Underage Sex and how it's being dealt with/treated.

Great Debates
21

This is not a uniquely American phenomenon. TV in Europe is much more lax in their standards for nudity and sex. I remember seeing a soap commercial while I was in Paris in which the model happily soaped up her perky, naked breasts. I remember watching a television show in the daytime on French TV which In the US would only be shown after 11PM on Showtime. Our TV standards are actually somewhat puritanical. What we glorify, instead of the beauty of the human body, is graphic, bloody violence. I’d MUCH rather see two happy people making love than a stabbing.

You can’t really fault vasyachkin too much for making this statement. He’s only parrotting what the media has expounded over and over and over in ads, magazines, movies, etc. The media insists that the older a woman gets, the less attractive she is-- it helps sell beauty aids. How was it that Huxley put it? “Ten thousand repetitions make one truth” or something to that effect. This kind of sentiment is just a product of media brainwashing, pure and simple.

It’s actually not too far off from what I was taught in the Baptist fundamentalist school I attended. Simply put, anything done simply for pleasure is sinful: it’s selfish and distracts you from your purpose of serving God. I think that the thought behind it was that since man is inherently sinful, we’re not supposed to feel much pleasure . . . life is supposed to be about suffering and struggle. Only after death do you recieve your reward and pleasure in heaven.

Sex, while in itself pleasureful, wasn’t supposed to be done just for the fun of it, but to seal the emotional bond between spouses, create children, and prevent “lust.” I always compared it to eating a chunk of bread every hour or so, just so you won’t get really hungry for a sumptuous dinner. Bread is okay, but it’s not really TASTY. Neither should your sex life be.

I always felt so sorry for these dour and joyless people, whose only grim pleasure was in imagining an afterlife filled with all of the things they carefully denied themselves in life.

You can make a similar comparison of the pleasure-for-plesure’s sake-is-sinful concept in our attitude toward drug use. Let’s say that drugs are legal, cheap, safely manufactured and available at any corner store to adults. What then would be the reason for preaching against their use? No longer would there be crime to get drug money, and drive-by shootings by dealers trying to keep their territory. A sociology teacher I once knew posed this same question to his students. A few of them still insisted that drug use would be wrong, but couldn’t articulate WHY. It’s the lingering Puritan dogma that anything done for pleasure alone has to be wrong.

You’re quite right. The very concept that a teen might be able to make a responsible, informed decision to have sex is outrageous to a lot of people. The very idea is enough to make them angy. When in comes to masturbation, just look what happened to Jocelyn Elders when she made the statement that perhaps teens should indulge in mutual maturbation rather than sex. She was all but tarred and feathered, and run out of town on a rail. All for making a very sensible suggestion, which unfortunately offended some people’s morals.

My Baptist fundie school told us that there would be no sex education, because that would only encourage us to go out and do it. IIRC, it was the Clinton administration which sent out letters to the principals of schools, urging them to discuss the issue with the kids. Our principal called an assembly and symbolicly shredded the letter before us, trembling in righteous indignation. “They want us to teach children how to drive a car, and then how to behave in its back seat!” she exclaimed. They seemed to think that keeping children ignorant of birth control information would completely prevent any sexual exploration. The logic of this still escapes me.

22

Yes, in our time it’s treatable. In Capone’s time, it wasn’t. The situation today is the same as the situation decades ago, but with different diseases.

And it always will be. If we come up with a cure for AIDS, eventually there will be another disease we can’t cure (yet).

We had viruses in Capone’s time that we couldn’t cure or vaccinate against. Then we discovered a cure, then we encountered another virus we couldn’t cure. Nothing has changed.

23

First, let me note that this is a great topic. Of course, it raises a host of issues (what we’re showing “children” [however defined] about sex; how we’re responding [as adults; as minors; however] to sexual interest on the part of minors; etc.), and I don’t think that I can sort out all of my thoughts on these many issues. But I would like to offer a few random comments:

  1. I remember sitting in the back seat of a car with my girlfriend. It was a late, gray afternoon in April. I was 15; she was 16. She told me she thought that she was pregnant. I then realized, for the first time, how very much I wanted to go to college to escape the poverty in which I was living. She wasn’t pregnant; I went to college, got a degree, got out of poverty. I have no idea where she went.

  2. Is there an age when people are too young to make up their minds about sex? Well, my 16-year-old girlfriend had given birth at age 11. The caesarian scar on her lower abdomen was only the most visible scar that she bore.

  3. Someone wrote about the age when women are beautiful. My wife (not the girlfriend mentioned above) is 41 now, and we’ve been married for 18 years. She gets more beautiful every year, every day.

24

A few random comments in re: the OP:

[up on soapbox]

  1. Nothing is wrong with sex, per se. However, it’s not for everyone, at any given moment.

  2. People (not just girls) frequently develop strong emotional attachments to people they’ve had sex with. Sometimes attachments are a good idea; sometimes they’re a horrible idea. Teenagers, as a hugely general rule, probably have less emotional maturity than adults, and will therefore find it more difficult to maintain the objectivity needed to decide whether the attachment is a good idea. Hell, I’m 34, and I’m still trying to figure it out.

  3. Even if you practice safe sex 100% of the time, you are not guaranteed to remain disease-free or non-pregnant. Sometimes the person you least expect can give you an incurable disease. It only takes one, and only on one occasion.

  4. Condoms don’t protect you from everything. HPV, which according to estimates I’ve read recently is present in 50-80% of the sexually active population, is transmitted by skin contact; frequently people who are infected have no idea that this is the case. And the strains that lead to cervical cancer are not the same strains that cause warts; warts, while an inconvenience, are not generally dangerous. What this means, however, is that the strains which cause cervical cancer in women do not cause visible symptoms. I learned this the hard way; although I’ve always been super-responsible about my contraception, I had surgery for cervical cancer 6 weeks ago.

  5. *Talking * about sex, however, with proper, age-appropriate, and reliable information, is rarely a bad thing.

[/down from soapbox]

25

Wow, there are some people with some pretty bleak outlooks here.
First
Ceyjen: Your attitude on speaking to your teenagers seems to be pretty common of what I experienced in New Mexico, and it’s these types of bleak outlooks that are the reason I will never ever again live in the third world country that can vote in American federal elections. My parents used that ame attitude for all sorts of abuses. I’m not claiming you are guilty of the same, and if I’m projecting I apologize. However, if you think you can start being “hip” when they are a teenager you’re not going to get anywhere, you’ve gotta be willing to answer their questions honestly when they are four, if you want to get anywhere when they are 13. The stupidest answer any parent can give to the question “Why” is “Because I said so”, that’s teaching ignorance right there. (again not accusing you of this, it’s just an overwhelming attitude that I experienced there.) And you unfortunately are working against many years of backward thinking among the culture in which you live. It truly is a third world country everywhere but certain parts of Albuquerque and Santa Fe. At least in terms of attitude. Out here in the North East I know lot’s of people who’s parents talked to them about sex and it was no big deal. They had an honest discussion with them about it. This is even MORE common among my European friends.

And oh yeah, teaching that the pulling out method is ineffective is irresponsible because the truth is it IS effective, in fact it’s something like 95% effective when done correctly. the problem is that most teenage boys are incapable of knowing when they are going to cum. It takes an experienced man to do it properly.
(Unfortunately I have no cite, this was in a pamphlet they gave out to incoming freshmen at NYU this year.) Teaching the truth is the best possible way to accomplish anything, and if pulling out IS somewhat effective then it should be taught. At 16 I would be willing to bet (had I been sexually active) that my response to that was “Well pulling out’s not effective, may as well come inside her, it feels better that way anyway.”

Though, in New Mexico’s defense, I got a pretty good sex education, it was our drug program where they lied to use at every turn. When I took DARE I remember thinking “Wow acid sounds cool” heh, and it was.

If you have trouble talking to your kids about this, maybe you have friends that the kid looks up to that are a bit younger than you. I talk to my little sister about sex and tell her what to watch out for, I convinced her to go on the pill etc… She listens to me MUCH more than she listens to my parents. She’s 17 and STILL in New Mexico.

Second:
Angel of the Lord, I take issue with your idea of multiple sexual partners cheapening the commitment. I don’t agree at all. I was married, and unfortunately it didn’t work out, but my wife had been with more people than I had, and I had been with multiple partners and neither of us felt it cheapened the experience. I never said I would be exclusive to anyone prior to her ever. And in fact I never was exclusive to anyone prior to her. It doesn’t cheapen it at all.

Third:
Vasyachkin: I take exception with just about everything that you said. In particular I think that you can like any age that you’re at, and I find MANY MANY MANY women over the age of 35 beautiful. (I am 25) One of my regular partners is over 35.

Erek

26

ok, the one thing that did not go well with anybody was obviously my comment on age. I did explicitly say it was MY OPINION though, not a fact. I will even admit that Demi Moore is VERY hot and 40, but that is an exception imho.

Lissa, thank you for calling me a parrot :slight_smile: it is true that my idea of what a man or woman should look like indeed comes from the media at some point. but i apply the same criteria to myself, that is why i have been working out daily for the last six years.

of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but one very important point you might be missing is I AM NOT THE ONLY GUY WHO WATCHES TV. obviously not everybody will buy the TV’s message, in fact its obvious that a lot of people will not buy it because they can’t afford it so to say :slight_smile:

but is it really brainwashing? perhaps you should define what beauty is to you because you already figured out and told everybody what it is to me.

sex is meant by nature to be about childbirth, and woman is best fit for it when 20 years old (unless you want children with down’s syndrome) therefore i do not find any fault with the notion that 20 year old woman is sexier than 40 year old (unless she’s Demi Moore hehe).

and before flaming remember we’re talking strictly about sex here, not love :slight_smile:

27

Well, what is considered beautiful changes over time. If you want a good idea of beauty standards through the ages, paintings are a good place to start. At various times, the women are what we would consider obese, at others stick-thin, with corsets that deform the figure into an unnatural hourglass shape. In the Victorian era, they idealized a form of what we would call heroin chic: pale, and fragile looking. Sometimes, as in Roman art, their facial features were strong, while in others, softly rounded and angelic. At times, it was fashionable to completely pluck out all of the eyebrows. Some cultures tatooed the face. Some added piercings, lip plates, or bones through the nose.

Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but we are trained (or, if you like, brainwashed) into our standards of beauty depending on our culture. Our culture is bombarded with media images which a great deal of women will never be able to live up to. Advertisers imply that women should be ashamed of this, that they are too fat, their skin is not perfect, they’re the wrong color, or they’re too old to be beautiful. Product X will correct this disgusting imperfection and make you acceptable.

But what is beauty you ask? This site may help explain. It explains the “golden ratio,” of beauty, which is the ratio of 1.618-to-1. Interestingly enough, what we consider beautiful seems to conform to a mathmatical formula of distance between the features. It also appears to be cross cultural. You can place this graph over to picture of a “beauty”, be it a supermodel of today, or Mona Lisa and the face will correspond to the graph.

Well, you are correct that beauty is tied into the appearance feccundity. Men find attractive full, perky breasts, perfect for feeding an infant, clear skin and shiny hair, which indicates health. Even hair color has a good deal to do with it (at least in Western cultures): a woman’s hair tends to darken as she approaches middle age, so light blond hair might indicate youth and fertility. Of course, most men aren’t thinking of impregnating the girl they find attractive, but some evolutionary behaviorists may say that it’s lingering in the back of his mind as a biological urge to procreate with the best available partner.

28

I don’t think that “cheapened” is the right word, and I certainly wasn’t saying that my idea of what constitutes pleasure is the same as everyone else’s (or your own). I just think that, in my case, knowing that I haven’t had sex in a casual environment, that I’ve treated it as part of an incredibly deep bond instead of just as something to do on the weekends or whatever. . .that makes sex much more pleasurable for me. It’s not procreation, or release, or a symbol of temporary infatuation or simple physical attraction. It’s been the result of mature love. That’s where the pleasure comes from for me. I like having a short history; things are simpler for me.

My earlier statements, incidentally, were in response to ** vasyachkin**'s assertations about pleasure; namely, that having sex as early as possible is the most pleasurable option. For me, it wouldn’t’ve been. That doesn’t change anyone else’s experience; it just shows that not everyone’s idea of what’s pleasurable is the same.

29

Couldn’t agree more.

Apart from the promote/not promote sex issue, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that some teenagers will do it no matter what. Whether it the 21st century or the Middle Ages, independent from whatever progress has been made, human beings are still the same (at least our bodies are). We’ve all been teenagers once, actually I was one technically until last July when I turned 20. We all know how it is when you’re young. Your hormones “go crazy.” (I still feel like a teenager in that way). And it won’t matter if the Church says no, if your school says no, if your parents say no, if President Bush says no; there’s a natural yearning for it. I’m not saying our bodies rule us. But people are different. Some teenagers will manage to hold on, others won’t. And making it taboo is not going to help. Quite the contrary.

When asked why not teach kids how to use condoms, those who are pro-abstinence will often say, “well, they’re not 100% safe.” It is the same as saying, “I won’t use a seat-belt, after all, it’s only 95% safe. So I just won’t use it at all.” I’m sorry but to me this is irrational.

When you tell teens condoms are inneffective (as many abstinence programs in high schools do), two things can happen:

  1. A teenager who’s not that crazy about having sex (not quite common) will make up his/her mind to stay abstinent. - Good outcome. After all, if they were uncertain about it, it is better to wait.

  2. A teenager is decided to have sex, period (we all know how stubborn we can be at this age). He/she will then ponder whether to do it with or without a condom. A natural conclusion will be, “well, if it’s not gonna work anyway, I’ll do it without a condom, at least I don’t have to go through the embarrassment of buying it and besides I’ll feel more pleasure.” - Terrible outcome! Now you’ve got someone out there doing unsafe sex, exposing himself/herself and others to danger!

So, which is better? Teenagers doing safe sex, yes, with a very small risk of pregancy and STDs, but at least with whatever protection is available; or teenagers out there doing unsafe sex and with a HUGE risk of pregnancy and STDs because you told them condoms don’t work.

It doesn’t take much common sense to answer that.

30

That’s my problem with our attitude to a lot of things in relation to this, as I mentioned the “pull-out” method. Which IS effective against combatting pregnancy, I mean in comparison to ejaculating right against the cervix.

I’ll admit it’s not the sanest safest method, but I’ve never gotten anyone pregnant and I have used this method, so it must have SOME effectiveness. While I am aware that condoms make it even safer, and abstinence is safer still and using a cocktail of birthcontrol, condom, diaphragm and spermicide makes the likelihood of pregnancy really small, however, if there is a method that will make it safer then that should be encouraged over less safe methods, even if it’s not particularly safe.

I don’t think lying to children gets them to listen, I think telling them the absolute truth is the best method for getting them to learn what they need to know to survive in society.

I think if we told them that the pull out method CAN be effective but usually isn’t because of…X X X X reasons, they’d feel a lot more in control of what they are doing and understand exactly WHY a condom is a superior method of birth control.

It also comes down to your view on childhood. In my opinion too many parents treat children as temporary possessions. In my mind, we are teaching them how to survive and thrive. If they feel the need to go out and test what they know at a young age, I don’t want to penalize them for it, I want them know what they need to know beforehand. If teaching a kid about the truth encourages them to do something, then I suppose it’s their right to do it, the best we can hope for is that we fully prepared them for the consequences of their actions.

Erek

31

What works for some may not work at all for others. Some people are more fertile than others. For example, I have used “the shot” (Depro-Prevera) for years with complete success, whereas a friend of mine became pregnant while using it. One friend and her husband used spermacide successfully, whereas another friend who was using spermacide and a diaphram still became pregnant. Some people use no birth control at all and do not get pregnant, while others concieve the first time they have sex.

This method also offers no protection against disease whatsoever. Condoms may not offer 100% protectiveness against disease, but I’d rather wear a windbreaker in a blizzard than no coat at all.

Given this fact, and also that younger, more inexperienced, men have trouble knowing and controlling when they’re about to ejaculate, I would be deeply hesitant to teach this method to young people, considering that some will rely on it because they’re too embarassed to buy birth control. Not to mention that some selfish young men will say they’ll pull out, and then “forget.”

Probably the best thing would be to encourage teens to use a combination of birth control: a condom plus spemicide, or using coitus interruptus as well as a condom. Tell them honestly that no birth control method alone is foolproof, but a combination is more likely to protect them.

How true. No matter how comfortable your teen may be with talking to you about their problems, sex still becomes a sticky subject. They may have heard horror stories from their friends about how their parents went off the deep end when the teen tried to talk to them about sex. They may be afraid of losing your love or trust.

Sometimes it is best to approach someone closer to your teen’s age and ask them to talk to your them, perhaps a cousin, or even one of your teen’s friends. Let them know how you feel about the matter, and stress that if your teen wants to talk to you that you will not be angry. Most importantly, make sure that your go-between is informed about safe-sex themselves.

One of the parents I know talked to their daughter years ago about making smart decisions regarding sex and protection. They know that their daughter is informed and responsible. They buy condoms and leave them in a drawer in the bathroom where she sure to come across them. No questions are asked, and the girl doesn’t need to be embarassed in buying them at a store.

32

As another 16 year old (17 in less then a month) I’d like to say that I am in no way shape of form comfortable talking to my parents about sex, or anything sex related. Compared to most teens I have a very good relationship with my parents concerning things I can and can’t do. My parents are generally of the opinion that it’s my life and I can do what we want, so long as I’m responsible about it. Some kids just don’t want to talk to their parents about sex though, ever, and I think that’s something parents need to respect.

And on the matter of sexual education in schools, I don’t know what it’s like in the States but here I was given numerous classes. In the province I live in sex and drug education is included in the grade seven, eight, and nine gym curriculum, and gym is manditory in those grades. I also got a bit of basic education in grade six and again in the tenth grade when I willingly took gym again. Depending on the grade my classes were anywhere from a month to two weeks, depending on how frequently I had gym in a cycle. I was taught that abstienence is generally a good idea, but was still given information about numerous types of birth control, how the male and female bodies work and then tested on it. I’ve been shown pictures of the effects of STD’s, I even got to watch “The Miracle of Birth”… which was more then a little horrifying and slightly traumatizing. My sexual education has been a hell of a lot more useful to me then say, quardratic functions ever will be, and it will continue to be for the rest of my life. So don’t fear adults, not everyone is being educated by siblings, friends, experiences and the media.

But I have talked to a lot of American kids online through other forums, and I don’t quite understand why America is so persistant in the outdated, and quite frankly harmful notion that abstienence is the only way. A number of my friends have a bit of resentment towards the education system for failing to do what it’s supposed to do; educate. I think it’s a violation of our rights as human beings to with hold information about our own bodies. Might I add it’s downright irresponsible not to teach teens about the importance of safe sex, and that there’s nothing to be ashamed of for having sexual thoughts, or masturbation.