Sept. 24):
In the debate over condoms in the schools, condom advocates have been avoiding the central question: Should children have sex? This is a legitimate issue. Saying "Children are having sex, and adults have to accept it" is not responsive. Children take drugs, shoplift, use guns, get drunk and skip school, and no one suggests adults should blithely accept such behavior or aid and abet it.
Implicit in the argument for condoms in the schools is the assumption that the only thing wrong with children having sex is the possibility they could become pregnant or contract a sexually transmitted disease.
If these were the only concerns, condoms, with their 14 percent user failure rate, would still be a poor solution. Condom advocates may feel that with abortion as a backup this is an acceptable risk, but the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) virus cannot be aborted.
Yet pregnancy and disease are not the only effects of child sex. People who are outraged over child molesting wink at child sex. How can those handing out condoms know whether or not the users are psychologically equipped to deal with sexuality? Indeed, many experts believe that no child is ready to deal with sex, no matter how eager he or she may be to engage in it.

[Abbey Marie]

Good and often overlooked points in the article.

We also need to take a non-flinching look at all the sexual messages our kids are bombarded with by the various media.

[Kathianne]

I found the original article by Quinlan:

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/25/opinion/public-private-parental-rites.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm


Public & Private; Parental Rites
By ANNA QUINDLEN
Published: September 25, 1991



Adolescence is a tough time for parent and child alike. It is a time between: between childhood and maturity, between parental protection and personal responsibility, between life stage-managed by grown-ups and life privately held. Past 13, shy of 20, our children seem to fire off from time to time like a barrel full of Roman candles. Prom pictures show them the way we want them, curled and clean.


A week ago, in his diocesan newspaper column, Cardinal O'Connor wrote of a call from a New York law firm offering to represent Catholic parents of public school students "if condoms are forced on such a youngster without parental consent." It's the verb that is the red flag in that sentence. The plan to make condoms available in New York City high schools has nothing to do with force. The scenario of the principal at the school door pressing prophylactics for extra credit on unwilling 14-year-old virgins is useful for those who are opposed to this project. But it is a fraud.



http://nytimes.perfectmarket.com/pm/images/pixel.gif

Teen-agers who feel they need condoms will go to a specially designated room and ask a specially trained school staff member to provide them. Some will do this because they've been told condoms can protect against the AIDS virus. Some will do it because they've heard condoms can protect against sexually transmitted diseases. All will be assuming a degree of responsibility unusual in a person of 17. Chastity may be preferable, but if discarded, responsibility is critical, even life-saving.


The idea of force in such a program is a sop for indignant parents. If we imagine them being forced into condom use and, by extension, sex, we don't have to think of them as sexual beings choosing, despite our own moral imperatives, to be sexually active. If we imagine force, we don't have to wonder what role we parents have played; we can simply blame the schools, the liberal power structure, the social radicals.


At a Board of Education meeting earlier this month, the representative from Staten Island, Michael Petrides, announced, "There is no way in this city and in these United States that someone is going to tell my son he can have a condom when I say he can't." News flash, Mr. Petrides: Any drugstore clerk in America can do just that if your son has the money.


Other objections to the condom program are just as redolent of the seductive idea that we have absolute control over our kids, just as blind to what some teen-agers need to stay healthy and obsessed with what some parents need to feel self-satisfied. If we are confident that they are chaste, there is nothing to worry about, despite the suggestion that condoms in the schools are the 1990's equivalent of Spanish Fly.


If we are not confident, there is plenty to worry about, the least of it condoms; there are diseases that can cause sterility and one that will even cause death. We have many years to try to shape small and malleable people into big ones who share the values we hold most dear. Sometimes we manage to do it. And sometimes we do not. To jeopardize their health because they have not turned out exactly as we planned is an extraordinarily selfish thing to do, reminiscent of a variation on that old vaudeville turn: Enough about me. Let's talk about you. How do you make me feel about myself?


The Board of Education has made it possible for some parents to continue to fool themselves. Those who don't want to know any more about their kids' sex life than they absolutely must will know that their sons and daughters are receiving education, counseling, even condoms at school. And those who want to believe that their kids don't have a sex life can blame the condom program if they find out differently.


The prom-picture kids exist for one reason only: to make parents feel good about themselves. And that is all well and good, I suppose, until the first time you see a girl with secondary syphilis in a hospital bed, or meet a teen-ager who has contracted AIDS from a sex partner. You look back on plagues of the past and you see how people hundreds of years ago dealt with them, at their quirks and foibles. Maybe someday it will seem quaint that, during a time of plague, some of the parents of the 1990's wanted to deny their children protection to safeguard their own self-image. Or maybe we'll just seem like a bunch of lunatics.


Doesn't surprise me a bit, I read her a lot as a young adult. In many cases, even to some degree above, I agreed with her.

Where I disagreed was in the government taking over where parents sometimes failed. Actually if one reads her articles, it wasn't only parents but municipalities and states too. No brother was too big. Her heart was in the right place, sort of. Her conclusions though? No.

[revelarts]

no.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Should children be having sex???
Mohammad and Islam with its billion souls says yes!!
And with old men no less...Hell, even our very own Jafar here says yes when he agrees that Mohhammad did nothing wrong having sex with a 9 year old little girl !--Tyr

[Voted4Reagan]

No... ridiculous question

[logroller]

I should say not; but they do. But neither should mankind be engaging in sex absent its natural purpose-- procreation-- but we do. Yet somehow, we, as a society feel that the perverse enjoyment of sex should be restricted to adults. It should, but isn't.

[Syrenn]

I should say not; but they do. But neither should mankind be engaging in sex absent its natural purpose-- procreation-- but we do. Yet somehow, we, as a society feel that the perverse enjoyment of sex should be restricted to adults. It should, but isn't.


not quite.... you forgot about the part where only men should enjoy sex....
damn the pill to all hell.....



i agree, should teens be having sex... no.
Do teens have sex.... yes.

And since the answer is that teens do have sex.... the better question is... should teens have access to birth control.

My answer to that is yes.

[logroller]

not quite.... you forgot about the part where only men should enjoy sex....
damn the pill to all hell.....



i agree, should teens be having sex... no.
Do teens have sex.... yes.

And since the answer is that teens do have sex.... the better question is... should teens have access to birth control.

My answer to that is yes.
Ive taken efforts to ensure that the women I've had sex with should enjoy it. In fact, i find that enjoyable regardless of the pill being in play. I'm not quite sure how the pill allows for more enjoyment of sex, other than removing the burden of natural consequences... But thats not burden I personally slough off. I don't take a hard line on whether anyone should or shouldn't have sex, unprotected or otherwise; but I don't wish anyone to confuse themselves about the true enjoyment that sex is intended to provide: offspring. So long as both parties are willing to see it through, enjoy! Otherwise, might want to consider other methods of pleasure-seeking-- there's an abundance.

[Noir]

Depends what age you define children. The OP says 'shy of 20' which i'd consider excessive to be called a child.

[Drummond]

Depends what age you define children. The OP says 'shy of 20' which i'd consider excessive to be called a child.

Different societies have different rulings on that. Ours, as of course you'll well know, Noir, sets it as 18.

Still, if Islamic practise were to fully win through, and the Prophet Mohammed's thinking prevailed ... it would be far lower than that. 12 ? 9 ? Depends on the level of perversity involved, I suppose.

Emotional maturity, and the capacity of the individual to react to adult matters in an adult way .. I think THIS is the issue. And, Noir .. how many 18 year olds is that true of ?

[Noir]

Different societies have different rulings on that. Ours, as of course you'll well know, Noir, sets it as 18.

The age of consent in the UK is 16, So going by that- yes children should be able to have sex, legally they have the right.


Still, if Islamic practise were to fully win through, and the Prophet Mohammed's thinking prevailed ... it would be far lower than that. 12 ? 9 ? Depends on the level of perversity involved, I suppose.

Emotional maturity, and the capacity of the individual to react to adult matters in an adult way .. I think THIS is the issue. And, Noir .. how many 18 year olds is that true of ?

Depends on the individual.

[Drummond]

The age of consent in the UK is 16, So going by that- yes children should be able to have sex, legally they have the right.

Stupid of me, Noir, of course, you're correct. 16 it is.


Depends on the individual.

To an extent. Though there have to be set boundaries, not least legally. But, who'd reasonably claim that sex wasn't specifically an adult matter ? And given this ... children, surely, should NOT be indulging !

[Noir]

Stupid of me, Noir, of course, you're correct. 16 it is.

To an extent. Though there have to be set boundaries, not least legally. But, who'd reasonably claim that sex wasn't specifically an adult matter ? And given this ... children, surely, should NOT be indulging !

Sure you can say its an adult matter, but as previously stated its the definition of when an adult that then matters.

Case in point - a 16 year old from Northern Ireland, and a 16 year old from Ireland are in a sexual relationship, they take it in turns to visit each other in their respective countries. Are they always adults, always children, or variable depending on which side of the boarder they're on?
(UK age if consent 16, Ireland age of consent 17)

[Missileman]

Condoms Issue: Should Children Have Sex?


Published: October 10, 1991

Re "Parental Rites" by Anna Quindlen (column, Sept. 24):
In the debate over condoms in the schools, condom advocates have been avoiding the central question: Should children have sex? This is a legitimate issue. Saying "Children are having sex, and adults have to accept it" is not responsive. Children take drugs, shoplift, use guns, get drunk and skip school, and no one suggests adults should blithely accept such behavior or aid and abet it.
Implicit in the argument for condoms in the schools is the assumption that the only thing wrong with children having sex is the possibility they could become pregnant or contract a sexually transmitted disease.
If these were the only concerns, condoms, with their 14 percent user failure rate, would still be a poor solution. Condom advocates may feel that with abortion as a backup this is an acceptable risk, but the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) virus cannot be aborted.
Yet pregnancy and disease are not the only effects of child sex. People who are outraged over child molesting wink at child sex. How can those handing out condoms know whether or not the users are psychologically equipped to deal with sexuality? Indeed, many experts believe that no child is ready to deal with sex, no matter how eager he or she may be to engage in it.


Make them suffer all those avoidable, negative consequences, that'll teach them! :rolleyes:

[Drummond]

Make them suffer all those avoidable, negative consequences, that'll teach them! :rolleyes:

And if that includes venereal disease ? Unplanned-for pregnancies, which would doubtless have liberals coming out of the woodwork to insist that abortions take place ?

Laws exist to protect the innocent (.. though Mohammed the Paedophile might've had his own, 'special', view on that ...). They should do so.

[Drummond]

Sure you can say its an adult matter, but as previously stated its the definition of when an adult that then matters.

Case in point - a 16 year old from Northern Ireland, and a 16 year old from Ireland are in a sexual relationship, they take it in turns to visit each other in their respective countries. Are they always adults, always children, or variable depending on which side of the boarder they're on?
(UK age if consent 16, Ireland age of consent 17)

This is playing games with legal definitions.

What matters is that, even despite variations, countries draw a line in the sand and say, 'THIS is where you are recognisably adult'.

A certain pervert of Islamic persuasion, who cannot have ANY teddy bear named after him, EVER, was averse to drawing any such line based on any recognisable sense of decency. The result is that, hundreds of years later, Sharia Courts are trying to find ways of making paedophilia acceptable.

If you check, you will see that I've posted evidence of that on this forum.

See this ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202991/Sharia-marriages-girls-12-religious-courts-subverting-British-law.html


.. But a 12-year-old cannot consent to a marriage. It is precisely because children lack the experience, judgment and maturity to make such decisions that we have laws against marriage and sex under the age of 16.

Any failure of the authorities to uphold these laws, because of an apparent clash with another culture, is an example of the politically correct establishment failing vulnerable children.


Unfortunately, police and local authorities sometimes appear to allow excessive deference to cultural considerations to prevent them from acting to stop abuses.

[Robert A Whit]

not quite.... you forgot about the part where only men should enjoy sex....
damn the pill to all hell.....



i agree, should teens be having sex... no.
Do teens have sex.... yes.

And since the answer is that teens do have sex.... the better question is... should teens have access to birth control.

My answer to that is yes.

The only way I can understand you is if you mean sex that is meaningless happens so just protect them.

People engaging in meaningless sex, as young kids do, have not lived a life of broken hearts, and sex that has bad effects on said kids, or if they have, giving up as a parent is a terrible thing to do to kids.

They say rape has lifelong effects. Well, sex among those who do not love also does. Girls end up being the donkey the tail is pinned on.

I have no clue why some parents act as if they have nothing to say when it comes to sex, yet think they have plenty to say when it comes to other harmful issues.

I can't figure that one out.

Some parents simply refuse to be fully engaged in their kids lives and we wonder today how the divorce rate got so high?

I think I know why.

I wonder what parent would give up parents rights over their kids if sex prior to a mature age produced death to the kids?

I see too much of parents giving up on the kids and act as if their own kids are similar in breeding habits to our common pets.

If parents won't try, the kids won't either to evade this.

Parents lead. Some parents act as if the children are their leaders.

[Robert A Whit]

Having read all previous posts, and inspired by all save the diversions to the Muslims, since they live in their own world, a major problem I have is the Government, at any level, being involved with humans lives that include sex.

The government has duties spelled out in writing. I know of no constitution, federal or state, that stipulates the state must be involved in the sex lives of humans. Adults make laws. Children are subject to the foibles of adults who don't know those kids.

The right over the child belongs to the parent. If the parent gives the green light to kids, and kids will certainly pick up on that, such as lady saying this is to have fun for men only, whose belief system is not the childs system, so to that extent, the parents decide for their child.

A child can be just as abused by kids her or his own age (daily commentary in the media over bullying) so it is nuts to think the girl or boy will just do it to find out. Find out what?

Divorces show us all the path. I believe that in almost 100 percent of divorce, cheating happens. This is the result of the current democrat style of governing. I honestly expected the republicans to back me up in just saying no. I get the feeling some reublicans are on board with kids engaging with others who clearly can't love them.

Even young adults rush to marry not realizing the future they live depends on some decisions too often made by very immature adults. We expect kids to be immature, but my opinion shows me that some adults are also not mature. They actually approve kids having sex.

[Noir]

This is playing games with legal definitions.

Its not a game, its deadly serious.


What matters is that, even despite variations, countries draw a line in the sand and say, 'THIS is where you are recognisably adult'.

Yea, and it has nothing to do with the age of consent. If countries have the age of consent lower than the standard for an adult (like ours), then you would have to concede that out culture does not consider sex an adult only enterprise.


A certain pervert of Islamic persuasion, who cannot have ANY teddy bear named after him, EVER, was averse to drawing any such line based on any recognisable sense of decency. The result is that, hundreds of years later, Sharia Courts are trying to find ways of making paedophilia acceptable.

If you check, you will see that I've posted evidence of that on this forum.

See this ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202991/Sharia-marriages-girls-12-religious-courts-subverting-British-law.html



The problems spouted by the peadophille prophet are well known and documented. But that doesn't answer the topic question.

The main failing of the question (imo) is that it has two groups, adult and child, people in their mid-teens are neither, and as such aren't bound by either.

[aboutime]

Seems to me. Based on the lowered morality of our society, across the board today. Anyone who would say YES, as an answer to the thread's question...probably also condones NAMBLA, and Pedophile activities the supporter would prefer to keep Secret from all. Yet, manages to expose through asking such a question in the first place.
Not Rocket Science...by any means.

[Robert A Whit]

Seems to me. Based on the lowered morality of our society, across the board today. Anyone who would say YES, as an answer to the thread's question...probably also condones NAMBLA, and Pedophile activities the supporter would prefer to keep Secret from all. Yet, manages to expose through asking such a question in the first place.
Not Rocket Science...by any means.

Yes or no?

Are you actually accusing the OP of vile acts?

OP stated NO to children engaging in sex.

This is part of some posters defending that kids will be kids and parents have no control.

I happen to believe as a parent I did have control and my kids turned out fine.

[Syrenn]

Ive taken efforts to ensure that the women I've had sex with should enjoy it. In fact, i find that enjoyable regardless of the pill being in play. I'm not quite sure how the pill allows for more enjoyment of sex, other than removing the burden of natural consequences... But thats not burden I personally slough off. I don't take a hard line on whether anyone should or shouldn't have sex, unprotected or otherwise; but I don't wish anyone to confuse themselves about the true enjoyment that sex is intended to provide: offspring. So long as both parties are willing to see it through, enjoy! Otherwise, might want to consider other methods of pleasure-seeking-- there's an abundance.

the first part of my post was poking fun at a different thread. Sorry if you did not understand it. ;)




question.... so if you are unable to have children... does it follow that you no longer need to have sex?

[jimnyc]

Sure you can say its an adult matter, but as previously stated its the definition of when an adult that then matters.

Case in point - a 16 year old from Northern Ireland, and a 16 year old from Ireland are in a sexual relationship, they take it in turns to visit each other in their respective countries. Are they always adults, always children, or variable depending on which side of the boarder they're on?
(UK age if consent 16, Ireland age of consent 17)

You go by the law in which country you are physically in - and no exceptions. You don't get a break if you're caught in a bar 2 days shy from your 21st birthday either, at least not here. I know you're pointing out that they are one year apart. But if they were to look past that, then the next would be 1 year and one month and so on. Laws are laws.

[Syrenn]

The only way I can understand you is if you mean sex that is meaningless happens so just protect them.

Does sex have to have a "meaning"?

People engaging in meaningless sex, as young kids do, have not lived a life of broken hearts, and sex that has bad effects on said kids, or if they have, giving up as a parent is a terrible thing to do to kids.

i am telling you, your past is pretty well poisoning your thought processes in regards to women, sex and life. How do you know having teen sex produces bad effects?

They say rape has lifelong effects. Well, sex among those who do not love also does. Girls end up being the donkey the tail is pinned on.

Having sex for fun.... and rape are to totally different things.

I have no clue why some parents act as if they have nothing to say when it comes to sex, yet think they have plenty to say when it comes to other harmful issues.

I can't figure that one out.

Some parents simply refuse to be fully engaged in their kids lives and we wonder today how the divorce rate got so high?

I think I know why.

I wonder what parent would give up parents rights over their kids if sex prior to a mature age produced death to the kids?

unprotected sex can and does produced death in both males and females.

I see too much of parents giving up on the kids and act as if their own kids are similar in breeding habits to our common pets.

If parents won't try, the kids won't either to evade this.

Parents lead. Some parents act as if the children are their leaders.




teens have always had sex.....

[Missileman]

And if that includes venereal disease ? Unplanned-for pregnancies, which would doubtless have liberals coming out of the woodwork to insist that abortions take place ?

Laws exist to protect the innocent (.. though Mohammed the Paedophile might've had his own, 'special', view on that ...). They should do so.

I do believe you've misinterpreted the intent of my post.

[Missileman]

teens have always had sex.....

Nuh uh...only since the pill was invented, just ask Ol' Bob! :rolleyes:

[logroller]

the first part of my post was poking fun at a different thread. Sorry if you did not understand it. ;)




question.... so if you are unable to have children... does it follow that you no longer need to have sex?
Clearly that would follow; im not saying there's something inherently wrong with any and all carnal pleasures, just that it should be kept in perspective. That no matter how much i enjoy apple pie (french, a la mode), by no means is it a substitute for a well-balanced meal.

[Robert A Whit]

Nuh uh...only since the pill was invented, just ask Ol' Bob! :rolleyes:

You could have asked or simply read my other posts where that clearly has been admitted to.

[Robert A Whit]

teens have always had sex.....

If we were discussing climate change, I would not call the upward trend of divorces a lie, if you get the point.

We have by now seen the harm this has done to kids.

If you won't be part of the solution, allow others to do the task.

[Noir]

You go by the law in which country you are physically in - and no exceptions. You don't get a break if you're caught in a bar 2 days shy from your 21st birthday either, at least not here. I know you're pointing out that they are one year apart. But if they were to look past that, then the next would be 1 year and one month and so on. Laws are laws.

So a 16 year old in Northern Ireland is an adult, but in Ireland is a child?
One day trip to dublin, and suddenly someone who's been in a sexual relationship woth their partner for months is a child molester / statutory rapist?
Also they need not be 1 year apart, they need only be a month apart (or indeed less) with one younger than the other.

[jimnyc]

So a 16 year old in Northern Ireland is an adult, but in Ireland is a child?
One day trip to dublin, and suddenly someone who's been in a sexual relationship woth their partner for months is a child molester / statutory rapist?
Also they need not be 1 year apart, they need only be a month apart (or indeed less) with one younger than the other.

Then change the laws! What you're asking/expecting is that a law gets overlooked due to it being a small difference in age. Then they do that, then what about the next set of people that just barely make THAT cutoff? Someone is always going to be just a hair away from the date between legal and illegal. Laws don't change just because ages are very close together, or very close to the legal age.

Same here in the states. Say the legal age of consent is 17. If a girl who is 16 1/2 has consensual sex with a guy who is 17 and a half, he can be charged with statutory rape.

[aboutime]

Yes or no?

Are you actually accusing the OP of vile acts?

OP stated NO to children engaging in sex.

This is part of some posters defending that kids will be kids and parents have no control.

I happen to believe as a parent I did have control and my kids turned out fine.


You give me no other alternative than to take your answer as a "YES". I don't believe that, and would not accuse you of such. So...Quit making up new questions.

[Robert A Whit]

You give me no other alternative than to take your answer as a "YES". I don't believe that, and would not accuse you of such. So...Quit making up new questions.

Thank you for admitting you not only lie, but you insult, and you clearly did not understand the OP.

You are an ugly, ugly person. Jim should have taken care of you long ago.

[aboutime]

Thank you for admitting you not only lie, but you insult, and you clearly did not understand the OP.

You are an ugly, ugly person. Jim should have taken care of you long ago.


Thank you so, so much Robert. I know you are such a very sincere kind of person. What a pleasure it must be for you to say such things.

[Syrenn]

If we were discussing climate change, I would not call the upward trend of divorces a lie, if you get the point.

We have by now seen the harm this has done to kids.

If you won't be part of the solution, allow others to do the task.


is this thread of yours about the age of teens having sex...


or the reasons for divorce????


Teens having sex has nothing to do with the divorce rate.


if you keep your head in the sand.... you contribute to the problem, even if you think you are not.

[Robert A Whit]

is this thread of yours about the age of teens having sex...


or the reasons for divorce????


Teens having sex has nothing to do with the divorce rate.


if you keep your head in the sand.... you contribute to the problem, even if you think you are not.

I am not persuaded by that argument.

You may wish to take a step back and try again.

[Noir]

Then change the laws! What you're asking/expecting is that a law gets overlooked due to it being a small difference in age. Then they do that, then what about the next set of people that just barely make THAT cutoff? Someone is always going to be just a hair away from the date between legal and illegal. Laws don't change just because ages are very close together, or very close to the legal age.

Same here in the states. Say the legal age of consent is 17. If a girl who is 16 1/2 has consensual sex with a guy who is 17 and a half, he can be charged with statutory rape.

The question (as related to the OP) is 'should children have sex'. Under Irish law that would be people under 17, for British law it would be people under 16.

Therefore saying 16 year olds can have sex is fine from a UK perspective, and not from a Irish one. Because in the Irish example you are saying 'yes children should be able to have sex'

Its not a question of sex, its a question of adulthood, is a 15/16/17/18 year old an adult, and can it change back to a child if they hop on the bus for an hour?

[jimnyc]

The question (as related to the OP) is 'should children have sex'. Under Irish law that would be people under 17, for British law it would be people under 16.

Therefore saying 16 year olds can have sex is fine from a UK perspective, and not from a Irish one. Because in the Irish example you are saying 'yes children should be able to have sex'

Its not a question of sex, its a question of adulthood, is a 15/16/17/18 year old an adult, and can it change back to a child if they hop on the bus for an hour?

Almost everywhere has children reaching the age of consent from 16-18, speaking for a majority of places. So yes, in some places you are considered a child while in another you may have reached a legal age of consent. So speaking of the law, it's consistent, but one needs to take care to follow laws when traveling. You can't just think the law shouldn't count because you would be legal just a short drive away. Laws differ for reasons.

Outside of the legal system, I would agree, not much of a difference between neighbors who are 16 and 17. That doesn't mean they don't have to follow respective laws though. None of us 'truly' knows when another has reached a matured age capable of making sound decisions, which is why society has deemed a legal age of consent.

So the BEST way to answer the question - 'should children have sex' - I would say is NO. If talking the age of consent, then they are legally no longer a child.

[Kathianne]

I'm going to make this succinct, unless one wishes children it's probably a good idea to avoid sex. Not that hard to do so, avoid private areas.

Yeah, I know many will disregard, but that is really the bottom line.

[Kathianne]

Addendum, one of the perks of being my age, no problem with pregnancy. So take that! You youngins! LOL!

[logroller]

Addendum, one of the perks of being my age, no problem with pregnancy. So take that! You youngins! LOL!
"Seniors' Sex Lives Are Up — and So Are STD Cases Around the Country
Infections especially high in states with many retireesAcross the nation, and especially in communities that attract a lot of older Americans, the free-love generation is continuing to enjoy an active — if not always healthy — sex life."
http://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/news-05-2011/seniors_sex_lives_are_up_and_so_are_std_cases.html

Apparently, the clap didn't get the memo on change of life. ;)

[Syrenn]

"Seniors' Sex Lives Are Up — and So Are STD Cases Around the Country
Infections especially high in states with many retireesAcross the nation, and especially in communities that attract a lot of older Americans, the free-love generation is continuing to enjoy an active — if not always healthy — sex life."
http://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/news-05-2011/seniors_sex_lives_are_up_and_so_are_std_cases.html

Apparently, the clap didn't get the memo on change of life. ;)

A little sex education for the elderly is just as important as it is for teens..

condoms... and up to date paperwork.


it was pretty DAMN creepy when my mother got remarried...and i had to have a "talk" with her.

[Noir]

Almost everywhere has children reaching the age of consent from 16-18, speaking for a majority of places. So yes, in some places you are considered a child while in another you may have reached a legal age of consent. So speaking of the law, it's consistent, but one needs to take care to follow laws when traveling. You can't just think the law shouldn't count because you would be legal just a short drive away. Laws differ for reasons.

Maybe in the states, across Europe 14-15 is the average age of consent.


Outside of the legal system, I would agree, not much of a difference between neighbors who are 16 and 17. That doesn't mean they don't have to follow respective laws though. None of us 'truly' knows when another has reached a matured age capable of making sound decisions, which is why society has deemed a legal age of consent.

So the BEST way to answer the question - 'should children have sex' - I would say is NO. If talking the age of consent, then they are legally no longer a child.

By this logic (age of consent = not a child) then 13 year olds are not children in spain. (Which, just so happens, has a 'teach them young' sex ed policy, and has one of the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy wotldwide).

[revelarts]

So a 16 year old in Northern Ireland is an adult, but in Ireland is a child?
One day trip to dublin, and suddenly someone who's been in a sexual relationship woth their partner for months is a child molester / statutory rapist?
Also they need not be 1 year apart, they need only be a month apart (or indeed less) with one younger than the other.

This is a place where the letter of the law is stupid. and the courts and prosecutors and jries should exercise discretion.

the law need not be changed. people just need to use common sense in application.
If the 16 yr old is haveing sex with a 10 year old he goes to jail as an adult.
If he's having sex with a 15.9 you girl, he gets the fear of God put in him.
sex is not for children . there's more than one cost to pay for sex, possible fatherhood, STDs and Jail if you play with the wrong person.
Sex brings adult responsibilities if your not an adult you shouldn't play.

[jimnyc]

Maybe in the states, across Europe 14-15 is the average age of consent.



By this logic (age of consent = not a child) then 13 year olds are not children in spain. (Which, just so happens, has a 'teach them young' sex ed policy, and has one of the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy wotldwide).

The point remains exactly the same. Go from a 15 area to a 14, you'll get in trouble if you don't obey the law. Come to visit a girl in the States and you abide by the law of the state you are visiting. While we may all disagree on specifically when a child is no longer a child - the laws of the state/country you are in therefore make that decision for us.

[jimnyc]

This is a place where the letter of the law is stupid. and the courts and prosecutors and jries should exercise discretion.

the law need not be changed. people just need to use common sense in application.
If the 16 yr old is haveing sex with a 10 year old he goes to jail as an adult.
If he's having sex with a 15.9 you girl, he gets the fear of God put in him.
sex is not for children . there's more than one cost to pay for sex, possible fatherhood, STDs and Jail if you play with the wrong person.
Sex brings adult responsibilities if your not an adult you shouldn't play.

So a kid gets let off because he is only off by a month. What happens when the next kid steps up and is off by 2 months? His argument will be that he's only one month from the first guy - and so on and so on. If the law is going to let someone off at an earlier age, then just change the law to that age.

What if someone is caught at a bar just a month shy of 21 - do the cops let them go? Buying cigarettes prior to the legal age? Or ANY law that is based on age for that matter - should we 'play' with those laws in the courts and let them make judgment calls, and let people off that they think are 'close enough'?