Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

So do you believe teenagers should be allowed to have sex? How to you feel about this subject. What is your opinion

With each other or with adults?

I believe in teaching teens how to have responsible safe sex, how to do it properly, how to do it appropriately, the right people to do it with and how to respect the sexual boundaries of others.Then they can have at it.

As long as everything is consensual and safe its okay. I've yet to see any evidence that society has regressed in any way from sexual activity. Nor have I seen any evidence that society has improved from trying to stamp sex out.

The legal age is rather dumb. Human beings become sexually mature around 16-17. After that, determining if someone should have sex or not is a matter of their training and responsibility. Age is a poor indicator if someone is responsible enough to solicit sex on their own. A couple at age 15 can do it harmlessly with the right education. Meanwhile there are people around 40 who are so sexually irresponsible that they should wear a chastity belt. So when it comes to legal age: I say whatever age the induvidual is prepared for. It can be 16 or 99.

I was taught in school how to have safe sex. I fucked when I was a teenager and turned out fine. No pregnancies, no diseases, no date rape. Being taught that sex is okay when you do it right is key.

Trying to hide sex from me as a teen never helped. Just as it hasn't helped anybody. I just went out and looked for it anyway, only it was worse because I was going in without the needed wisdom. And THAT can be damaging

I abhor notions of sex being evil and corrupting. It isn't. It's a perfectly natural human process. It's fun, it's healthy. It can be sweet and romantic or just casual entertainment. Sex isn't nearly as scandalous as people pretend it to be

Granted, sex can go wrong. It can go VERY wrong. People can be abused for sex as well. And that's why some teens shouldn't try it. Not until they know what the hell they are doing and the people they do it with. But that's when you blame the people abusing sex. You don't blame sex itself!

I loathe those who presume that gratuitous fucking will somehow destroy society despite no evidence of this ever happening in history. The only account of sex ruining civilization was the biblical description of Sodom and Gomorrah. And that's only if you take that literally and make the massive stretch of that story having any relevance in modern times. Meanwhile they blatantly ignore things that DO destroy society like war and violence

IMO, these people just think sex is wrong because they grew up in environments that shamed them for sex, so they shame younger generations for trying it too.

U wantin' to fuk sum lolis, m8?

tripleA loli alt confirmed

ok but stay on topic now guys this IS srs debate board. I'll admit I don't have anything, or the desire, to add to the discussion so goodbye

@BSoD

I have upvoted your post because I agree completely with the opinions that you have presented. I feel, however, that you went off on a bit of a tangent, thus failing to sufficiently address the age of consent. Your references to it are quite vague:

I believe in teaching teens how to have responsible safe sex… Then they can have at it.

Fair enough, but that doesn't answer the question: what should the age of consent be? You state, quote, "the legal age is rather dumb", yet I don't see any clear practical alternative being suggested.

The impression that your post gives me is that a person should be able to legally consent as soon as they are educated about sex. In other words, a flexible age of consent as opposed to a one-size-fits-all law. The problem is, I don't see how such a thing would be practical.

In America, for instance, each state has its own stance on sex ed, with dramatic differences in what children are taught across state borders. Whereas a public school-educated teenager in New York would likely have been taught comprehensive sex ed from a young age, a homeschooled teen from Alabama may have had zero exposure to anything outside of abstinence.

Tailoring the age of consent to each and every individual would be an absolute nightmare for both the government and the individuals themselves. Would there be "sex knowledge" tests and exams? A big database to differentiate between those who can and those who cannot consent?

Rigid age of consent laws are based upon an oversimplification, i.e. the belief that hopefully the majority of people are sufficiently informed by a certain age. Yet a flexible age of consent law would be expensive to maintain, tough to enforce, and too easy to abuse. Pick your poison, I guess.

@Particle Mare

Fair enough, but that doesn’t answer the question: what should the age of consent be?

Pardon the incompleteness of my assertions. Put me down for 16 then. I figure that 16 is a reasonable age of consent since that is the age that the average person will finish puberty and hopefully the major risks of underage sex are no longer present. From that point forward I favor the right to sex being an induvidual choice

But perhaps I didn't suggest what the legal age of consent should be because the whole concept of the government deciding whether or not you can consent based on an arbitrary number is complete mess in itself.

Unless it can be made consistent across all states, I don't see it working very well either. It seems to be just as much a logical nightmare having your rights change drastically between location regardless of your own capabilities

Question: Does the government need to be involved in this at all? Does it really need to keep tabs on all the teens having sex and controlling what they do? Or can that be managed lower down? Can the parental level deal with the age of consent and can the regional court deal with disputes? Leaving the federal level to focus on just the sex offenders?

If I were to say teens shouldn't be having sex then I'd be a big fat fucking hypocrite. I pretty much agree with everything BSoD said. It should be brought up to question if we actually need an age of consent law at all? I don't think so, it just feels unnecessary and in a way feeds the mindset that sex is abhorrent and our feeble little children should not be subjected to it.

So I should wait until I'm married to have sex because someone else that has nothing to do with me isn't wearing a condom?

@cultural marxist

Would it be wise to risk pregnancy?

That's what the condom is for. And if it breaks, there are still other ways to prevent pregnancy.

No, fuck you. I'm 16 (age of consent in UK) and I might prefer casual sex. I know the risks of it and all that, why should I have to wait to meet the right person and then go through years and years and years to get a seal of approval to do one of the things almost all living things do.

What about those who can't get married? Like homosexuals in certain states in the US or other countries.

What I meant was, why should the fact that a lot of people don't wear condoms mean that I should wait till marriage if I am wearing one.

@BSoD @Crimson Locks

The main thing to remember here is that age of consent laws mostly exist to prevent adults from preying on children. Kids experimenting with one another ("playing doctor") is natural, and there's no way in hell that the government would be able to stop it, short of perhaps jailing kids.

When a couple of 8-year olds play "show me yours and I'll show you mine", there's no reason for the state to get involved. When a 30-year old takes advantage of an 8-year old's lack of understanding in order to get their rocks off, however, that's when there's a problem.

What if I don't believe in marriage.

I think Utah actually has a pretty good system. If you're 14-15 you can fuck anyone up to 4 years older than yourself, if you're 16-17 you can fuck anyone up to 10 years older than yourself, and once you're over 18 you can always fuck anyone older than yourself.

And like Particle Mare said, these laws are (or should be) to protect children from predators. If the two people are of similar ages it's much more likely to be consensual and the government should leave them alone. If it's a 14 year old and a 40 year old, though, it's much more likely to be abusive and the government should investigate.

And Warriorman, do you concede that if people, who are of a 'reasonable' age, are having sex consensually and are using sufficient protection, there's nothing inherently wrong with it?
Also, are you saying "I’m not going to argue" because Spider-byte is right, or because you have no support for your position on those specific issues?

I did not want to argue because i felt that this would last forever.

my opinion has not changed.

@Particle Mare:
I was considering laws protecting children from being preyed on by adults, but I thought our conversations was strictly about consent laws concerning teens having sex with teens so I just didn't factor it into my argument

I think Erin's example of Utah's laws is a pretty solid example of what I would say is reasonable for consent laws. It's still up to debate whether we need consent laws for teens having sex with other teens, but I would support my state having laws like this.

@RTheSecond:
It was already stated in this thread that this is the serious debate board and we need to stay on topic, so stay on topic. So help me god, if I see another image of Chris Hansen…

I'm kind of surprised I find such a thread in KYM's forum. But well, if I'm here, I'd like to add two interesting points as food for thoughts. Me being outside the Anglosphere might help to advance the discussion.

First of all, it's interesting to note that the "freedom" of teenagers having sexual intercourse is one of the rare things which actually got more controlled and frowned upon since the Middle Ages. In those times, no one gave a crap about 13-14-15 year old maidens marrying young adults or even grown men and actually doing all the things a wife would be "supposed" to do in those times. There were social and medical reasons for this of course, and some of these marriages were sure forced/arranged, but it was very very commonplace in many cultures and countries. And as far as I know girls in the Middle Ages weren't even biologically developed by the age at they often married. These days, thanks to modern nutrition, medicine and health care, girls reach puberty (with all its hormonal mess and the associated sex drive) around age 12-13 in general. Biologically speaking, a girl already menstruating is developed and is only held back by societal norms and legal restrains if she wishes to give in to whatever she feels.

I also would like to add that the world at large has wildly varying concepts about the ideal "age of consent" and the exact workings of such a law (for example to account for near age couples). Even if we only talk about supposedly "civilized", modern nations, age of consent still varies from 13 (Japan on national level, Portugal if I'm correct) to 18 (certain states in the US). In the European Union, in general, people would only stare blankly by the notion of 18 years as the age of consent, because it feels too unrealistic, considering what actually happens in real life outside of the legislative texts and their spirit. France, a country not as liberal as Nordic countries, has age of consent at 15. My country, Hungary, has age of consent at 14, and almost nobody gives a crap about it novadays, and the ones who do are usually old people, or people who are religious. Now consider that any age below 16 would be seen as unacceptable for the majority of Americans, but in fact, multiple countries had lower consent ages since decades and there is no apparently visible setback from this.

Imho irresponsible teens will do it anyway, so as far as teen protection goes, European countries do it better, advancing sex education. Of course, Europe is less religious too. And of course, children and teens should be protected from sexual predators with malicious intents. But rigid, high age of consent laws and sex-negative sex ed is certainly not the ideal solution for that problem in society.

@Particle Mare

The main thing to remember here is that age of consent laws mostly exist to prevent adults from preying on children.

Of course. And that's what it should be about. Helping kids stay safe from predators and reminding adults they should go after someone more their own generation.

I don't want to see anyone exploited and it's fair to seek help from our own government for support against child predation

Now if that's all this was about, then I wouldn't have a problem.

But there's another thing, and this is what I think this thread is about; people using the age of consent laws to completely ban teen sex altogether. Or just overreactionary attitudes towards sex in general

If people are going to interpret the law, not to mean "this adult cannot touch someone below this age" and more like "this teen cant fuck beyond this point" then is the law really adequate? Is there a better way of handling this without giving people a legal excuse to stomp on the sexual rights of others?

@i anger kym because I say stupid shit

You guys are over complicating the issue.
Want to know the solution? Just wait until you get married and then you can have sex. Having sex with complete strangers is very irresponsible as you can end up with STDs and pregnancy.
“But warriorman haven’t you ever heard of condoms?”
Yes I’ve heard of condoms but that doesn’t change the fact that so many people are having sex and not bothering to wear condoms.

Way to oversimplify the issue. You couldn't have spoken a more shallow and narrow-minded point of view

I suppose if you are conservative christian hetero-asexual then that's a great solution for you. But not everybody here is like you. Some of us are sexual beings who want to experience our lives and our human rights the way we would like and not according to some stuffy religious culture that we don't believe in. Expecting us to have sex only by your own cultural terms is extremely arrogant

Having unprotected sex with complete strangers is irresponsible, but no that is not what everyone is doing. Believe it or not most people only fuck those that they've gotten to know first or at least asked to dinner, and yes they use protection. All they ask for here is the basic right to have that without judgmental people assuming that they slut around like skanks

Maybe even more teens would use protection and be more open and considerate about sex if they could get access to those things more often without being forced to feel like the spawn of satan when they buy 20 condoms and lube at the minimart counter by pompous self-righteous prudes like you

@Chris Hansen

Crimson asked nicely not to post these. If you wont listen to her, you'll listen to a suspension

I've already handed out one suspension and I'm unafraid to hand out another

@BSoD

Is there a better way of handling this without giving people a legal excuse to stomp on the sexual rights of others?

I don't quite see what you mean here. Sure, it's possible – inevitable, even – that people with reactionary attitudes towards sex are going to apply psychological pressure on teens to not have sex, possibly lying to and misleading those teens in the process. When you use a term like "sexual rights", however, it gives me the impression that you are preferring to legal pressure.

It is essentially impossible for the justice system to do anything about two young teens having sex once the deed has been done. Every crime must have a perpetrator, and all parties involved in underage sex are technically "victims".

If people are going to interpret the law, not to mean “this adult cannot touch someone below this age” and more like “this teen cant fuck beyond this point” then is the law really adequate?

I believe that misinterpret would be a better word to use here, for the reasons that I have outlined above.

My answer to your question would be yes, such a law is adequate. Keep in mind that if someone misinterprets a law, then it is their fault for being ignorant, and not the law's fault.

You're correct: it is practically a guarantee that certain people are going to misinterpret such a law in the way that you have stated. The remedy, however, is to educate these people, as opposed to changing a perfectly good law in order to suit the wishes of the ignorant.

The remedy, however, is to educate these people, as opposed to changing a perfectly good law in order to suit the wishes of the ignorant.

Hah, you used my own philosophy on me.

Okay, fair enough. I agree. I guess what we have now is still the best way to do it, even if its not perfect.

I don't think about this too often, but I guess I find it silly how its illegal to have sex with a 17 year old when you are like 19 or 20. Maybe a bit of flexibility would be nice? or maybe lowering the age of consent a bit? I don't know. Also, I don't think this should apply to fictional shit. I find it hilarious when Ero games try to say everyone is above 18. I mean, 1) no they aren't 2) who the hell cares? they are drawn. Thats all I really have to say.

@Dac:
At least in the states, there are such things as "Romeo and Juliet laws" that allow sex between someone over 18 and someone under 18 as long as they are within one or two years apart. The allowed age gap varies depending on the state and what exactly is or isn't legal gets a little muddy, but for the most part you can technically legally have sex with a 17 year old if you're 18.

That's true, I forgot about that.

I think as long as both people completely understand the risk, are willing, and understand what it means to have sex, then they should be able to have sex. I don't really care if a 16 year old wants to be with a 30 year old, as long as both understand what the risks are and are willing do do so. Now of course there would have to be some laws to protect the younger people because of course older people might trick them.

Most kids really don't understand sex completely and fully or are even interested till they reach near teen years so its not like you would see a surge of 5 year olds having sex.

It would be weird for a few years seeing such huge age gaps but eventually people would get used to it. So imo, I don't think there should be an age of consent as long as the under 18 people people understand fully what is going to happen and what the risks are, and have laws to protect them from abuse.

If the age of consent is going to be lowered, then the state governments are going to have to get off their asses and make sure that people know approximately what to expect in regards to any kind of sexual activity. I live in Texas, I've been going to public school since 2nd grade, and I've never been to a sex-ed class, and aside from one assembly about relationships I attended after moving to Austin, a much more liberal part of the state, no one told me anything other than the most basic elements of the biological process of reproduction. Nothing about the psychological, emotional, or social element of it at all.

I didn't know what menstration was until this September

BSoD pretty much took the words right out of my mouth. I think the problem is that, at least in some U.S. states, they don't have comprehensive sexual education(Typically more conservative states). And this "abstinence only" nonsense has failed so tremendously that Texas, an abstinence only state, has the highest rate of repeat teen pregnancy.

Blue Screen (of Death) wrote:

Crimson asked nicely not to post these. If you wont listen to her, you’ll listen to a suspension
I’ve already handed out one suspension and I’m unafraid to hand out another

I don`t get hotpockets out of this. I just enjoy the suffering of the userbase.