NationStates Jolt Archive

Poll comming. I think people have the right to decide whenever they want, but I want to see what everyone else thinks.

5.

Real answer: 16.

Whatever the local laws permit, really. That age.

18-20 preferably older, teenagers are to irresponsible to have sex whenever they choose.

Between 13 and 14

18-20 preferably older, teenagers are to irresponsible to have sex whenever they choose.

That's not true.

It varies widely from person to person. I'd rather not assign a fixed number to everyone.

Marriage

People can decide whenever they want, no matter what the law says. Folks have been having sex when they like regardless of age of consent laws for a long time.

The difficulty is in telling when folks are mature enough to make a responsible and informed decision, and that generally depends on the individual in question.

Depends on the person. Obviously the law can't work that way, and I'd say the general age would be around 16ish (though can vary either way a fair bit), but if we don't have to generalise, obviously it's kinda stupid to because not everyone develops physically or emotionally or intellectually in the same way or at the same pace.

That's not true.

and why not? teenagers abuse drugs, alcohol, cars, anything they can get their hands on with reckless abandon, why should sex be different? BTW I know that this doesn't represent all teenagers, but i think it represents the large majority. I am also a teenager, 16 actually and don't plan on sex till i'm married.

and why not? teenagers abuse drugs, alcohol, cars, anything they can get their hands on with reckless abandon.

So do a very large number of adults

16. but that's a ballpark figure cos its a matter of maturity (physically, emotionally, in terms of maturity and attitude, etc)

and why not? teenagers abuse drugs, alcohol, cars, anything they can get their hands on with reckless abandon, why should sex be different?
Bullshit. *nods*
BTW I know that this doesn't represent all teenagers, but i think it represents the large majority.
Of course it represents some, lets say.. 30%

But I find it offensive that you just assume that since some do something bad, we should all be treated like little children.
I am also a teenager, 16 actually and don't plan on sex till i'm married.
I am a teenager and I'd rather learn about STI's and prevention than abstinence.

So do a very large number of adults

very true, I believe teenagers are at a much higher risk for this however, its not our moral fault really, its what our bodies are going through during adolescence, the way our brains function does not access risk very well at all, we are prone to short-sighted and rash actions unfortunately. Both teenage girls and boys are flushed with adrenaline, testosterone(males)
and estrogen(females) our body chemistry gets the better of us sometimes.


I dont think simply banning sex would work though, Education and a change in culture would be much more effective

It's really not a single age. For some people it's 15 or 16, for others it ought to be never.

Whatever jurisprudence and arbitration say it is.

I think most get there on their own between 14 and 18, regardless of what laws, religion, or even parents tell them. I was right in the middle of that range, just slightly to the young side.

In reality, I don't think most people are mature enough to not likely suffer significant emotional damage from it until much later. Still, I think the emotional resiliance may come from hurt and mistakes; some people deal with it, learn, and move on to live and love again, and some don't.

I lost my virginity 14 years ago, and there are still some residuals left over from my first intimate (physically) relationship. Sometimes a girl may say something or act a certain way in passing, and it may set off an alarm reminding me of that prior relationship. Pretty much dooms the whole thing from that point.

Maybe that's saving myself from bad situations or preventing myself from having as many good ones as I would otherwise - probably never really know.

My suggestion for the young would be to try to learn as much as you can vicariously, but don't keep yourself from life for too long just out of a well-reasoned fear of mistakes. For most people at 14, 15, 16 you aren't experienced enough to know what you can handle emotionally and physically. Hell, I'm 29 and still figuring that out, though I didn't really start getting a good idea of it until my early 20's.

The best relationship and girl I most miss from my high school years, I never did anything physical with, excpeting one peck on the lips.

To directly answer the OP's question, who the hell am I (or anyone) to set a limit for everyone else, other than my future children?

To directly answer the OP's question, who the hell am I (or anyone) to set a limit for everyone else, other than my future children?

I guess I should have said "To directly address the OP's question..." as you can't really answer a question with another question!
;)

14.

Old enough to understand and deal with all the possible consequences of sex.

Of course, I'm not naive enough to think that most people (or even many people) wait that long.

I can't really say, but I waited until I was 18, when I was legally able to at 17.

I think most get there on their own between 14 and 18, regardless of what laws, religion, or even parents tell them. I was right in the middle of that range, just slightly to the young side.

In reality, I don't think most people are mature enough to not likely suffer significant emotional damage from it until much later. Still, I think the emotional resiliance may come from hurt and mistakes; some people deal with it, learn, and move on to live and love again, and some don't.

I lost my virginity 14 years ago, and there are still some residuals left over from my first intimate (physically) relationship. Sometimes a girl may say something or act a certain way in passing, and it may set off an alarm reminding me of that prior relationship. Pretty much dooms the whole thing from that point.

Maybe that's saving myself from bad situations or preventing myself from having as many good ones as I would otherwise - probably never really know.

My suggestion for the young would be to try to learn as much as you can vicariously, but don't keep yourself from life for too long just out of a well-reasoned fear of mistakes. For most people at 14, 15, 16 you aren't experienced enough to know what you can handle emotionally and physically. Hell, I'm 29 and still figuring that out, though I didn't really start getting a good idea of it until my early 20's.

The best relationship and girl I most miss from my high school years, I never did anything physical with, excpeting one peck on the lips.

To directly answer the OP's question, who the hell am I (or anyone) to set a limit for everyone else, other than my future children?

you seem to suggest for everyone that losing one's virginity is a huge mistake and an emotionally scarring event :confused:
i'm sure its not that way for everyone (or maybe i'm just naive)

I can't really say, but I wasn't able to until I was 18, when I was legally able to at 17.

There we go.

There we go. Funny. :rolleyes:

Oh, for heavens sake, why not just call the thread "OK Pedophiles..."

Old enough is when the law says it is. Of course some children mature faster, but for the protection of ALL of them, the law is set to the age determined by the community to be the safest.

Old enough is when the law says it is. Of course some children mature faster, but for the protection of ALL of them, the law is set to the age determined by the community to be the safest.

i've head that enough on this thread and feel compelled to comment. obviously the OP is asking what age that should be, theoretically. not 'what age is one allowed to have sex' but 'at what age should one be allowed to have sex?'
ie, as per your words, what age should the community set?

Oh, for heavens sake, why not just call the thread "OK Pedophiles..."

Old enough is when the law says it is. Of course some children mature faster, but for the protection of ALL of them, the law is set to the age determined by the community to be the safest.

Which is why I voted 14. Not the law in Ireland, I admit, but the law I grew up with in Germany.

It was 14 for me but if I have children, I wouldnt want them to before 16...

Old enough to understand and deal with all the possible consequences of sex.
All possible consequences?

So never, then.

Oh, for heavens sake, why not just call the thread "OK Pedophiles..."

Old enough is when the law says it is. Of course some children mature faster, but for the protection of ALL of them, the law is set to the age determined by the community to be the safest.

I wasnt thinking like that. If it's an adult and minor thing, it should be 18. If it's between minors, it should be 16...

I'm going to go with Glitziness for this one.

14, but at that point stick to other 14 year olds, maybe 15 year olds. After that point its possible to branch out a little.

Before 14, sex simply doesn't make as much sense, and at 14 you're still not mature enough for a relationship with someone much older to be anything but creepy.

One of my friends had 3 bisexual girlfriends at age 14. He was a lucky fellow.

and why not? teenagers abuse drugs, alcohol, cars, anything they can get their hands on with reckless abandon, why should sex be different? BTW I know that this doesn't represent all teenagers, but i think it represents the large majority. I am also a teenager, 16 actually and don't plan on sex till i'm married.

You do know adults do the same, right?

You do know adults do the same, right?

already been covered

already been covered

Doesn't make it less true. If you demanded that everybody waited until their old enough to handle all the consequences, the human race would probably die out.

Oh, for heavens sake, why not just call the thread "OK Pedophiles..."

Old enough is when the law says it is. Of course some children mature faster, but for the protection of ALL of them, the law is set to the age determined by the community to be the safest.

NO just NO.

the age when you think you are old enough for sex has nothing to do with pedophiles.

prepubescent children (requirement for it being pedophilia) are not ready for sex and only those who have been abused think they are.

adolescents mostly have sex with other adolescents. they mostly start with their boyfriend or girlfriend. pedophiles have nothing to do with it.

the age of consent reflects when its OK for an ADULT to have sex with a younger person. its not illegal for the 16 year old to have sex; its illegal for the 36 year old to have sex WITH him or her.

when two 15 year old sweethearts have sex, no one goes to jail. (except in some twisted cases) its none of the governments business to tell anyone when they are old enough. its ONLY the governments business to keep adults from preying on easily manipulated underage people by setting an age of consent.

anyway i said 18 because there needs to be some amount of maturity to deal with the potential consequences of sex. pregnancy, stds, emotional wreckage, whatever. but as jgv said, who am i to say when someone else can make that decision? its too personal and too individual for me to think that i can really put a number on it that pertains to everyone.

Chef from South Park said it best.

Concerned Parent: So what age should it be ok for kids to have sex?

Chef: 17

Concerned Parent: You mean 17 in a monogomous loving long term relationship?

Chef: Nope. 17

from a legal standpoint or from my parental opinion?

I'd say 14 or 15. It sounds about right.

from a legal standpoint or from my parental opinion?

I say both.

and why not? teenagers abuse drugs, alcohol, cars, anything they can get their hands on with reckless abandon, why should sex be different? BTW I know that this doesn't represent all teenagers, but i think it represents the large majority. I am also a teenager, 16 actually and don't plan on sex till i'm married.
Oh and there are NO adults who abuse drugs, alcohol, cars or anything they can get their hands on with reckless abandon?

Between 13 and 14

I'll take 14. ;)

it's time for the Freedom to :fluffle: !

Between 13 and 14

youve gotta be kidding me

Marriage, ideally, but I think the age of consent should be 17.

I say both.

from a purely legal standpoint I have to agree with Ashmoria.

from a parent? I would like for my girls to wait until they are mature enough to deal with all the consequences of sex, and probably until they are ready to be married.

I see people my age though who are not emotionally capable of a sexual relationship.

once your able to.

Whenever they hit maturity.

I would say wait until you know what could happen and how to prevent it (which most people in my town learn by the age of 13) but wait until 15, 16 or 17, whichever one you feel like.

I would say wait until you know what could happen and how to prevent it (which most people in my town learn by the age of 13) but wait until 15, 16 or 17, whichever one you feel like.

I say set it at 14 for a 14-15 YO partner, 15 for a 14-16 YO partner, and 16 for up to 18. At 17, The Chef Theorem applies.

The Chef Theorem is as follows:

Concerned Parent: So what age should it be ok for kids to have sex?

Chef: 17

Concerned Parent: You mean 17 in a monogomous loving long term relationship?

Chef: Nope, just 17.

Concerned Parent: What if they aren't mature enough?

Chef: 17.

It varies widely from person to person. I'd rather not assign a fixed number to everyone.

Ding, what he said.

There's some adults who lack the maturity to have sex, there's some people who haven't hit high school who are mature enough to make wise choices.

Unfortunately it's the stupid ones who keep breeding in the dozens.

Marriage, ideally, but I think the age of consent should be 17.

waiting for marriage is a bad idea. id say, if you want to be (as much as possible) sure of not making a terrible mistake, you should wait until you are engaged to be married.

i think the age of consent should be 14, the age you enter highschool.

Can't really assign one number to everyone, as people do not all mature at the same age (some never do). Sixteen is about average I would think, though.

waiting for marriage is a bad idea. id say, if you want to be (as much as possible) sure of not making a terrible mistake, you should wait until you are engaged to be married.

what sort of terrible mistake?

15 or 16. 18 is too high say I.

very true, I believe teenagers are at a much higher risk for this however, its not our moral fault really, its what our bodies are going through during adolescence, the way our brains function does not access risk very well at all, we are prone to short-sighted and rash actions unfortunately. Both teenage girls and boys are flushed with adrenaline, testosterone(males)
and estrogen(females) our body chemistry gets the better of us sometimes.Yes & no. My girl lost her virginity when she was 12. She practiced safe sex, didn't feel pressured into anything & have no regrets - that's according to her.
I lost my virginity at 14, I didn't practice safe sex & wasted stupid on a combination of drugs when it happened. I wish it'd been different. I regret my early days as a teenager in general to be honest.

Just so there's no confusion; we're adults fast approaching 30.I dont think simply banning sex would work though, Education and a change in culture would be much more effectiveWhich is basically the difference between my girl & I. She knew perfectly well what she was doing. I'd barely even had a glance at a porn mag yet.

Kids are ready when they're ready. The only two things we can & should do as responsible adults, is to ensure they don't fall pray to other adults, and ensure they know what good, relaxed & safe sex is all about. It may be frightning that some have sex at such an early age. It is to me. It just isn't relevant to the kids though, because whether we fret or not, it will happen. All we can do is try to make sure no harm comes of it.

I can't be arsed to find relevant statistics, but in most of Scandinavia, teenagers are far better at practicing safe sex than everyone else. The high risk groups for STDs & unwanted pregnancies (and consequently abortions) are the 20-30 year olds, gay & bisexual men, and teenagers from strongly religious rural areas (interestingly, I happen to be in two of those three groups).

Finally about that marriage before sex fad.. It's nonsense. At best it'll lead to insane expectations in bed that can't possibly be fulfilled. At worst, you'll end up with a terrible lay & feel too insecure to attempt to do anything about it for the rest of your life. It is your choice, but it isn't a very bright one.

Sex is most of all something you learn. If you're afraid to do that & won't attempt it, you'll never satisfy nor be satisfied in bed. A true pitty, because it really can be a hell of a lot of fun. For your sake, I hope you'll spend your 20s having a lot of interesting sex with a lot of interesting people, so you won't get stuck in a rut when you marry. It could easily be the doom of your marriage.

EDIT: In general terms I think 16-20 is about the right age for most people.

what sort of terrible mistake?

Marrying the wrong person.

what sort of terrible mistake?

the kind of terrible mistake that comes of promiscuous sex. the kind of terrible mistake that women make when they think that they can get a man to fall in love with them by sleeping with him. the kind of terrible mistake that comes of believing a man who says he luuuuuvs you and wants to have sex with you then dumps you the next day.

if you wait until you are in such a serious relationship that you are engaged and actually planning a wedding you avoid most of those situations. bad things can still happen but they are similar to the bad things that can happen if you wait until after the ceremony.

It is different for everyone, beause everyone matures at different ages. Some may be mature enough to make good decisions at age 14/15, others may not reach it until age 17/18. You really can't assign a certain age to it.

what sort of terrible mistake?

Looking down for the first time and asking:

WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT ?! :eek: :eek: :eek:

when the Chap has learnt how to smoke a cigar properly with outgetting sick or got his First brair

Depends from person to person, there is no one size fits all.

the kind of terrible mistake that comes of promiscuous sex. the kind of terrible mistake that women make when they think that they can get a man to fall in love with them by sleeping with him. the kind of terrible mistake that comes of believing a man who says he luuuuuvs you and wants to have sex with you then dumps you the next day.

if you wait until you are in such a serious relationship that you are engaged and actually planning a wedding you avoid most of those situations. bad things can still happen but they are similar to the bad things that can happen if you wait until after the ceremony.

sorry Ash, I misread your post, I thought (don't ask me why) that you meant that if you waited until you were engaged or married to have sex that you would be making a terrible mistake.

Seventeen.

Not seventeen, if you're in love, just seventeen.
What if you're not ready at seventeen? Bah, seventeen, you're ready.

Just, seventeen.

In general I would probably say 18.
For my daughter 30 ;)

I voted 17, but I chose not to give it up 'til 19. I am a smart cookie.

(And it wasn't for lack of opportunity, might I add.)

I say set it at 14 for a 14-15 YO partner, 15 for a 14-16 YO partner, and 16 for up to 18. At 17, The Chef Theorem applies.

The Chef Theorem is as follows:

Concerned Parent: So what age should it be ok for kids to have sex?

Chef: 17

Concerned Parent: You mean 17 in a monogomous loving long term relationship?

Chef: Nope, just 17.

Concerned Parent: What if they aren't mature enough?

Chef: 17.

Someone doesnt read previous posts :)

That was my theory on life way before I heard Chef say it in "Proper Condom Use".

14-15. Lower if our society didn't obsess over the issue so much.

when you feel confortable enough to go through with it for the first time. for some it's 14 for others it's 22 (or older probably)

Whatever the local laws permit, really. That age.

gotta agree with that assesment.

which brings me to some jokes.....jokes people.

10 will get you 20(obvious )

old enough to bleed...old enough to breed(nasty)

i'll stop there...cause i just grossed myself out.

old enough to bleed...old enough to breed(nasty)


Sadly, a 10 year old girl I know just got her period. She really CAN breed. Sick, huh?

one of my friends started her period when she was 8. that just makes that joke soooooooooo wrong even wronger than it was ever intended.

Looking down for the first time and asking:

WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT ?! :eek: :eek: :eek:


lmao. that's probably how alot of first "encounters" happen.

For the pure matter of being "allowed" to decide, it should be as soon as one both hits puberty, and knows all of the facts.

As for being mature enough to have sound judgement... I believe it varies from person to person. I would guess that an exceptionally brilliant person would have level judgement at about 15-16, while the less intelligent kind aren't mature enough until well in to their mid-20's.

18.

I would say ideally 16 is a fair age. If they're old enough to drive a car than they should be allowed to utilize the back seat properly. Preferably age alone should not be the deciding factor, but I doubt too many people will be in favor of issuing tests deeming capability and parenting licenses anytime soon.

The obvious answer: When you are old enough to want and be able to take care of children.

Don't give me the crap about birth control. It all has a failure rate and the 99% they put on the label is under ideal conditions.

The truth is over 50% of the children born were conceived while the mother was using birth control.

It's different for everyone, really...but since you have to have an age of consent, I'll say 16.

I am also a teenager, 16 actually and don't plan on sex till i'm married.

Dear friend, I am 14, and you sir, are a fool. Perhaps 'till your married is indeed a safe and "civilized" *cough* thing to do.. But if you can be responsible enough to decide you will not have sex yet. Then you are very much enough responsible and mature you can have sex right now.

But if you can be responsible enough to decide you will not have sex yet. Then you are very much enough responsible and mature you can have sex right now.

This isn't necessarily true. I knew, in high school, that I wasn't ready for sex. Knowing that I wasn't ready for it didn't magically make me ready for it. And I waited until I was ready to make that decision.

A person who recognizes whether or not they are truly ready for sex is approaching it responsibly and maturely. But the responsible and mature thing to do still might be to wait.

16 but 14 if the age difference is less than 2 years.

It varies greatly from person to person, of course. I picked 18 solely because the majority of my friends who lost their virginity in college or later have no regrets about it, whereas the majority of my friends who lost their virginity in high school or earlier have significant regrets about it. My friends are obviously not perfectly representative of the world at large, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's a reasonably common breakdown.

It's okay as soon as you feel emotionally and physically ready. I believe that your first time should be with someone you "love" (meaning, they don't have to be your soul-mate, but you trust them, need them, want them and lust for them), and it should be in a safe, comfortable situation. I was fourteen, but a lot of people I know have lost it earlier or much later. It all depends on the person. Sex is a beautiful thing. You shouldn't avoid it just because people say you're too young, too stupid or too immature. You can only decide for yourself. That being said, the legal age of consent in my country is 16, and I definitely think it is wrong for an under 16-year-old to engage in relations with a much older woman or man. Embrace the love, people.

youve gotta be kidding me

Why?

Marriage, ideally, but I think the age of consent should be 17.

Ideally for whom? I never had the slightest inclination to get married... ever.

I would say ideally 16 is a fair age. If they're old enough to drive a car than they should be allowed to utilize the back seat properly. Preferably age alone should not be the deciding factor, but I doubt too many people will be in favor of issuing tests deeming capability and parenting licenses anytime soon.

Especially since that would disqualify many adults from ever having sex :D

But I'm still sticking with 13 or 14. Several of my friends lost their virginity around that age, and looking back, I wish I had, too. I wasted an awful lot of time in my life...

Frankly, I don't think anyone should have sex without my permission. You're not responsible enough. Overpopulation, pollution, taking my jobs, nabbing my taxes, voting for idiots, driving like morons, breeding like deranged rabbits!

I'm 16, and I haven't had sex, Just dont wanna. I feel I'm old enough and mature enough, but hey.

I'd have to say either puberty, or local laws, whatever is the highest age.

Don't give me the crap about birth control. It all has a failure rate and the 99% they put on the label is under ideal conditions.Even without birthcontrol the chance of getting pregnant is lower than 10%. Add the pill and a condom into the equation and chances are very, very slim.

The truth is over 50% of the children born were conceived while the mother was using birth control.The truth is, you made that statistic up.

How old is old enough for sex?It depends on the person, and on the person they want to have sex with.

Don't give me the crap about birth control. It all has a failure rate and the 99% they put on the label is under ideal conditions.

The truth is over 50% of the children born were conceived while the mother was using birth control.

99% With education on how to use it. That's why we get taught, it's a better system than abstinence only.

And 50%? You sure that wasn't the amount that were accidents as opposed to failed contraceptives?

Whenever a man is old enough to die for his country!

To me, I don't think you can really put an age on it.

Some people may have health problems which will prevent them from having sex (and/or children) in their 20's and may need to start at an earlier age.

However, in general I think the youngest a person should start having sex is around 16... and ONLY if they're in a serious and loving relationship... and NOT because they just want to have fun and experiment.

(I feel quite strongly about sex being a sacred thing to only be shared in true love).

i lost my virginity the other week, at 17
my boyfriends 15, but i wasnt his first.
neither of us regret anything we've ever done
what i gather from this, is that it doesnt matter whether you're above or below the age of consent

as long as you feel you are ready, and understand the possible consequences, then why not?

i put 14, cos it was the lowest.

(I feel quite strongly about sex being a sacred thing to only be shared in true love).

No offence, but I find that notion slightly dangerous, if applied as an absolute.

I used to think the same way and ended up so desperate - literally! - that I mistook an emotionally abusive relationship for true love.
Had I been more alert, had I known myself and my sexual side better, had I known and believed (as in, known and felt) that the first one doesn't have to be the only one, had I had more confidence in my sexual self on the whole, I would never have this relationship take over my life and nearly destroy it.

Well, I guess this is a legal question, rather than a moral one. After all, as long as no one's life or property is threatened, where's the crime in letting a child of any age experiment however they wish? However, as long as children are perceived as property of their parents, the potential "damage" to the parents' "property" must be taken into account. Perhaps removing this idea of ownership from the equation would be helpful, a la "it takes a village to raise a child."

Whenever the pedophile two blocks thinks you are :p








Personally; anywhere between 11 and never, depending on the type of relationship, age of person they're having sex with (a 45-year old with someone aged 11 is just wrong, as is someone aged 18 doing HC BDSM with a partner 6 years his/her junior) and other factors.

I said marriage, because that's just how I feel. I guess I feel that way because I don't want to get married because I don't want to have sex. But that's just me, because it sounds gross to me.

I said marriage, because that's just how I feel. I guess I feel that way because I don't want to get married because I don't want to have sex. But that's just me, because it sounds gross to me.

How old are you?

Someone is a little Minx.:eek:

From a developmental (mental) standpoint, 16 seems to be a good catch all age for the majority of teens to have fully entered abstract reasoning and therefore be able to give informed consent (whether they have the information to make the informed consent is another story). Most teens enter that phase at 13-14, but 16 gets the late bloomers.

In terms of actuality, it's going to happen at whatever age the children in question decide to make it happen, my understanding of development or no.

I would add on the whole waiting till marriage thing though, there ARE issues of being sexually incompatable that you may not find out till too late if you wait. As I am finding out, being newly married is enough fun in making adjustments to your life without trying to figure out what pleases you in the bedroom (or your location of choice) and then finding out that your partner isn't happy with that at all. Yes, all sexual and other relationships are compromises, but there's only so far one can bend on issues of taste.

http://jafproject.net/images8/stennett.jpg

Yes, all sexual and other relationships are compromises, but there's only so far one can bend on issues of taste.
I believe that if your partner is truly the one you love, you wouldn't leave them because of sexual issues. It is something you would work through together, because you want to find a solution.

I think people these days are too eager to cut and run from relationships at the slightest problem. Sex is very important, yes, but it is not so important that it should be the make-or-break issue in a loving relationship.

I believe that if your partner is truly the one you love, you wouldn't leave them because of sexual issues. It is something you would work through together, because you want to find a solution.

I think people these days are too eager to cut and run from relationships at the slightest problem. Sex is very important, yes, but it is not so important that it should be the make-or-break issue in a loving relationship.
Look at it from this way though, let us say for the sake of argument that your S/O is a frisky whatever (Er, I don't actually know your gender prefference so please bear with me here), whereas while you feel that while sex is nice, it's nice in a once every two weeks or so way.

The first year of marriage... no problem, s/he compromises and keeps the bed play to once every two weeks to accomodate you.

But that drive is a part of who s/he is and it may lead to them feeling a bit frustrated. Perhaps s/he, being a wonderful person and very much in love, approches you after a few years and mentions that, you know, once a week would be better. Twice would be great.

How would you feel? Pressured to give into something for your S/O perhaps? Possibly be willing to, of course, you're very much in love after all.

But 5 years later of feeling forced into action far more than you are really happy with, what will intmacy be for you then? Will you still be happy, or will you resent the pressure? And should you shut off, how will s/he feel?

Hurt, mayhaps?

Sexual Intmacy is a communications tool between couples and it helps if both are speaking the same lanuage. You're right, you CAN compromise and work out a lot of things, maybe even this (this is an easy one, extream forms of one partner being adventerous and the other not can happen), but it WILL produce a large amount of stress on the marriage that really doesn't need to be there in the first place.

-snip-
I accept that, like anything in a relationship, if one person wants one thing and the other wants another then over the massive time spans involved in a marriage this could cause problems. Having said this, there are two issues I would say immediately spring to mind.

Firstly, 'compromise' does not necessarily mean that one has to give up everything to the other. Doing my best to avoid crudeness, in the scenario you outlined above, there are solutions that could be satisfactory to both partners. For example, it could be that the couple agree to have penetrative sex once or twice a week, but 'quickies' at other points during the week, for example the less eagar partner masturbating the more keen one. By doing this, you still have the intimacy of making love, and the sexual desires of the keen party is satisfied at little cost to the less eagar one.

Secondly, what you say assumes that sexual preferences remain fixed over time. There is no reason to suggest that the less eagar partner doesn't become more eagar, or vice versa. Indeed, it is likely that in time sexual preferences will, like where you decide to keep the tea, come into line. Alternatively, what is to say that I decide someone is 'sexually compatable' with me, and then, five years down the line, they suddenly develop an interest in something I find repulsive?

Sex is such a wonderful thing, but it is also one of the biggest causes of arguments between couples; I don't believe that 'screening' will remove these arguments, just potentially change the nature of them.

*SNIP*
Which is all very true, but while sexual tastes DO change over time, finding out what you, yourself want, is a process where tastes may change quite rapidly and your wedding night is hardly the time to really be working this part out.

This is, of course, my own opinion so please take it as such. But from my own experiance, it did take me a while to learn what to do and figure out what I wanted.

Thankfully I also found a wonderful woman who wants the same so... :D

Which is all very true, but while sexual tastes DO change over time, finding out what you, yourself want, is a process where tastes may change quite rapidly and your wedding night is hardly the time to really be working this part out.
On this I would agree; I am not against sex before marriage, just the idea of 'shopping around' for the best sexual partner. Sex is a very important part of a relationship, but it should never be the basis of a relationship. Such a partnership is almost certainly doomed to failure.

On this I would agree; I am not against sex before marriage, just the idea of 'shopping around' for the best sexual partner. Sex is a very important part of a relationship, but it should never be the basis of a relationship. Such a partnership is almost certainly doomed to failure.
In that case, I agree wholeheartedly (which I'm sure is going to get me yelled at here soon). Sex should be for those in a deep relationship, I just feel that waiting until saying "I do" may be a bit too much in terms of causing problems later on.

I accept that, like anything in a relationship, if one person wants one thing and the other wants another then over the massive time spans involved in a marriage this could cause problems. Having said this, there are two issues I would say immediately spring to mind.

Firstly, 'compromise' does not necessarily mean that one has to give up everything to the other. Doing my best to avoid crudeness, in the scenario you outlined above, there are solutions that could be satisfactory to both partners. For example, it could be that the couple agree to have penetrative sex once or twice a week, but 'quickies' at other points during the week, for example the less eagar partner masturbating the more keen one. By doing this, you still have the intimacy of making love, and the sexual desires of the keen party is satisfied at little cost to the less eagar one.

Secondly, what you say assumes that sexual preferences remain fixed over time. There is no reason to suggest that the less eagar partner doesn't become more eagar, or vice versa. Indeed, it is likely that in time sexual preferences will, like where you decide to keep the tea, come into line. Alternatively, what is to say that I decide someone is 'sexually compatable' with me, and then, five years down the line, they suddenly develop an interest in something I find repulsive?

Sex is such a wonderful thing, but it is also one of the biggest causes of arguments between couples; I don't believe that 'screening' will remove these arguments, just potentially change the nature of them.


Ok, a few words to the first suggestion : Sex is not always penetrative, and quickies usually are. Unless you list blowjob under quickies.
If one partner has a higher sex drive than the other, having more non-penetrative sex is no compromise and most certainly no solution. If one partner doesn't feel like physical contact, he/she doesn't feel like it. It's not a rational thing, it's more the emotional character of that person. And if this partner doesn't feel like physical contact, or only feels like cuddling, then masturbating the other will be as much a favour to the other as having sex with him/her would be.
And it would nor be nearly as satisfying to the more eager partner.
The most important thing in any form of sexual contact (at least to me, and to most people I talked about it so far) is making your partner happy and satisfied. It is a way of expressing feelings, of making yourself feel good by making another person feel good, and of course letting the other person make you feel good. If it was simply about reaching orgasm, masturbation would do just fine, there would be no need at all for a second part.

Secondly, preferences may change in time, but sexual hunger seldom does. If a person is frisky, as Nervun put it, it's not very likely that that is going to change in a couple of years. And if a person is emotionally not very interested in sex, you can't change him/her.

whereas while you feel that while sex is nice, it's nice in a once every two weeks or so way.

there are people who think that? :confused: :confused:

On this I would agree; I am not against sex before marriage, just the idea of 'shopping around' for the best sexual partner. Sex is a very important part of a relationship, but it should never be the basis of a relationship. Such a partnership is almost certainly doomed to failure.

Sex IS one of the foundations of a relationship. Without it, we tend to call it a "friendship".

It's not the only foundation, I definitely agree on that, you have to have more than one foundation to rest your relationship on; you can't rely just on sex, same as you can't rely just on same interests or views. But take it away, and the relationship will crumble.

I have never in my life met somebody who was "shopping around", as you put it. People entered relationships, tried to make them work, failed, and moved on hoping that the next one would work. There's one single relationship I know of that failed because sex, and that was a marriage of 13 years.

there are people who think that? :confused: :confused:
Yup.

Not everyone is raring to go at every minute of every day.

If it was simply about reaching orgasm, masturbation would do just fine, there would be no need at all for a second part.
Couples will have two reasons for having sex; the first being intimacy and bonding, and the second being the natural instinct. To believe that only one of these is important will lead to a big void in a relationship, and ultimately big feelings of dissatisfaction.

As such, there are times when it is simply about reaching orgasm, and masturbating your partner is a much less involved process for yourself than full on intercourse. You are right to say that it does of course require a degree of work on the part of the less interested partner, but this is all part of the compromise.

Secondly, preferences may change in time, but sexual hunger seldom does. If a person is frisky, as Nervun put it, it's not very likely that that is going to change in a couple of years. And if a person is emotionally not very interested in sex, you can't change him/her.
Sexual desire is one of the biggest things that change over time; men tend to become less interested, and women more. You say 'a couple of years'; marriage is a lot longer than this. As you spend time in each others company, you adapt more and more to each other. You may never 'change' the other person, but you can live with their 'downsides' because you love the positives they bring you.

Meh. If two 14-yr-olds are gettin' it on, I couldn't care less as long as they're using protection. A 14-yr-old and an 18-yr-old, a little weird, but I still don't see anything too wrong with it. When you get to be 19+ is when anything below 16 is off limits.

So to sum up: 13 is the earliest, as long as they use protection.

Sex IS one of the foundations of a relationship. Without it, we tend to call it a "friendship".

I completely and utterly disagree. I would feel very sorry for anyone whose partner is only different to their other friends in that they sleep with them.

I completely and utterly disagree. I would feel very sorry for anyone whose partner is only different to their other friends in that they sleep with them.

I've had friendships that were more deep and meaningful than some of the relationships I've had. And I'm not talking about flings here.
Friends are not just acquaintances you like, they can be dearly loved people and a friendship can be an important emotional connection.

However, they are friends, not partners. A friendship is not less than a partnership, it's an emotional connection on a different level that doesn't involve sex or anything physical. For me to call someone my partner requires physical contact as well as emotional involvement.

Couples will have two reasons for having sex; the first being intimacy and bonding, and the second being the natural instinct. To believe that only one of these is important will lead to a big void in a relationship, and ultimately big feelings of dissatisfaction.

As such, there are times when it is simply about reaching orgasm, and masturbating your partner is a much less involved process for yourself than full on intercourse. You are right to say that it does of course require a degree of work on the part of the less interested partner, but this is all part of the compromise.

If it is simply about reaching orgasm, a porn movie and a sex toy will do just as well. There is no need to involve your partner if he/she doesn't feel like sex.


Sexual desire is one of the biggest things that change over time; men tend to become less interested, and women more. You say 'a couple of years'; marriage is a lot longer than this. As you spend time in each others company, you adapt more and more to each other. You may never 'change' the other person, but you can live with their 'downsides' because you love the positives they bring you.

*lol
I've yet to meet a man who actually became less interested in sex as he got older. Unless there is some physical problem involved, that is.
Btw, your adaption theory would only work if it was the woman who was less interested in sex to begin with, otherwise age is going to add to the already existing problem.

I've had friendships that were more deep and meaningful than some of the relationships I've had. And I'm not talking about flings here.
Friends are not just acquaintances you like, they can be dearly loved people and a friendship can be an important emotional connection.

However, they are friends, not partners. A friendship is not less than a partnership, it's an emotional connection on a different level that doesn't involve sex or anything physical. For me to call someone my partner requires physical contact as well as emotional involvement.

I've had friends with benefits before. It's not all that bad.

If it is simply about reaching orgasm, a porn movie and a sex toy will do just as well. There is no need to involve your partner if he/she doesn't feel like sex.
Then that could easily form part of the compromise as well.

*lol
I've yet to meet a man who actually became less interested in sex as he got older. Unless there is some physical problem involved, that is.
Btw, your adaption theory would only work if it was the woman who was less interested in sex to begin with, otherwise age is going to add to the already existing problem.
True, but we're limited here by the fact that it was a very loose example in the first place, not a fixed set of events.

Total sexual incompatibility may be a problem that cannot be overcome, (I don't know, one being into whipping people and the other most definitely not liking being whipped); but different levels of desire are a relatively minor issue that should never be an problem for a loving couple.

from a health standpoint - 17

from a moral standpoint - 21

personal opinion - 18

True, but we're limited here by the fact that it was a very loose example in the first place, not a fixed set of events.

Total sexual incompatibility may be a problem that cannot be overcome, (I don't know, one being into whipping people and the other most definitely not liking being whipped); but different levels of desire are a relatively minor issue that should never be an problem for a loving couple.
My original point being that it will BE a problem. One that can be worked out, but it will start to rankle and become and excuse for other behavore or problems as well.

It can be worked out, but I would think knowing what you're looking for, and then making sure the person you're in a relationship with has it ahead of time when it's still easy to break it off (as opposed to the legal mess of a divorce) would be a good idea.

Then that could easily form part of the compromise as well.

True, but we're limited here by the fact that it was a very loose example in the first place, not a fixed set of events.

Total sexual incompatibility may be a problem that cannot be overcome, (I don't know, one being into whipping people and the other most definitely not liking being whipped); but different levels of desire are a relatively minor issue that should never be an problem for a loving couple.

To be perfectly honest, having a partner who doesn't want sex as often as I do would soon enough pose a problem for me. Masturbation is not the same as sex... I would either try and find sexual partners elsewhere (which I, personally, think is pointless as it reduces the partnership to a farce), or else would end the relationship altogether.
Now, I know that there are couples who live a happy sexless life, but I also know that I wouldn't want that. It would make me deeply unhappy with the relationship in the long run.

I've had friends with benefits before. It's not all that bad.

True... but friends with benefits normally wouldn't have such a close emotional connection. ;)

Mine never had.

It can be worked out, but I would think knowing what you're looking for, and then making sure the person you're in a relationship with has it ahead of time when it's still easy to break it off (as opposed to the legal mess of a divorce) would be a good idea.

But this still strikes me as placing an greater importance on sex than it deserves. I love my fianceé more than anything, and I could never lose her her simply because of sexual issues. I would rather lose sex than lose her, and I don't believe in a loving relationship it should ever be the other way round.

Yup.

Not everyone is raring to go at every minute of every day.

wow. you learn something every day :p

from a health standpoint - 17

from a moral standpoint - 21

personal opinion - 18From an environmental standpoint 50+

But this still strikes me as placing an greater importance on sex than it deserves. I love my fianceé more than anything, and I could never lose her her simply because of sexual issues. I would rather lose sex than lose her, and I don't believe in a loving relationship it should ever be the other way round.

I guess that qualifies you as one of the people with less sexual appetite than others.
Some people are different, though. What's true for you doesn't have to be true for everyone. And being willing to give up sex makes you a minority, I guess.

I guess that qualifies you as one of the people with less sexual appetite than others.
Some people are different, though. What's true for you doesn't have to be true for everyone. And being willing to give up sex makes you a minority, I guess.

I like sex a LOT, but I love my husband, I would give up sex for him (although I really don't know what kind of situation would require that, beyond him getting sicker than he is now)

I guess that qualifies you as one of the people with less sexual appetite than others.
I assure you that is most certainly not true. :p

From an environmental standpoint 50+

Enviro...eh?

But this still strikes me as placing an greater importance on sex than it deserves. I love my fianceé more than anything, and I could never lose her her simply because of sexual issues. I would rather lose sex than lose her, and I don't believe in a loving relationship it should ever be the other way round.
And I love my wife and we both have made compromises for each other in many aspects of our lives, both before and after marriage.

I didn't say that it's a make or break, but that NOT knowing can cause some huge problems later on down the road which could be avoided earlier on.

True... but friends with benefits normally wouldn't have such a close emotional connection. ;)

Mine never had.

Mine did. Usually they were ex-girlfriends I ended up staying friends with.

I like sex a LOT, but I love my husband, I would give up sex for him (although I really don't know what kind of situation would require that, beyond him getting sicker than he is now)

Ok, so I'm the minority. :p ;)

On the other hand, I probably would not build any relationship with someone who doesn't have a healthy appetite, just like I probably would not build one with a white supremacist or an overly conservative person. It wouldn't match, it wouldn't work out.
I know that there are people here who wouldn't start a relatinship with an overweight person, or with a person that's taller/shorter than they are. I know there are religious people who wouldn't start a relationship with someone of a different faith or an atheist. I also know that I would have a very hard time indeed trying to start a relationship with a religious person.
It's just different preferences. I know I wouldn't be happy if I found out on the wedding night (assuming I even wanted to get married in the first place ;) ) that my husband is a big prude who won't even leave the lights on.

And I love my wife and we both have made compromises for each other in many aspects of our lives, both before and after marriage.

I didn't say that it's a make or break, but that NOT knowing can cause some huge problems later on down the road which could be avoided earlier on.

Yeah, it just makes the relationship easier and healthier if you know eachother physically before you make a huge commitment like marriage. You have to keep in mind, you're still human, and you need to take care of your own needs as well.

Yeah, it just makes the relationship easier and healthier if you know eachother physically before you make a huge commitment like marriage. You have to keep in mind, you're still human, and you need to take care of your own needs as well.

it's always interesting to me when people say that.

and why not? teenagers abuse drugs, alcohol, cars, anything they can get their hands on with reckless abandon, why should sex be different? BTW I know that this doesn't represent all teenagers, but i think it represents the large majority. I am also a teenager, 16 actually and don't plan on sex till i'm married.

So do adults ... your point?

In fact "Adults" tend to have higher percentage of things like drunk driving and such

14.

it's always interesting to me when people say that.

How so?

I love my fiancee, but if we'd never had sex and then got married, and realized we weren't happy with eachother physically or sexually, that's a mistake that could've been prevented.

And I'm not all about sex, don't get the wrong idea, we were long-distance for four years and during those four years I only saw her three times.

I just know what I need and what I want, and I know what I can and can not do without. I know she wouldn't want me to torture myself over something I know I want but she can't give me, that would only make her depressed. It would just be unhealthy for both of us.

you seem to suggest for everyone that losing one's virginity is a huge mistake and an emotionally scarring event :confused:
i'm sure its not that way for everyone (or maybe i'm just naive)

That's not really what I meant to say, just that it can be sometimes, maybe even often. I'm not just talking about the first time, either.

Unless you are going to wait until you are married and only have sex with one person your whole life, you're probably going to have some bad experiences along with the good. My only point is that, at least for me and the people I've known well, it's very much easier to deal with emotionally as you get older. Still, it may get easier as a result of experience with past hurts, in addition to maturity and a stronger self-opinion. I'm not saying one way or the other what people should do or when, just pointing out something I feel to be true. It's a tradeoff, with potential risks and benefits to your mental health and self worth.

How so?

I love my fiancee, but if we'd never had sex and then got married, and realized we weren't happy with eachother physically or sexually, that's a mistake that could've been prevented.

And I'm not all about sex, don't get the wrong idea, we were long-distance for four years and during those four years I only saw her three times.

I just know what I need and what I want, and I know what I can and can not do without. I know she wouldn't want me to torture myself over something I know I want but she can't give me, that would only make her depressed. It would just be unhealthy for both of us.
my explaination would terribly hijack this thred and probably get me flamed into oblivion because it's long and people wouldn't read it, and if they did they wouldn't understand it, and then they would assume facts not in evidence.....and it's a whole mess.

I understand what you are saying, although I don't agree with it. ;)

None of the above. You're old enough when you are responsible which varies. Some never reach the age of maturity and should never procreate.

Unfourtunatly, some do.

None of the above. You're old enough when you are responsible which varies.

I have to agree with this. So I'm going to say 20+ for I find that there are very few teenagers who are mature enough to make such a decision.

How old are you?

16, and I don't ever want to get married to anyone because I don't want to ever have sex.

Poll comming. I think people have the right to decide whenever they want, but I want to see what everyone else thinks.

No idea if this has been asked already, but.. why is "marriage" in the poll ? It is not an answer to the question, since in some countries people can marry as young as 9...

No idea if this has been asked already, but.. why is "marriage" in the poll ? It is not an answer to the question, since in some countries people can marry as young as 9...

I guess because in some people's opinion, it's not age that should be the legalising factor for having sex, but a religious ceremony.

16, and I don't ever want to get married to anyone because I don't want to ever have sex.

Most people get past the 'ew, sex is icky' phase at about 13

Most people get past the 'ew, sex is icky' phase at about 13

Well, I guess I'm not past it yet.

99% With education on how to use it. That's why we get taught, it's a better system than abstinence only.

And 50%? You sure that wasn't the amount that were accidents as opposed to failed contraceptives?
I can't find the research I was quoting, but here is a list of actual failures in the first year. I copied it but since it wasn't exactly what I was looking for failed to copy source. But it doesn't take too much to find failure rates. Notice 8 failures per 100 women for the pill in the first year. Condom 15 during first year. I'll keep looking for the 50% births the mother reported conception with birth control.


Category


Method


Number of unplanned pregnancies among 100 typical users during the first year of use


Hormonal

Combination birth control pills


8

Injections (Depo-Provera)


3

Transdermal patch


8

Progestin-only pills (mini-pills)


8

Vaginal ring


8
IUD

Levonorgestrel (LNg 20) IUD


Fewer than 1

Copper T 380-A IUD


Fewer than 1
Barrier methods

Condom, male


15

Withdrawal


27

Condom, female


21

Diaphragm with spermicide


16

Spermicide alone


29

Sponge with spermicide (no previous vaginal childbirth)


16

Sponge with spermicide (after vaginal childbirth)


32

Cervical cap (no previous vaginal childbirth)


16

Cervical cap (after vaginal delivery)


32
Fertility awareness

Periodic abstinence and fertility awareness methods


25
Surgery

Vasectomy


Fewer than 1

Tubal ligation or tubal implants


Fewer than 1
No birth control

No birth control


85

16, and I don't ever want to get married to anyone because I don't want to ever have sex.

Why not?

Why not?

Because it sounds gross and frightening to me and I don't ever want to.

Because it sounds gross and frightening to me and I don't ever want to.

It can be frightening at first, as any new thing can. But it's never gross. It really is one of the most beautiful things you can do. :)

Especially since that would disqualify many adults from ever having sex :D

But I'm still sticking with 13 or 14. Several of my friends lost their virginity around that age, and looking back, I wish I had, too. I wasted an awful lot of time in my life...

I lost my virginity at 14 also, but I really don't think it was a good age to start having sex. Retrospect, retrospect. Of course, if I had waited until I was 16, I would have missed out on a lot of great sex.


Teenage sex was the best. :fluffle:

I lost my virginity at 14 also, but I really don't think it was a good age to start having sex. Retrospect, retrospect. Of course, if I had waited until I was 16, I would have missed out on a lot of great sex.


Teenage sex was the best. :fluffle:

I missed out on teenage sex completely, and I do regret it now. A lot. :(

It can be frightening at first, as any new thing can. But it's never gross. It really is one of the most beautiful things you can do. :)
Personally I've always felt that while beautiful and wonderful, it's also really funny.

If you think about it, it's one of the silliest things we humans do.

http://www.neiu.edu/~tschuepf/p-bctsb.html

Ok, here's a source that gives a little different number. 5% failure for the pill in the first year. That's 1 in 20.

How so?

I love my fiancee, but if we'd never had sex and then got married, and realized we weren't happy with eachother physically or sexually, that's a mistake that could've been prevented.

And I'm not all about sex, don't get the wrong idea, we were long-distance for four years and during those four years I only saw her three times.

I just know what I need and what I want, and I know what I can and can not do without. I know she wouldn't want me to torture myself over something I know I want but she can't give me, that would only make her depressed. It would just be unhealthy for both of us.

i agree with you. its a matter of "informed consent"

if you find out that you and your fiance have some compatibility issues before you get married, you might still decide to get married knowing that these problems exist.

or you might decide that you can never deal with that kind of incompatibility and decide to not marry.

if you wait until you are married, you might be blindsided by what turns out to be a big incompatibility but since you are now MARRIED you need to honor that committment and put up with whatever that problem is.

for example, if you find that your new husband has a big latex fetish you would never divorce him for it even if it creeps you out. you will just save it for special occasions. if you find that your fiance has a big latex fetish you might well walk away rather than put up with something that creeps you out. if you decide to get married anyway, at least you knew it from the beginning.

on the other hand if you are going to be married to the same person for the rest of your life, there WILL be compatibility issues. sex drives change, bodies change, circumstances change. there will be times when you cant stand your spouse and times when you cant keep your hands off her. there is no guarantee that a good sex life in the first year will lead to a good sex life in year 50.

I missed out on teenage sex completely, and I do regret it now. A lot. :(

I did too, and I certainly don't regret it. Embarrassing fumbles behind the bike sheds, STDs and teenage pregnancy are not my idea of fun.

Maturity, not age!

I missed out on teenage sex completely, and I do regret it now. A lot. :(

Primary directives: Agent Cabra, you must make up for lost time. And pay a visit to me. ;)

It can be frightening at first, as any new thing can. But it's never gross. It really is one of the most beautiful things you can do. :)

I've heard that before, but I don't believe it. It sounds too gross.

Personally I've always felt that while beautiful and wonderful, it's also really funny.

If you think about it, it's one of the silliest things we humans do.
That's why it's best not to think about it like that. :p

I've heard that before, but I don't believe it. It sounds too gross.
It sounds sterotypical, but... "Wait till you find the right person, THEN you'll understand".

I know, I know, it's trite, but it's also true.

I've heard that before, but I don't believe it. It sounds too gross.

Well, I'm not sure what I can say that will change your mind. I suppose it's just a personal preference; in time, when you meet the person you want to spend your life with, you might feel differently.

I've heard that before, but I don't believe it. It sounds too gross.

It is gross. It's just that "gross" doesn't matter after a while.

I did too, and I certainly don't regret it. Embarrassing fumbles behind the bike sheds, STDs and teenage pregnancy are not my idea of fun.

Sure. Because all teenagers end up riddled with STDs and pregnant. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

And, yes, fumbles behind the bike shed, having a friend stand guard at your door while shagging with your boyfriend on a bunk bed when on a class trip, and the whole thrill of not having your parents find out, that's what I regret to have missed.

It sounds sterotypical, but... "Wait till you find the right person, THEN you'll understand".

I know, I know, it's trite, but it's also true.

Well, I'm not sure what I can say that will change your mind. I suppose it's just a personal preference; in time, when you meet the person you want to spend your life with, you might feel differently.

Maybe. And if I ever do meet someone I could fall in love with, who could possibly love me, I would probably marry them. And then I'd be terrified.

Primary directives: Agent Cabra, you must make up for lost time. And pay a visit to me. ;)

:fluffle: :fluffle: Oh, sugar, if only I had the money to do that. I'd even bring my boyfriend, we'd have lots of fun together.

Sure. Because all teenagers end up riddled with STDs and pregnant. Sheesh. :rolleyes:
What, none of them do? Did I miss something?

And, yes, fumbles behind the bike shed, having a friend stand guard at your door while shagging with your boyfriend on a bunk bed when on a class trip, and the whole thrill of not having your parents find out, that's what I regret to have missed.
Another difference of opinion between us, I think. I expect for every person who enjoyed that 'thrill' there is one who was humilated and emotionally scarred by it. Or did you not have the 'I slept with that s**t, she was crap' kind of talk at your school?

Maybe. And if I ever do meet someone I could fall in love with, who could possibly love me, I would probably marry them. And then I'd be terrified.

It's really not unusual to be frightened of the first time, don't worry. :)

It's really not unusual to be frightened of the first time, don't worry. :)

You're right. If it'll ever happen, it's too far off for me to worry about it now.

:fluffle: :fluffle: Oh, sugar, if only I had the money to do that. I'd even bring my boyfriend, we'd have lots of fun together.

Boyfriend, eh? So things are working out? Good, good. Maybe he could pay for the trip? :D

What, none of them do? Did I miss something?


Another difference of opinion between us, I think. I expect for every person who enjoyed that 'thrill' there is one who was humilated and emotionally scarred by it. Or did you not have the 'I slept with that s**t, she was crap' kind of talk at your school?

Ouch! You had to deal with that crap? I am so glad I went to an all-girl's school. There was no chance for that. Even if there were a few girls who dated each other, no one publicly displayed it.

Maybe. And if I ever do meet someone I could fall in love with, who could possibly love me, I would probably marry them. And then I'd be terrified.

Honey, believe me, you wouldn't.
You will meet someone you like, and who likes you. And you will spend time together, laughing, having fun, getting to know each other better each day. And starting to like each other more each day. He'll probably be a bit shy, though, and if I'm any judge of character, one day you'll get all your courage together and you'll kiss him when saying good bye. Just a peck.
And you won't be terrified of him, because, hey, it's him. Not any of the other guys who are gross and scary and just obnoxious. It's him, and he knows you better than your best friend does anyway.
You'll take it slowly, one tiny step at a time. And it will no longer seem embarassing, it will no longer seem gross. It might still seem funny (it's still funny to me, that's one thing I love about it).

It may seem gross now, but there's a very good chance it will not seem that way forever.

What, none of them do? Did I miss something?

Well, afaik, nobody in my school did (not while I was still going to that school, that is). I guess it might be a side-effect from having comprehensive and extensive sex-education from the age of 10.

Another difference of opinion between us, I think. I expect for every person who enjoyed that 'thrill' there is one who was humilated and emotionally scarred by it. Or did you not have the 'I slept with that s**t, she was crap' kind of talk at your school?

I was the agony aunt for almost all my friends, and I never heard any of them saying that.

Boyfriend, eh? So things are working out? Good, good. Maybe he could pay for the trip? :D



It's SO working out right now, I can't believe my luck. I found a cute, caring, gentle, open-minded, bi-curious pervert! :D

I don't think he'd pay me a flight to Nevada, though... I'll have to save up a bit.

Maybe. And if I ever do meet someone I could fall in love with, who could possibly love me, I would probably marry them. And then I'd be terrified.
If it's someone you love, you'll be comfortable with them. It'll still be scary (Secret for ya, but it's scary for us guys too), but since it is with someone you love and trust, it's more than bearable.

It's SO working out right now, I can't believe my luck. I found a cute, caring, gentle, open-minded, bi-curious pervert! :D

I don't think he'd pay me a flight to Nevada, though... I'll have to save up a bit.

I'm so glad it's going well for you! Well, he better take good care of you!

You could always tell him you have a dying sister in Nevada who needs to see you! It would be kind of hard to explain any intimacy, though.

As the prophet Chef said," Seventeen."

I'm so glad it's going well for you! Well, he better take good care of you!

You could always tell him you have a dying sister in Nevada who needs to see you! It would be kind of hard to explain any intimacy, though.

*lol
No, I told him about you already. He would be curious...
I'll just have to save up a bit :D

i lost my virginity the other week, at 17
my boyfriends 15, but i wasnt his first.
neither of us regret anything we've ever done
what i gather from this, is that it doesnt matter whether you're above or below the age of consent

as long as you feel you are ready, and understand the possible consequences, then why not?

i put 14, cos it was the lowest.

What's the age of consent in your country? Because, if it's under 16, you've commited rape.

Whenever the pedophile two blocks thinks you are :p ersonally; anywhere between 11 and never, depending on the type of relationship, age of person they're having sex with (a 45-year old with someone aged 11 is just wrong, as is someone aged 18 doing HC BDSM with a partner 6 years his/her junior) and other factors.

11? You have to be kidding me.

I said marriage, because that's just how I feel. I guess I feel that way because I don't want to get married because I don't want to have sex. But that's just me, because it sounds gross to me.

Why don't you want to have sex? Sex is a beautiful thing. It's a natural human desire.

Someone is a little Minx.:eek:

I am. Pick me!

*lol
No, I told him about you already. He would be curious...
I'll just have to save up a bit :D
Could you wait till next August?

Why don't you want to have sex? Sex is a beautiful thing. It's a natural human desire.

Because she's not ready to. I don't know her age, but I'm guessing early puberty (no offence, it's just a guess).
The whole idea can seem extremely frightening.

Could you wait till next August?

Why?

If it is simply about reaching orgasm, a porn movie and a sex toy will do just as well. There is no need to involve your partner if he/she doesn't feel like sex.

I don't find that a sex toy will do the job, plus, most partners want to please even if they're not in the mood. Don't they?

I don't find that a sex toy will do the job, plus, most partners want to please even if they're not in the mood. Don't they?

They do. Of course. But if that is the norm rather than the exception, they'd have a serious problem.

Why?
Because then I'll be back home in Nevada too. ;) :D

Because then I'll be back home in Nevada too. ;) :D

That would be a busy holiday for us, then :D
Don't you owe me an outing to an onsen, anyway? ;)

How old?
However old enough you have to be to realize that you can make a stupid decision before you make it.

That would be a busy holiday for us, then :D
Don't you owe me an outing to an onsen, anyway? ;)
Yup, you've got till August. ;)

Well, I guess this is a legal question, rather than a moral one. After all, as long as no one's life or property is threatened, where's the crime in letting a child of any age experiment however they wish? However, as long as children are perceived as property of their parents, the potential "damage" to the parents' "property" must be taken into account. Perhaps removing this idea of ownership from the equation would be helpful, a la "it takes a village to raise a child."
This is pretty much my viewpoint on the matter too, though I think you missed that the legal consequences and subsequent counciling (read brainwashing) make such arangements dangerous for the child in question. (Not because of the sex, but because a lot of bad or stupid people would hurt the child because of it.)

The property statement is a pretty apt assessment of the situation. One not many people seem to get right away.
Whenever the pedophile two blocks thinks you are :p

Always good to see someone with confidence in my judgement, even if it is sarcastic. I'd vote in the poll, but the lowest option is puberty.

Personally; anywhere between 11 and never, depending on the type of relationship, age of person they're having sex with (a 45-year old with someone aged 11 is just wrong, as is someone aged 18 doing HC BDSM with a partner 6 years his/her junior) and other factors.
This is the part I really don't get. How is it that a person can be ready for sex, but not ready for sex with whoever they so please? Why are the same activities acceptable for a 14 year old (in this case sex with another 14 year old) somehow damaging and evil if performed by a 30 year old?
From a developmental (mental) standpoint, 16 seems to be a good catch all age for the majority of teens to have fully entered abstract reasoning and therefore be able to give informed consent (whether they have the information to make the informed consent is another story). Most teens enter that phase at 13-14, but 16 gets the late bloomers.

What is abstract reasoning, and why is it important to this kind of decisionmaking?

In terms of actuality, it's going to happen at whatever age the children in question decide to make it happen, my understanding of development or no.

This poll, and by extension thread, is about your view of how things should be, not how they are.

I would add on the whole waiting till marriage thing though, there ARE issues of being sexually incompatable that you may not find out till too late if you wait. As I am finding out, being newly married is enough fun in making adjustments to your life without trying to figure out what pleases you in the bedroom (or your location of choice) and then finding out that your partner isn't happy with that at all. Yes, all sexual and other relationships are compromises, but there's only so far one can bend on issues of taste.
Sorry to hear about your deeply trouble sex life. Really, I weap for your hardship. :rolleyes:
It can be frightening at first, as any new thing can. But it's never gross. It really is one of the most beautiful things you can do. :)
Hasn't this person made it quite clear they don't want to have sex? Pressuring someone into it is still wrong even if you're not the one the person settles on having sex with. My god, you're like the mess of teenage boys in the lockerroom expressing that sex is the meaning of life or something. Not everyone wants sex. Leave the asexuals alone. (And for the record, I'd like to point out that you call my kind coersive. :rolleyes:)
Maturity, not age!
Help me out here. How do you measure "maturity"? I'm serious. Do you have a way of determining if someone is sufficiently "mature"?
It sounds sterotypical, but... "Wait till you find the right person, THEN you'll understand".

I know, I know, it's trite, but it's also true.
All this pressuring people into sex is really sickening. Let people make their own decisions without calling them imature or ignorant. (And yes, that is exactly what that trite steriotype you're quoting means.)
As the prophet Chef said," Seventeen."
And funny as it is, that sort of rigid thinking is exactly what's wrong with the current system of laws and regulations governing who can have sex when and with whom. It's arbitrary and denies people the right to do as they please with their own bodies for no good reason.
Why don't you want to have sex? Sex is a beautiful thing. It's a natural human desire.
Why are you people still pressuring him/her? Sex may be a perfectly beautiful, natural thing, but it's also a personal decision. Someone doesn't want sex, they don't want sex. Quit trying to make him/her feel like a freak.
How old?
However old enough you have to be to realize that you can make a stupid decision before you make it.
Most people never hit that point. I mean I'm okay with the age of consent being 112, but that's just me being selfish. (Let's see how you all like it when the law's set up to sexually frustrate you.)

Always good to see someone with confidence in my judgement, even if it is sarcastic. I'd vote in the poll, but the lowest option is puberty.
We've already had a post deleated in this topic for going to that area. Are you volunteering to be DEATed again?

What is abstract reasoning, and why is it important to this kind of decisionmaking?
You know, I have gone over this with you again and again and again. I am NOT going to go through this again. Go read a book on human mental development, look up Jean Piaget as well as Skinner. It's a good starting point.

Sorry to hear about your deeply trouble sex life. Really, I weap for your hardship. :rolleyes:
Not only did you miss the point, you're also making stories as you go along. I have no idea where you got that idea from.

Is this a biological question or a morality question? Either way it depends on the person.

Marriage

Yes, marriage... but I don't see that getting married at 14 is necessarily "too young" even. I'm all for just getting married younger if you're ready. Stupid social expectations...

Yes, marriage... but I don't see that getting married at 14 is necessarily "too young" even. I'm all for just getting married younger if you're ready. Stupid social expectations...

So you want 14 year old kids to make an in principle lifelong commitment without them even knowing their partners thoroughly ? Sex after all is a part of a healthy marriage, just like conversations or shared interests.

The mockery some people wish to make of marriage...

18-20 preferably older, teenagers are to irresponsible to have sex whenever they choose.

They're as responsable as they are taught to be.

usually, however, they are not taught about it at all

16, dont you think that if we restrict it to 18, teens will want to have sex even more? 16 is already late teens so even if they become pregnant, at least they are not 14 or 13 where people still refer to them as "kids" and have the maturity and common sense to either wear a condom or restrain themselves or at least take care of the child

Ideally for whom? I never had the slightest inclination to get married... ever.

i was married...dumbest thing i ever did.

my ex and i am best friends,and agree it was stupid....so put that in the pompous pipe and smoke that.

wait till married..that is plain stupid and taught..but if it floats your boat...good for you.

i was married...dumbest thing i ever did.

my ex and i am best friends,and agree it was stupid....so put that in the pompous pipe and smoke that.

wait till married..that is plain stupid and taught..but if it floats your boat...good for you.

Well, for some people it works, for many it doesn't. I somehow seriously doubt marriage would work for me at all, and I'm pretty sure that "waiting until marriage" isn't the most clever thing to do in any circumstance.

Why are you people still pressuring him/her? Sex may be a perfectly beautiful, natural thing, but it's also a personal decision. Someone doesn't want sex, they don't want sex. Quit trying to make him/her feel like a freak.

I was not pressuring him/her. I was asking a legitamite question. I was interested in what he/she had to say on the topic.

:rolleyes: 16 :rolleyes:

Even without birthcontrol the chance of getting pregnant is lower than 10%. Add the pill and a condom into the equation and chances are very, very slim.

The truth is, you made that statistic up.


http://www.cdc.gov/PRAMS/UP.htm


Don't call someone a liar if you don't know the truth. From the Center for Disease Control.

Without birth control the odds are 85% the first year. With birth control pills, 5-8% pregnant the first year. With a condom 15% pregnant the first year.

Nearly 50% of births were unplanned. Higher for teens.

The answer to the original question is: Have sex when you are ready to have a child.

Don't call someone a liar if you don't know the truth. I didn't.

Without birth control the odds are 85% the first year. I'm betting that's based on more than a few sexual encounters. I was assumming we were talking about "per encounter" as a "per year" probability is wholly inaccurate; it depends greatly on how much and when people have sex.
You have about a three-five days per month window of even hitting the fertile period; and even when you make it there is a good chance nothing happens. (As I recall, even if fertilization does occur, there's only a 1/6 probability it'll get past the first week.)

Nearly 50% of births were unplanned.unplanned does not equal failure of birth control.
But admittedly, if that's were you got your 50% statistic from, I do stand corrected. It was not made up, simply misinterpreted/misrepresented.
The site you linked to gives about 33%-46% reported contraceptive use for the unintended pregnancies. Assuming they were used consistently rather than intermittedly during fornication, that would give at most 23% pregnancies per year despite some form of contraception.
However, 'some form of contraception' includes any "way to keep from getting pregnant"; e.g. coitus interuption or periodic abstinence. Which are known to be far less dependable than condom or the birth control pill.