GameBanshee Forums

Crenshinibon wrote:When my first relationship ended, I was a wreck for a few weeks and then decided that I loved my computer more. I'm still in that stage.

Good man, they're cheaper on upkeep than women.

There's some great replies here, which I'll try to respond to individually tomorrow.

Just a few points I want to make. Again, I reiterate, I'm not especially worried by this development, not at all. In fact, if anything I view it as very positive. I've seen a real change in my son's level of confidence, he has developed a sort of understated, mature self assurance (without an obnoxious ego), I feel this is a good thing because in the past he has dealt with self-esteem issues. Yet, at the same time, he seems slightly oblivious (or maybe a bit overwhelmed?) at the subconscious charm he seems to hold for girls.
So other than being there for him if he wants to talk, I certainly don't want to interfere. Further, I'm very doubtful sex is something to worry about at this stage, but we've definitely covered *all* of the basics with him, he knows everything he needs to know about safe sex and pregnancy, and we've also talked a bit about the emotional intricacies of relationships.

It's just funny really. I've always argued that children are sexual beings, and that our society is extremely uncomfortable with the fact, thus we often avoid any mention of it. The irony is that my own son's emerging sexuality and maturity sort of snuck up on me and took me by surprise. It happened a little sooner than I had anticipated, but I'm comfortable with it, and I don't see it as a problem.
I basically began this thread because I was generally curious at what age guys start to feel that kind of an interest.

Indeed and they're so lovable. Here's an interesting thing I heard on the radio at the beginning of last week: "Sixty five percent of all men in the U.S. spend more time with their computers than with their wives and girlfriends. Additionally, the same percentage of men experience the same range of emotions with a computer that has a problem as they do with their wife or girlfriend."

Something I forgot to mention earlier, light on the spam please

Crenshinibon wrote:When my first relationship ended, I was a wreck for a few weeks and then decided that I loved my computer more. I'm still in that stage.

Looks like we both share something in common (the computer part, that is). I tend to focus more on the computer than on socalising with others. Speaking of my experience with girls, I would say that my interest in them is still next to zero. Sure, I do socialise with girls but I moslty kept this to acquaintance level. No more, no less. I am not a very sociable person, to be honest. Even if I do socialise, it's mostly among guys.

For me I think it was about two and a half weeks ago, maybe three. Depends on what you mean by interested. If you're talking about dating, then yeah, 3 weeks, but if you just mean girls in general, when I was 12 or 13 and found a bunch of naughty stuff on my mom's share-folders on her PC.

I've been wondering a bit about these questions myself. IMHO it is a question of "fashion," what time and what generation you and your parents belong to, and where you're from.
Using myself as an example, I fell madly in love when I was 11 years old. I had "kindergarten sweethearts" before that, but that was when I had my awakening, and it was the same with my friends and classmates. We were the first children of a generation of radicals, and as such we were practically encouraged to explore, but very well informed and educated on the matter. Also, we didn't have the enforced moral standards that kids in other countries had and still have. Sexual experiments became the norm from that point on, and I lost my virginity at 13. It actually became the norm to start early for a short while, to such an extent that when we left the 9th grade, only one girl in my class was still a virgin, and she was considered "weird." The interesting thing is that my kid brother and his generation of boys two years later were virtually angelic compared to us. They didn't get interested in the opposite sex until the age of 14-16, and didn't get down to "it" until the end of High School. Thinking about it today, I'm wondering if the fact that they reached puberty during a much more conservative era had something to do with it, as the "hippie free spirit" was pretty much frowned upon at that point. I remember coming to California in 1982 as a genuine "horndawg" and I couldn't understand why the gorgeous Californian girls wouldn't join the fun. Uptight teazes! :laugh: Talk about culture clash...

Wenchie wrote:

I don't think we'd anticipated it would be quite *this* soon!
I suspect he'll be getting his own phone, or phoneline, sometime soon...

You never expect it! :laugh: That's the beauty of it. Think how "lucky" you are to be able to give him his own phoneline... Seriously, 12 should be pretty normal. Just make sure that you're there all the time. Let him keep his secrets, which all parents should know is a big part of it, but be prepared to be the there each time he crashes and burns. He will do that quite a number of times in a very short timespan. :laugh: The most important thing from my point of view is never ever take the girl's side, at least not so he understands it. My mom did that sometimes, and that is not what you want to hear when your mom is the only female person who's supposed to understand you.

Oh, and since I have a sprog who'll be there before I know it, please share the experience so I/we can learn! Times are changing.

You might find this shocking, but...

If I'm not mistaken, I started getting interested in girl (at least from a very clean yet romantic perspective) since before I was 10 years old.

My teens only made it a little more interesting. I had my first girlfriend when I was either 16 or 17. I forget when exactly.

I had an interest in girls in a crush kind of way from about the age of 7 or 8, and have always had more female friends than male friends (purely because I prefer to hang around with girls rather than guys most of the time), but I didn't get sexual feelings towards girls til I was about 13 or 14. When I was 11 or 12 though I did develop huge crushes on girls and my feelings were definately stronger than previously.

mr_sir wrote:I had an interest in girls in a crush kind of way from about the age of 7 or 8, and have always had more female friends than male friends (purely because I prefer to hang around with girls rather than guys most of the time), but I didn't get sexual feelings towards girls til I was about 13 or 14. When I was 11 or 12 though I did develop huge crushes on girls and my feelings were definately stronger than previously.

Pretty much what I was saying about myself, man.

Heh. I remember at one point I'd only have girls on my birthday parties. I didn't even realize I had only invited girls over until I saw the pictures years later. And I wasn't interested in them in any sort of sexual way either, they just didn't rile me up as much as boys did. Random stuff would always end up breaking if other boys came over to play.

Hey DW

To answer your question, I first started getting interested in girls when I was in 3rd or 4th grade, so that was about the 12 year old range, right? It was weird though, because it wasn't a sexual thing. For me it was more just a realization that they were... girls, and that there was something desireable about them. It was actually a kind of powerful realization. Sexual attraction came later, as I got further along in puberty.

(FYI- I think that differentiation is a reason why I can split romantic appeal and sexual desire in my head)

When I was around 15 or 16 I, like pretty much all my age, had a fair understanding of sexual relationships, the biology behind it, and other stuff (it's amazing what Sex ed. teaches you). Anyways, randomly, one weekend, my dad comes to me and says, "I need to talk to you about the birds and bees."

I laughed at him for a few minutes then when I composed myself I looked at him and replied, "It's ok dad, I know it all already."

I can't imagine how surprised he must've been. I have no idea what age he thought kids learn these things.

So DW, at least it's not you going up to your kid and suddenly finding out that he's got a firm grip on sexuality and whatnot.

I dated girls earlier but that was non-sexually interested way, if you mean having sexual attraction than that was when I was around 12 years old, that's when I started noticing and appreciating womans bodies around that age, and when I started buying Playboy etc mags from the local markets.

Moonbiter wrote:I've been wondering a bit about these questions myself. IMHO it is a question of "fashion," what time and what generation you and your parents belong to, and where you're from.

Definitely so. Just compare different culture at our time, or different times in our culture, and you will see the validity of what you just wrote. In many cultures it is completely normal to marry and get children as soon as you've entered puberty, whereas in some cultures, it's viewed as "dangerous" and morally unsuitable to start a sex life at age 12 or 13.

Biologically speaking, we are ready to mate and reproduce as soon as puberty has set - that is actually the whole point with puberty. Getting children at young age is however very different in a society based on the core family and the idea that children needs education until they are at least 20 years old, compared to a group-living society where the whole group, consisting of several generations, take care of all common children.

Also, we didn't have the enforced moral standards that kids in other countries had and still have. Sexual experiments became the norm from that point on, and I lost my virginity at 13. It actually became the norm to start early for a short while, to such an extent that when we left the 9th grade, only one girl in my class was still a virgin, and she was considered "weird." The interesting thing is that my kid brother and his generation of boys two years later were virtually angelic compared to us. They didn't get interested in the opposite sex until the age of 14-16, and didn't get down to "it" until the end of High School.

During the 1970's and first half of 1980's, sex was viewed as you describe in large parts of the Western world - not least in Scandinavia. I don't know about the US, because in North America the views on sex are so extremely influenced by religion, but in Western Europe, the change back to a less liberal view on sex came with HIV from the mid 1980's, and the following integration of Eastern Europe from 1989 and onwards.

C Elegans wrote:I don't know about the US, because in North America the views on sex are so extremely influenced by religion,

They really aren't. This is another one of those myths about nationalities that doesn't apply. One might as well claim that southern Florida, a territory easily as large as many European nations, is Anglo-Saxon and Protestant because it's American, when in fact it's Chicano and Roman Catholic, or that New York City, Chicago, and Boston, which together have a population greater than many European nations, must be Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, and Conservative, when they're probably more polyglot than any place else on earth, representing a large mixture of dominant, cohesive diaspora sub-cultures. Ask yourself this: would you expect the families of a Moroccan migrant worker in the Paris slums, a Swedish factory worker, a Greek banker and a Edinburgh professor of linguistics to have children that share the same views of sex? If not, then why expect sizable Moroccan, Swedish, Greek and Scots subcultures or descendants of subcultures in the US to have a single, unified view of it? Even their houses of worship (assuming they use them for worship, and not as a social meeting point) are all distinct and frequently in opposition over a range of matters, including sex at a non-official level.

Only in the rural US--just as in many European nations--will you find religion taking a central part in community life. And as for sex, again, it has to do with regional cultural values, not those of any mythical USian religious values (despite how US evangelists try to distort the facts). I've known and worked on radio alongside representatives of very extensive Southern Chicano communities, and despite often having a rural base, their views of sex, religion, and other matters are very distinct from the basically white evangelical stock that settled the area in the 18th and 19th centuries.

fable wrote:They really aren't. This is another one of those myths about nationalities that doesn't apply.
<snip>
Ask yourself this: would you expect the families of a Moroccan migrant worker in the Paris slums, a Swedish factory worker, a Greek banker and a Edinburgh professor of linguistics to have children that share the same views of sex?

I think we are describing two different levels here, individuals and society. Not that these two levels are completely independent of each other, but the individual level always have plenty of variation, whereas a society can form homogenous laws and regulations that are valid for all individuals that belong to this society.

To answer your question is no, but it doesn't actually matter because I am not talking about individuals. I am talking about views on sex in society.

When I was describing how HIV and the integration with Eastern Europe affected Western Europe 15 years ago, I was not referring to individuals either, but to general views and attitudes at society level. For instance, when Germany was united, the abortion laws became stricter than in the former West Germany due to the former Eastern religious and conservative parliamental powers. This had no support among the majority of the German population - certainly not the former West population - but at the time it was the choice of the politicans to facilitate a smooth running of the new united government. As all of us know, politicans often make decisions that affect individuals, although the individuals in that particular country or region does not support this decision. Thus, for the phenomena I was describing, it doesn't really matter how the individual American or the individual European view sex. The individual American, regardless of personal views, will still be affected by the regulations at national level, such as movie ratings and lack of sex education in school.

According to studies, US teenagers have the same amount of sex as European teenagers, but still unwanted teenage pregnancies and STD:s are much more common in the US. Comparative studies of the US and Europe show that education in reproductive health decrease these problems. This is exactly the difference in attitudes I was referring to - the individuals (in this case the teenagers) behave the same (ie they have the same amount of sex) and at group level, they may well have the same average attitudes towards sex but in the US there are regulations at a societal level that influence the US teenagers in a way they have little power over (lack of eduction --> more STD:s and unwanted teenage pregnancies at group level).

And as for sex, again, it has to do with regional cultural values, not those of any mythical USian religious values (despite how US evangelists try to distort the facts).

So if the prude and conservative views on sex and the naked body that is the official stance of the US and is reflected in laws and regulations I mentioned above does not stem from religion, where does it stem from?

A pair of naked women's breast in a movie is enough for a movie to receive "not for under 17 years old" in the US. Some years ago, the US government decided to increase the grants to federal "abstinence funds" that should propagate abstinece to teenagers, although studies show that education about reproductive health, STD:s and contraception methods is the most efficient way to decrease unwanted adolescence pregnancies and STD:s.

The above is not at regional level, it is decisions that - like the stem cell research policy - are valid for the US as a national state.

The first girl I ever had a real interest in was one I met when I was five. I'm still stuck on her. That may be an exception to the rules.

I also remember having distict sexual dreams that early, but I also had some rather negative experiences that I kinda doubt your son has had.

dragon wench wrote:I have a question for the guys on this forum. How old were you when you first started having an interest in girls?

I would say it was around the age of 11 or so for myself. That was when I recall starting to experience hormone-driven reactions to the sight/close proximity of girls, accompanied by daydreaming in school, and...well, other kinds of dreaming. I was an "early bloomer." My voice started cracking not long after my fascination with girls commenced.

I imagine this is due to the onset of puberty and the sexual maturation process. No cause for alarm. Move along citizen, nothing to see here.

@Mr_Snow: You lucky dog, you. In the US there was/is an age restriction on the purchase of such manuals of human anatomy. I had to sneak off somewhere with friends, who invariably would steal one or two magazines from their father's stash, to take a look at 'em. If my father had any, he kept them well-hidden.

C Elegans wrote:I think we are describing two different levels here, individuals and society. Not that these two levels are completely independent of each other, but the individual level always have plenty of variation, whereas a society can form homogenous laws and regulations that are valid for all individuals that belong to this society.

I'm really thinking of the social level, as you are. The European national model really has nothing to do with the USian one (and I say this without any condescension). The US wasn't settled by one or two waves of culturally distinct groups, a thousand years ago or more. The US was settled by many waves of various large, distinct cultural groups, within the last couple of hundred years. And the groups tended to haul ass for large, frequently lightly populated areas where they could retain their cultural identities. Although some blending has occurred over the years, most obviously in the case of language, we are still considering swaths of land that easily surpass Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, etc, in size (much less the likes of Luxembourg).

Consider: out of a total population of nearly 5 million (in 1990; the only figures I could put my hands on at the moment are admittedly old), the state of Minnesota boasted roughly 750,000 of Norwegian descent. What's more, their ancestors emigrated within relatively recent times, culturally speaking: approximately 1,750,000 left Norway between 1840 and 1930. Most of these settled in the US, where they again tended to seek out their own communities, which in turn formed matrices of still larger, regional structures--like the Norwegian Lutheran Church of North America, which has the second largest membership after the RCC in Minnesota. This has its political and social dimension, and a very different one from the far more conservative Southern Baptist Church which overwhelmingly controls Oklahoma. Friends tell me the Norwegian Lutheran Church does not advocate a sexual policy or teaching. This dramatically differs, again, from the Southern Baptists.

Sorry if I'm going on about this one example, but I lived in one of those smaller Minnesotan cities for 3 years while working in public radio. I can safely say that it is striking how different the culture is there, from many other places in the US. And as much can be said about southern Florida, or New York City, or southern California, or Hawaii, or the Far Northern Corridor (New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont), or eastern Massachusetts, or Utah, or the other Range States. You can travel in any of these zones for either hundreds (to thousands) of miles in any direction, or walk through millions of people, who present a cultural profile that makes them in effect as unique as Netherlanders are from the French, or Hungarians from Czechs, or Poles from Portuguese.

When and if you move to Washington, DC, I will have to show you some small examples of this in the larger cultural enclaves of New York City. They won't give a feeling for size, but certainly they'll provide excellent instances of cultural tenacity.

When I was describing how HIV and the integration with Eastern Europe affected Western Europe 15 years ago, I was not referring to individuals either, but to general views and attitudes at society level. For instance, when Germany was united, the abortion laws became stricter than in the former West Germany due to the former Eastern religious and conservative parliamental powers. This had no support among the majority of the German population - certainly not the former West population - but at the time it was the choice of the politicans to facilitate a smooth running of the new united government. As all of us know, politicans often make decisions that affect individuals, although the individuals in that particular country or region does not support this decision.

But your argument that US views on sex are extremely influenced by religion inherently assumes there is a thing called "US views on sex" which you treat as a singular, and that further, this thing is greatly influenced by religious beliefs. The example of East/West Germany doesn't apply, because the US is not a single culture by any standard I can think of. Perhaps if you found an example of, say, Spain and Germany, or Greece and Denmark, you would have some sense of the worlds separating the extremely large territory and population base of southern California from that of Georgia. And that includes sexual practices and taboos.

According to studies, US teenagers have the same amount of sex as European teenagers, but still unwanted teenage pregnancies and STD:s are much more common in the US.

Do you have a breakdown on the US figures by geographical area?

Comparative studies of the US and Europe show that education in reproductive health decrease these problems. This is exactly the difference in attitudes I was referring to - the individuals (in this case the teenagers) behave the same (ie they have the same amount of sex) and at group level, they may well have the same average attitudes towards sex but in the US there are regulations at a societal level that influence the US teenagers in a way they have little power over (lack of eduction --> more STD:s and unwanted teenage pregnancies at group level).

Only some regions in the US insist upon sex education, including discussions of abortion and STDs, while others would be horrified by the concept. Again, it depends on which US you are referring to. Would Stockholm have the same perception of sex education as a small, intensely religious farming community? And Sweden, at least much of it, is mono-cultural. That's not the case in the US.

So if the prude and conservative views on sex and the naked body that is the official stance of the US and is reflected in laws and regulations I mentioned above does not stem from religion, where does it stem from?

The "official stance" of the federal government has only been so since Dubya took office; and before that, during the Reagan administration. During the Clinton years, for example, overseas funding to organizations that sexual education in African nations was indifferent to what was taught. As for consevative views on sex being standard for the US, I think again this is a stereotype placed on the entire country which is perhaps true (to an extent) for its rural/range cultures, but certainly not true in bigger cities or suburban sprawl. One of the most sexually liberal cities in the world, San Francisco, with a population of roughly 800,000, is in the US. That's about half the population of Stockholm, where about 16% of Swedes live. But San Francisco contains less than two one-hundreths of a single percent of the population for the US. My point is that the US is a massive country in terms of size and population, easily able to maintain unique, sizable cultures that can sustain themselves and in no way fit the international idea of the average USian--whomever that might be.

A pair of naked women's breast in a movie is enough for a movie to receive "not for under 17 years old" in the US. Some years ago, the US government decided to increase the grants to federal "abstinence funds" that should propagate abstinece to teenagers, although studies show that education about reproductive health, STD:s and contraception methods is the most efficient way to decrease unwanted adolescence pregnancies and STD:s.

The above is not at regional level, it is decisions that - like the stem cell research policy - are valid for the US as a national state.

But this leaves out the fact that USians didn't vote for this. It was never a subject for referrendum. It was never even discussed during campaigning on a federal level. It is literally the by-product of the election of one person to a single office, that has tremendous power.