abstinence double standard [Archive] - Literature Network Forums

SleepyWitch

07-11-2008, 10:32 AM

I had to drive over to a little town some distance from my home today. On the way there and back there were several billboards about abstinence. These are updated regularly and have been along the road in that area for as long as I can remember. Today they struck me. I had never noticed before that these signs target girls exclusively. If Scheherazade hadn’t mentioned in the Parents thread that all of the discussion had been about mothers I doubt I would have noticed.

So do you think that there is a double standard when it comes to sexuality? Should men be expected to abstain or is that just not manly?

apart from the slut issue, the people who run these campaigns probably assume that it's easier for girls to abstain, seeing as we are more level-headed and hardly have any sexual desires at all. after all, girls can't have an orgasm anyway and if they have sex, they only do it out of pity for the guys and just freeze and let them do it. *IRONIC* Welcome to the 19th century.
aaaaaaaaaaaargh
personally, I don't think abstinence is a very reliable contraceptive. if people choose to be abstinent for religious or personal reasons that's fine by me. I abstained for three years myself before I met my bf. but I see abstinence as a kind of life-style choice (or whatever you call them), not as a contraceptive. you just can't expect teenagers to keep their hormones at bay 24/7, so it's better to teach them about condoms, because condoms are both contraceptives and protect you against any STD.

motherhubbard

07-11-2008, 10:34 AM

Do men think that their sexual desires are really greater than a woman's and therefore cannot be overcome?

PeterL

07-11-2008, 10:50 AM

Interesting, I agree that there is a double standard, but it varies greatly from culture to culture. I don't think that the double standard is based on anyone thinking that women have less desire, but that the consequences are greater for women. I also find it interesting that the abstinence campaigns are aimed at reasonably intelligent women in situations of reasonable wealth, rather than at the women who are in less fortunate situations, who are nore likely not to abstain.

Niamh

07-11-2008, 10:52 AM

Do men think that their sexual desires are really greater than a woman's and therefore cannot be overcome?

:lol: that wouldnt surprise me!

The Atheist

07-11-2008, 04:49 PM

It was like I was living in Pat Robertson's utopia.

Nothing respects women more than fundamental islam.

Do men think that their sexual desires are really greater than a woman's and therefore cannot be overcome?

Sadly, you've touched on one of the great truisms - many men do think just that.

The mistake is thinking that only men with grazes on their knuckles feel this way, when the truth is that the attitude pervades every corner of the world and you're just as - or more - likely to find it among the boardrooms of the high and mighty as in the Neanderthals. Bill Clinton, anyone?

Fortunately, I do see this changing.

Very slowly.

Interesting, I agree that there is a double standard, but it varies greatly from culture to culture.

But only in intensity?

I live in the country with the longest-serving female Prime Minister, and one which I'm pretty sure is unique in having had two consecutive female Prime Ministers. We also hold pride of place in feminism as being the first country to give women the vote. (Which we're still living down!)

Accordingly, when it comes to equality of sexes and sexual activity, I'd like to claim that NZ is the country with the fewest double standards, but I can guarantee that that position has been won through the determination of women not to allow blokes to walk all over them. All primates have male dominance - and by insisting upon equality, we're trying to undo 500 million years of evolution with a couple of social classes in four generations. Attitudes are hard to change and I think the progress we've made in the developed western world is startling, but there's still a long way to go.

I don't think that the double standard is based on anyone thinking that women have less desire, but that the consequences are greater for women.

Yet as the 1960s showed, that's a fallacy. I think women are aware enough that a combination of pill and condom is as close to 100% safe as can be achieved in life. Something to throw into that mix: NZ and USA share the lead in teenage mothers, despite us being at completely opposite ends of ther morality debate. Honestly, anyone starting a celibacy campaign here would be laughed at outside of their very small church. If Kiwi dads started up the celibacy partnership weirdness that some US groups get into, the child welfare agencies would be hauling the kids away like the FLDS ones.

I also find it interesting that the abstinence campaigns are aimed at reasonably intelligent women in situations of reasonable wealth, rather than at the women who are in less fortunate situations, who are nore likely not to abstain.

I'm glad this subject came up, because it's not something I see. I've been taking a look at signs and campaigns thanks to Google images.

First off, I think there's a little selective sight going on, because lots of the visual imagery used covers both sexes and all socio-economic groups. Obviously, advertising will be targeted to the area it's in, so if one lives in a "white-middle-class" area, it's more likely to see that type of person featured. I actually found more images featuring males than females.

Federal funding for abstinence-only programs is huge. Doesn't appear to be working, however.

Lioness_Heart

07-11-2008, 05:26 PM

I think that the double standards are terrible... often, vulnerable girls will be pressured into things they're not ready for, and then they get labelled with some horrible names while the lad is considered a 'man'. But it takes two to tango!!! It makes no sense...

The main problem seems to be that girls seem to equate sex with love, and are desperately seekiing affection, while the man doesn't get so emotionally involved. We should work on raising the self-esteem of both young girls and boys so that they don't feel that they have to act in a certain way to be accepted. If girls had more self-respect, then men would be forced to have more respect for us, and stop merely viewing us as objects.

I could go on about this for a while... I was described by a boy in my year as a 'rampaging feminist', but that is the same issue: because I believe that women have the right to be treated with respect and not merely objectified, I get called a feminist, as if it's contagious. A lot of men just demand respect (and often seek it using sex), and maintain chauvanistic views (i.e. expecting that their future wife will work, look after the children, AND look after them)... and don't get labelled with anything.

I'm not entirely sure how an abstinence campaign works, and personally believe that people should be free to make their own, informed choices once they're old enough, but think that if problems like stis and unwanted pregnancies are to be avoided, we need to look at the parenting to build self-respect so that girls can't be pressured into anything.

However, there is ultimately one big difference between sexes, in that the woman is more likely to have more long-lasting consequences in terms of pregnancy.

We all need to have more respect for each other as fellow human beings.

Virgil

07-11-2008, 08:10 PM

First I agree, it is a double standard, and I tend to agree with Peter, the consequences for girls are more serious. So if they are targeting girls then maybe there is a logic to it beyond the cultural biases that exist.

If anyone started that here, they'd be laughed out off this one. We love sex!

May I ask then at what age is appropriate for children to have sex? 14? 12? 10?

Two points I wish to make. One. There have been many times in my adult life that we didn't have contraceptives on hand and even as adults we chanced it. The situation certainly was overly powerful. If I as an adult decided to chance it I find it hard to believe that teenagers will be as prepared over the long haul and not decide to chance it.

Two. I am not a parent, but I do think I have an innate father's heart. I would find it impossble to give permission to any of my children, male or female, to go ahead and have sex. What would I do celebrate with them? Give them pointers? No I couldn't do that.

The Atheist

07-11-2008, 08:50 PM

First I agree, it is a double standard, and I tend to agree with Peter, the consequences for girls are more serious. So if they are targeting girls then maybe there is a logic to it beyond the cultural biases that exist.

I wonder if that in itself is a sexist attitude? (not saying you're sexist) Doesn't it amount to, "Girls aren't able to deal with the consequences"?

With modern contraceptives, pregnancy can be almost entirely removed as a result.

May I ask then at what age is appropriate for children to have sex? 14? 12? 10?

I don't think there's a simple, single answer. European here seems to work fairly well, being broadly: age of consent = 16, but no offence created if both parties are under that age and within 2 or 3 years of age.

If I as an adult decided to chance it I find it hard to believe that teenagers will be as prepared over the long haul and not decide to chance it.

I agree, which is why abstinence-only programs don't tend to work.

Two. I am not a parent, but I do think I have an innate father's heart. I would find it impossble to give permission to any of my children, male or female, to go ahead and have sex. What would I do celebrate with them? Give them pointers? No I couldn't do that.

My approach is hands-off. My kids have sex education since they started asking. Our position as parents is that we'd rather they go ahead and have sex using protection than avoiding the subject. There's no "permission" involved.

Virgil

07-11-2008, 09:08 PM

I wonder if that in itself is a sexist attitude? (not saying you're sexist) Doesn't it amount to, "Girls aren't able to deal with the consequences"?

Well, from a family's point of view, a teenage daughter pregnant is a lot worse than a boy who impregnates someone. I agree it is unfair, but circumstances are what they are.

I don't think there's a simple, single answer. European here seems to work fairly well, being broadly: age of consent = 16, but no offence created if both parties are under that age and within 2 or 3 years of age.
But they have to have access to birth control and do you give access to 14 or 12 or 10 year olds?

I agree, which is why abstinence-only programs don't tend to work.
But that implies that they will use birth control. In my opinion I don't think either really works well.

My approach is hands-off. My kids have sex education since they started asking. Our position as parents is that we'd rather they go ahead and have sex using protection than avoiding the subject. There's no "permission" involved.
I agree, if they are going to have sex they better have birth control. But they have to have access to birth control by your logic for it to work. Do you take your daughter to a doctor for birth control pills? Do you hand out condoms? Do you show them how to use it? And by doing so are you not de facto giving consent? I think you are.

Shalot

07-11-2008, 09:34 PM

When I was in high school and on up into college I witnessed many "STUDS" going around collecting notches on their belts. They started at age 13 or 14 (maybe earlier). They continued with this behaviour up until their upper
20's and early thirties. I found out a while ago that one of them has now married some 20 year old. Another one is in his thirties dating college girls and I saw another one at Sam's Club hitting on this very young girl. UGHHH

Another thing teenage guys do is share information about their conquests. Thanks to certain blabbermouths, I now know all about the grooming habits of several of my classmates from highschool. I was once asked out in high school because I hadn't done the deed and the guy was going on and on about how he valued virginity. But, he was one of these guys that had many many many girlfriends. Thinking back, I don't know what to think about that whole thing. He also said that he taped himself having sex with some girl. I asked if she knew, and he said "Well, NO!" and he said he was sitting around watching it with his friends and all I could think about was how I did NOT want to be that girl in the tape. The thought is horrifying. What what were they doing? Comparing moves? Or was he just trying to freak me out? Because it worked.

I must know --- does this really happen? Do guys tape themselves having sex??? I should have pretended to be interesting in watching it just to see. but that could have turned sour for sure.

Oh, and about condoms, I guess they are safe compared to nothing, but they really can't protect you fully against certain types of STDs that are transmitted through skin to skin contact, just because of the nature of the act. But, they are better than nothing. And as far as giving permission, what is wrong with saying, "Don't do it, but if you do use a condom. But it would better if you didn't." I know for a fact that that approach has worked with some people. And some kids are going to have sex. So, if you can't talk to your teenager about sex, be prepared to be a young grandparent.

I think of the abstinence campaign as this high ideal that no human can be expected to live up to. Why don't they come up with a new approach, and maybe talk about sex as the life-affirming wonderful activity it is. But, that's not the world we live in I guess.

I am thinking guys maybe need a lot of practice and since this a male dominated world, women have to learn to deal with it. I am guessing they objectify women in some cases because they are insecure. They are afraid that they might love a woman and they don't want her comparing his performance to someone else's. They might be insecure about their skills. :D

motherhubbard

07-11-2008, 10:18 PM

The main problem seems to be that girls seem to equate sex with love, and are desperately seekiing affection, while the man doesn't get so emotionally involved. We should work on raising the self-esteem of both young girls and boys so that they don't feel that they have to act in a certain way to be accepted. If girls had more self-respect, then men would be forced to have more respect for us, and stop merely viewing us as objects.

I think that this statement leaves out the fact that sometimes females just want to have sex the same as males. I don’t think that women view men like a buffet, but there is desire. Sometimes there is an emotional need, but the truth is that sometimes there is no emotional need at all- purely physical.

First I agree, it is a double standard, and I tend to agree with Peter, the consequences for girls are more serious. So if they are targeting girls then maybe there is a logic to it beyond the cultural biases that exist.

Perhaps if boys had to face the responsibility of the consequences the same way girls did none of this would be an issue.

May I ask then at what age is appropriate for children to have sex? 14? 12? 10?

I really have a problem with this. Why do we insist on sexualizing children? Fourteen or sixteen years olds are not mature enough to concent. We put our children in adult situations and are shocked or disappointed when the make poor decesions. It is not OK to consider a 10 or 12 or 14 year old as a sexual being even if their bodies are developed. They are children, not young adults.

Two points I wish to make. One. There have been many times in my adult life that we didn't have contraceptives on hand and even as adults we chanced it. The situation certainly was overly powerful. If I as an adult decided to chance it I find it hard to believe that teenagers will be as prepared over the long haul and not decide to chance it.

This is a very good point. It's difficult for adults so why do we expect children to do better?

Two. I am not a parent, but I do think I have an innate father's heart.

this is one reason why you're such a great guy! It makes me want to just give you a hug. You and your entire family, too!

When I was in high school and on up into college I witnessed many "STUDS" going around collecting notches on their belts. They started at age 13 or 14 (maybe earlier). They continued with this behaviour up until their upper
20's and early thirties. I found out a while ago that one of them has now married some 20 year old. Another one is in his thirties dating college girls and I saw another one at Sam's Club hitting on this very young girl. UGHHH

another reason I disapprove of viewing young people as sexual. it is perverted and some people always look on these children as datable.

Oh, and about condoms, I guess they are safe compared to nothing, but they really can't protect you fully against certain types of STDs that are transmitted through skin to skin contact, just because of the nature of the act. But, they are better than nothing. And as far as giving permission, what is wrong with saying, "Don't do it, but if you do use a condom. But it would better if you didn't." I know for a fact that that approach has worked with some people. And some kids are going to have sex. So, if you can't talk to your teenager about sex, be prepared to be a young grandparent.

It's not as hard to talk to your kids about sex and one may think. We talk about it very openly. I don't condone premarital sex and I do tell the kids that sex is a wonderful thing in a marriage. We talk about how to deal with pressure and desire. Really you have to have a plan before you get in the situation but it's best to avoid the situation.

The Atheist

07-12-2008, 02:35 AM

Well, from a family's point of view, a teenage daughter pregnant is a lot worse than a boy who impregnates someone. I agree it is unfair, but circumstances are what they are.

As motherhubbard notes, that's something you can blame on wider society - there's no reason why the consequences shouldn't be the same for both. If we insist that fathers bear equal responsibility, we might see a change in attitude. (heavy emphasis on the "might")

But they have to have access to birth control and do you give access to 14 or 12 or 10 year olds?

This is where learning to trust your kids comes in. If kids are taught all about sex, the potential consequences and also the emotional aspect, they should be able to decide that for themselves. We live in society where 13-year old mothers are commonplace - kids will manage to have sex all by themselves anyway, so it seems to me that fighting it by imposing an age barrier is pointless.

I agree, if they are going to have sex they better have birth control. But they have to have access to birth control by your logic for it to work. Do you take your daughter to a doctor for birth control pills? Do you hand out condoms? Do you show them how to use it? And by doing so are you not de facto giving consent? I think you are.

When requested, I'd certainly take my daughter to the doctor. And yes, I'd make sure she was armed with condoms as well as taking the pill. The consent just isn't an issue as it's over to her to decide what to do with her body.

They continued with this behaviour up until their upper 20's and early thirties. I found out a while ago that one of them has now married some 20 year old. Another one is in his thirties dating college girls and I saw another one at Sam's Club hitting on this very young girl. UGHHH

Plenty of them go on a lot further than 30s as well.

I must know --- does this really happen? Do guys tape themselves having sex???

Often.

I am guessing they objectify women in some cases because they are insecure. They are afraid that they might love a woman and they don't want her comparing his performance to someone else's. They might be insecure about their skills. :D

Men? Insecure? Perish the thought. I have an article covering that subject. If you'd like to read it, let me know by PM - I won't link it here as it's totally NSFW.

It is not OK to consider a 10 or 12 or 14 year old as a sexual being even if their bodies are developed. They are children, not young adults.

As long as no exploitation takes place - i.e. kids of like age - what harm is done by them having sex at say 11 years old?

motherhubbard

07-12-2008, 02:54 AM

Atheist-

Are you saying that there is no difference in sex and hopscotch? I have to believe that you are just trying to play devil’s advocate here. This attitude robs children of a their childhood.

There are a number of things wrong with children engaging in sexual intercourse. The younger people begin having sex the more partners they are likely to have, the more likely they are to become pregnant, the more likely they are to contract an STD, the more damage they are likely to do to their reproductive health, the more likely they are to engage in other risky behavior, the more likely they are to drop out of school…

The Atheist

07-12-2008, 03:18 AM

Are you saying that there is no difference in sex and hopscotch?

I'd hope the sex was better than the hopscotch!

I have to believe that you are just trying to play devil’s advocate here. This attitude robs children of a their childhood.

No devil's advocate here! I honestly don't see harm coming from sex. As I said, I don't advise my kids to get out and do it, but if they do, it's no concern to me at all - as long as they're doing it safely. I don't buy into the robbing their childhood, either. A happy, healthy kid isn't going to miss any part of his/her childhood and if they have sex early, it doesn't change anything, unless the child has hang-ups caused by seeing sex as something it isn't.

There are a number of things wrong with children engaging in sexual intercourse. The younger people begin having sex the more partners they are likely to have, the more likely they are to become pregnant, the more likely they are to contract an STD, the more damage they are likely to do to their reproductive health, the more likely they are to engage in other risky behavior, the more likely they are to drop out of school…

Sorry, but without seeing some hard data, I don't buy any of that. It's all quite emotive, but it looks like mistaken cause and effect to me. European experience doesn't show those problems resulting from early sexual activity and I doubt they are caused by sex per se, but instead by socio-economic reasons, of which early sex is a symptom rather than the trigger.

motherhubbard

07-12-2008, 03:51 AM

here's some data not much, but it's late and I'm going to bed soon-

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:afzoiei6-1oJ:www.cdc.gov/nchs/ppt/duc2006/abma_14.ppt+adolescent+sexual+activity+site:cdc.go v&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3210000a.html

http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v90/n7/full/6601666a.html

http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/cervical-cancer/risk-factors.html

men and women both have to worry about STDs but women have to worry about much more.

sprinks

07-12-2008, 06:26 AM

No devil's advocate here! I honestly don't see harm coming from sex. As I said, I don't advise my kids to get out and do it, but if they do, it's no concern to me at all - as long as they're doing it safely. I don't buy into the robbing their childhood, either. A happy, healthy kid isn't going to miss any part of his/her childhood and if they have sex early, it doesn't change anything, unless the child has hang-ups caused by seeing sex as something it isn't.

When I was in primary school, which is only a few years ago, I knew girls that were having sex, around the age of 8. Some were consenting. Others weren't. Both lots got judged harshly by everyone around them. I believe it did, and has, greatly affected most of their lives - in a negative way. Even the ones who were consenting and wanted it became increasingly messed up, turning to drugs and alcohol before they were teenagers. Now, I know these are just individual cases, and there are other things that affect the outcome such as family life - but still, there was, and is, a visible difference between those who had sex at a young age and those who didn't.
It's a big thing, and isn't something an 8, or 13, year old is ready to handle emotionally... Even if they are ready physically.
The ones who weren't consenting - being sexually abused, kept going back to sex. Even though they hated the people who had done that to them, they didn't know anything else to do - they went with what was happening and turned to drugs and alcohol. So they ended up sleeping with more and more people - under the influence of various illegal substances.
I can't be sure, and have no way of knowing - but I'm fairly sure their lives would have been different had they not had sex, whether it was consensual or not, at such a young age.

And even if people are safe - things can still happen. I've got friends that got pregnant before they were 13. My mum had a tubal ligation over 10 years ago - and got pregnant last year (luckily my mum and dad are still married and all so it was just a bit of a shock for a while, but it's all good now).

Right now I'm 15, as are most of my friends. This is still a young age, and still below the age of legal consent (for a few more months). Already there has been peer pressure on people in relation to sex (and there has been for quite some time now), and those who are thought unlikely to do it soon, or not having already done it, are thought to be 'weak' and are teased. I've witnessed many an argument between my male friends over who is going to sleep with a girl first. I've never once witnessed an argument between my female friends over who is going to sleep with a guy first. Interestingly, when I was in primary school, I only ever witnessed these arguments between females and never males (from memory). Perhaps it's because of how the media glamorises sex, that the girls at a young age are feeling that it’s okay to do, and is ‘cool’, whereas the guys were just more interested in sports and not so much girls yet, but once the teenage phase is reached, the girls are more aware of the consequences of sex, and realise its not so great as the media portrays it, and at the time the guys start to get more interested in sleeping with girls etc.... (Based on my own experiences with people, it will most likely be different for others.)

motherhubbard

07-12-2008, 08:54 AM

When I was in primary school, which is only a few years ago, I knew girls that were having sex, around the age of 8. Some were consenting. Others weren't. Both lots got judged harshly by everyone around them. I believe it did, and has, greatly affected most of their lives - in a negative way. Even the ones who were consenting and wanted it became increasingly messed up, turning to drugs and alcohol before they were teenagers. Now, I know these are just individual cases, and there are other things that affect the outcome such as family life - but still, there was, and is, a visible difference between those who had sex at a young age and those who didn't.
It's a big thing, and isn't something an 8, or 13, year old is ready to handle emotionally... Even if they are ready physically.
The ones who weren't consenting - being sexually abused, kept going back to sex. Even though they hated the people who had done that to them, they didn't know anything else to do - they went with what was happening and turned to drugs and alcohol. So they ended up sleeping with more and more people - under the influence of various illegal substances.
I can't be sure, and have no way of knowing - but I'm fairly sure their lives would have been different had they not had sex, whether it was consensual or not, at such a young age.

And even if people are safe - things can still happen. I've got friends that got pregnant before they were 13. My mum had a tubal ligation over 10 years ago - and got pregnant last year (luckily my mum and dad are still married and all so it was just a bit of a shock for a while, but it's all good now).

very good points

Right now I'm 15, as are most of my friends. This is still a young age, and still below the age of legal consent (for a few more months). Already there has been peer pressure on people in relation to sex (and there has been for quite some time now), and those who are thought unlikely to do it soon, or not having already done it, are thought to be 'weak' and are teased. I've witnessed many an argument between my male friends over who is going to sleep with a girl first. I've never once witnessed an argument between my female friends over who is going to sleep with a guy first. Interestingly, when I was in primary school, I only ever witnessed these arguments between females and never males (from memory). Perhaps it's because of how the media glamorises sex, that the girls at a young age are feeling that it’s okay to do, and is ‘cool’, whereas the guys were just more interested in sports and not so much girls yet, but once the teenage phase is reached, the girls are more aware of the consequences of sex, and realise its not so great as the media portrays it, and at the time the guys start to get more interested in sleeping with girls etc.... (Based on my own experiences with people, it will most likely be different for others.)

first of all this makes it sound like the abstinence ads should target boys. Second of all when I consider the age of 15 in relation to the age of say 80, it is very young. I was a very mature fifteen year old, but not mature enough to deal with all that sex has to offer, even though I had the desire.

This is where learning to trust your kids comes in. If kids are taught all about sex, the potential consequences and also the emotional aspect, they should be able to decide that for themselves. We live in society where 13-year old mothers are commonplace - kids will manage to have sex all by themselves anyway, so it seems to me that fighting it by imposing an age barrier is pointless.

Kids are taught about marriage but are not ready for it at the age of 13. They are taught a great many things, but that doesn’t mean that they are ready for the responsibility. Kids that age lack the mental function to fully understand long term consequences and often truly believe that nothing bad will happen to them even though statistics say otherwise.

In the cases 13 year old mothers- how did these children have an opportunity to engage in sex? I do not allow my 13 year old time alone with boys. Saying that parents can’t control their children is a cop out. Will you supply a 11 or 13 year old with clean needles because they are going to shoot up with dirty ones if you don’t? Wouldn’t it just be better to be in control of a child?

When requested, I'd certainly take my daughter to the doctor. And yes, I'd make sure she was armed with condoms as well as taking the pill. The consent just isn't an issue as it's over to her to decide what to do with her body.

Have you considered what effect (long and short term) artificial hormones have on a woman’s body, especially one so young? Some girls that age are not even menstruating yet and you condone pumping them full of artificial hormones- that’s shocking.

Maybe you should reconsider what you told Virgil above about men having to consider the same consequences as women. You have little, if any, appreciation for the multifaceted issues that sex poses for women.

TheFifthElement

07-12-2008, 11:49 AM

Bakiryu

07-12-2008, 12:01 PM

I think it's more of an American thing. Back home you're actually encouraged to have sex at a pretty young age, most of my friends lost their virginity before turning 13 or earlier.

EAP

07-12-2008, 01:25 PM

Nobody should be expected to abstain.

Abstainance education is morally wrong.

SleepyWitch

07-12-2008, 03:53 PM

I understand what The Athiest is saying here. Personally I believe that the whole 'taboo' attutide is biggest cause of the problems which arise as a result of 'underage' sex.
yep, I couldn't agree more. I do find it shocking that kids as young as 8 have sex. But on the other hand, I'm not sure it's a good idea not to allow them time alone with members of the opposite sex. When I was a kid (around 3-10 y/o) ALL my friends were guys and my mum didn't mind at all. She did make it clear that she did not want me to act like a girly girl who runs after guys at that age, but she always preferred me playing outdoors with the guys to playing Barbie with silly girls. I think if you spy on kids all the time it gives them the impression that either SEX or MARRIAGE are the only kind of relationship ppl can have with members of the opposite sex.
I have a friend who's mind is totally messed up because she never had any male friends and her mother never talked about sex. The result being that at the age of 26 she can absolutely not differentiate between a guy friend and a man she feels sexually attracted to. Any man she likes (as in a man who is nice or has good characteristics) is a potential husband for her. She can simply not see any man as a guy friend/ "brother"/ "uncle" whatever.. She can't even talk to a guy without blushing and as soon as she has talked to a man more than once, she starts planning their wedding. On the other hand she's totally prude and out of touch with her own sexuality.

The Atheist

07-12-2008, 05:02 PM

Kids are taught about marriage but are not ready for it at the age of 13. They are taught a great many things, but that doesn’t mean that they are ready for the responsibility. Kids that age lack the mental function to fully understand long term consequences and often truly believe that nothing bad will happen to them even though statistics say otherwise.

What are the long-term consequences of having safe sex? What "responsibility" is involved? As I said before, I think you'll find that having multiple, early sexual partners is a symptom of other problems, not the cause.

I read your links and they all tend to confirm my position that socio-economic problems are the cause of dangerous behaviours. A couple of the studies clearly link drug usage and early, multiple partners - that is a totally different scenario to what we're discussing.

In the cases 13 year old mothers- how did these children have an opportunity to engage in sex? I do not allow my 13 year old time alone with boys. Saying that parents can’t control their children is a cop out. Will you supply a 11 or 13 year old with clean needles because they are going to shoot up with dirty ones if you don’t? Wouldn’t it just be better to be in control of a child?

I think this is why you're getting off-track, I'm not suggesting that parents shouldn't exercise control. One case of a 13-year old mother I know of the pregnancy resulted from having sex while at school. I imagine that's rare, but it does emphasise the point that kids will do what they do, and there are always opportunities available.

Have you considered what effect (long and short term) artificial hormones have on a woman’s body, especially one so young? Some girls that age are not even menstruating yet and you condone pumping them full of artificial hormones- that’s shocking.

I'm sorry, but if there are negative effects of long-term contraceptive pill usage, you'll have to tell me what they are because I'm reasonably confident that 21st century contraception is very, very safe.

Maybe you should reconsider what you told Virgil above about men having to consider the same consequences as women. You have little, if any, appreciation for the multifaceted issues that sex poses for women.

What are those issues? You haven't covered in any way what harm there is in practising safe sex. First off, there's no data to support the theory that having sex early creates a likelihood if multiple partners. Secondly, I pointed out that maybe society should make fathers take more of the consequences. Thridly, young kids having safe sex won't be getting pregnant, so that issue doesn't exist.

So, having a higher age of consent doesn't really seem to make a difference, unless that difference is an increase in the teenage pregnancy rate!

Thanks for that! That's exactly the results I referred to - the enlightened and open societies of Europe just don't have the problems, which again emphasises that it isn't the sex which is the problem, but that problematic sex is a symptom of other dysfunction.

I understand what The Athiest is saying here. Personally I believe that the whole 'taboo' attutide is biggest cause of the problems which arise as a result of 'underage' sex. Whenever something is 'forbidden' it is attractive to teenagers who are seeking to push their boundaries, and establish their identities separate from their parents. Sex is a pleasurable activity when shared between consenting people, I don't see why that should be denied to someone who is physically mature, just because society either assumes they are, or forces them to remain emotionally immature beyond their natural time.

If consequences of sex are a concern then surely the key is better education, and a large part of that education is going to come from parents. I try to be open with my children about sex, and how they will develop sexually as they grow older. If my daughter feels that she's ready for sex at the age of 13 then fine, I would rather she felt able to come to me or her father and we can help her to do so safely. Because safety is the important thing isn't it? Just saying 'you're too young' really isn't going to stop her, and in fact doing so may increase the probability that she will dismiss any 'adult' advice she's been given on the subject: contraception/protection against STD's/emotional protection etc. I would rather that she had sex under my roof, than in the back of some car, or on the golf course, or in the school toilets during her lunchbreak, or wherever else it is that kids find to have sex these days. I don't think it's my right to tell her when she's ready, and I don't think that just because she reaches 16 that means she's ready either. I want her to know that it's her decision, her decision entirely (which includes both parental and peer pressures) that there are potential consequences if you get it wrong and potential benefits if you get it right too. I want her to know we're there to support her, we're not the 'enemy' forbidding her to do something which her body is telling her she's ready for.

Are you my wife?

:D

You are clearly on exactly the same wavelength.

I agree with you as well that it's the ingrained and wrong attitude to sex which causes the emptional problems. Sex on its own is not "wrong" - it's our attitudes to it which makes people feel guilt or other negative feelings.

I think if you spy on kids all the time it gives them the impression that either SEX or MARRIAGE are the only kind of relationship ppl can have with members of the opposite sex.

Excellent points! This is often overlooked - that males and females can be friends without ever needing to make it a sexual relationship.

By teaching kids about sex and placing no taboos we might well encourage a shift in attitudes of the next generation.

Virgil

07-12-2008, 06:15 PM

This is a tough issue. It's hard to find the perfect answer. Frankly in my opinion kids are not mature enough to handle the emotional implications of sexual activity. But kids will explore and do what they will. It is impossible to completely restrain them. In the best of all worlds I don't believe kids under eighteen should be having sex. Let them be kids. I will say this statement made my jaw drop:

As long as no exploitation takes place - i.e. kids of like age - what harm is done by them having sex at say 11 years old?

Eleven? Eleven? Is sex no diferent than a video game? Well, obviousy there is a difference in values here.

But here's another question. We have been going under the assumption that kids are engaging in some intimate exploratory eccursion. Is that what they learn on the internet? When I have flipped through the porn sites on the internet I see unbelievable acts of degradation. Pushing things in all sorts of orrifices. Multiple simulataneous partners. Orgies. I don't want to get graphic, but there is a whole different meaning to the term facial. Is this what kids are learning? If girls are being pressured to have sex, what else are they being pressured to do? So at waht age would it be approriate for kids to start engaging in orgies? If the line of right and wrong is obliterated with basic sex, what will kids explore (the natural tendency of teenagers to push the limits) as taboo when there is nothing as taboo? How would you monitor this activity? And do you feel comfortable in the degrading acts that go on happening to your children?

Jozanny

07-12-2008, 07:42 PM

Now we've moved from abstinence to underage sexual activity? You folks move pretty fast when I take a few hours off:p . I am closer to MotherHubbard's view on the latter than I am to Atheist's, because I do not have cable and watch a glutton's diet of American public television for a sometimes queasy continuing education. The Third World conventions of the subsistence class (or higher) of pledging daughters to be wed as young as nine, or thirteen, is heartbreaking. These bodies are too young to handle pregnancy and are often traumatized by fistula, and shunned by the husband's household once they get it.

I grant you that Western adolescents rarely have to undergo such a heart-rending experience, but not every 13 year old is going to be the narrator of White Oleander who can handle stealing her foster parent's lover.

Even with contraception, intimacy can just as readily cause psychological harm as be a healthy, natural experience.

I might have been better off never having sex with the men I had it with. My memories of these instances are such that my self-esteem took a beating in the majority of couplings. There were exceptions, but I think the passionate-the-earth-moved moments are overated. Do they exist? Maybe, but not always. So I suppose I find the drawing of some boundaries acceptable.

Having said that, if my niece, who is 14, felt she needed to talk to someone, I would discuss the possibility of her becoming active with an open mind. What I would be obligated to tell her mother would create a dilemma, but I am in the camp of rather not being in the dark.

pussnboots

07-12-2008, 08:05 PM

Atheist stated: I'm sorry, but if there are negative effects of long-term contraceptive pill usage, you'll have to tell me what they are because I'm reasonably confident that 21st century contraception is very, very safe.

Here is something I found on the web about birth control pills:
Did you know that an estimated 150 million women worldwide take birth control pills?

Such widespread use of birth control pills worries me because many women are not aware of the serious health implications of these drugs. I also believe that birth control pills are often prescribed to address symptoms (like cramping, spotting, irregular periods and acne) instead of the underlying causes of the symptoms.

Many women do not consider the very real (and sometimes very dangerous) side effects of these synthetic hormones, but you owe it to your body, and to your future children, to find out more.

Birth Control: Synthetic Hormones

First, let’s understand how birth control pills work in your body.

Typically, your body ovulates once a month, ripening a new egg that will then journey down a fallopian tube. Eventually it reaches the uterus, where it would implant, if fertilized.

If not fertilized by a sperm, then the lining of the uterus that had built up in preparation for the fertilized egg is unnecessary. Both egg and uterine lining leave your body, cleansing your system and preparing for a new month.

When you take birth control pills, you impose synthetic hormones on your natural cycle.

Many birth control pills contain high levels of estrogen that effectively convince your pituitary gland that you are pregnant (this explains some of the side effects of the drugs) and that you don’t need to ovulate. Because your body thinks you are pregnant, the uterine lining thickens. Once you start the placebo pills, however, your estrogen level drops suddenly, and your body menstruates “normally.”

This abnormal cycle is what millions of women experience every month, and yet few doctors discuss the consequences of taking these prescriptions for year after year.

Real Risks

Here is an overview of the reported risks and side effects of birth control pills.

Some physical and emotional changes take place that are permanent while you stay on the pill. Many of these changes occur as your body’s response to synthetic estrogen.

These changes include:

Larger breasts
Weight gain or loss
Reduced or increased acne
Slight nausea
Emotional sensitivity right before your period
Mood swings throughout your cycle
Irregular bleeding or spotting
Breast tenderness
Decreased libido
The above side effects might be enough to deter some women from taking birth control, but many women are just not aware of them, while others justify the side effects because the pill is so convenient.

But imagine taking your birth control pill, feeling depressed and then taking an antidepressant to handle your mood swings and hypersensitivity. Adding an antidepressant could then contribute to even lower libido, which would surely be noticed by you and your partner.

My point is that birth control pills are a prescription drug with very real ramifications on your overall health.

And even scarier than the “mild” side effects are the serious health risks that accompany birth control pills. These include: ,

Increased risk of cervical and breast cancers
Increased risk of heart attack and stroke
Migraines
Higher blood pressure
Gall bladder disease
Infertility
Benign liver tumors
Decreased bone density
Yeast overgrowth and infection
Increased risk of blood clotting
Cancer, heart disease, stroke, infertility. Surely these side effects make birth control pills a less than desirable option for contraception. And now that heart disease has become the leading cause of death among women, one has to wonder if there is a connection between the widespread and long-term use of oral contraceptives, which debuted in 1960... just as the first of the baby boomers were entering their teens.

Yeast overgrowth and yeast infections (candida), too, are particularly dangerous to your overall health.

Birth control pills actually destroy the beneficial bacteria in your intestines, making you more susceptible to yeast overgrowth, lower immunity and infection.

The Body Ecology System for Health and Healing is unique because of our understanding and focus on the inner ecosystem. With a healthy inner ecosystem, good bacteria and yeast (microflora) thrive in your intestines, helping you to digest food, protect you from illness and disease, and absorb and manufacture vital nutrients.

You can encourage the health of your inner ecosystem by implementing Body Ecology’s Seven Universal Healing Principles, living a low stress lifestyle and avoiding recreational and medicinal drugs and empty, toxic foods that upset the balance of beneficial microflora in your body.

After years and years of taking birth control pills and creating an imbalanced inner ecosystem (with an overgrowth of bad bacteria and yeast), it is no wonder that women are at greater risk for infections as well as chronic diseases like cancer.

The Atheist

07-13-2008, 01:39 AM

Frankly in my opinion kids are not mature enough to handle the emotional implications of sexual activity.

Again, I'd be interested in finding out what these "emotional implications" are. There is no data to suggest that such a thing exists.

Eleven? Eleven? Is sex no diferent than a video game? Well, obviousy there is a difference in values here.

First off, I have severe doubts that a child raised properly and having no self-esteem issues is likely to have any interest in sex at 11.

Secondly, a video game probably lasts longer!

If the line of right and wrong is obliterated with basic sex, what will kids explore (the natural tendency of teenagers to push the limits) as taboo when there is nothing as taboo? How would you monitor this activity? And do you feel comfortable in the degrading acts that go on happening to your children?

Who decides what is degrading? It again comes back to self-esteem. Kids who grow up with respect for themselves aren't likely to want to engage in multiple partner or other weirdness. Why would early sexual activity lead to anything? It sounds a lot like the fallacy that marijuana is a gateway drug.

Now we've moved from abstinence to underage sexual activity? You folks move pretty fast when I take a few hours off:p . I am closer to MotherHubbard's view on the latter than I am to Atheist's, because I do not have cable and watch a glutton's diet of American public television for a sometimes queasy continuing education.

We don't have cable and neither our kids or my wife and I watch any American TV. Our morality isn't based on anyone else's and isn't affected in any way by television.

Even with contraception, intimacy can just as readily cause psychological ham as be a healthy, natural experience.

Maybe you could point out what harm can be caused by safe, consensual sex, because I just don't see it - unless kids are taught that there's something wrong with sex to begin with.

Here is something I found on the web about birth control pills:
Did you know that an estimated 150 million women worldwide take birth control pills?

Yep.

Such widespread use of birth control pills worries me because many women are not aware of the serious health implications of these drugs.

Nope, that's wrong. Like every drug, the pill can cause side effects - even aspirin does on some occasions. The pill is probably the safest drug available and almost 50 years of usage has not shown any serious effects, except in the rarest cases. The pill is now even safe to take during breast-feeding. Your assertions are not backed by medical research.

You can encourage the health of your inner ecosystem by implementing Body Ecology’s Seven Universal Healing Principles, living a low stress lifestyle and avoiding recreational and medicinal drugs and empty, toxic foods that upset the balance of beneficial microflora in your body.

And that tells me that your view might be skewed by fallacies, as the 7 principles are simply bunkum. A couple of examples from the website should show exactly what I mean:

Sea Salt is not the poisonous white table salt you may have grown up with.

This is rubbish, salt is salt is salt and it all comes from the sea. Salt is sodium chloride and "natural" sea salt is every bit as harmful as table salt in a packet from the supermarket.

include healthy organic vegetables and ocean vegetables into your diet

I do wonder about the sanity of people who subscribe to the notion that organic food is somehow "better" than mass-produced food. Organic food contains far more harmful bacteria and parasites than normal food and it almost certainly caused the death of NZ's Green Party leader. Organic food also takes far longer to grow and requires a lot more land than other food, due to the losses from disease and pests. If we insisted on organic food, half the world would starve to death.

Most fruit is too sweet and feeds candida, upsetting the balance of your healthy inner ecosyste.

This is verging on criminal. Suggesting that fruit might be bad for you is just plain dumb and flies in the face of all medical knowledge. Still, I see that the 7 step people have taken on board the fallacy about sugar causing obesity, when the opposite is actually true (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/6/story.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10511117).

I won't go into the craziest beliefs on the site, which revolve around the long-since debunked link between vaccine and autism, but posting the system as an alternative to medical science doesn't work.

sprinks

07-13-2008, 01:47 AM

Am I the only one who feels this is no longer getting anywhere? We're just going round and round and round with 2 sides arguing and not going anywhere.
Both sides of the argument have provided sufficient proof to back up what they believe, even though we have detracted from the original question:

So do you think that there is a double standard when it comes to sexuality? Should men be expected to abstain or is that just not manly?

We were meant to be talking about abstinence and double standards in relation to it.

The Atheist

07-13-2008, 04:33 AM

We were meant to be talking about abstinence and double standards in relation to it.

Seems to me that everything is related to that. Lately, we've been looking at alternatives to abstinence, which is certainly part of the discussion. After all, there are only two sides, aren't there - to abstain or not?

In terms of the double standard, you are right and it's a good point I'd overlooked - all the discussion on underage sex has been about the supposed emotional harm to girls. Why only girls? If early sexual activity is so traumatic for girls, isn't it a double standard not to assume boys have the same emotional damage?

Virgil

07-13-2008, 09:23 AM

Spain: 10 per 1000 girls
Turkey: 56 per 1000 girls
UK: 27 per 1000 girls
USA: 41 per 1000 girls

Very dangerous to list raw statistics Fifth. First of all the numbers you cite are just teenage pregnacy. It mentions nothing about teenage unmarried pregnacy and as I looked into it (thinking that sounded awfully strange of Turkey being so high given it's an Islamic country) I found that 15% of Turkey's girls are married between 15 and 19 and that the average childbearing age is 19.5. So most of those girls are actually married.

Second that number for the US is extremely complicated. I'm always surprised at how people outside the US think they understand the US by reading internet newspapers. The US is a country of incredibly diverse ethnic groups with a total population of 300 million and with diverse sub cultures. There are two sub cultures that drive those statistics, both cultures actually historically linked. One is southern lower economic class cluture and the other is inner city culture. The inner cty culture is actually rooted in the poorer southern culture, resulting from the post WWII great waves of migration from southern towns to nortern cities. Thomas Sowell has demonstrated that the high increase of violence in US culture stems from those two groups, which apparently evolved a very distinct cultural norm. He showed that by eliminating those groups from the emographics, US viloence was no different than Eurpean violence. I'm willing to be that if you remove the teen pregnacy numbers from those groups that the US teen pregnancy would be no different than Europe.

Actually if you want to look carefully at the demographics of this for the US, the absoute lowest unmarried teen pregnancy rates are for the Mormon sub culture and for orthodox Jews. For both it's almost nil. It would seem to me that if you wanted to emulate someone we should be emulating the Mormons and the Orthodox Jews. But that would be silly. You can't emulate another culture. These are defined cultures with varying values and norms.

The point of this is that it's culture that establishes the teen pregnancy rates. It makes no difference whether there is an abstinence program or a birht control program, the culture overwhelmngly defines what people do. Education, either for abstinence or for birth control, is a nice word but it makes relatively little difference.

SleepyWitch

07-13-2008, 09:35 AM

Actually if you want to look carefully at the demographics of this for the US, the absoute lowest unmarried teen pregnancy rates are for the Mormon sub culture and for orthodox Jews. For both it's almost nil. It would seem to me that if you wanted to emulate someone we should be emulating the Mormons and the Orthodox Jews. But that would be silly. You can't emulate another culture. These are defined cultures with varying values and norms.

I hope you're not referring to those subgroups of Mormon who lock up 12 year old girls on ranches and rape them? those don't appear in the statistics of course

papayahed

07-13-2008, 09:48 AM

Very dangerous to list raw statistics Fifth. First of all the numbers you cite are just teenage pregnacy. It mentions nothing about teenage unmarried pregnacy and as I looked into it (thinking that sounded awfully strange of Turkey being so high given it's an Islamic country) I found that 15% of Turkey's girls are married between 15 and 19 and that the average childbearing age is 19.5. So most of those girls are actually married.

Second that number for the US is extremely complicated. I'm always surprised at how people outside the US think they understand the US by reading internet newspapers. The US is a country of incredibly diverse ethnic groups with a total population of 300 million and with diverse sub cultures. There are two sub cultures that drive those statistics, both cultures actually historically linked. One is southern lower economic class cluture and the other is inner city culture. The inner cty culture is actually rooted in the poorer southern culture, resulting from the post WWII great waves of migration from southern towns to nortern cities. Thomas Sowell has demonstrated that the high increase of violence in US culture stems from those two groups, which apparently evolved a very distinct cultural norm. He showed that by eliminating those groups from the emographics, US viloence was no different than Eurpean violence. I'm willing to be that if you remove the teen pregnacy numbers from those groups that the US teen pregnancy would be no different than Europe.

Actually if you want to look carefully at the demographics of this for the US, the absoute lowest unmarried teen pregnancy rates are for the Mormon sub culture and for orthodox Jews. For both it's almost nil. It would seem to me that if you wanted to emulate someone we should be emulating the Mormons and the Orthodox Jews. But that would be silly. You can't emulate another culture. These are defined cultures with varying values and norms.

The point of this is that it's culture that establishes the teen pregnancy rates. It makes no difference whether there is an abstinence program or a birht control program, the culture overwhelmngly defines what people do. Education, either for abstinence or for birth control, is a nice word but it makes relatively little difference.

Are you freaking kidding me? The problems with teen pregnancy in the US IS everybodies problem, how can you possibly claim a sub group shouldn't be looked at, as if they shouldn't exist or be part of the overall statistics?

kilted exile

07-13-2008, 01:34 PM

Possibly drawing things off-topic & also probably giving too much of an insight into the person who is kilted. I do want to address some of the points Virg raises about sexual degradation.

Ok, here goes. I am weird. I enjoy some forms of pain. I like the initial adrenalin rush. I do not like to cause pain at all.

It is only degrading if it is not consensual, if everyone involved is aware & comfortable with the surroundings it can be wonderful. However, it is not for under-agers.

Jozanny

07-13-2008, 01:49 PM

We don't have cable and neither our kids or my wife and I watch any American TV. Our morality isn't based on anyone else's and isn't affected in any way by television.

Fine, but television, like a computer, is a device; it is what you do with it that counts, and I watch documentaries which highlight multi-cultural issues. Some African women today fare no better than women in the middle ages who were treated like property, and I am sure you have a search engine you like where you can plug in fistula and learn about its devastating consequences. Unprotected sex for girls just on the edge of puberty, or a year or two younger, is a net negative, harms the internal organs, and sometimes kills the young girl in question.

Maybe you could point out what harm can be caused by safe, consensual sex, because I just don't see it - unless kids are taught that there's something wrong with sex to begin with.

There are too many variables, but it takes two to tango, and men have an easier time objectifying women in ways which aren't exactly positive. Shalot pointed this out when discussing what goes on in today's highschool environment. Girls are damned if they are considered promiscuous, and pressured if they try to wait until they are ready. Young men don't go through that. Being considered a dog is like being on the peer honor roll.

Virgil

07-13-2008, 02:45 PM

I hope you're not referring to those subgroups of Mormon who lock up 12 year old girls on ranches and rape them? those don't appear in the statistics of course
No that was some weird group and does not refect Mormons as a whole. At all.

Are you freaking kidding me? The problems with teen pregnancy in the US IS everybodies problem, how can you possibly claim a sub group shouldn't be looked at, as if they shouldn't exist or be part of the overall statistics?
I am absolutely not saying that. Of course it's all our problem. But you have to look at the data and see where the problem is predominantly. What I'm saying for the purpose of this discussion is that for the most part Europe and the US have very similar demographics when you exclude those two groups. Of course I want to solve that problem. Papaya must think I'm some sort of monster. :lol:

Nightshade

07-13-2008, 02:55 PM

men have an easier time objectifying women in ways which aren't exactly positive. .

Ok I just have to say something here, one of the things that annoys me the most is when women objectify men, and then complain about men doing the same, or vice versa, although Ive yet to ever hear of a man complaining about being objectified. If you dont like it dont do it. I dont think men find it easier to objectify women than women do men, even I do it mostly when I think of men merely as walking talking jar openers. :D:p

papayahed

07-13-2008, 03:05 PM

No that was some weird group and does not refect Mormons as a whole. At all.

I am absolutely not saying that. Of course it's all our problem. But you have to look at the data and see where the problem is predominantly. What I'm saying for the purpose of this discussion is that for the most part Europe and the US have very similar demographics when you exclude those two groups. Of course I want to solve that problem. Papaya must think I'm some sort of monster. :lol:

but you can't exclude the two groups because they are part of the US, I don't really see the point of seperating them out.

Virgil

07-13-2008, 03:11 PM

First off, I have severe doubts that a child raised properly and having no self-esteem issues is likely to have any interest in sex at 11.

Well I agree with that. But what percentage are we talking about that aren't raised properly. If we take Fifth's numbers as fact than in UK 97.3% (27/1000) don't have teenage pregnancy and in the US 95.9% (41/1000). That's a little over a percent. And sub cultural distinctions probably way overwhelm the statistics. I don't think one can conclude that one system is any better than another.

Who decides what is degrading?
Well, I can point out many things that an overwhelming number of rational people would call degrading.

but you can't exclude the two groups because they are part of the US, I don't really see the point of seperating them out.

The point was to show that the claim that the European approach of let kids experiment freely is no different than the US system if you exclude a particular sub culture in the US. That particular sub culture has some extra issues that complicate a comparison. And to show that the statistics are very dependant on the culture at hand, not the approach.

Nightshade

07-13-2008, 03:46 PM

Technically in UK if two 14 year olds 'consent' to have sex with either other, they are both guilty of statutory rape! So we criminalise teenagers, or turn a blind eye. Neither is a solution.

OK thats not technically true, a girl I know who is ( well was) barely thirteen at the time without going into too much detail came home one afternoon after having unprotected sex with a 26 year old stranger in the park, on being asked why she replied I wanted to know what it was like and he asked me.
There were no legal grounds for prosecuting the guy for statutory rape, even though she had told him she was 14 ( a lie but still underage) because she was over 13 at the time and had consented.
I am not saying this is atypical example of behaviour of 13 year olds or anything but just using it to illustrate the point about statutory rape law in the UK. Also there have been various incendets where library staff have been scratching our heads trying to think what to do when there have been obviously underage kids really involved with people who are obviously in their mid 20s and sometimes in their 30s .
And basicaly weve been told if they are over 13 we haven't a leg to stand on so stay out of it.

The Atheist

07-13-2008, 03:47 PM

Very dangerous to list raw statistics Fifth. First of all the numbers you cite are just teenage pregnacy. It mentions nothing about teenage unmarried pregnacy and as I looked into it (thinking that sounded awfully strange of Turkey being so high given it's an Islamic country) I found that 15% of Turkey's girls are married between 15 and 19 and that the average childbearing age is 19.5. So most of those girls are actually married.

But wouldn't the emotionally damaging aspects of early sexual activity apply regardless of marriage? In fact, I'd expect emotional harm to be exponentially higher for married teens in Turkey, since marriages are generally loveless, arranged ones.

Fine, but television, like a computer, is a device; it is what you do with it that counts, and I watch documentaries which highlight multi-cultural issues. Some African women today fare no better than women in the middle ages who were treated like property, and I am sure you have a search engine you like where you can plug in fistula and learn about its devastating consequences. Unprotected sex for girls just on the edge of puberty, or a year or two younger, is a net negative, harms the internal organs, and sometimes kills the young girl in question.

I'm sorry, but you've completely lost me here. I know exactly what a fistula is and I certainly don't need to watch documentaries or Google anything to know how some African women are still treated. First off, those cultutral aspects are irrelevant, since we're talking about consensual sex and genital mutilation and arranged marriage aren't consensual. Secondly, I don't buy the fistula example for a split second, because it's virtually unknown in cases of consensual, loving sex, which is what I'm talking about. It is a red herring in this discussion and does nothing but over-emote the subject. Unprotected sex is another red herring as I have clearly stated from the start that ensuring safe sex is the best and main reason for talking to kids about it early and not placing taboos and barriers on it.

There are too many variables, but it takes two to tango, and men have an easier time objectifying women in ways which aren't exactly positive. Shalot pointed this out when discussing what goes on in today's highschool environment. Girls are damned if they are considered promiscuous, and pressured if they try to wait until they are ready. Young men don't go through that. Being considered a dog is like being on the peer honor roll.

Which brings us nicely back to double standards. How is it that young boys have those negative attitudes? Clearly, they aren't being given the same respect for their bodies as I'm suggesting young girls are, so maybe the entire problem is parents' double standards? Maybe we should be attacking the double standard and educating boys instead?

Nightshade

07-13-2008, 04:09 PM

arranged marriage aren't consensual

you know I kind of object to this generalisation what your talking about is arranged marriages so much as forced marriages, and I wish it was a distinction people would realise more of the time. If I were to ring up some member of my family and go look Ive decided I want to get married find me a husband , or if someone was to approach or even their parents were to approach me via family channels going look we are interested in marrying you and if I agree to meet then marry or whatever that doesnt make it non consensual. What you are really referring to is if my family said right you are marrying this guy no choice about it. and there is a BIG difference that alot of people miss, personally I don't think Id mind an arranged marriage really takes alot of the headache out of it or so Ive heard from people who have had them and they all seem happy enough. Or perhaps I should say Id give it serious consideration when the time comes.

Which brings us nicely back to double standards. How is it that young boys have those negative attitudes? Clearly, they aren't being given the same respect for their bodies as I'm suggesting young girls are, so maybe the entire problem is parents' double standards? Maybe we should be attacking the double standard and educating boys instead?

This kind of reminds me of the advertising campaign from last summer Want respect? Use a condom I found the 2 ads they seem identical in the begining but they arent :
number one- he didnt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VpX4ZWDviM&NR=1)
number two - he did (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGrp2ppsIgo)

motherhubbard

07-13-2008, 04:25 PM

This is an older frontline, but I think it’s a real eye opener.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/georgia/

Here are some statistics that demonstrate the relation between early sexual activity, multiple partners, and STDs.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/georgia/outbreak/stats.html

I don’t believe that something magical happens when a child turns 16 that makes them mature enough to have a sexual relationship. I don’t think a 16 year old is mature enough. I know that there are place in the world where 16 is adult. It is not so in America. To be honest I know very few 20 year olds who are really mature and responsible. I think that part of this comes from the idea that gratification is the beginning and end. Some may consider my view of adolescents to be dim, however I am in constant contact with this age group. Through various volunteer activities and through previous employment I have had the opportunity to spend a lot of time talking, listening, teaching, and mentoring this very age group. In addition I have studied child development, psychology and child psychology. The laws regulating the age of consent are there to protect children from those who would consider 11 or 13 year olds old enough to make their own decisions. Children that age are barely old enough to stay home without a babysitter.

There is no way anyone can convince me that a 13 year old, any 13 year old, is mature enough to consider long term ramifications that stem from sexual activity. It is true that condoms are easily accessible, but statistics show that that doesn’t amount to much. Statistics also show that the earlier a person begins to have sex the more likely they are to have multiple partners. Consider for a moment the meaning of multiple. It is unreasonable to expect a 13 year old stay in a lasting relationship especially without being emotionally involved. After all the argument is that the emotional aspect of a sexual relationship is negligible or even imaginary. We do not expect them to hold down full time jobs, pay bills, carry weapons, drive, or vote but sex is OK. Engaging is sex can effect the rest of one’s life- it is a big deal.

It is also true that this is a more significant problem among poorer or less educated segments of the population. I’m deep in the heart of this culture and the problem is like a disease that spreads itself out thick and destroys. However, it’s also a problem for wealthier populations. They just have more resources to deal with the adverse effects.

I’m in no way saying that sex is bad. I never say that. I’m just saying that it is a big deal and requires respect and consideration. This will be the last I have to say on this subject. I say it out of love, respect, and concern for children.

Jozanny

07-13-2008, 05:46 PM

Atheist, you use the word consensual as if it were value neutral, and I don't think it is for young single women most of the time. I would even go so far as to say that successful stable healthy relationships in the nuclear family tradition are increasingly rare, but that takes us further afield than the topic of this thread.

*Informed consent*, especially for a teenage girl, is more often than not a misnomer. I've had friends who had a bit of self-hatred going on, describing their episodes, sometimes with drugs and booze in the mix, as if they themselves were raw meat. This is what I mean about low self-esteem. Women feel degraded by sexual encounters more often than men do. It may be the biological difference, it may be psychological, but it exists, and girls get the brunt of it.

And consent itself is a luxury, even in the West. Some feminized, educated, married men may jump like a cat on a hot tin roof if a woman says no, or stop, but this is a legal nicety in advanced societies, and rape, for purposes of adjudication, is still problematic to prosecute.

There isn't much of a line, in my estimation, between a horny teen who might not know what she is getting into, and women on the savannah who are treated like a commodity. I can see 500 objections roaring my way for posting that, but I stand by it.

A thirty year old career woman who has achieved economic self-determination and wants a little power sex with the cute waiter with hot buns--well, that is when you can shout "we've come a long way baby!":)

Ok I just have to say something here, one of the things that annoys me the most is when women objectify men, and then complain about men doing the same, or vice versa, although Ive yet to ever hear of a man complaining about being objectified. If you dont like it dont do it. I dont think men find it easier to objectify women than women do men, even I do it mostly when I think of men merely as walking talking jar openers. :D:p

I am not sure about "if you don't like it don't do it" Nightshade. Objectification is systemic in most human social systems; men are objectified, surely, but their objectification is usually about power, the positive attribution of power. Feminine objectification is more dicey, goes on daily, whether it is billboards in Pakistan, or a "girls gone wild" video in the US, and is more about exploitation.

We are all influenced by it, however independent-minded we think ourselves.

Virgil

07-13-2008, 07:18 PM

This is an older frontline, but I think it’s a real eye opener.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/georgia/

Here are some statistics that demonstrate the relation between early sexual activity, multiple partners, and STDs.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/georgia/outbreak/stats.html

Actually Mom-H you got me interested in the difference between Europe and the US concerning sexually transmitted diseases. I could find a straight up statistic but I found that for North America (I assume that means US, Canada, Mexico, and central America) and Western Europe.

North America: 19 per 1000 adults.
Western Europe: 20 per 1000 adults.
http://www.avert.org/stdstatisticsworldwide.htm

Of course that's adults and so may not pertain to this discussion. But again I don't see anything statistically different between America's and Western Europe's results despite different approaches.

But wouldn't the emotionally damaging aspects of early sexual activity apply regardless of marriage? In fact, I'd expect emotional harm to be exponentially higher for married teens in Turkey, since marriages are generally loveless, arranged ones.

Yes, I'm having a hard time coming to a damaging aspect of early sexual behavior. Except to say that we are robbing our children of childhood. The pressures of relationships and intimacy is beyond a child's abilty to manage it. I'm not saying they will be scared but why put them under such pressures? And of course to say that this is not part of my values and therefore could not consent to my children having sex. I still don't think it is wise for anyone under eighteen being sexxually active. They should be concentrating on school. As to the young Turkish newlyweds, they are living within a socially accepted structure, of which I'm sure they find comfort and stability. I have no opinion as to whether it is right or wrong, loveless or not. I have no desire for any culture to change their cultural practices. That is for them to decide. Like I said above, it is silly to think that a culture or sub culture can change their norms and practices by emulating another culture. These things evolve.

Edit: One more point on a child's ability to manage it. I've seen several studies that girls in particular do better in school in an all girls school rather than coed. Add into this equation sexual realtionships of this kind and I think the distraction and stresses go exponetial. I don't think they will do as well.

Bakiryu

07-13-2008, 08:28 PM

Robbing children of childhood? What childhood? I must admit I see no difference between the life I was accustomed to as a child and what we call adulthood apart from cognitive improvement and societal allotments.

Children are NOT innocent. Even thought we would like to think they are.

motherhubbard

07-13-2008, 09:13 PM

Baki- some children really are, at least for a time. Situations and environments factor in, but some children are innocent. That is not to say that they are necessarily naive. I do believe that there are many factors diminishing the quality of childhood and you make a very good point. Cognitive improvement is another very good point.

Virgil

07-13-2008, 09:33 PM

Bakiryu

07-14-2008, 12:11 AM

Baki, what are you 13, 14? When you're 35 come back and tell me the same.

I'll be 16 in a month.

Yes, I understand what you mean. 35 year olds think about family, jobs and such. But I know girls 13, 12 who have had a threesome, who lost their virginity before they even went to high school, who experiment with drugs, alcohol and things adults don't even talk about before children. Kids know.

For example, you know how old I was when a guy asked me if I wanted to have sex for the first time (I slapped him and told him to go to hell of course, I believe in abstinence too). I was 7 years old.

That's the kind of innocent I'm talking about. Not knowing things, children lose that as soon as they begin to interact with other kids in a school setting.

sprinks

07-14-2008, 12:37 AM

I'll be 16 in a month.

Yes, I understand what you mean. 35 year olds think about family, jobs and such. But I know girls 13, 12 who have had a threesome, who lost their virginity before they even went to high school, who experiment with drugs, alcohol and things adults don't even talk about before children. Kids know.

For example, you know how old I was when a guy asked me if I wanted to have sex for the first time (I slapped him and told him to go to hell of course, I believe in abstinence too). I was 7 years old.

That's the kind of innocent I'm talking about. Not knowing things, children lose that as soon as they begin to interact with other kids in a school setting.

To some extent you are right. I'll be 16 soon too and I've got a few friends, one in particular - who is 17 soon, who are still very "innocent". Whenever we make comments with sexual connotations, she never gets it, or very rarely does she get it unless it is completely obvious and quite a tame comment. Sometimes we've commented on wishing we were still that naive.

I think everything has to start somewhere... As like the people I talked about a while back in a post here, they were my friends and I learnt most of what I know from them, which I learnt at about 8. I always had to pretend that I didn't know about things when my mum was around, as for a while she had it in her head that I shouldn't know these things and that I had no way of knowing. Eventually she realised I do know and I'll only continue to know more.... unless I got amnesia... But thats beside the point.
Yes anyhow the point I was making, is that what would it be like if more people were like my almost 17 year old friend? It just so happens that more people are (or seem to be) like the friends I had when I was 8, some of which I am still friends with. But even if more people were like my almost 17 year old friend, would that stop them from experimenting and all? I have a feeling in some cases it wouldn't. It varys too much with individuals... Even if they knew nothing of sex and other related things, I'm sure that wouldn't stop them from doing things.
Knowledge and actions are very different things... Many people expect me to have actually done a lot of things because I know so much and I'm very quick with coming up with sexually connotated comments. But in reality I haven't done much, and shan't be any time soon.
But then I've got friends who have been quite far with guys, yet they appear to know not much about the topic... Not sure whether they just pretend to be like that or what though...

(I don't actually know where I'm going with this... I was just writing as I was thinking :p)

motherhubbard

07-14-2008, 01:04 AM

I get where you are going, Sprinks. That is a good point. Knowledge is not equal to experience and that is a commutative equation. Many people will assume that experience equals knowledge- not so. That is very often true in life.

Jozanny

07-14-2008, 01:28 AM

Many people expect me to have actually done a lot of things because I know so much and I'm very quick with coming up with sexually connotated comments. But in reality I haven't done much, and shan't be any time soon.
But then I've got friends who have been quite far with guys, yet they appear to know not much about the topic... Not sure whether they just pretend to be like that or what though...

(I don't actually know where I'm going with this... I was just writing as I was thinking :p)

When I read you sprinks, I tend to forget that I am dour and crabby with an agenda:D , but I think the most important thing is not abstinence, or becoming active at a certain age, so much as:

1. Do you trust the potential partner?

I never really had that trust, even though I waited, (not entirely by choice) until I was 24. I think trust is huge, hugely important before becoming intimate.

2. Positive self-image.

Again, I never really had this, and have it less today, even though I am well past the 16 to 24 year old Jozanny who wanted to be hot and very badly to fit in with walking students. Daydreams of Prince Charming in a Cinderella fairytale messed me up, and getting a physically able man was the million dollar jackpot.

I've had both types, AB's, and disabled, and learned from the disabled ones that shared experiences, like being two wheelchair users, doesn't necessarily mean that it makes you right for each other. I only sort of fell for one of my men--maybe, and never got the ones I wanted.

Perhaps this is why I have a jaunticed view:) . If you feel well adjusted, then hang onto that. It's a gift.;)

sprinks

07-14-2008, 02:31 AM

I agree with that. Technically I have a disability too, although I hate calling it that. But my boyfriend, being the sweet caring guy that he is, is worried for when we do go further as he doesn't want to hurt me. (I have hypermobile joint syndrome - constant pain anyhow). Trust is very important. As is a positive self-image.

TheFifthElement

07-14-2008, 09:08 AM

If we take Fifth's numbers as fact than in UK 97.3% (27/1000) don't have teenage pregnancy and in the US 95.9% (41/1000). That's a little over a percent. And sub cultural distinctions probably way overwhelm the statistics. I don't think one can conclude that one system is any better than another.
Oh Virgil, don't get me wrong, I wasn't holding up UK as a good example, in fact very much the opposite. You're right to raise culture as an issue, of course this is a factor, and perhaps being within Europe gives me a very different perspective. UK has a real problem with underage pregnancy (underage being under 16). Within Europe the UK has, perhaps, the worst performance when it comes to underage pregnancy and STD's, it also has the most conservative/puritanical attitude towards sex. Conversely the Netherlands, which has a much more open approach towards sex, have a much lower rate of underage pregnancy and a lower rate of STD's. The main problem the UK has is the traditional 'embarrassment' about sex. Attitudes tend to range from the 'Victorian' to 'Carry On'. Neither is healthy. Interesting article here on the Dutch approach: http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_07/uk/apprend2.htm

The point was to show that the claim that the European approach of let kids experiment freely is no different than the US system if you exclude a particular sub culture in the US.
European approach? There's no such thing, Europe is not of a unified mind. I'm always surprised at how people outside Europe think they understand Europe by reading internet newspapers ;)

Very dangerous to list raw statistics Fifth.
Oh I agree. But then we're also all talking about 'children' as though it is a word with a common meaning. Which was part of my point. What makes a child a child? How can you or I for that matter decide when someone is or isn't a child or is or isn't ready for a sexual relationship. When it comes to my children I don't think I can presume to decide when that is, only they can decide. I don't consider it my responsibility to decide for them what is best, only to arm them with the skills, tools, knowledge and awareness to do whatever it is they're going to do safely, and with an appreciation of the risks involved. Lots of aspects of life have danger, it's dangerous crossing a road, it's dangerous getting in a car. If you equip your children with the skills that they need then they can minimise the risks themselves, you don't need to accompany them until they're 18. They learn to 'stop', 'look', 'listen'. They learn to buckle up. But when it comes to sex, we're so afraid to give children that same level of education, we bury our heads in the sand, we say 'just don't' and hope that'll cover it, but it doesn't. We're so afraid of this:

we are robbing our children of childhood.
but what does that mean? Really? Like Baki has said, most kids learn about sex at a really early age, perhaps 8+ is the age where they start picking up on this. But they learn it in the playground and they learn it wrong. Adults are too busy looking the other way pretending that their children will stay children for forever. But they don't. Personally I'd rather teach my children to 'buckle up' than allow them to live in ignorance or work it out for themselves, or the hard way. In my experience the children who understand the implications are quite often the one's who choose to abstain. But that's the point, it's their choice, and if they don't choose to abstain they at least understand how to minimise their risk of a pregnancy or STD.

Ultimately the biggest root cause of child pregnancies and STD's is ignorance. Remember the original HIV campaign?

OK thats not technically true, a girl I know who is ( well was) barely thirteen at the time without going into too much detail came home one afternoon after having unprotected sex with a 26 year old stranger in the park, on being asked why she replied I wanted to know what it was like and he asked me.
There were no legal grounds for prosecuting the guy for statutory rape, even though she had told him she was 14 ( a lie but still underage) because she was over 13 at the time and had consented.

Hi Nightshade, I can't say I'm surprised but the law is pretty clear in the scenario you've mentioned, an offence has been committed. The law states as follows (from the Sexual Offences Act 2003):

Sexual activity with a child (1) A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b) the touching is sexual, and
(c) either—
(i) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or
(ii) B is under 13.

So it sounds like the 'turning a blind eye' approach - the guy could be prosectuted but it's just easier not to.

kasie

07-14-2008, 10:33 AM

Can I go right back to mother hubbard's very first post, please? She said she saw 'billboards' promoting abstinence - may I ask, please, who was advertising on these billboards? Who are the busybodies who see fit to manipulate the readers' way of thinking? OK, I know a) all advertising is manipulative and b) UK is fast becoming a 'nanny state' so I shouldn't be objecting if some other country is meddling in people's personal behaviour. It just seems to me that no-one has commented on the thought control that is going on in this situation - or is it just me who would see it and mutter 'myob'? (That'll do, kasie, you can put your wooden spoon away now.)

The Atheist

07-14-2008, 02:53 PM

you know I kind of object to this generalisation what your talking about is arranged marriages so much as forced marriages, and I wish it was a distinction people would realise more of the time.

Point taken, but I was using the traditional version of "arranged marriage" as it applies to many Asiatic/African cultures where the child has no say in a marriage arranged by his/her parents.

This is an older frontline, but I think it’s a real eye opener.

Here are some statistics that demonstrate the relation between early sexual activity, multiple partners, and STDs.

Nope - again, this is just mistaking cause & effect. Those kids are having sex through dysfunction, not informed choice. The early sex is a symptom, not the cause.

We do not expect them to hold down full time jobs, pay bills, carry weapons, drive, or vote but sex is OK. Engaging is sex can effect the rest of one’s life- it is a big deal.

Other than saying it, I haven't seen any detail about what this big deal is. Seems more and more likely to me that insisting that sex is a "big deal" is merely going to encourage kids to grow up with the sexual baggage and misconception that many of today's have.

It is also true that this is a more significant problem among poorer or less educated segments of the population.

Bingo!

This is exactly what I meant about socio-economic conditions being the problem with the statistics you're quoting.

I’m in no way saying that sex is bad. I never say that. I’m just saying that it is a big deal and requires respect and consideration. This will be the last I have to say on this subject. I say it out of love, respect, and concern for children.

I hope not, because I would really like you to expand on what is so special about sex as opposed to driving, drinking, owning a gun or many other things kids of the same age learn to deal with.

Atheist, you use the word consensual as if it were value neutral, and I don't think it is for young single women most of the time. I would even go so far as to say that successful stable healthy relationships in the nuclear family tradition are increasingly rare, but that takes us further afield than the topic of this thread.

Isn't that getting back to double standard? Why is it you pick on young women? Does it not have the same connotations for boys?

*Informed consent*, especially for a teenage girl, is more often than not a misnomer. I've had friends who had a bit of self-hatred going on, describing their episodes, sometimes with drugs and booze in the mix, as if they themselves were raw meat. This is what I mean about low self-esteem. Women feel degraded by sexual encounters more often than men do. It may be the biological difference, it may be psychological, but it exists, and girls get the brunt of it.

Yes, but that group is not related to the one I'm discussing - girls with information and self-esteem.

A thirty year old career woman who has achieved economic self-determination and wants a little power sex with the cute waiter with hot buns--well, that is when you can shout "we've come a long way baby!":)

Ah, so sexual exploitation of men is ok?

Yes, I'm having a hard time coming to a damaging aspect of early sexual behavior. Except to say that we are robbing our children of childhood. The pressures of relationships and intimacy is beyond a child's abilty to manage it.

One thing which seems to have been overlooked is that what few raw statistics there are on the subject indicate that girls from families with open discussion on sex have their first sexual encounter much later than those who aren't.

The fallacy persists that girls who are not physically told not abstain are going to go out and start behaving like rabbits at age 12 or 13. I keep repeating that girls with self-esteem and knowledge are far better-equipped to deal with sex and the decision to have it or not than other kids and are therefore far less likely to be robbed of anything.

Can I go right back to mother hubbard's very first post, please? She said she saw 'billboards' promoting abstinence - may I ask, please, who was advertising on these billboards? Who are the busybodies who see fit to manipulate the readers' way of thinking? OK, I know a) all advertising is manipulative and b) UK is fast becoming a 'nanny state' so I shouldn't be objecting if some other country is meddling in people's personal behaviour. It just seems to me that no-one has commented on the thought control that is going on in this situation - or is it just me who would see it and mutter 'myob'? (That'll do, kasie, you can put your wooden spoon away now.)

:D

Well put!

I'm nobody's American, but I can tell you why it works that way in two words - christian voters. Federal and state governments have lots of money to spend on programs and the religious right in USA has ensured that funding is available for abstention programs, often to the detriment of other campaigns which have a more widespread usage. Here's an article from 2002 (http://www.religionlink.org/tip_020318c.php)which showed that abstinence-only programs received $135M funding for 2003. God knows what the figure is today.

It has noticeably not worked. Like the war on drugs, the war against virginity loss will ultimately come to realise that "just say no" doesn't work in any way.

In the UK, poor old Rowan Williams has bigger problems with women than trying to get them to abstain from sex!

Jozanny

07-14-2008, 03:28 PM

Ah, so sexual exploitation of men is ok?
Yes

The fallacy persists that girls who are not physically told not abstain are going to go out and start behaving like rabbits at age 12 or 13. I keep repeating that girls with self-esteem and knowledge are far better-equipped to deal with sex and the decision to have it or not than other kids and are therefore far less likely to be robbed of anything.

:D

Well, we simply disagree. I do not like abstinence as a state sponsored strategy, and I also think it doesn't protect women. The modern resurgence of sharia instills terror, as far as I am concerned. Abstinence in no way is going to protect the extremes of domestic violence which seems permissible under sharia.

But, as I posted before, I also think being active is a net negative when one is young in the West.

For me the glass is half empty. If women want control, and a level playing field, then they should buy toys and concentrate on their economic worth, first.

I will come back to this.

Shalot

07-14-2008, 04:20 PM

Yes

Well, we simply disagree. I do not like abstinence as a state sponsored strategy, and I also think it doesn't protect women. The modern resurgence of sharia instills terror, as far as I am concerned. Abstinence in no way is going to protect the extremes of domestic violence which seems permissible under sharia.

But, as I posted before, I also think being active is a net negative when one is young in the West.

For me the glass is half empty. If women want control, and a level playing field, then they should buy toys and concentrate on their economic worth, first.

I will come back to this.

Economic worth makes things easier across the board, but women still have to be aware of the fact that some men that they might be interested in dating might be threatened by a woman who can pay her own bills and function independently in the world without their help. Unless I am totally misunderstanding where you're going with that post, but that's how I am taking it.

One more thing on economic worth - I think it's probably a bad strategy for women to try attain economic worth through men.

Jozanny

07-14-2008, 04:53 PM

Economic worth makes things easier across the board, but women still have to be aware of the fact that some men that they might be interested in dating might be threatened by a woman who can pay her own bills and function independently in the world without their help. Unless I am totally misunderstanding where you're going with that post, but that's how I am taking it.

How is this not a reflection of a double standard?

One more thing on economic worth - I think it's probably a bad strategy for women to try attain economic worth through men.

Doesn't this contradict the potential detraction to fiancial independence you stated above?

The Atheist

07-14-2008, 04:54 PM

Yes

Honesty appreciated!

This is a great thread - we've covered a fair bit of ground, and that alone is worth a thread: why it's ok to exploit men.

I've seen the position that men somehow deserve to be discriminated against or exploited because many [most?] cannot keep their sexual urges to their own bodies, but tend to lie, cheat and generally sleaze their way into sexual relationships for gratification only. It's an interesting hypothesis and might actually be right, but I think we owe it to boys to try to let them outgrow their biological necessities.

Well, we simply disagree. I do not like abstinence as a state sponsored strategy, and I also think it doesn't protect women. The modern resurgence of sharia instills terror, as far as I am concerned. Abstinence in no way is going to protect the extremes of domestic violence which seems permissible under sharia.

But, as I posted before, I also think being active is a net negative when one is young in the West.

Ummm... what do we disagree on? I agree with all of that.

For me the glass is half empty. If women want control, and a level playing field, then they should buy toys and concentrate on their economic worth, first.

I will come back to this.

Please do!

Economic worth makes things easier across the board, but women still have to be aware of the fact that some men that they might be interested in dating might be threatened by a woman who can pay her own bills and function independently in the world without their help.

No "might", many are.

One more thing on economic worth - I think it's probably a bad strategy for women to try attain economic worth through men.

I think the idea was "in spite of" men rather than through them.

Jozanny

07-14-2008, 05:01 PM

Yes, but that group is not related to the one I'm discussing - girls with information and self-esteem.

A very *iffy* subset Atheist, of young girls, pop psychology aside, emotional health is a gradient.

But for now I have to go.

I'll have one final argument to make, and after that I will have expended my sentiments on the topic,:p , which should make the kids happy!:D

Shalot

07-14-2008, 05:20 PM

How is this not a reflection of a double standard?

Doesn't this contradict the potential detraction to fiancial independence you stated above?

I don't really know. That's just the way I see it. I'm straight and I think men are good for something, so I just try to go with the flow rather than fight the current. Toys Schmoys.

Some women, such as my former in-law, married in to the family because she thought he was going to inherit some land. She was wrong. When she figured out that she wasn't going to get anything, she promptly exited. That's what I mean by trying to attain economic worth through men. She didn't love him, had no education, so she was going to marry, divorce and collect alimony. That was her grand plan. That's what I was referring to.

It's wonderful if you can get a job and pay your own way, but if you wish to interact with the world, you have to be aware of and the double standard and know how to operate in spite of it. That's all I was getting at.

I think the idea was "in spite of" men rather than through them.

yeah, yeah, I know. I was just adding that as an idea - see the in-law example above. Yes, there is a double standard, and women usually end up holding the bag, but some women are pieces of work as well, so I just wanted to put that out there. I wasn't disagreeing with what Jozanny said. I agree, women who acheive economic worth have attained some level of power, but the flip side is that some men don't want to date a woman like that. I was just pointing out the obvious and not really contributing anything related to the original post. This discussion gets me thinking about the dynamics of male female relationships and I was just sort of posting out loud, if you will.

Jozanny

07-14-2008, 07:07 PM

I was just adding that as an idea - see the in-law example above. Yes, there is a double standard, and women usually end up holding the bag, but some women are pieces of work as well, so I just wanted to put that out there. I wasn't disagreeing with what Jozanny said. I agree, women who acheive economic worth have attained some level of power, but the flip side is that some men don't want to date a woman like that. I was just pointing out the obvious and not really contributing anything related to the original post. This discussion gets me thinking about the dynamics of male female relationships and I was just sort of posting out loud, if you will.

I think your contributions have been effective!:thumbs_up Let's see some self-confidence:)

But I've come back to say I have changed my mind and will exhaust myself on the matter without getting too subterranean in a wrassle with Atheist over what Third World practices have to do with Western so-called sexual liberalism, or a pull back on that in recent years:crash: .

Let me sum it up this way with my own contradiction: I think abstinence is a better practice for young women if fiancial security is an important goal post, but that the state should stay out of promoting abstinence over and above a good education on human sexuality and the resources available for both men and women.

fini!:D

Virgil

07-14-2008, 08:22 PM

Well, I would really love to respond to a number of things here tonight, but I'm tied up with work. I'll see about tomorrow, but I've got a really busy patch of time. Oh well.

The Atheist

07-14-2008, 09:03 PM

But I've come back to say I have changed my mind and will exhaust myself on the matter without getting too subterranean in a wrassle with Atheist over what Third World practices have to do with Western so-called sexual liberalism, or a pull back on that in recent years:crash: .

Eh? It was you who brought the third world practices into the discussion - I did point out that it had no relevance to the subject.

Well, I would really love to respond to a number of things here tonight, but I'm tied up with work. I'll see about tomorrow, but I've got a really busy patch of time. Oh well.

Come on - priorities, priorities.... what's more important, your livelihood or posting on a forum?

Jozanny

07-14-2008, 10:57 PM

Eh? It was you who brought the third world practices into the discussion - I did point out that it had no relevance to the subject.

I believe otherwise, but will restrain myself from rolling up my sleeves, partly due to LN's youth factor, partly because the need to be right gets an arrogant wingbag like me into trouble, and partly due to the American Crisis that can sweep me and my vulnerability into the undertow like a wee little ant that goes poof -- and -- even if I may not make any sales for awhile, I really should get back to my writing, despite the personal pain that makes it so much harder.

The moderators have been tolerant of me, to my amazement, but the downside of boards for a woman who feels marginalized in her own social strata, is that the boards get to be addicting, a substitute for other forms of community engagement.

Other than my recent book club commitments, I need to wean myself off a little.

Having bleated all that, you and I, me suspects, are intellectually sympatico in a good many views. I am sure we'll find out even though I keep my nose out of the Religion Forum.:p

Nightshade

07-15-2008, 01:38 AM

I am not sure about "if you don't like it don't do it" Nightshade. Objectification is systemic in most human social systems; men are objectified, surely, but their objectification is usually about power, the positive attribution of power. Feminine objectification is more dicey, goes on daily, whether it is billboards in Pakistan, or a "girls gone wild" video in the US, and is more about exploitation.

We are all influenced by it, however independent-minded we think ourselves.

No argument that we are all influenced by society and representation of persons in society by society etc, no my point was if you ( meaning women) objectify men then you dont have the right to complain about them objectifying you in the same way, historical context or no turn about is far play always works both ways.

Hi Nightshade, I can't say I'm surprised but the law is pretty clear in the scenario you've mentioned, an offence has been committed. The law states as follows (from the Sexual Offences Act 2003):

So it sounds like the 'turning a blind eye' approach - the guy could be prosectuted but it's just easier not to.

Hello fifth :wave: havent bumped into yo in the same thread in ages! Anyway see the last subsection, I think what they called the only thing he could be done for was consensual sex with a minor ( or whatever words to that effect)

Point taken, but I was using the traditional version of "arranged marriage" as it applies to many Asiatic/African cultures where the child has no say in a marriage arranged by his/her parents.

Thnak you for saying culture... :D

Nope - again, this is just mistaking cause & effect. Those kids are having sex through dysfunction, not informed choice. The early sex is a symptom, not the cause.

Other than saying it, I haven't seen any detail about what this big deal is. Seems more and more likely to me that insisting that sex is a "big deal" is merely going to encourage kids to grow up with the sexual baggage and misconception that many of today's have.
yes like in the case of the girl I knew, she wanted to know what the fuss was about- making a big fuss over it, and forbidding it just gets people curious, to use a biblical analogy wasnt it curiosity about the forbidden that got Adam and eve kicked out of the Garden of Eden?

Isn't that getting back to double standard? Why is it you pick on young women? Does it not have the same connotations for boys?

Ah, so sexual exploitation of men is ok?
Yes

How can you say that, even as a joke? which Im not sure your doing. a) thats tarring all men with the same brush and b) it makes women just as bad and as guilty as men. And itll all end up being cyclic and that not conducive to society progressing. Consider this, say Virgil is right and we havent hanged ourselves yet, and can continue to exsist for say another 1000 years. Now say that continuous negative stereotyping of men continuous simultaneous to the increasing social power of women. What will eventually happen if the idea that exploiting men is OK, that all men 'evil, cheating lying scum' ( not that anyone was saying it in this tread just continouing the argument :D) then eventually you will end up with men becoming oppressed. Then youll have another 'social revoloution' only this time it will be the women who were the bad guys and the exploitation of women is ok , and we are back to where we started. On second thoughts it would probably take longer than 1,000 years but do you see where Im going with this?

The modern resurgence of sharia instills terror, as far as I am concerned. Abstinence in no way is going to protect the extremes of domestic violence which seems permissible under sharia.

Not going to say very much on the subject, because the likelihood is Ill end up starying into politics at least in my mind, and then where would I be ? :p
Anyway just want to comment that on Friday I went to a place for my lunch after work and the guy had an arabic channel on, and on it was this debate, hosted I might add in One of the gulf states and the principle arguer was A sheik and professor of Sharia law, anyway the hing was called Sharia law- misconstruction and deliberate abuse, and the man was saying that basically this whole idea the world has ofSharia law is a fallacy because no where is actual sharia law carried out, people have taking a fe bits from here and there and twisted it to make it suit their purposes. and the one thing he said because a caller rang in and asked about the treatment of women was " Under true Sharia law no person can be oppressed in anyway, even a donkey cannot be oppressed" and he quoted this case from way back when around the time of Mohammed , where this man had not been taking good care of his donkey and basically he was taken to court under sharia law and forced not only to give up the donkey but to pay for its upkeep as well. Anyway I ended up saying to watch the whole thing not the least of all because it was too hot to be outside and the owner gave me free cups of tea ( and who am I to say no to free cups of tea?)

One more thing on economic worth - I think it's probably a bad strategy for women to try attain economic worth through men.Humm I havent quoted everything you said on the subject but anyway, you know Im not sure I always agree with that, oh sure in general terms if planning to do wedding divorce alimoney wont work, but I dont see the problem really with marrying for money as long as you put just as much real effort into the marriage as you would a 'love' marriage, and are not planning the divorce route. Just my opinion.

is that the boards get to be addicting, a substitute for other forms of community engagement.

Speaking as someone who once spent over 12 hours solid on the litnet ( Im sure there is a record of it somewhere early pages of live chat perhaps? It was the day of the second issue of the Litnet Town crier anyway) well that was the first time Ive actually probably done it several times sicne just havent realised it. yes forums are addicting :D, but isnt it nice anyway ? :banana:

Ok before I have to go to work and feed the soul sucking machine again, (will get round to blogging about these references and Prague eventually) yesterday I had a thought that could be added to the pot. I was thinking taking alot of statistics from this thread and looking at them out of hand you could sort o say that Abstinence leads to infidelity. Just let me explain the train of reasoning before you start shouting WHAT! :crash: :crash: :crash: ( something I do all the time myself) basically if people practice abstinence not out of personal choice or whatever but because society forces them to eventually the get married or settle into a relationship or whatever and they start to think ( and you can probably blame the marketing of sex in the media for this if you felt like it ) well I wonder what I have been missing all this time, and its not necessarily a case of there is anything wrong with what they already had but still instant gratification culture and curiosity and sense of deprivation all boil down to someone is going to ed up being unfaithful.
Ill probably get back to this later but now I must run or itll take me closer to 3 hours to get to work.
:wave:
:D

The Atheist

07-15-2008, 04:20 PM

Having bleated all that, you and I, me suspects, are intellectually sympatico in a good many views. I am sure we'll find out even though I keep my nose out of the Religion Forum.:p

I think you're right.

(and I hardly ever go into religion myself - no point)

SleepyWitch

07-28-2008, 03:53 AM

here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article4387062.ece)'s a short article from The Times about sex ed

Parents should talk to children as young as 11 about sex informally and often if they want them to delay sexual experiences and take fewer risks, according to the Government.

Guinivere

07-28-2008, 07:18 AM

The Atheist

07-29-2008, 04:21 PM

Yeah I would really trust in the government to tell me when to talk to my children about sex. I don't think you could even give a general age for these things. Some children mature early others take their time. Parents should always take this into consideration, which hopefully they do.

Did you read the full article, or just jump to a conclusion as soon as the word "government" is brought up?

Note the following important facts from the article:

Research for the report, Everyday Conversations Every Day, conducted by Populus, found that 75 per cent of 11 to 14-year-olds want their parents to talk to them about sex, and 44 per cent do not trust what they hear from friends. Twenty-five per cent said they were confused about the basics of sex despite all they heard in the playground and on television.

England and Wales have the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in Europe, and infection rates of sexually transmitted diseases are climbing steadily.

The government is doing exactly what it is voted in for - assessing problems and trying to find remedies. It seems fairly obvious to me that when a major scientific survey shows up 75% of kids themselves asking for help with the subject that parents are falling down on the job.

You note maturity, which is irrelevant to the issue as the report and article are about sex education, not having sex. Note this telling comment:

Teenagers unanimously agree that parents who speak to them about sex are in no way encouraging them to go out and do it. Having everyday conversations as often as possible about sex and relationships is proven to reduce risky behaviour and can help young people make measured decisions about sex and stay safe.

See, even the kids recognise that knowledge is not something to be tested - kids usually reserve that for things they don't know enough about.