That’s absolutely no defense of your support for sexually repressive laws and punishments! The solution, of course, is to make sure your teenage kids have plenty of condoms, not to sic the cops on them.
Thank you for clarifying the very, very obvious. But so does taking shop classes instead of Algebra II, but I still wouldn’t endorse laws and juvenile prison sentences against such a choice. The obvious fact that unpleasant consequences may ocassionally occur doesn’t alter the fact that your case is almost entirely mere rationalizations for your own emotional reaction based on your own sexual repressive upbringing and prudery.
ambushed—everything you mention has already been asked and answered umpteen times already. The points you mentioned have been discussed—hmmm—probably several pages ago. And already rebutted, at least as far as I am concerned.
Sorry you came in late to this thread and missed out on all the real action, but my goodness, it’s on page 8 now. This topic has been hashed and re-hashed and re-re-hashed, and I fear that the equine is bloated and decomposing by now.
I didn’t see any truly rational reasons justified anywhere in this thread, but I suppose it is possible I missed them. What are they, again?
If you’ll re-read my post, you’ll see that I was referring to our sexually repressed society far more than sexually repressed parents who are psychologically injured by being raised in a sexually repressed society and are damaging their own kids in turn without realizing it. Teenage sexuality – even at very young, barely post-pubertal ages – was the norm for millions of years, and thus remains the norm for human nature even today.
Again, so does taking shop classes instead of Algebra II or consuming excessive carbohydrates without adequate exercise, thereby contributing to increased risk for diabetes and other life-long illnesses. So why aren’t you campaigning to pass laws with potential prison sentences to teens who make those choices, too? Teenage sexuality typically has much less damaging and far-reaching consequences!
Speak for yourself, please. I began participating in sexual activity with other kids my age when I was 11-12, and it never screwed up MY life and is something I feel just fine about. No, that’s too weak; it’s something that I’m rather happy to have been a part of. It hasn’t caused any noticeable problems in my life then or now (I’m sure you’ll suspect otherwise, but I can’t help that except to assure you that I’m being entirely frank). And since this was also the case for those 5-6 other 12 year old boys, I’m inclined to believe this situation is far more common than you – or most parents – ever begin to imagine. What do you think goes on at night in the tents at Boy Scout camps?
The bottom line is that teenage peer sexuality is entirely normal and is in most cases perfectly healthy, physically and psychologically, as long as the teen in question makes the choice themselves when they feel comfortable and uses condoms. The laws that you folks support are essentially arbitrary and irrational and run-ins with them are VASTLY more likely to be permanently devastating than ordinary teenage sexuality!
Yes, but with almost zero credibility! That’s my point. And you’ve never provided anything even approaching an adequate reply to my re-phrasing of the issue in terms of safe, same-gender teenage sexuality.
**With due respect and in my opinion, you never demonstrated even a hint that you were at all open to honest and careful re-evaluation of your position. You imagine them to have been rebutted because of your entirely pre-judged and unreflective personal opinions, but I certainly don’t believe it!
The truth is, you and those who share your opinion have been bested at every turn. Your position of defending official, life-ruining legal punishment for perfectly normal and natural behavior is almost infinitely more harmful to yours and others’ children than our position of defending loving, personal involvement with your children sans legal threats and prison sentences!
Cites have been given that illustrate the negative affect of teen pregnancy on the teens and also on their children. I’ve got another cite on the overall negative effects of teen sexual activity here.
Do you have any cites that show that teen sexual activity is a positive thing?
I think the word you really wanted was “criminalization” instead of “litigation”.
As far as the particular law under discussion, I think it should be more narrowly written so that teens of similar age could potentially have sex without facing criminal charges. I still believe there needs to be a way to protect teens from sexual predators.
This is not to say that I would support my daughter or son having sex at age 14, not only due to the negative effects cited above but because of personal values and other intangibles that have not really been touched on in this discussion. I’m not sure these things could adequately be discussed because there is no real way to provide cites, and what we are left with then is personal opinion on either side.
Are you going to fund and legally and politically defend such research?
No?
I see.
For the record, however, there IS compelling scientific evidence that a great many (possibly most) adults and young adults who were actually sexually abused as children or teenagers believe that the abuse caused them little or no harm. See “A Meta-analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples”, in the July 1998 issue of The American Psychological Association’s journal Psychological Bulletin
It should come as no surprise that the U.S. Congress took the extraordinary step of officially censuring the American Psychological Association, their Journal, and the authors. Beyond the censure, they were all viciously and bitterly attacked personally and professionally!
So explain to me again why there’s not more published evidence that teen sexual activity is usually a positive thing and all the negative evidence is all scrupulously politicaly correct and easily funded?
I see. You’ve failed over and over again for 8 pages of debate and now you feel it’s too late for the truth. I’ve read the entire thread and there is no serious doubt that you have NEVER rationally and adequately defended your severely damaging, ultimately anti-child agenda of legal persecution for fully normal and natural behavior!
My point – again – is that none of these so-called “answers” have been logically sound and valid. The same old sexually repressed PC drivel has merely been repeated over and over again with no more adequacy the last time than the first.
Unfortunately, ambushed, I was only able to find an abstract of the study online. It leaves many unanswered questions and still does not address the subject at hand.
As I stated above, we end up back at personal opinion. Mine obviously differs from yours; however, since I am the person responsible for guiding my children into adulthood, I must do so as I see fit. You are or will be free to do the same thing for your children.
Perhaps if you feel so strongly that encouraging teen sex is a positive thing, you might be willing to fund the research.
I don’t understand what you want people to say. There are no ‘winners’ or ‘losers’ here, merely people with different opinions from yours. That does not make them any less valid.
You have been provided with plenty of cites, all of which you reject, yet you can provide none to support your argument and somehow it’s the fault of the opposing side?
This could become the argument-that-never-ends, and while it’s been interesting observing your passion for the subject (couldn’t resist), I have to bow out also due to time pressures (three cranky professors, two boisterous children, one hyper boss, and a husband who wants my attention).
Each of us has an opinion. I do not choose to adopt yours. You, obviously, do not choose to adopt mine.
All you’ve done is repeatedly claim that a lot of the discussions on these 8 pages are “not valid.”
Well, whoop-de-doo. That’s really compelling.
And sorry–8 pages is a lot. The equine is bloated and smelling very bad. Sorry you came in to the thread late; I think you’ll find that most of us have burnt out on this topic for the moment.
But if you have the energy and don’t mind the reeking equine–hey–go for it. Have fun.
Duh! I just got finished telling you that no one is going to fund and defend any research to confirm that teenage sexuality is as beneficial as millions of years of our heritage overpoweringly demonstrates!
NO, I’m not!! I am NOT free to do that, because you and those who fear like you have foisted upon us all draconian laws and prison terms for any teenages who thinks and acts – however reasonably – in ways you do not approve of!!
That’s a cheap shot. I do NOT “encourage” teenage sexuality, I simply do not accept your fear and ignorance-driven encouragement of laws and threats of permanent, horrible injury for perfectly natural and normal behavior!
That summarizes your contributions here. You shrug, ignore all the powerful counter-arguments to your draconian, child-harming support for legal persecution, and repeat utterly unsound and irrational pseudo-arguments!
Liar! Thank you for demonstrating my points so effectively. But, again, feel free to skip out since you have nothing of any credibility to say
Ooooh. Well, if you tell me they are “powerful counter-arguments,” then it must be so! That’s all that has to be done in Great Debates, then, eh? Just proclaim that the “other side” is wrong because they:
Don’t agree with you.
You don’t like their arguments.
Well, honey, this can work both ways.
So, to sum up my rebuttal to your above points:
I don’t agree with you.
I don’t like your arguments.
See how easy this all was?
And now the discussion is concluded. I don’t agree with you, and you don’t agree with me.
That perfectly summarizes your contributions throughout this entire thread. You shrug, ignore all the powerful counter-arguments to your draconian, child-abusing support for permanently devastating and life-ruining legal persecution, and repeat utterly unsound and irrational pseudo-arguments!
In your pointless and evasive replies to my posts, even you must admit that you haven’t posted any credible arguments. You’ve merely evaded the issue over and over again!
Thank you for demonstrating my points so effectively. But, again, feel free to skip out since you have nothing of any credibility to say
You’ve gotten something terribly wrong, my dear. Simply stating that someone is giving a “psuedo-argument” doesn’t meant that they actually gave a “psuedo-argument.” Claiming that something is “child-abusing” doesn’t automatically make it so. Stomping your foot petulantly because people won’t just lie down and say, “You’re so right!” the first time you make one of these “declarations” is not a debate. It’s a temper tantrum.
But go ahead. Keep on making petulant, hysterical statements on a thread that no one seems to be that interested in anymore.
Have fun. Find someone else to play with. Bye now.
Originally posted by CanvasShoes
Ditto from me ambushed the pregnancy issue was but one that we as parents brought us as reasons we’d rather our very young teens didn’t have sex.
Asked and answered. By nearly every “pro” poster in this thread. On nearly every one of the preceding 8 pages. Don’t expect us to do your research for you.
quote:
Also, your statement “sexually repressed”. A parent not wanting their young teen to have sex does not necessarily mean that they’ve decided that for reasons of their being “sexually repressed”.
First of all, I wasn’t saying the PARENTS would be psychologically injured.
Secondly…Oh, the old “that’s the way we’ve always done it so it must be okay” argument. WOW, you’ve got me. I’m so convinced. NOT.
Teenage sexuality works (used to work) in societies where sexual intercourse at a young age is the norm such as more primitive environments. And THAT is a great deal of why it works (and worked back then).
Our society is not one of those. In other words, we are no longer made up of simple tribes living on the river’s edge with little else to do or to WANT to accomplish but to screw, have babies, sew furs and hunt. Is it right, wrong or indifferent that our society is NOT that type any longer? That’s a debate for another thread. The point is, that THIS society is NOT. More is expected of our citizens in the way of production, decorum etc etc.
It is not sexual repression which creates our (meaning society’s, as well as parent’s) desire for teens not to be sexually active.
It is the need to avoid, or attempt to avoid the consequences that go along with it. Is there sexual repression? Yes, sure, there are people who are against it solely because it’s “against their religion” so to speak.
Is that the primary reason to be against teens that are underaged having sex? No. And PART of the reasons are outlined in the aforementioned (8 pages worth) posts.
quote:
Sex creates all kinds of complications in the “human condition,” lots of baggage, frequently heartache, and difficulty in other areas of a persons life due to emotional/mental/psychological carryover.
Sorry I wasn’t aware that shop class created emotional/mental/psychological carryover, whereas alegebra didn’t. Do tell. My tutor who attempted to help me over my severe math phobia would be VERY interested in your ahem…“theory”.
At any rate, I DID outline some of those consequences in previous posts. Several times, so have others in this thread. Again, do your OWN research, it’s bad form to come into a thread, only read the last few posts and argue without knowing what’s already been argued.
Do PLEASE do your research. First of all, those of us who were for the law ALSO said that we would agree with modifying it, and others like it to make sure that prevention and last resort back up for parents were primary reasons for the law, NOT slapping kids in prison.
Also, for the hundredth time, kids don’t go to “prison” for this. The ones who are charged are slated to go to a program or halfway house. And for the hundredth time, kids don’t carry over any records to adulthood.
quote:
Those of us who are parents want, (and it is perhaps a futile wish), to have things be better for our kids than we ourselves had them. And frequently sex too soon was a big part of what screwed up OUR lives.
How old are you? And, are you the parent of a teen? Also PLEASE note I said “frequently” not “ALWAYS”. So, I WAS already “speaking for myself” and others like me who have had negative consequences from sex too early.
That’s your opinion, not “the bottom line”. Plenty of teens face negative consequences for having sex too early, which leave behind emotional and psychological baggage and cause problems for them later in life.
Again, this is your opinion and not fact. None of us knows, (oh, and by the way, we “folks” acknowledged this LONG ago), what is going to happen in the wake of this case. It is a landmark case in this issue.
Likely neither of these kids will get much more than a slap on the wrist. And neither of them will be sent to prison regardless of the final decree.
One thing that the “teens/teen supporters fighting for their rights to have sex” crowd keeps forgetting is that the two in the original story didn’t get the law called down on them because they were having sex. That happened because they demonstrated that they willfully refused to obey.
And there are laws in place to assist parents with many cases (though of course not ALL) where kids willfully refuse to obey. To name just a few:
Underaged drinking, driving, entertainment (can’t be in a strip club, against the law, will get arrested), etc etc.
And again, to reiterate a LONG deceased equine point, IF these kids had approached this in a mature way, which they didn’t, directly refuting the insistance those in this thread who are against this law have that kids are mature enough to handle sex, then likely none of this would have happened in the first place.
And to reiterate yet ANOTHER rotting horse corpse. It is being supported, or at least what exists now is being supported, NOT so much because people think that consensual sex between teens is somehow so much different from breaking a leg skiing or whatever, but because parents who have exhausted all other options agree with the need to have some recourse and backup from the law in enforcing rules.
A parent is likely to have a lot more control over “nope sorry you can’t ski ‘Devil’s Hellhole’ you’re too young, it’s too dangerous” than over “no, you’re too young for sex, you may NOT boff the boy next door”. THAT is why such laws are brought into being by our legislature etc.
But then again, when you grow up, and have that helpless precious little creature dependent upon you for survival and a good start in life, perhaps you’ll sing a different tune.
Thanks for making unsubstantiated assumptions about our points without actually reading any of them.
That perfectly summarizes your contributions throughout this entire thread, which I HAVE read in it’s entirety! You shrug, ignore all the powerful counter-arguments to your draconian, child-abusing support for permanently devastating and life-ruining legal persecution, and repeat utterly unsound and irrational pseudo-arguments!
Duh. Thanks again for stating the very, very obvious.
But your continued utterly vacuous assertions flatly denying and ignoring my arguments combined with your refusal to debate -and- refusing to actually depart (you keep telling me to have fun arguing to no one, but you never actually leave!) continues to demonstrate your child-harming irrationality and evasion on this topic throughout this entire thread.
Your assertions in lieu of logically sound and valid arguments are just as empty and evasive now as they’ve been all along this thread. Yet you keep on yammering pointlessly. To make sure you get the final word, perhaps? Are you that petty?
Thank you for yet again demonstrating my points so effectively, and thank you for finally living up to your repeated promises to skip out since you have nothing credible to say
