This is what a sex expert said on one of the news magazine shows a few years ago. I was impressed and made note of it then, but now it seems it might sound a bit arbitrary, and be difficult to get teens to take it to heart.
“Sexual intercourse is the most fundamentally powerful behavior there is on the face of the earth. It has the ability to give life, the potential to take life away, and to change life forever. It shouldn’t be in the hands of anyone who isn’t an adult in as many ways as they need to be an adult. It shouldn’t be in the hands of kids.”
But you use proper protection and all of a sudden it just becomes the most fun you can have with your clothes off. In other words, no, I dont agree with what she said.
Yeah I can imagine how well that’d go over with most of my peers. They’d be rolling their eyes at the “fundamentally powerful” part. Not a good way to get the message through. I know what the message is, but you can’t try and convey it like that. Too condescending.
Oh, and you’ll never get anywhere calling them kids.
I am going to take a dissenting opinion and say that the quote is right on. I doubt that any of you can parse the quote and come up with any part that is false or even you don’t agree with. Pick a sentence that you don’t agree with and tell us why. Yes, I am serious.
I’m sure there are many teens more able to deal with sex and the emotional consequences.
It isn’t as if adults suddenly become mature about sex after 18 or 21 and give sex the respect it deserves.
[QUOTE]
Of course, the actual quote says nothing that even relates to your reply. Do you just cut and paste a standard response to this issue whenever you see it come up?
What does “It shouldn’t be in the hands of kids” mean? Does it mean it should be made a crime unless you’ve reached a certain age? Does it mean nature shouldn’t have given “kids” sexual organs with the ability to become aroused and be functional at that age? Its just a silly comment.
It’s a good message, yes, but as others have already said, no teens are going to listen to it. It’s condescending and, in our horrendously immature minds (which are of course completely incapable of making any intelligent and well-thought out choices, especially when it comes to sex), it’s telling us that we’re no more mature than that six-year-old kid we babysit for.
Why is giving teens the “right message” about sex so important? First of all, it’s none of society’s business if we have sex or not. The only ones who should care are us and maybe our parents. No one’s lecturing 20-year-olds about their sexual habits; why should a 17-, 18-year old get lectured?
Secondly, and I can’t stress this enough: we’ve heard you already!. Some of us will abstain from sex until we’re married, or in some sort of serious relationship. Others will not. Some of us will choose to use protection, get tested for STDs, and generally be safe. Others will not. It’s not exclusively a problem with teens, yet, we’re apparently the only age group where it matters. In my school, sex ed. in health class starts in fourth grade, which means that I’ve been hearing the same insultingly condescending and downright nosy lectures for about nine years now. We’ve heard you; we don’t need experts on talk shows and in parenting magazines to tell our parents how to tell us to behave with other consenting people.
Nobody said anything about it being made a crime now did they? Your third sentence sounds disturbingly like something out of a NAMBLA packet. You aren’t a member are you?
Kids is left to an arbitrary definition because not all individuals mature at the same rate. The quote never says that two 14 year-olds shouldn’t have sex. It merely says that they they need need to have the adult qualities to understand all of the emotional, possible life-altering, and health consequences that can result from it. You could use the same criteria for some of the 19 year-olds that I know to argue that they should not be engaging sex.
No Shagnasty, no one said anything about it being made a crime. I was asking a question about what a sentence’s meaning would be.
What exactly sounds like it might be from a NAMBLA packet? NAMBLA is th North American Man Boy Love Association. Did I say insinuate anything about grown men and children in any way? You have the gall to ask me if I’m a member? I believe you owe me an apology.
I agree with the first line that sex is a powerful behavior, and the gist that its power should be respected, but I doubt the message as written would win over many teens. Doubtless, there are some teenagers willing to say “I’m not ready for this” but I seriously doubt they outnumber the teens who think “I can handle this!”
For crying out loud, is she talking about sex or nuclear weaponry?
Watch me.
The first sentence is likely true, and the second one definitely is (although it’s not a deep observation, it’s Biology 101). The last two sentences are stupid. Sex is already in everybody’s hands. Just about anybody can have it, so whether it should or shouldn’t be in some people’s hands is irrelevant. Probably it’s just plain meaningless. I agree that children shouldn’t have sex, but she doesn’t define kids (I think her tone makes it sound like she means an even larger group than ‘kids’ normally means, extending at least into the late teens). For that matter, she doesn’t explain what she means by “an adult” or what ‘the ways they need to be an adult’ are. So that renders sentence #3 kind of an empty tautology.
If she’s saying “people who aren’t emotionally mature shouldn’t have sex,” I’d be inclined to agree, but I’d have to ask “how do they become emotionally mature?” Yes, there’d be fewer mistakes and less heartache if nobody did anything until they were ready to do it, but that’s not how the world works. Most of the time, you have to do something a few times before you can get it right. Think of it this way: if she’d said “Nobody should get on a bicycle until they know how to ride a bicycle,” you’d say “that’s stupid.” Same principle.
This reflects the increasingly popular view that everybody should just listen to words of wisdom and be mature without making any mistakes. How does a “kid” become an adult? In my opinion, mostly by trying to do adult things, doing them wrong, and learning. You have to fuck up to grow up.
I had about as chaste an adolescence as possible - no drugs, no drinking, no smoking, few girlfriends - so I know what the benefits and detriments are. I wouldn’t do anything differently, but being sexually inexperienced was not a plus. Let’s not bullshit about that. Sex is important in adult relationships, and you don’t do it well by instinct, you have to learn how.
I think teaching kids how to have sex safely and encouraging them not to rush into it is a smarter approach. Tell them not to feel pressured into it, take their own time, and make the right decisions instead of issuing prohibitions and dire warnings. Because that’s, you know, realistic. And so, I conclude, this quote is silly. Sex can have very powerful emotional consequences and there’s no condom for that, but it is simply miles over the top. You know what she didn’t mention about sex? It feels great. It’s fun. If you learn to do it right, which requires some diligence and a good partner, it’s mindblowing. I don’t want to hijack this thread, but this reminds me of a lot of America’s DARE foolishness as well.
If we all had this woman’s attitude, I don’t think anyone would have good sex. We’d be taking it too seriously and trying to cherish it or fear the awesome, life-changing responsibility instead of fucking for the joy of it. And nobody would have sex before age 35, since they would have to be certain they were mature enough to handle it. Since, you know, it’s not for kids. What a fun world that would be.
The quote is remarkably preachy and melodramatic, meaning “the kids” will likely tune it out. Which is fortunate, because like I said, the quote sucks.
I think it’s a completely useless message, but it probably made whoever came up with it feel pretty good about themselves. IMO it’s inaccurate and condescending.
For a start, it’s overdramatic, and secondly, I really don’t know how describing something as “the most fundamentally powerful behavior there is on the face of the earth” and “It shouldn’t be in the hands of kids” is going to persuade anyone NOT to want to do it, unless this is part of a message they have been hearing their whole life. What it says to me is: “Hah! We’re doing this really monumentally important thing and you can’t because you’re just KIDS! So yah boo and sucks to you!” You don’t try to dissuade anyone from doing drugs by telling them what a mindblowing experience it can be, do you?
Kids who aren’t having sex generally know kids who are having sex, and very often they can see for themselves that the sexed-up kids are not necessarily more mature OR altered, for better or worse, by the experience.
Teaching kids that emotional maturity is a bonus, disease is a possible side effect, and that dirty diapers can result from an activity that is portrayed as being nothing but fun, fun, fun is a lot more useful in the long run.
I see lots of news to indicate there are plenty of adults out there who should not be having sex.
It is an expression of oneself that is bigger than oneself. Not to wax philisophical, but it is quite often about others also…your partner and, in some cases, babies. Perhaps the measure of readiness is the ability to consider the well-being of others involved.
I think the quote in the OP is, in the most part, a good one. I would substitute the “kids/teens” references with references to “people” but I would still not expect it to sway anyone who is not already thinking.
This came to mind for me yesterday because of the Mary Kay Letourneau case in the news, she being the teacher who had sex with her then-13-year-old student. Wish I knew how to link to that thread–sorry.
Why does everyone assume a woman was quoted in the OP, instead of a man?
:eek: 
:rolleyes: :dubious: 