Pre-marital Sex - right or wrong?

nael · Post by **nael** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 1:32 pm

well, here in san antonio, the census tracts with the most single mother families are the same ones with the highest crime rates, lowest education, lowest health indicators (birth weight, death rate, diseases, etc.).

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 3:25 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans:
Except for harmful severe paraphilias where people actually hurt or risk to kill each other, I see nothing wrong at all in sex between conscending teenagers or adults as long as both (all) participants have made a conscious choice they want it.
.

Elegans, do you really see nothing wrong with sex between teenagers, I mean kids as young as fourteen, fifteen and sixteen?Unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and STDs aside, I think those belonging to this age group are simply too cotton-pickin' young to be engaged in sexual intercourse already.

GO! DUBYA GO!

[ 09-03-2001: Message edited by: EMINEM ]

nael · Post by **nael** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 3:39 pm

even though i started at a very young age, 14, i do think that, looking back, it was way too young. there are just WAY too many confusing emotions at that age without adding sex which greatly complicates feelings when you don't know crap about the world or the opposite sex yet.

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 11:41 pm

Originally posted by EMINEM:

Elegans, do you really see nothing wrong with sex between teenagers, I mean kids as young as fourteen, fifteen and sixteen?Unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and STDs aside, I think those belonging to this age group are simply too cotton-pickin' young to be engaged in sexual intercourse already.

As long as kids are educated about it, then there's no reason why it would be more likely that having sex at 16 would result in unwanted pregnancy, abortion or STDs than it would at 26. IMO the way to prevent teenage pregnancy is to make sure the awareness and resources are there, rather than trying to stop teenagers from having sex.

Also, teenagers mature at different rates. Not that all would be ready to have sex at 14, or 15, or 16, but some might. Some might not until sometime in their 20s, or whatever. But at whatever age, if these people have the natural inclination to have sex, well, who are you to say they're not ready?

Out of interest, does the USA have an official age of consent (which is 16 in the UK)?

Azeroth · Post by **Azeroth** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 11:44 pm

I was ready at the age of 12....is this not normal?

nael · Post by **nael** » Tue Sep 04, 2001 12:02 am

in the US, it actually varies from state to state.
i think utah until just recently (past few years) had their age set at 12.
for the most part, anyoen over 18, cannot have sex with someoen under 18 unless that person has an official divorce from their parents and is independent.
if both parties are under 18, a two year difference constitutes statatory (spelling?)rape.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Tue Sep 04, 2001 1:02 am

Originally posted by Georgi:
As long as kids are educated about it, then there's no reason why it would be more likely that having sex at 16 would result in unwanted pregnancy, abortion or STDs than it would at 26. IMO the way to prevent teenage pregnancy is to make sure the awareness and resources are there, rather than trying to stop teenagers from having sex.

Being educated about something doesn't mean you are responsible enough to use that education. There are a lot of people who are highly educated in how to drive safely, but they are not responsible enough to drive safely.

Originally posted by Georgi:
Also, teenagers mature at different rates. Not that all would be ready to have sex at 14, or 15, or 16, but some might. Some might not until sometime in their 20s, or whatever. But at whatever age, if these people have the natural inclination to have sex, well, who are you to say they're not ready?

Are you speaking of physical/sexual maturity or emotional/intellectual maturity?

Originally posted by Georgi:
Out of interest, does the USA have an official age of consent (which is 16 in the UK)?

In the US, an adult(18+) cannot have sex with a minor(17 and under), without parental consent. In fact, if an adult is dating a minor and the minor's parents do not consent to them dating, the adult can get in trouble with the law for it.(whether they're having sex with the minor or not, though how much trouble is less if they're not having sex, I think.) I know this because when I was 15, I dated an 18-year-old and he insisted on getting my parents permission before we started dating. If an adult asks a minor to marry him, the minor can marry him if her parents say it is okay. Otherwise, they have to wait until the minor is an adult.

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Tue Sep 04, 2001 1:29 am

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
Being educated about something doesn't mean you are responsible enough to use that education. There are a lot of people who are highly educated in how to drive safely, but they are not responsible enough to drive safely.

Sure, but there are plenty of people who are 18+ who are still not responsible enough to use that education, just as there are people below the age of 18 who will be responsible about it. And they are more likely to be responsible about it if they are educated about it.

Are you speaking of physical/sexual maturity or emotional/intellectual maturity?

Both. Different people reach different stages at different points in their life. I believe the physical capability is there much earlier than most people choose to have sex as well.

I'm not totally sure on the UK laws, but I think that anyone who has sex with a girl under-16 can be prosecuted for statutory rape, even if it's a guy under 16... I don't think you can get in trouble for dating though

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Tue Sep 04, 2001 1:48 am

Originally posted by Georgi:
Sure, but there are plenty of people who are 18+ who are still not responsible enough to use that education, just as there are people below the age of 18 who will be responsible about it. And they are more likely to be responsible about it if they are educated about it.

I know. The fact still stands that the only way a girl can be absolutely sure she won't get pregnant is to abstain from sex. Personally, I think that, in a straight relationship, it is better to wait until married. If I were in a straight relationship, I would wait because I don't want to take the chance on getting pregnant. Raising a kid is an expense I definitely do not need right now and abortion would be out of the question.

Originally posted by Georgi:
Both. Different people reach different stages at different points in their life. I believe the physical capability is there much earlier than most people choose to have sex as well.

True.

Originally posted by Georgi:
I'm not totally sure on the UK laws, but I think that anyone who has sex with a girl under-16 can be prosecuted for statutory rape, even if it's a guy under 16... I don't think you can get in trouble for dating though

I'm actually not sure that the laws I stated are true for all of the US. All I know for sure is that they are true for Texas.

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Tue Sep 04, 2001 2:32 am

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
I know. The fact still stands that the only way a girl can be absolutely sure she won't get pregnant is to abstain from sex. Personally, I think that, in a straight relationship, it is better to wait until married. If I were in a straight relationship, I would wait because I don't want to take the chance on getting pregnant. Raising a kid is an expense I definitely do not need right now and abortion would be out of the question.

IMO a couple doesn't need to be married in order to raise kids. And a couple doesn't have to want kids in order to have sex... the wonders of modern technology...

tinytim · Post by **tinytim** » Tue Sep 04, 2001 3:02 am

well sence there is a wide selection of people here this just might turn out to be a good sub;
n-e-ways i think that per marital sex is ok
IF it is not taken as just something for fun thaer is a lot of thing going around out there and they should not be taken lightly. i also think that it is ok not to have sex till your married but somepeople dont get married till there like 25 know personal that is a long time to wait.last thing i thak that it makes a honey moon more fun i guess is the word im looking for if you have some kind of experince in the subject.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Tue Sep 04, 2001 6:17 am

Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
My wife did her PhD research in a couple of poor barrios in Cali, Colombia, looking at the relative heath statuses of women and children in male-headed households (i.e. two parents) vs. female-headed households (i.e. single mothers). In most indicators, she found no statistically significant differences. In the few indicators that did show significant differences, female-headed households always fared better. Even where the differences were not significantly different, the trends favored the women and children in the female-headed households.

Very interesting

Your wife's research certainly supports the idea that it's not the living in a single parent household in itself that is unhealthy for the child, it's other factors.

In Sweden, divorce used to be a social stigma back in the 1950's, especially so for women. Since women were the ones who took custody of the kids, those children grew up in a household where both the mother and themselves were socially stigmatised. Also, since women had less education and less work opportunities, those households also suffered finacial problems. All this changed during the 1960's. Today, many children grow up with a single mother, a single father, or with one week at each parent, etc. Also, the single parents often find new spouses, so many kids have 4 parents. (Swedish kids often say "my mummy and my plastic-mummy" when they refer to their biological mother and their stepmother).

@all: a note about interpreting statistics: I've seen some people draw the premature conclusion that sex and living together before marriage, leads to an increasing risk for divorce. Now, this is a classical error of confusing two correlated effects with cause and effect. Look at this example:

In Sweden, we have free sex (age limit 15 for everybody) and free divorce/separation. And yes, we also have a very high divorce rate.

In Iran, there's no free sex or free divorce. The divorce rate is very low.

Does this mean premarital sex leads to divorce? No, it means that the same population who are having premarital sex, are also divorcing. Let's take a less extreme example: an Amercian christian, like AJ for instance, feels he wants to wait with sex until he's married, because he feels sex, marriage and family, strongly go together. Now, if AJ and his future wife face marital problems, they will be more unlikely to divorce than the average Swedish couple, since they would probably view divorce as something horrible and they both have a very strong motivation to stay together even if they have problems.

(Sorry for using you as an example, AJ, I picked you just because you stated your views above, and because you can have a saying against me if you think I'm wrong.)

So actually, it's not the premarital sex that leads to divorce, it's the different view of sex, marriage and family in all, ie a background factor, that leads to both premarital sex and divorce.

Now, if we compare the two sets of attutudes, we can of course discuss what is the better or worse, but that's another discussion.
Personally, I'd like to point out that here, the average sex debut age is about 15-16, and still, the average age for childbirth is about 29. And even if Sweden has free abortion, the teenage abortion rate is fairly low. So here, young people know how to avoid unwanted pregnancy.

Btw, do we have any pro lifers here? I've always wondered what pro lifers think about the "day-after" pills, the pills a woman can take up to 36 hours after intercourse to interrupt the process if she got pregnant.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Tue Sep 04, 2001 6:25 am

Originally posted by EMINEM:

Elegans, do you really see nothing wrong with sex between teenagers, I mean kids as young as fourteen, fifteen and sixteen?Unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and STDs aside, I think those belonging to this age group are simply too cotton-pickin' young to be engaged in sexual intercourse already.

I'm totally with Georgi here, so for once, I don't need to write a long reply

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Tue Sep 04, 2001 6:59 am

Originally posted by C Elegans:
I'm totally with Georgi here, so for once, I don't need to write a long reply

This might be getting too personal, Elegans, so please don't respond if you are any way uncomfortable with my question, but how would you feel if your young teenage son or daughter (say 14-16 years of age) was engaged in regular sex with his/her boy/girlfriend? Would you approve, disapprove, or shrug your shoulders and declare that you're in no position to interfere? What advice would you give him/her, if any, and what repercussions do you think such a relationship could have on his/her future?

[ 09-04-2001: Message edited by: EMINEM ]