Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
How old should kids be before they start fucking?
I know the topic sounds harsh, but let's face it, 12 year old kids are not "making love"...they are fucking. They are doing it purely to have an orgasm and there is nothing beautiful or sensual about it. I draw your attention to: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21358971/ Quote: PORTLAND, Maine - Pupils at a city middle school will be able to get birth control pills and patches at their student health center after the local school board approved the proposal Wednesday evening. The plan, offered by city health officials, makes King Middle School the first middle school in Maine to make a full range of contraception available to students in grades 6 through 8, according to the state Department of Health and Human Services. Of course people will say, if they are going to have sex anyway, might as well have them be protected. But seriously, would you want your 11 year old daughter going behind the bushes at recess and getting a bunch of horny little boys slimy dicks in her? What kind of parenting is going on these days? I'm really starting to think the movie "Idiocracy" is coming true.
Re: How old should kids be before they start fucking?
i think all should have to wait till marrige
Can we all agree that its ridiculous for parents to agree to let their 11 year old kids have sex and have kids?
The bigger question is why do girls at such a young age feel the need to have sex?
nikki6ixx wrote on Thu, 18 October 2007 17:20 The bigger question is why do girls at such a young age feel the need to have sex? Their lack of self-control and maybe also peer pressure.
Yeah that's not healthy for the kid to be having sex when they're still only 11 or 12. That really only happens when the kids are messed up and/or have bad parents. Most people aren't ready to handle the emotions involved between you and your hoe when you have sex until at least like 15/16 i'd say. I say it's a good thing though that the schools are handing out birth control and condoms to young teens. If they're doing it as young as 11 then there's obviously some issues there that need to be addressed. it's not really sex, more like being taken advantage of or just that girl being a retard. Also to bring up another issue I don't think kids should really care about waiting until marriage. If the two are monogomous and love each other then who really cares.
Blazer wrote on Thu, 18 October 2007 22:55 Can we all agree that its ridiculous for parents to agree to let their 11 year old kids have sex and have kids? While I agree that having sex at that age is wrong and disgusting, its not the parents fault. When I was 13 my parents never knew who I was with and what I was up to. They couldn't watch over me 24/7. Boys will be boys and try and have sex as young as possible because it gives them a 'cool' image to there friends. Girls at the age of 13-15 have sex because they feel that if they have sex with there boyfriend he will automatically love her and all is well. Peer pressure is also a main cause to this girls having sex at this kinda age. There fucking skanky friend goes on about how cool it is and everything making these girls feel insecure. Over in the UK the legal age is 16. I think this is reasonable. When you're 16, you're leaving school, going out into the big world thats around us, so its only logically that its legal at the age. I personally waited until I was 16, my girlfriend and I had been dating for a year and we both felt ready. It was in the comfort of my own home, not in some dirty ally way or in the bushes. sadukar09, why 15? Is that your age?
I would say 20 or so... Not because of the sex part, but if the girl get's pregnant at the age of 15, that baby would most likely die or be defective
Not only are they handing out birth control, but it's also without parental consent or knowledge of the fact. If they gave my kid birth control, I'd sue their ass so badly that they'd need the remainder of their contraceptives to protect them from the financial raping about to happen.
BlueThen wrote on Fri, 19 October 2007 00:02 I would say 20 or so... Not because of the sex part, but if the girl get's pregnant at the age of 15, that baby would most likely die or be defective What the fuck....Thats a nasty thing to say. I know people that have had kids at 15-16 and there baby is perfectly fine. You're some fucked up kid.
BlueThen wrote on Thu, 18 October 2007 16:02 I would say 20 or so... Not because of the sex part, but if the girl get's pregnant at the age of 15, that baby would most likely die or be defective did jesus tell you this
Sure, but 16 and 15 is just 1 year, I suppose 16 is slightly better though.
I think parents are a major part of the problem. I knew girls who started to have sex when they were 13/14, and most of them had parents who pretty much threw up their arms, and said 'She's a big girl now, and she can make her own choices' . Plus, in my area, a lot of parents aren't exactly shining beacons of morality. Some of the moms look like they've raided their sixteen year-olds' closet, and many also like their drink a little too much. These are parents who reserved a hotel room to drink in while 'supervising' the high-school 'dry grad' .
I blame the parent's parents. Their Grandparents. It was because of them that they treated their kids too strictly, and now the parents this generation don't want to treat their kids as strict, are being more lenient. Next Generation it will only get worse and worse.
A few points I'd like to make: 1. Sadukar, do you realize your sig is 3x longer than most of your posts? 2. Saying that having a baby at 15 or 16 would come out defective is wrong. If you are old enough to physically have a baby, it will come out fine...the question is should you be having babies while you are still emotionally a child yourself? 3. If an 18+ year old has sex with an 11 year old...its Illegal and "statutory rape". So what happens when 2 11 year olds have sex? What is it then? Just the fact that we have no laws to cover this sort of thing shows that its ridiculous. In other words, what happens when your 11 year old girl comes home from school and says "Hey daddy, I got laid today...but it's okay because the school has me on birth control, and the boys who gang-banged me all wore condoms given out by the school"...Any parent who doesn't go WTF right then and there, well....lol
:o If their relationship is close (18 and 16 or 16 - 14) I think it SHOULD be ok.
You have to draw a line somewhere though. By your scale, 14-12 would be okay, so would 12-10, and 10-8. At what point do you decide that the boys can't stick their dick into anyone they want?
I'm also going to go on the record, and say that sex during the teenage years is not that much fun. In fact, it can be very awkward.
Keeping in mind the fact that a lot of 20+ year olds aren't emotionally mature enough to handle sex, let alone a kid, I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to wait until you're married. Quite honestly, the argument that "people are gonna have sex, so we should just get them to wear their plastic" is ridiculous. We're perfectly capable of keeping our zippers up. Hell, I've been doing it for the last 21 years.
I think waiting until your married is crap. I don't understand why we, as humans, feel the need to limit a life function for ourselves. I believe that if your ready, its alright if your in that sort of situation... not pushing it. But I don't believe it is any of my own business to what others do at what age. I would much rather not care. Of course I think an 11 year old having sex is 'odd' but I would much rather not give a crap. Let them do what they want to do, it's their life, not mine.
BlueThen wrote on Thu, 18 October 2007 18:02 I would say 20 or so... Not because of the sex part, but if the girl get's pregnant at the age of 15, that baby would most likely die or be defective That is totally 100% not true. If you're able to have a baby, it won't necessarily come out deformed. You should wait until marriage to have sex. Having sex before then ruins relationships.
At the age of 11, most dudes can't make sperm. So there's no problem with it. After that, they need a johnny or they'll "put a bun in the oven". I suppose I don't really care either.
Sn1per74* wrote on Thu, 18 October 2007 22:57 BlueThen wrote on Thu, 18 October 2007 18:02 I would say 20 or so... Not because of the sex part, but if the girl get's pregnant at the age of 15, that baby would most likely die or be defective That is totally 100% not true. If you're able to have a baby, it won't necessarily come out deformed. You should wait until marriage to have sex. Having sex before then ruins relationships. have you ever been married lol? I'd think that not having sex before the marriage, then marrying and having sex and really realizing you're not compatible would ruin a marriage.
I read that article today too. They have to have their parents permission to go to the health center but under that states law they don't have to tell their parents why or what was done when they went. That is to young. Period. If a 6th grader comes looking for birth control the school should sit them down and deal with it. Not give them fucking condoms.
luv2pb If they're old enough to pee, they're old enough for me!
OK..let's forget about the age for now. Let's look at it gradewise. Giving these options to kids in grade 6-8 is SIMPLY WRONG. It totally does not make sense AT ALL. They are way too young. 6th grade? Get out of here. But it does make sense to give them these options in high school. Even though it may help with unwanted pregnancies and somewhat with disease prevention, this whole deal is quite irrrational. In my middle school years, I did not notice any "sexual things" going on until the 8th grade. TBH, what really frightens me about this whole thing is the way sexuality is presented to these kids. This pretty much says that the parents, the goverment and their education system has FAILED in founding a positive moral outlook at kids.
This should be a matter of healthy and unhealthy to a person physically or emotionally. Morals should not matter here.
Rocko wrote on Thu, 18 October 2007 23:30 This should be a matter of healthy and unhealthy to a person physically or emotionally. Morals should not matter here. Morals should not matter? Sorry to break it to you but if it weren't for morals, the human race would be extinct by now. Go figure.
18 or something... kinda weird that people can have sex before they're legally allowed to watch porn, smoke ciggies, or drink alcohol. Just my opinion.
Or even vote. I'm with the 16+ camp here, because that's the law (and I'm 16 ) and I'm not just going to go leaping into bed with some stranger, I'd have to had a caring relationship beforehand.
Rocko wrote on Thu, 18 October 2007 23:30 Morals should not matter here. That ladies and gentlemen, is the reason that our generation is so fucked up. Loose morals creates bastard children with mothers that don't even have an age spread of 18 years. Loose morals are the reason sexually transmitted diseases run rampant and loose morals are the reason for much of the crime that happens. Limit yourself to one woman that you love(not lust mind you) and these things have less of a chance of happening. Or, as was mentioned earlier, wait until marriage.
Rocko wrote on Thu, 18 October 2007 21:30 This should be a matter of healthy and unhealthy to a person physically or emotionally. Morals should not matter here. Technically, with enough lube, it would be perfectly "healthy" for a 50 year old man to stick his dick into the ass of a 6 year old boy...are you sure morals don't matter?
waiting until marriage to have sex is a fucking (pardon my pun) bad idea
We all mature mentally and physically at different ages. To try and put a number on where that happens is absurd because there is no one age. Kids 10-13 aren't mentally ready for sex. Some may be physically ready, but sex is a little much for someone at that mental stage. I think sex-ed needs to be taught in schools to younger kids. It shouldn't be an abstinence or safe-sex class, though. It should teach about how bodily functions and mental capacity don't go hand-in-hand and it should be a decision made based on the morals and the mental maturity of the participants. I see nothing wrong with waiting until you're married. I've always been somewhat disappointed to know that other guys have had my girlfriends before I did. I'm sure that my girlfriends have felt somewhat of the same. It all depends on your morality on the issue. If you're into sharing your body with one person after you've made a lifelong commitment, then that's fine. Don't go away from your morals because of other people telling you that you're stupid. You shouldn't have to be looked down upon, either, if you choose to have sex with several different people before or during (as long as both spouses are on the same page) marriage.
Well okay I am 16 and I think that it is a sick thing to do and all of that stuff. I sit in eat lunch every day next to our assistant princpal in the cafteria and she was talking about how like 78% of the girls at East Chapel Hill High are pregnate and have sex. I was shocked, so shocked that she was surprised and that she said "that I did not even know that it was that many people" This conversation was between her and the janitor, he said that some girl had her period in the middle of the floor in the hallway and that he had to clean it up. :S CarrierII wrote on Fri, 19 October 2007 04:01 Or even vote. I'm with the 16+ camp here, because that's the law (and I'm 16 ) and I'm not just going to go leaping into bed with some stranger, I'd have to had a caring relationship beforehand. I agree with you BTW.
Ok ok ok... Middle schoolers are TOO YOUNG to have sex, or even think about sex, or even be playin with themselves. They just don't understand what's so special about it or all the consequences that can happen. Personally, I know the first thing I'll tell my son when he's 16 is "If you're gonna do it, be safe! Cuz I'm not helpin ya out if you knock someone up." I think at 16 kids are old enough to understand sex for the most part, and are mature enough to handle it. On the subject of waiting till marriage, I think that's ridiculous. I know people who are goin out who love each other a lot. I think that if you REALLY love your partner, sex can be the best way to "get closer to" them. Although it can spoil some relationships, if you're mature enough to handle your desires and realize your partner isn't just a sexual object, it can be the best thing that ever happened, making a special bond between you two. If you DO choose to wait till you're married, it just might be that much better, but I don't think it's wrong if you do it before. Now's the point where I'd tell my own story, but I'm not entirely sure you'd wanna read it.
Btw, humans are physically READY for sex and children at 9-10 (heard it from PhysED teacher, don't blame me) It's just if they are mentally ready. (Of fuck here comes moral problems)
Jecht wrote on Fri, 19 October 2007 05:08 Rocko wrote on Thu, 18 October 2007 23:30 Morals should not matter here. That ladies and gentlemen, is the reason that our generation is so fucked up. Loose morals creates bastard children with mothers that don't even have an age spread of 18 years. Loose morals are the reason sexually transmitted diseases run rampant and loose morals are the reason for much of the crime that happens. Limit yourself to one woman that you love(not lust mind you) and these things have less of a chance of happening. Or, as was mentioned earlier, wait until marriage. I disagree. I believe that the morals today are the problem. Going along with what I said earlier about grandparents, morals each year get more strict and strict because of the current generation trying to be better, but not as "mean" as the previous generation. Therefore more morals are put into play. This restricts the boundaries of everyone's life. It makes life harder, and most of these 'morals' are completely pointless and shouldn't even exist. And because some morals exist, the word is a horrible place! Think of morals like how the ESRB rates video games. During the times of the N64, games that where rated "E" would of been rated "T" or even "M" in some cases today. (Don't ask me for any examples.. I don't feel like looking through my N64 games...) Now, I'm not saying morals are bad... I am saying that too many morals are bad. It is like eating vegetables. If you eat them, their good for you, but if they are all you eat, it isn't good for you. I also realize that people have their own morals, but I just think that some of those morals are completely stupid... complicates life for little no no reason at all. I believe in my own morales, too. What I believe in is doing what ever relates to me, and if I am able to help someone else by doing something that I was going to do anyway, then I would do that instead. I would much rather make life easier for someone else than for me, just as long as I end up doing what I wanted in the first place... I believe this is good because it doesn't complicate life, it can only make it easier... no matter how you look at it. wow I went off on a tangent.
Morals and parents are getting stricter? HA! That is a ridiculous conclusion you've come to. Morals are, by far, becoming much more relaxed. If children are exposed to certain things in small doses before peer pressure can get to them, they're much less likely to jump full-force into these things. For instance, if a parent allows their kids to have (small amounts of) alcohol as a child, they're much less likely to go buck-wild when they reach their late teens. The same, I feel, would go for sex. If kids were let in on what happens, they'd be less curious, and they wouldn't be so susceptible to having sex so early. This, clearly, isn't a case of the morals themselves, but the parenting involved.
Rocko wrote on Thu, 18 October 2007 22:09 Sn1per74* wrote on Thu, 18 October 2007 22:57 BlueThen wrote on Thu, 18 October 2007 18:02 I would say 20 or so... Not because of the sex part, but if the girl get's pregnant at the age of 15, that baby would most likely die or be defective That is totally 100% not true. If you're able to have a baby, it won't necessarily come out deformed. You should wait until marriage to have sex. Having sex before then ruins relationships. have you ever been married lol? I'd think that not having sex before the marriage, then marrying and having sex and really realizing you're not compatible would ruin a marriage. Sex alone shouldn't make you and your wife/husband compatible or not. That's messed up if the only reason you get together is because of sex. cheesesoda wrote on Fri, 19 October 2007 14:54 Morals and parents are getting stricter? HA! That is a ridiculous conclusion you've come to. Morals are, by far, becoming much more relaxed. If children are exposed to certain things in small doses before peer pressure can get to them, they're much less likely to jump full-force into these things. For instance, if a parent allows their kids to have (small amounts of) alcohol as a child, they're much less likely to go buck-wild when they reach their late teens. The same, I feel, would go for sex. If kids were let in on what happens, they'd be less curious, and they wouldn't be so susceptible to having sex so early. This, clearly, isn't a case of the morals themselves, but the parenting involved. This is absolutely ridiculous. Let's let our kids smoke marijuana when they're five years old, so then they won't do it as an adult. Also, when the kids are young lets use a lot of curse words around them, so they will think nothing of them, therefore not use them. And for dinner every night, lets give our 8 year old kid a shot of whiskey, this will make them not drink so much when they become a teenager. R-E-T-A-R-D-E-D
Sex is a huge part of a relationship, though. As much as one hates to think that sex is HUGE in a marriage/relationship, it is. Sex is meant for great intimacy between you and your mate, and if you aren't compatible, then there's a problem.
cheesesoda wrote on Fri, 19 October 2007 15:54 Morals and parents are getting stricter? HA! That is a ridiculous conclusion you've come to. I didn't even read your post. I got this far and I know your wrong. You didn't even read my posts. I said it is because of OLDER generations being stricter, the current generations are becoming less and less strict because they don't want to be like the last generation. Lol, you somehow got the complete wrong idea... XD EDIT: Ok, I read the rest of your post, and you basically agree with me. The old morales of people are gone, but are replaced with these really stupid ones. Which there are more of, and is why I said there are getting more and more through the generations.
Sn1per74* This is absolutely ridiculous. Let's let our kids smoke marijuana when they're five years old, so then they won't do it as an adult. Also, when the kids are young lets use a lot of curse words around them, so they will think nothing of them, therefore not use them. And for dinner every night, lets give our 8 year old kid a shot of whiskey, this will make them not drink so much when they become a teenager. R-E-T-A-R-D-E-D Quite the closed-minded, aren't we? Just because it's not something you view as logical doesn't mean that it isn't. Seriously, stop acting like a fucktard. There are other ways of informing your kids and letting them be versed in certain situations instead of having them actually try it. Obviously, letting them physically experience everything isn't the best idea, but for some it wouldn't hurt. As for your letting a child have a shot of whiskey... maybe not that much, but a small amount would work just fine. There is some scientific research behind this. Edit: razorblade, read your first paragraph. How did I get the wrong idea? Just like you, I ignored the rest of your post.
What's deliciously funny is watching a group of people who've never had these relations, never had children nor a committed relationship (with a human anyways) let alone a marraige comment on this topic. And if I even dare mention the fact that the bible has the answers to ALL these moral "dilemas" I will be vilified. Because after all, you guys are waaaay smarter than God and 10,000 years of your ancestry. The funny thing: In the last 50 years we've broken the successful model for mature relationships hammered out for thousands of years and wonder why the family unit is broken and our kids have no ability to relate and kill each other and themselves. But hey, what do I know. I'm a blind, socially backwards, gullible religious freak who hasn't reached "enlightenment" and hides in theology. But my family isn't broken, my marraige works and my kids aren't violent or acting like rabbits.
I don't hold that view. Not generalising, are we?
KIRBY-098 wrote on Fri, 19 October 2007 16:31 What's deliciously funny is watching a group of people who've never had these relations, never had children nor a committed relationship (with a human anyways) let alone a marraige comment on this topic. And if I even dare mention the fact that the bible has the answers to ALL these moral "dilemas" I will be vilified. Because after all, you guys are waaaay smarter than God and 10,000 years of your ancestry. The funny thing: In the last 50 years we've broken the successful model for mature relationships hammered out for thousands of years and wonder why the family unit is broken and our kids have no ability to relate and kill each other and themselves. But hey, what do I know. I'm a blind, socially backwards, gullible religious freak who hasn't reached "enlightenment" and hides in theology. But my family isn't broken, my marraige works and my kids aren't violent or acting like rabbits. There has never been a "traditional family", and it's always changing, so there's NEVER been a time where there's just one model that works. For all of humanity, it's been evolving.
cheesesoda wrote on Fri, 19 October 2007 16:30 Edit: razorblade, read your first paragraph. How did I get the wrong idea? Just like you, I ignored the rest of your post. I said MORALS are getting stricter, not the generations themselves. When something gets more strict, that doesn't necessarily mean in terms of rules and enforcement. I meant that there are more and more different reasons for people to make up more morals. However, as a result of this, more and more freedoms are being given to the new generation because the previous generation (This generation's parents) don't want to be like their previous generation (Your parent's parents) For example: What once was "Be home before 7:00 or I will beat you with my belt" is now "Make sure your home before 11:00, or else I will take away your cell phone" (Than they get home at 1:00, and no action is taken)
razorblade001 wrote on Fri, 19 October 2007 16:36 cheesesoda wrote on Fri, 19 October 2007 16:30 Edit: razorblade, read your first paragraph. How did I get the wrong idea? Just like you, I ignored the rest of your post. I said MORALS are getting stricter, not the generations themselves. When something gets more strict, that doesn't necessarily mean in terms of rules and enforcement. I meant that there are more and more different reasons for people to make up more morals. However, as a result of this, more and more freedoms are being given to the new generation because the previous generation (This generation's parents) don't want to be like their previous generation (Your parent's parents) Morals AREN'T getting more strict, though. They've been the same for generations. The only "new" morals that could be stemming from recent times would be based on technology, and even then they're just new adaptations of old morals. Edit: Just stop saying "strict". strict -adj 1. characterized by or acting in close conformity to requirements or principles
Live in specificity all you want, but the model has always been: Father is head of household Children OBEY parents Betrothal and courting before marraige with the father giving a blessing. (Dating NEVER existed before the fifties) Children WORK in the household Wife works with the children to develop social balance and respect for others while the father works to provide. The family eats together every day and discusses the day's events These of course are examples and I could go on, but my point is this: We have traded the hard work put into developing our social fabric to focus on what we think we deserve and our comfort. We work three jobs to have a lexus and a license plate with our narcicistic banners of self indulgence. We allow our kids to do whatever they want as long as they don't interfere with "Lost" and our internet time, because we're FAR more important and we need our "time" because we "worked" so hard. Where is the self sacrifice (the true definition of love) and self denial for a greater good? We have lost our moral compasses and are adrift on the way to a social shipwreck.
The world can't support this many people anyway.
Jecht wrote on Thu, 18 October 2007 19:05 Not only are they handing out birth control, but it's also without parental consent or knowledge of the fact. If they gave my kid birth control, I'd sue their ass so badly that they'd need the remainder of their contraceptives to protect them from the financial raping about to happen. eat shit and die michigan fan, anyways, whenever they get into highschool, cos ljbh little middleschoolers balls wont even be dropped + highschool there is a lot more pussy to choose from
DeAd3yE11 wrote on Fri, 19 October 2007 18:54 Jecht wrote on Thu, 18 October 2007 19:05 Not only are they handing out birth control, but it's also without parental consent or knowledge of the fact. If they gave my kid birth control, I'd sue their ass so badly that they'd need the remainder of their contraceptives to protect them from the financial raping about to happen. eat shit and die michigan fan, anyways, whenever they get into highschool, cos ljbh little middleschoolers balls wont even be dropped + highschool there is a lot more pussy to choose from You obviously haven't been laid. Or if you did, a family member of yours.
Blazer wrote on Fri, 19 October 2007 07:55 Rocko wrote on Thu, 18 October 2007 21:30 This should be a matter of healthy and unhealthy to a person physically or emotionally. Morals should not matter here. Technically, with enough lube, it would be perfectly "healthy" for a 50 year old man to stick his dick into the ass of a 6 year old boy...are you sure morals don't matter? Ummmm no. That's very much damaging to a young child to be having sex and is "unhealthy." You're not being "technical" with your post at all. You often bring up the issue of old men raping young children, which of course absolutely no one agrees is acceptable in any way. I don't see why you need to repeat it all the time. Also good job trying to bash me for being realistic instead of applying my own morals or jesus-talk to make things "good or bad." I'm talking about issues such as sex before marriage. If two people are are at least lets say 16, love each other, and are monogamous then who says they shouldn't have sex? It's a natural part of life. Why restrict ourselves and make life unnecessarily harder? And kirby get off your high horse please. Just because you're some old man doesn't make you correct and other's opinions invalid. Stop living in the past and see life outside the way the bible tells you to.
Kids that are 10 - 11 commit rape since at least one of them is under age. One of the guys in my class got kicked out because he was sexually active in school. People that have sex before marrige are animals. They are unable to control their feelings and have sex. Therefore, they are no different than animals. If you want to have sex, wait until you are ready to make a lifelong commitment to your spouse, then screw away. Animals have sex whenever and wherever they want. If we are becoming like that, then the human race will have sank down to the animal's level, and we will just be more intelligent animals because we can't control ourselves.
Muad Dib15 wrote on Fri, 19 October 2007 22:24 Kids that are 10 - 11 commit rape since at least one of them is under age. One of the guys in my class got kicked out because he was sexually active in school. People that have sex before marrige are animals. They are unable to control their feelings and have sex. Therefore, they are no different than animals. If you want to have sex, wait until you are ready to make a lifelong commitment to your spouse, then screw away. Animals have sex whenever and wherever they want. If we are becoming like that, then the human race will have sank down to the animal's level, and we will just be more intelligent animals because we can't control ourselves. That was a very irrational view. How can you say pre-martial sex is animalistic? So if a married man cheats with another woman, then by your definition it is animalistic too right? Since most animals don't care who they fuck. Sex before marriage is perfectly fine (we all have differing morals on that) but as long as people are strong enough and mature enough to deal with their partners and their actions. The "control yourself" part is partly rational but what if two lovers have decided they are for each other? Sex will cement in their relationship more if they make that decision.
cheesesoda wrote on Fri, 19 October 2007 15:30 Sn1per74* This is absolutely ridiculous. Let's let our kids smoke marijuana when they're five years old, so then they won't do it as an adult. Also, when the kids are young lets use a lot of curse words around them, so they will think nothing of them, therefore not use them. And for dinner every night, lets give our 8 year old kid a shot of whiskey, this will make them not drink so much when they become a teenager. R-E-T-A-R-D-E-D Quite the closed-minded, aren't we? Just because it's not something you view as logical doesn't mean that it isn't. Seriously, stop acting like a fucktard. There are other ways of informing your kids and letting them be versed in certain situations instead of having them actually try it. Obviously, letting them physically experience everything isn't the best idea, but for some it wouldn't hurt. As for your letting a child have a shot of whiskey... maybe not that much, but a small amount would work just fine. There is some scientific research behind this. Edit: razorblade, read your first paragraph. How did I get the wrong idea? Just like you, I ignored the rest of your post. Me close-minded? You're the one who thinks you're always right, and if you get opposition you call people names.
Part of having an opinion is thinking that it's correct, else you'd be stupid to have an opinion where you know/think you're wrong. Also, I back up my arguments. I may throw some ad hominem in there, but I don't use that as my main arguments.
I'm a big fan of freedom, and as such I don't think a law should regulate a legal age to have sex. Whether kids have sex or not should be up to their parents. As for when I think it's OK for kids to have sex: when they're mature enough. The maturity comes at different ages, so letting parents decide does make sense outside of my libertarian beliefs.
DeAd3yE11 wrote on Sat, 20 October 2007 01:54 Jecht wrote on Thu, 18 October 2007 19:05 Not only are they handing out birth control, but it's also without parental consent or knowledge of the fact. If they gave my kid birth control, I'd sue their ass so badly that they'd need the remainder of their contraceptives to protect them from the financial raping about to happen. eat shit and die michigan fan, anyways, whenever they get into highschool, cos ljbh little middleschoolers balls wont even be dropped + highschool there is a lot more pussy to choose from You're about the lowest form of intelligence in this thread. Congratulations I agree with just about everything KIRBY-098 said. Well thought out posts.
Sn1per74* wrote on Thu, 18 October 2007 19:57 That is totally 100% not true. If you're able to have a baby, it won't necessarily come out deformed. You should wait until marriage to have sex. Having sex before then ruins relationships. Um, Blazer and I have been together for almost 5 years and have been doing the deed since the beginning, and our relationship is far from "ruined". cheesesoda wrote on Fri, 19 October 2007 07:34 I see nothing wrong with waiting until you're married. I've always been somewhat disappointed to know that other guys have had my girlfriends before I did. I'm sure that my girlfriends have felt somewhat of the same. I can agree with that, too. It always bothers me to think of the other women before me, so I try to avoid it. Unfortunately, when you get older, if your marriage fails and you are looking for another one, you're not going to find a virgin 33-year-old very easily, and you won't be one either. For the record, I was 17 when I "did it". I think that if children are given good sex education and know about the risks and are backed up by their parents enforcing it, they may decide to do it sooner, but at least they will make an educated decision. Ultimately, I agree with Kirby. The average family is fucked up beyond belief and TV and music influences are fucking up the kids even more. You can't watch these videos with women gyrating and wearing next to nothing, and the guy singing about fucking the shit out of her and not expect that young, impressionable kids aren't going to think that's healthy and normal. We keep breeding dumber and dumber kids from dumber and dumber parents and the only thing holding us back from falling down this hole faster is religion. And I say that even though I'm an atheist.
Crimson wrote on Sat, 20 October 2007 18:59 Sn1per74* wrote on Thu, 18 October 2007 19:57 That is totally 100% not true. If you're able to have a baby, it won't necessarily come out deformed. You should wait until marriage to have sex. Having sex before then ruins relationships. Um, Blazer and I have been together for almost 5 years and have been doing the deed since the beginning, and our relationship is far from "ruined". I didn't say it happened all the time. And I don't see why people are so public about this kind of stuff.
Sn1per74* wrote on Sat, 20 October 2007 23:18 And I don't see why people are so public about this kind of stuff. Why, is it a taboo?
I think the media is largely to blame for giving kids the idea of this. Of course times are changing and teenagers should be safe. 11 years old is far too young and as many people have said, they aren't emotionally ready. As for the people that are believers in waiting until marriage that's fine. Personally I don't believe in that, but I don't believe in fucking left and right. Being in a serious relationship is enough imo. Sex is an important part in most relationships in our society and I don't think it's something you should wait years for. Anyways, everyone is different and will be "ready" at a different age, somewhere between 15-18 would be that age I find. I did when I was 18, I have some friends now that are 20 and still haven't, and all the power to them for waiting for the right person or more.
Sn1per74* wrote on Sat, 20 October 2007 23:18 And I don't see why people are so public about this kind of stuff. It is called being mature about it.
Dave Anderson wrote on Sat, 20 October 2007 23:46 Sn1per74* wrote on Sat, 20 October 2007 23:18 And I don't see why people are so public about this kind of stuff. It is called being mature about it. Nah dude, I'm not trying to be immature. Just me personally, I wouldn't go around telling people. Not even my closest friends. I think it should be something private.
Well, it added to the discussion we are having here in renegadeforums in this topic. Nuff said.
Sn1per74* wrote on Sun, 21 October 2007 00:48 Dave Anderson wrote on Sat, 20 October 2007 23:46 Sn1per74* wrote on Sat, 20 October 2007 23:18 And I don't see why people are so public about this kind of stuff. It is called being mature about it. Nah dude, I'm not trying to be immature. Just me personally, I wouldn't go around telling people. Not even my closest friends. I think it should be something private. Most of us that are discussing these issues are (legal) adults. We're all expressing our views that we've formed from our previous experiences. Why feel shamed about something you're not ashamed of? It'd be one thing if we were discussing favorite sexual positions and how many partners we've all had, but disclosing that you've had premarital sex isn't as private as one would think.
The age requirement should be the ages at which both people could be able to correctly raise and take proper care of their off spring. For some people that means no sex I suppose but to bad for them, they would not be the first.
BlueThen wrote on Thu, 18 October 2007 19:02 I would say 20 or so... Not because of the sex part, but if the girl get's pregnant at the age of 15, that baby would most likely die or be defective You do realise your mis-informed right? Teenage births are the least likely to be defective with physical or mental defects- However, losing the baby depends on teh activities she does- Drugs/Sports/Accidents/Angry Dad, All contribute to this being semi-true. On Topic- Who cares, give the kid some condoms, And let it rip. I wouldn't stop my kid from banging his GF, from teh age of 13 and on. My mom didnt.
If it's your child, you should care. Just like you mother should have cared when you did it. Having sex that early can get you into a lot of trouble. Even condoms aren't fullproof: http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/1997/babytabl.html That link basically says that out of 100 women using the condom, 11 will end up pregnant anyway(11%) The very best outside vasectomy or injection is the pill, and that still holds a 2% risk. (2/100 women) Too many people think that they're invulnerable to circumstance if they use contraceptives. The link is 10 years old, but I didn't want to find one more current. If you want those numbers then look yourself
Eleven is not a suitable age, and handing out contraception is not dealing with the problem, merely treating the "sympton". Hmm, I never thought I would describe a child as a sympton... But then again, who am I or any of you to say they're too young either? Sure you might say you pay taxes and it will go to fund there "mistake". But look at China, those savage fuckers have the power of life and death. You can't honestly say you'd want that would you? Perhaps if the children was taught about life and given more to enjoy and look foward too. If they thought they had a future and was able to see achievable goals then this situation may not happen so much.
reborn wrote on Mon, 22 October 2007 16:07 Eleven is not a suitable age, and handing out contraception is not dealing with the problem, merely treating the "sympton". Hmm, I never thought I would describe a child as a symptom... You'd make a fine Systems Analyst
Jecht wrote on Mon, 22 October 2007 14:28 If it's your child, you should care. Just like you mother should have cared when you did it. Having sex that early can get you into a lot of trouble. Even condoms aren't fullproof: http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/1997/babytabl.html That link basically says that out of 100 women using the condom, 11 will end up pregnant anyway(11%) The very best outside vasectomy or injection is the pill, and that still holds a 2% risk. (2/100 women) Too many people think that they're invulnerable to circumstance if they use contraceptives. The link is 10 years old, but I didn't want to find one more current. If you want those numbers then look yourself Seems like a link abstinence believers keep in their bookmarks to pull out when they need it. Sperm doesn't just slip through latex, you'd only get pregnant with a condom if you use it improperly, like let it fall out while you're in a girl or something then yeah she's going to get pregnant. You're virtually 100% protected from pregnancy if you have a condom and the girl is on birth control.
reborn wrote on Mon, 22 October 2007 17:07 Eleven is not a suitable age, and handing out contraception is not dealing with the problem, merely treating the "sympton". Hmm, I never thought I would describe a child as a sympton... . More like the discharge.
Rocko wrote on Mon, 22 October 2007 20:16 Seems like a link abstinence believers keep in their bookmarks to pull out when they need it. Sperm doesn't just slip through latex, you'd only get pregnant with a condom if you use it improperly, like let it fall out while you're in a girl or something then yeah she's going to get pregnant. You're virtually 100% protected from pregnancy if you have a condom and the girl is on birth control. Well, I'm not going to pretend like I know that the counterexample you provided isn't true because for all I know, it could be. I don't necessarily believe in abstinence, I just believe that the age the schools are giving these contraceptives out is way too young. At 13 I wasn't thinking about sex at all, I was fully immersed in football and school. If children this young were to have sex, they couldn't possibly think about how serious the ramifications could be. FYI, I've done the probability rate of pregnancy for a condom and the pill in the past, and I think the figure came out to be a .002% failure rate. That was around 2 years ago so don't quote me on that.
Since the whole point of sex is to procreate, I say have sex when you are ready to have a kid. I don't mean insofar as physical development, but emotionally able and knowledgeable enough to know how to bring up a child successfully. But then I don't believe in having sex, period, unless it's in an attempt to procreate, so perhaps that's influencing my "age minimum" belief.
Sex is too pleasurable, and most Christians will not tell you that you should only have sex when you're married and only if you're going to procreate. Just only when you're married. As far as contraceptives go, I know a girl who got pregnant even after several forms of birth control were used, including spermicide, condoms, and birth control. That didn't seem to work.
cheesesoda wrote on Tue, 23 October 2007 12:10 Sex is too pleasurable, and most Christians will not tell you that you should only have sex when you're married and only if you're going to procreate. Just only when you're married. As far as contraceptives go, I know a girl who got pregnant even after several forms of birth control were used, including spermicide, condoms, and birth control. That didn't seem to work. lol? DId not work? Weird. Anyway, I don't think that religion should really come into this topic. cheesesoda wrote: ".....Sex is too pleasurable......" This is true
The Elite Officer wrote on Tue, 23 October 2007 12:55 cheesesoda wrote on Tue, 23 October 2007 12:10 Sex is too pleasurable, and most Christians will not tell you that you should only have sex when you're married and only if you're going to procreate. Just only when you're married. As far as contraceptives go, I know a girl who got pregnant even after several forms of birth control were used, including spermicide, condoms, and birth control. That didn't seem to work. lol? DId not work? Weird. Anyway, I don't think that religion should really come into this topic. cheesesoda wrote: ".....Sex is too pleasurable......" This is true Some of us base our life around religion. So to make a discussion without it probably won't happen.
cheesesoda wrote on Tue, 23 October 2007 12:10 Sex is too pleasurable, and most Christians will not tell you that you should only have sex when you're married and only if you're going to procreate. Just only when you're married. As far as contraceptives go, I know a girl who got pregnant even after several forms of birth control were used, including spermicide, condoms, and birth control. That didn't seem to work. Then she apparently wasn't using one or more of them correctly. Either that or she has the worst luck.
Homey wrote on Tue, 23 October 2007 20:46 cheesesoda wrote on Tue, 23 October 2007 12:10 Sex is too pleasurable, and most Christians will not tell you that you should only have sex when you're married and only if you're going to procreate. Just only when you're married. As far as contraceptives go, I know a girl who got pregnant even after several forms of birth control were used, including spermicide, condoms, and birth control. That didn't seem to work. Then she apparently wasn't using one or more of them correctly. Either that or she has the worst luck. That bad luck happens to women every day.
Homey wrote on Tue, 23 October 2007 20:46 cheesesoda wrote on Tue, 23 October 2007 12:10 Sex is too pleasurable, and most Christians will not tell you that you should only have sex when you're married and only if you're going to procreate. Just only when you're married. As far as contraceptives go, I know a girl who got pregnant even after several forms of birth control were used, including spermicide, condoms, and birth control. That didn't seem to work. Then she apparently wasn't using one or more of them correctly. Either that or she has the worst luck. or is a retard.
Rocko wrote on Wed, 24 October 2007 00:26 Homey wrote on Tue, 23 October 2007 20:46 cheesesoda wrote on Tue, 23 October 2007 12:10 Sex is too pleasurable, and most Christians will not tell you that you should only have sex when you're married and only if you're going to procreate. Just only when you're married. As far as contraceptives go, I know a girl who got pregnant even after several forms of birth control were used, including spermicide, condoms, and birth control. That didn't seem to work. Then she apparently wasn't using one or more of them correctly. Either that or she has the worst luck. or is a retard. No, she's not a retard. I don't befriend idiots... most of the time.
Although I don't have a problem against others doing it if they're willing to support a baby, personally I'd rather my wife to wait until marriage to have sex, and I'm going to wait. I just think its wierd, and I don't want to have to worry about any of that.
Whoa! Childrens mustn't have sex before 30 years here in Italy. That's what my mother repeats me every day. It's however obvius that with the famous adolescence book "3MSC"(3 metri sopra al cielo) silly boys have the instinct to make love with young girls. It's not good polite. It's a big trouble for our schools.
30 seems kind of late to start
yah. First of all, please forgive me for the stupid bumps that i did yesterday. It was my first time. Then, in USA kids love to fuck, but here in Italy you must be mature, because in many cases the sex under 18 is taken like a rape by the authorities.
If it's "Kids" who are having sex, then never. So if you're not considered a kid, then you should be able to have sex (Meaning, around 16 or 18 or so). Existing laws are fine with me. As for the whole condems given out to middle schoolers... That's BS. They're just encouraging kids to have sex then. And purely for pleasure, then.
Cabal8616 wrote on Sat, 27 October 2007 06:36 If it's "Kids" who are having sex, then never. So if you're not considered a kid, then you should be able to have sex (Meaning, around 16 or 18 or so). Existing laws are fine with me. As for the whole condems given out to middle schoolers... That's BS. They're just encouraging kids to have sex then. And purely for pleasure, then. You're right. But remember your country case where a 12 years old stupid boy fucked a teacher and make it pregnant. The teacher was JAILED for rape! Then, in Italy our boys raped 12 years old girls and it was a scandal.
Of course the teacher was jailed for rape. She had sex with a fucking 12-year-old. Even if the kid made the first move, the teacher (as an adult should have known better than to engage in intercourse with a minor both legally unable to give consent and psychologically unprepared for the act. IMHO, 18 is what the age of consent ought to be in an ideal world- because that is realistically the absolute minimum age at which a person is able to assume the responsibilities of parenthood (since that is a possibility, however unlikely, every time one has sex). However, for the exact same reasons (in order to be realistic, that is), 16 is where the age of consent must rest. By that age, a person has both the physical urges and the means (via the internet, mainly) to understand them as well as the ability (not merely the desire) to go against a parent's authority. Simply put, if kids want to have sex, they're going to- and there isn't much parents or teachers can do about it except arm those kids with the knowledge to protect themselves. I'm 21 and still a virgin, and it isn't because I've been kept in the dark about sex. It is very possible- even likely- that I'd have had sex several years ago had I not been such a social nonentity, but anymore I'm quite content to just wait it out for someone to come along who I'd be willing to settle down with. On the other side of the coin, one of my close friends is barely a year older than me and has already had one child which she had to put up for adoption. Several of my other friends have been raped or abused, several more are reluctant to have sex because they know someone who has been raped or abused, there's another few who just haven't gotten around to doing it yet, and a few more who are sexually active, healthy, and happy as a clam. It all varies from person to person, but it is abundantly clear that most of the problems with sex in this country (and the world at large) lie with the folks who can't see past the physical act to understand that- as with any interaction between two people- the physical is inextricably connected to the mental and the emotional. That, and the fact that there are real and tangible consequences to any such act, especially one that can lead to the creation of another life. No, there is no way anybody as young as 12 should be fucking. It doesn't matter if both parties say yes (though it is much, much worse if they don't), the human body prior to the mid/late teens is not developed enough, nor are the minds of those involved able to completely understand what they are doing and why. There's nothing wrong with educating middle-school aged kids about the nature of sex, but there's no reason why they should also be learning about contraceptives and prophylactics- because they shouldn't be fucking in the first place, and at that age parents and teachers can actually prevent their kids from doing so. Once they reach high school, the entire situation changes, and a complete run-down on protection is absolutely essential for the "we're gonna fuck anyway" crowd, but prior to that a child's experience with sex should be limited to biological knowledge.
PlastoJoe wrote on Fri, 19 October 2007 04:00 Keeping in mind the fact that a lot of 20+ year olds aren't emotionally mature enough to handle sex, let alone a kid, I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to wait until you're married. Quite honestly, the argument that "people are gonna have sex, so we should just get them to wear their plastic" is ridiculous. We're perfectly capable of keeping our zippers up. [b]Hell, I've been doing it for the last 21 years.[b] Obviously.... I thin that around 16 isn't a bad age, if both the boy and the girl really want it. Waiting till marage is oldfashioned and pretty useless I'd say... I think that if a boy and a girl really love each other they'll just start experimenting anyway, and eventually "do it".
To answer this question we need to establish where our standard of living is coming from. Where do we get the idea to question premarital sex in the first place
Quackpunk wrote on Mon, 29 October 2007 21:33 To answer this question we need to establish where our standard of living is coming from. Where do we get the idea to question premarital sex in the first place Religion, I believe. It also says it in Health books.
Who said we are talking about premarital? We are talking about 11 year old kids having sex, which is quite another animal. What would you think if some jr high punk stuck his slimy dick into your 11 year old sister (whether it was her idea or not)? That's cool with you?
Blazer wrote on Mon, 29 October 2007 21:58 Who said we are talking about premarital? We are talking about 11 year old kids having sex, which is quite another animal. What would you think if some jr high punk stuck his slimy dick into your 11 year old sister (whether it was her idea or not)? That's cool with you? wow Blazer you sure love to talk about 11 year old kids having sex.
Rocko wrote on Mon, 29 October 2007 22:14 Blazer wrote on Mon, 29 October 2007 21:58 Who said we are talking about premarital? We are talking about 11 year old kids having sex, which is quite another animal. What would you think if some jr high punk stuck his slimy dick into your 11 year old sister (whether it was her idea or not)? That's cool with you? wow Blazer you sure love to talk about 11 year old kids having sex. Well this IS a topic about how young people should be when they start having sex...
Rocko wrote on Mon, 29 October 2007 21:14 wow Blazer you sure love to talk about 11 year old kids having sex. No shit that's what this topic is about. Try reading once in awhile, especially the first post of a thread http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/teen_sex_laws
Well, this is a troublemaking world. Sex is a taboo in many countries.
Cabal8616 wrote on Sat, 27 October 2007 07:36 If it's "Kids" who are having sex, then never. So if you're not considered a kid, then you should be able to have sex (Meaning, around 16 or 18 or so). Existing laws are fine with me. As for the whole condems given out to middle schoolers... That's BS. They're just encouraging kids to have sex then. And purely for pleasure, then.